Poilievre: “My view is that we need to engender the values of hard work, independence, and self-reliance. That's the solution in the long run, more money will not solve it.”
This is typical small minded conservative self-reliance crap. A lack of “self-reliance” is consequence not a cause. Also Poilievere’s timing is awful. He could not have picked a worse time to spout off. The good news for those concerned with the quality of public discourse is that Poilievre is likely in Harper’s doghouse, he already had to make a clarification, and will not be answering too many questions in the House or making any public appearances.
All that being said, Poilievre is right about one thing. The reserve system, premised as it is on the notion of native rights, is a bureaucratic, fiscal, legal, intellectual and sociological abortion that does nothing save waste mountains of money, breed corruption and poverty, instill in the native community a vile sense of identity based on “blood” and breed racism in the Canadian society at large. Hell, if Harper promised to abolish native rights and privatize communal land holdings, I would vote for him. Well maybe.
The Musings and Rants of Three Progressive Canadians
About Me
Progressive bloggers
Liberal blogs
Liberals for Legalization
Links
- AmericanProspect
- Atlantic
- BBC
- BostonGlobe
- Bouquets
- Brookings
- CalgaryGrit
- CBC
- CIAfacts
- CSMonitor
- Declan
- Economist
- farandwide
- Galloping Beaver
- Globe and Mail
- Google News
- Guardian
- LA Times
- LRBooks
- MotherJones
- Nation
- New Left Review
- New Republic
- New Yorker
- NY Books
- NYTimes
- PBS
- RedTory
- RottenTomatoes
- Salon
- Slate
- Toronto Star
- Walrus
- Washington Monthly
- Washington Post
7 comments:
Stephen Harper couldn't abolish native rights even if he wanted to. They're a matter of treaty between the Canadian government and the First Nations of this country. Thus, they're entrenched in international law.
As for "lack of self-reliance being a consequence not a cause", some people would question whether or not that's really relevant.
As matter of fact, Doug Cuthand -- an aboriginal journalist for the Saskatoon Star Phoenix -- was on the CBC just last night talking about how aboriginals need to "take ownership" of the problems they're facing.
"Taking ownership" and responsibility for those problems doesn't seem far off from talking about self-reliance. Maybe it's easier to hear coming from a member of the First Nations, and much more diplomatic, but very close nonetheless.
In order to privatize communal land holdings, we would have to cast aside their entire culture, which mandates each generation to hold property in trust for the seven generations.
In fact, privatizing such communal land holdings would essentially force them to our Euro-centric conceptualizations of what property ownership means. It's forcing assmilation by other means, and we've already seen by our dealings with aboriginals that assimilation is an absolute non-starter, and should be.
>>>>> Stephen Harper couldn't abolish native rights even if he wanted to. They're a matter of treaty between the Canadian government and the First Nations of this country. Thus, they're entrenched in international law.
Alas, I do not think it very likely that he would and the real problem is the Constitution, but so what. Canada is also signatory to many international treaties barring the legalization of marijuana. This is no reason to not to legalize pot either.
>>>> As for "lack of self-reliance being a consequence not a cause", some people would question whether or not that's really relevant.
Count me in that number. It is purely epiphenomena.
>>>>> In fact, privatizing such communal land holdings would essentially force them to our Euro-centric conceptualizations of what property ownership means.
Grinding Poverty and communal ownership go hand in hand and do not think native peoples are so attracted to “traditional” notions of common property that they would accept the former as consequence of marry the latter. By the way, there is a lone history along communal ownership in European history.
>>>>>> It's forcing assmilation by other means
Native identity does not stretch back thousands of years and traditional native identity can no more be recovered than traditional Celtic identity. All that can be recreated is a kitschy Disneyified facade. It is laughable to think that traditional way of life can be maintained without reintroducing, among many other things, slavery. Native cultural identity is a byproduct of vile hair brained attempts at forced “assimilation”, which is an oxymoron by the way, and has been kept very much alive by the Indian act and reserve system. So all this bleeding heart essentialist dribble about of wanting to protect and perverse “traditional” native society on some nature reserve from the ravages of capitalist society so that we can trot them out as museum show pieces at major events is disingenuous to say the least.
Thought Experiment:
Imagine if the government happened to, oh , legally define what it means Chinese, create a department of Chinese affairs, create Chinese rights, reserve land for Chinese so defined and exempt Chinese living on reserve land from paying taxes. No one would doubt that is a recipe for disastrous social relations. So, why would anyone doubt the same about Native Affairs, native rights and native reserves? Abolish the reserve system and native rights and comments about "drunken Indians" will become as rare and archaic sounding as "drunken" whatever, Russian.
"Alas, I do not think it very likely that he would and the real problem is the Constitution, but so what. Canada is also signatory to many international treaties barring the legalization of marijuana. This is no reason to not to legalize pot either."
Other than the fact that the treaties in question adhere to both principles of international law: what countries agree to (criminalizing pot) and what countries actually do (criminalizing pot).
The treaties are (largely, though not entirely) subject to the same thing: we've made those agreements, and adhered to them (although far from completely).
"Grinding Poverty and communal ownership go hand in hand and do not think native peoples are so attracted to “traditional” notions of common property that they would accept the former as consequence of marry the latter. By the way, there is a lone history along communal ownership in European history."
Well, the consensus seems to be that aboriginal Canadians don't want to conform to euro-centric conceputalizations of proprety ownership.
I do admit that this consensus is somewhat suspect on account of the fact that we only ever hear it from a fairly limited number of aboiriginals. Then again, in the absence of any actual evidence otherwise, cynicism simply can't prevail in an argument like this.
"Native identity does not stretch back thousands of years and traditional native identity can no more be recovered than traditional Celtic identity. All that can be recreated is a kitschy Disneyified facade. It is laughable to think that traditional way of life can be maintained without reintroducing, among many other things, slavery. Native cultural identity is a byproduct of vile hair brained attempts at forced “assimilation”, which is an oxymoron by the way, and has been kept very much alive by the Indian act and reserve system. So all this bleeding heart essentialist dribble about of wanting to protect and perverse “traditional” native society on some nature reserve from the ravages of capitalist society so that we can trot them out as museum show pieces at major events is disingenuous to say the least."
Just because native culture can't necessarily be recovered is no reason to destroy what little remains of it.
It has to be up to aboriginals themselves to decide how they'll balance their culture against modernity, just as it has to be with any culture.
There's a difference between allowing them to preserve their culture as they see fit and preserving an outmoded way of life, and it comes down to a matter of simple cultural self-determination. It's their right.
Forcibly maintaining their culture, by the way, is actually little better than assimilation. Fortunately, that isn't really what we're doing here.
And believe it or not, we already have what largely amount to ethnic reserves within our cities. I can't think of a single Canadian city that I know to not have a Little Italy, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, or Wee Britain.
(Okay, the last one is an Arrested Development joke, but all the same...)
>>>> Well, the consensus seems to be that aboriginal Canadians don't want to conform to euro-centric conceputalizations of proprety ownership.
Is the idea of a reserve not “Eurocentric”? As for the question itself, with not any real alternative in place such a consensus does not mean much. But given that reserve land around Vancouver, say, would be worth hundreds of million, check that billions, on the open market, I think I know how first nations people here would vote if given a choice between becoming a millionaires and living in poverty.
>>>>> Just because native culture can't necessarily be recovered is no reason to destroy what little remains of it.
Not to sound too much like a historical materialist, but a culture seizes to form a coherent whole once the dominant mode of production completely changes. Just as nothing remains of the culture of feudal France or Ancient Athens, nothing remains of traditional native cultural. What has replaced it is something that has been created by Canadian law and Canadian attempts of social exclusion. This dichotomy between “their” culture and “our” culture is hence false for this and other reasons. We are the authors of both. Indian Act and the reserve system is the basis by which status Indians reproduce themselves.
>>>> It's their right.
Right now it is their right.
Abolish that right and it is no longer their right.
>>> Forcibly maintaining their culture, by the way, is actually little better than assimilation. Fortunately, that isn't really what we're doing here.
The hell it is not. Native culture is something created by Canadian law, and funded by Canada. It is time the Canadian government shut down this ant farm. All it has done is produce levels of poverty that could only be described as third world, substance abuse levels that rival countries undergoing serve economic dislocation, suicide rates as high as gay males and American soldiers serving in Iraq and rapid criminality.
>>>> And believe it or not, we already have what largely amount to ethnic reserves within our cities.
No we do not. If on the other hand, the government happened to, oh, legally define what it means Chinese, create a department of Chinese affairs, create Chinese rights, reserve land for Chinese so defined and exempt Chinese living on reserve land from paying taxes, the Chinatown would hardly be distinguishable from a native reserve in gig time.
I can guarantee you that most non native Canadians, young Canadians certainly, would find living on a reserve, just miles from where they currently live, far more different than living in London, Berlin, or Paris.
"Is the idea of a reserve not “Eurocentric”? As for the question itself, with not any real alternative in place such a consensus does not mean much. But given that reserve land around Vancouver, say, would be worth hundreds of million, check that billions, on the open market, I think I know how first nations people here would vote if given a choice between becoming a millionaires and living in poverty."
Aboriginal political elites would oppose it, but I would never oppose giving them the opportunity to make that choice democratically.
"Not to sound too much like a historical materialist, but a culture seizes to form a coherent whole once the dominant mode of production completely changes. Just as nothing remains of the culture of feudal France or Ancient Athens, nothing remains of traditional native cultural. What has replaced it is something that has been created by Canadian law and Canadian attempts of social exclusion. This dichotomy between “their” culture and “our” culture is hence false for this and other reasons. We are the authors of both. Indian Act and the reserve system is the basis by which status Indians reproduce themselves."
Perhaps so, but ancient Athenian culture and French culture had the opportunity to evolve naturally.
We interfered in the evolution of native culture with the residential schools. You could make the argument that they accepted European interference in their cultural evolution when they willingly accepted us in North America, and you would have a point.
But there's a difference between your culture changing through interaction with your neighbours and your neighbours forcibly taking from you your children and educating them in a different culture.
"The hell it is not. Native culture is something created by Canadian law, and funded by Canada. It is time the Canadian government shut down this ant farm. All it has done is produce levels of poverty that could only be described as third world, substance abuse levels that rival countries undergoing serve economic dislocation, suicide rates as high as gay males and American soldiers serving in Iraq and rapid criminality."
Wrong. Native culture is something that existed before we came here, something we actively participated in the destruction of, and we have a responsibility to help aboriginals recover that culture if need be.
By the way, consider the extent to which native culture has embraced those not of native blood -- or even pure blood, as is the case with the metis -- and I would say we have cause to question your assertion of a "vile identity based on blood".
"No we do not. If on the other hand, the government happened to, oh, legally define what it means Chinese, create a department of Chinese affairs, create Chinese rights, reserve land for Chinese so defined and exempt Chinese living on reserve land from paying taxes, the Chinatown would hardly be distinguishable from a native reserve in gig time."
Where do you live? Go to Chinatown. Take a look around.
Try telling me we don't have ethnic colonies within our major cities after you've taken a look around one for a while.
Maybe it goes to suggest to you that aboriginals shouldn't have needed the reserves to preserve their culture. Then again, we never established residential schools for Chinese children. In fact, as I recall, we spent a long period of time banning them from the country outright.
>>>>> Perhaps so, but ancient Athenian culture and French culture had the opportunity to evolve naturally.
By getting conquered by the Turks in the case of the Greeks? What the hell is the nature evolution of a culture?
>>>> We interfered in the evolution of native culture with the residential schools.
We did not interfere in the evolution of their culture by sending native students to residential schools. We created native culture in the process of wiping out what little that was left of dying old one.
>>>> Native culture is something that existed before we came here, something we actively participated in the destruction of, and we have a responsibility to help aboriginals recover that culture if need be.
Yes, save native culture, screw the natives. Sure these collection have idiotic laws have produced Native culture but on a human level they produced nothing but human misery. Why this does not bother you more I do not know.
>>>> By the way, consider the extent to which native culture has embraced those not of native blood -- or even pure blood, as is the case with the metis -- and I would say we have cause to question your assertion of a "vile identity based on blood".
You are talking about ancient Athens again.
The Nazis legally defined what a meant to be Jewish. Needless to say, there were practical consequences to such definition and in jig time these in turn caused people to look at themselves differently. Indeed, many European Jews, particularly German Jews, never really identified themselves as Jews until the Nazis defined them as such.
The legal definition of what it means to be a Status Indian is the same definition that the Nazis used to define what it means to be Jewish. Granted the consequences of such a definition are not nearly as profound in the latter case as in the former, but who one’s forbearers fucked can affect everything from whether one has to pay taxes, to where one can live, to what elections one can vote to in short what rights one has.
>>>> Try telling me we don't have ethnic colonies within our major cities after you've taken a look around one for a while.
Try interacting with second generation Canadians, be they Chinese are whatever. Other than the fact that they grew up eating different foods and may get married in different grab, is there anything that truly separates them from 3rd 4th and 5th generation Canadians? No. The same can not be said for those growing up on native reserves. Those living on the reserves have a whole host of different life experiences brought about by virtue of having a different legal status then other Canadians.
You talk about cultures evolving but you implicating talk about them as if they are immutable. You do not ask yourself what forces drive cultural change and close your mind of to change that is happening right before your eyes. So long as economic inequality does not build geographic and more importantly social barriers between various ethnic communities, Canada’s laws and economy will insure that the immigrants flooding into Canadians major cities will negotiate informally with existing communities to create an new common Canadian identity. Common life experiences underlay cultural evolution and development; uncommon life experiences leads to speciation.
On a provincial level this is happening too. The notion of Quebecois, as championed by Landry and Parizeau, was bound to fall apart the moment French Canadian economic inequality was overcome and hundreds of the thousands of immigrants started flooding into Quebec’s city’s, particularly Montreal.
Post a Comment