Canadian Aboriginals

[Die Rote Fahne]

There seems to be a lot of institutional discrimination against them. I know it's one of our major domestic issues, and it needs to be solved. Reserves with bad water supplies, etc. High rates of suicide and alcohol abuse.

And it seems that because of what we, as white canadians who rule the country, have done, these natives face hard lives and much discrimination.

What can we do to stop this?

[btpound]

Do you still have a substantial native population in Canada? They represent less than 1% of the pop here in the US.

[FreeFocus]

Canada is a settler state. It, itself, is the institutional problem. It boils down to class issues and Canadian imperialism. The best thing that white Canadians can do is support socialism and the dismantling of their settler state, while lending support to indigenous grassroots movements and land reclamations (e.g. Caledonia).

[Die Rote Fahne]

Do you still have a substantial native population in Canada? They represent less than 1% of the pop here in the US.

3.8% of the population.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

A lot of it is really difficult to address. A lot of money is given directly to Natives in an attempt to allow them to self-rule. Consequently, some areas have corrupt leaders that use the money improperly.

The benefits Natives receive also, arguably, cause individuals to be demotivated to pursue long-term goals. There is evidence to believe financial rewards cause people to lack incentives. Yet, obviously, if you tried to take away these benefits, the Aboriginal population would be outraged.

It's a very tricky issue to address as far as I can see.

[blake 3:17]

The best political responses at present will probably be found through Defenders of the Land: http://www.defendersoftheland.org/

There are overarching indigenous issues, and a great many local or regional ones. There's value in seeing them related, but the details are huge.

[counterblast]

Do you still have a substantial native population in Canada? They represent less than 1% of the pop here in the US.

Actually Native peoples number around 4.5 million (about 1.5 percent of the total U.S. population). And if you include interracial "white"/Black people of Native descent or people with distant Native heritage, the number is drastically higher.

EDIT: Also, an a large portion of immigrants from Central/South America are mislabeled as "Hispanic"; when many folks from these areas are more accurately a mix of Hispanic and Native ancestry.

[counterblast]

There is evidence to believe financial rewards cause people to lack incentives.

Is that "evidence" Reaganomics?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Is that "evidence" Reaganomics?

It was a long time ago that I read this. It was some psychological thing. I believe it depends on how the incentive is used as well.

You can just appeal to some common sense ideas, though. Some people rely on external rewards to motivate them. If they already have them, it can cause them problems.

If we alter the context (communism), we can make this issue rather moot. However, I think it might be legitimate to suspect that financial benefits can actually systematically hamper the ability of a group to become self-sufficient and motivating. I'd never advocate taking those benefits away. I would just say some academic investigation might be interesting.

The Aboriginal community has a lot of difficulties that I can't really understand (loss of culture, etc). However, I really think the climate in Canadian politics concerning Aboriginal/Government relations is really poor on both sides.

The Aboriginal community is identified as a "victim" and "someone we wronged and our obligated to help." I really think they should be identified as someone who deserves assistance based on their circumstances. By making the community into "victims," it seems to me like this hinders their ability to create a positive identity and move forward as a political group. Victim isn't exactly a positive association, in my mind.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Is that "evidence" Reaganomics?

You would be less likely to seek out employment or a way to make a living with a thousand bucks in your pocket than if you had an empty wallet. Handing out money with no intent or purpose has no measurable long-term benefits. Loans with reasonable interest and pay back periods are a much better way of helping get some people on their feet. And as someone else mentioned, these reparations are often a point of corruption.

It would be more wise to stipulate that the money be used for infrastructure or education.

I don't know much about the situation in Canada, but I assume it's just as bad as our own reservation system in the US.

[blake 3:17]

Handing out money with no intent or purpose has no measurable long-term benefits. Loans with reasonable interest and pay back periods are a much better way of helping get some people on their feet. And as someone else mentioned, these reparations are often a point of corruption.

Urrghhh. Yes, throwing money at severely oppressed peoples does produce corruption. Throwing money at people produces corruption.

What is particularly despicable is that tiny amounts of money are thrown at aboriginal peoples and imposed colonial systems are the legal methods of distribution of inadequate financial and material resources. So do some people on reserves get it pretty good? Yes. Other totally screwed over? Yes. Is this unlike any other society in 2009?

Really the issue is less conventionally "economic", than an economics and politics of cultural destruction and an imposition of capitalist property laws on peoples whose production and reproduction had absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

[GatesofLenin]

Wish I could live tax-free but I can't. I don't see what the problem is with natives in Canada. The govt doesn't tax them, gives them much more support than they do to the other visual minorities like free higher education, grants, etc...

[Raúl Duke]

Wish I could live tax-free but I can't. I don't see what the problem is with natives in Canada. The govt doesn't tax them, gives them much more support than they do to the other visual minorities like free higher education, grants, etc...

If that's the case, then why those the canadian native community face much economic hardship (as mentioned previously)?

We have to try to find the source of the problem and devise a good solution.

Under the framework of capitalism, I would suggest the creation of mutualist "people's banks" (bank co-op/mutual banks/credit unions) catered to native communities across Canada and that this bank be limited to only invest/re-invest in the Canadian native communities. This should be a short-term solution.

Personally, if Canadian capitalism has failed these people immensely I would suggest socialist revolution. This is the long-term goal, since we are all revolutionary socialists.

[Plagueround]

Loans with reasonable interest and pay back periods are a much better way of helping get some people on their feet.

In that case, our land has been on loan long enough, looks like the Europeans are back on their feet and can leave. :tt2:

[Plagueround]

On a more serious note, I myself am of European descent as well, so that last comment should be seen as a joke. No hate mail please. :lol:


A lot of it is really difficult to address. A lot of money is given directly to Natives in an attempt to allow them to self-rule. Consequently, some areas have corrupt leaders that use the money improperly.

This is 100% true, as anyone who knows the name Dick Wilson (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Wilson_%28tribal_chairman%29) can attest to. Although...I always have to laugh when we talk about what's "given" to this continent's indigenous people. How generous.



The benefits Natives receive also, arguably, cause individuals to be demotivated to pursue long-term goals. There is evidence to believe financial rewards cause people to lack incentives. Yet, obviously, if you tried to take away these benefits, the Aboriginal population would be outraged.
It's a very tricky issue to address as far as I can see.So this too, is true in a sense, in that I know a handful natives who are quite content to collect a per capita check and do nothing else...and even then I would say "content" is used rather loosely, since they're also battling all the fun problems associated with reservations. However, saying it like this makes it sound as if this is an argument for what the majority of natives do with that money, when most of them are using the money as supplements to their income to help put their children through school with proper supplies and clothing, pay off bills and loans, and doing the same thing anyone else would do with a bit of extra money. I'm curious, would you extend this argument to government programs and benefits the general population receives from the Canadian government? Should we cut all social welfare programs for the general population because it demotivates Canadians to pursue long term goals?

Generally speaking, I don't know how the system works in Canada, but the per capita natives receive here is not a "government handout", as the common perception seems to be. A per capita is a dividend of the tribal earnings that they distribute amongst their members, does not often (if ever) include federal money, and is fully taxable along with any other income. A federal budget is indeed set aside to assist tribes in managing their own affairs, but it is interesting to me that when federal money is allocated to a state to do the same thing, we never hear anyone say "Those Texans are living on government handout money, when are we going to cut them off?".


Wish I could live tax-free but I can't. I don't see what the problem is with natives in Canada. The govt doesn't tax them, gives them much more support than they do to the other visual minorities like free higher education, grants, etc...

Stormfront called, they want you to come back now.

HEY GUYS, I HAVE A PICTURE OF LENIN BUT FAIL TO RECOGNIZE WHY THE PEOPLE CAPITALISM GROUND UNDER IT'S BOOT WHEN IT WAS BEING SET UP ARE HAVING A HARD TIME NOW! WHAT'S THEIR PROBLEM? WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES LUUUUUL.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This is 100% true, as anyone who knows the name Dick Wilson (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Wilson_%28tribal_chairman%29) can attest to. Although...I always have to laugh when we talk about what's "given" to this continent's indigenous people. How generous.

Fair enough on the term "given." However, when I discuss these issues with people (which is rarely, because I don't know much about them), there is a very common objection. They didn't steal the land so why should they be obligated to help. These people probably would claim they are being generous.

Now I'm not sure I agree, but I do have a hard time responding to them. I know a lot of right-libertarians would argue that position. I don't know if any leftists would. It's kind of along the issue of "if someone doesn't harm other people, why do they have to do any more than that?" I don't agree with that, but it is a position some people have.

You can solve this problem with Rawls and other uses of contract theory, but I don't agree with contract theory. You can also solve it with utilitarianism or kantianism, but if you do that, you'd actually have to say people are being generous by helping the Natives.


So this too, is true in a sense, in that I know a handful natives who are quite content to collect a per capita check and do nothing else...and even then I would say "content" is used rather loosely, since they're also battling all the fun problems associated with reservations. However, saying it like this makes it sound as if this is an argument for what the majority of natives do with that money, when most of them are using the money as supplements to their income to help put their children through school with proper supplies and clothing, pay off bills and loans, and doing the same thing anyone else would do with a bit of extra money. I'm curious, would you extend this argument to government programs and benefits the general population receives from the Canadian government? Should we cut all social welfare programs for the general population because it demotivates Canadians to pursue long term goals?

Generally speaking, I don't know how the system works in Canada, but the per capita natives receive here is not a "government handout", as the common perception seems to be. A per capita is a dividend of the tribal earnings that they distribute amongst their members, does not often (if ever) include federal money, and is fully taxable along with any other income. A federal budget is indeed set aside to assist tribes in managing their own affairs, but it is interesting to me that when federal money is allocated to a state to do the same thing, we never hear anyone say "Those Texans are living on government handout money, when are we going to cut them off?".

Yeah, there seems to be a problem with balancing things here. I don't know what the solution is. There is probably something to be said for a lack of identity. Many Aboriginals have an identity partially defined in relation to an opposition towards Canada (rightly so, most likely). That being said, in a communist society, work incentives might very well come from a sense of community and social responsibility.

I don't have the answers to these problems. I just think it's a far more complex issue than both sides "right, left, native, non-native" are often willing to admit. On a side note, similar problems sometimes arise with union relations. Union leaders want more (rightly or wrongly). Everyone knows that's not going to happen. Things shut down, jobs removed, everyone loses.

Arguably the non-compromising people are doing the right thing. The rest of us are the problem. This just doesn't bode well for our commonsense intuition of "picking your battles" that allows must of us to function in society. We seem to want to justify this to ourselves by suggesting people with "justified but unrealistic demands" are a problem. Not sure how pragmatism fits into leftism sometimes.

[bcbm]

Wish I could live tax-free but I can't. I don't see what the problem is with natives in Canada. The govt doesn't tax them, gives them much more support than they do to the other visual minorities like free higher education, grants, etc...

and all for the low, low price of genocide!

[Hit The North]

There are some pretty rank arguments being espoused here: none more so that Dooga, who, once again, is trading in right-wing myth-making and blaming the oppressed for their own oppression.

Actually, Dooga, if you want to educate yourself, you should read the empirical evidence on this. So, for instance, the European Social Attitudes Survey consistently finds that people are more work motivated and more collectively responsible in those countries which have the most generous welfare benefits. It also finds that the conventional wisdom of politicians (the opinion you outline in your post) consistently runs contrary to the evidence. I wonder why this is?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

There are some pretty rank arguments being espoused here: none more so that Dooga, who, once again, is trading in right-wing myth-making and blaming the oppressed for their own oppression.

Actually, Dooga, if you want to educate yourself, you should read the empirical evidence on this. So, for instance, the European Social Attitudes Survey consistently finds that people are more work motivated and more collectively responsible in those countries which have the most generous welfare benefits. It also finds that the conventional wisdom of politicians (the opinion you outline in your post) consistently runs contrary to the evidence. I wonder why this is?

Once again? I don't blame anyone. I simply try to give causal accounts of factors that may or may not be responsible for something. When someone gives me a good reason to believe I am wrong, I change my opinion. I'm looking up some more information now. I couldn't get a lot of information on what you're referring to. Do you have any links?

Anyway, here is a line of reasoning:

P1. Financial rewards are a motivation for people to work.
P2. Diminishing Marginal Utility of Income: Money means more when you have less and less when you have more.
C1: People with more money will have less "motivations" to work.

P1: People with more money will have less "motivations" to work.
P2: Societies with strong welfare programs will are generally more social conscious than countries lacking them.
P3: Motivation is not unlimited. It has a statistical limit. In countries where this limit is met, there may be an over-determination that makes the introduction of welfare programs have no noticeable effect on the economy.

The question I am asking here is simply "given that money motivates people in such a way," how does a welfare economist account for the loss of an incentive not harming the economy. They can't really deny that money motivates people.

Does welfare necessarily provide some "new" motivation? Does it require an equal variation amongst welfare recipients? Does giving welfare only to specific groups encourage discrimination and counteract the benefits of the welfare program?

There are "a lot" of variables involved here. If you want my personal position on Aboriginal welfare in Canada (special benefits), I'd say all the financial benefits they receive should be extended to all citizens. I'm not intending to blame them for anything. When I focus on the "victim," I am simply trying to recognize that the oppressor isn't the person who is going to create change. We need to target things that the oppressed can address. And if they are a causal factor in that, they need to try to do something. *Aboriginal Canadians already do a lot to improve their situation. Not saying they don't.

I'm concerned with causality here. If I walk into a prison when the guards are asleep, what happens? Not all prisoners are bad people or rapist, etc. So let's assume I know the prison is specifically designed for rapists. I'm not morally responsible if I get raped. I am causally responsible. And who is going to be the most effective person to ensure this doesn't happen again? Me. The Aboriginal issue isn't so clear-cut. And I'm certainly not saying that Natives not "acting on such and such" is as stupid as me going into the prison. There is not "stupidity" involved. Frankly, I have no idea what Aboriginals should be doing to solve their issues.

So I believe I accidentally implied Aboriginals should "give up their rights," but I don't believe that. I'm just saying is whenever I read or hear about Native rights it's about "what the government needs to do, should do, is obligated to do." Maybe it's the fault of the media. I know Native protesters occasionally block of their lands/protest radically.

I just wonder if part of the Aboriginal identity in terms of "economics" separates themselves from others. Most Aboriginal people I know want more benefits by virtue of being Aboriginal. Not by virtue of being human, of being in unfair circumstances, of being in need, etc. Maybe there is a good reason for this. I don't know.

****

I'm just throwing things out there. I appreciate the information. I think you're probably right about the issue. I am just wondering if you can point out where my reasoning is wrong/what hidden variable is accounting for the problem I am seeing.

[Hit The North]

Dooga:


Once again? Yes, I think you were restricted for arguing that the poor were poor because they didn't take advantage of the educational opportunities gracefully provided by the bourgeois state.


I don't blame anyone.

The CC thought differently.

You have the knack of regurgitating some of the most crass bourgeois propaganda, echoing the hacks of the New Right:

"The poor are poor because they're stupid; and they're stupid because they refuse to take advantage of the educational opportunities available to them."

"The unemployed are work-shy because we're too generous with the benefits we give them. Take away their benefits and they'll have to take work!"

Now I know you haven't written the above. But in a more nuanced style, these are the arguments you put forward in a seemingly naive manner - like you haven't sussed out the ideological and political ramifications of these ideas. That seems strange for someone who self-identifies as an anarcho-communist.


Do you have any links?I was first made aware this statistical regularity in Colin Crouch (1999) Social Change in Western Europe, Oxford University Press; again in A.H. Halsey (2001) Twentieth Century British Social Trends, MacMillan: London; and reminded of it in a recent report of the last British Social Attitudes survey which was a pdf. The BSA derived its data on this matter from the European Social Attitudes survey which you can find here:
http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ and similar surveys in North America and Australia. The BSA survey can be found by visiting the NatCen website here:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/natcen/pages/news_and_media_docs/BSA_%20press_release_jan07.pdf

But, honestly, Dooga, it is well known amongst Leftists that all the empirical evidence points to equality being good for individuals and society. Individuals in more equal societies have longer life expectancies; their societies have lower crime rates; indicators for happiness and self-fulfilment are higher. Of course, greater equality in a society which creates inequality, requires high progressive taxation and generous welfare provision for those who are economically and culturally disadvantaged. Any argument to the contrary is an argument for increasing inequality and deepening the misery of those who lose out.

I don't have time to go into the details of your "line of reasoning", but I'll comment on a few things:


P1. Financial rewards are a motivation for people to work. But far from the only motivation.


Diminishing Marginal Utility of Income: Money means more when you have less and less when you have more. Not necessarily. There exist ideological life-style choices (like Freeganism or various brands of bohemianism, not to mention religious asceticism) where the absence of money increases its meaninglessness. Meanwhile, the ultra rich seem fixated with money, to the extent that its rapid accumulation becomes their raison d'etre.


C1: People with more money will have less "motivations" to work.
Again, not necessarily true. See above. The mega rich are quite often work junkies. Plus, in the real world, Westerners who enjoy middle class life-styles have to work continually in order to finance their debts!

See, people don't only work because they are compelled to (which they obviously are). But feelings of comradeship, of belonging, of self-respect, also play a part. Labour isn't only labour, it is also association. Likewise, Capital isn't only capital in that the meaning of money is not necessarily money.


When I focus on the "victim," I am simply trying to recognize that the oppressor isn't the person who is going to create change. From a purely theoretical point of view, you may be right. From a political point of view, you end up supporting welfare cuts!


Most Aboriginal people I know want more benefits by virtue of being Aboriginal. Not by virtue of being human, of being in unfair circumstances, of being in need, etc.
Well, I'm sure most of them don't see being aboriginal and being human as mutually exclusive categories.


Maybe there is a good reason for this. I don't know.Well, as bcbm succinctly points out above:


and all for the low, low price of genocide!

[blake 3:17]

Dooga, you seem OK. I'll cut you some slack for being in Vancouver.

Starting to lose my temper....


Wish I could live tax-free but I can't. I don't see what the problem is with natives in Canada. The govt doesn't tax them, gives them much more support than they do to the other visual minorities like free higher education, grants, etc...


Here's from the Canada Revenue Agency:

GST/HST and Indians, Indians bands, and band-empowered entities

Effective January 1, 2008, the GST rate is reduced from 6% to 5%, and the HST rate from 14% to 13%.
In Quebec, Revenu Québec administers the GST/HST. If your business is located in Quebec, visit the Revenu Québec Web site (http://www.revenu.gouv.qc.ca/en/default.aspx).
Special rules apply to Indians, Indian bands, and band-empowered entities concerning the payment of GST/HST for the purchase of goods and services.

Full link here: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/gst-tps/frstntns/menu-eng.html



Not necessarily. There exist ideological life-style choices (like Freeganism or various brands of bohemianism, not to mention religious asceticism) where the absence of money increases its meaninglessness. Meanwhile, the ultra rich seem fixated with money, to the extent that its rapid accumulation becomes their raison d'etre.

And ways that indigenous peoples in Canada have lived were well outside the cash nexus. Forms of what we might call nomadic or hunter-gatherer or combinations of the those two with other modes of production have been destroyed by colonialism.

Those social relations and the resulting relation to land, water, plants, and animals have been destroyed by colonialism.


Stupid little buy offs here and there, have nothing to do with political and economic sovereignty. There's layers of band council corruption that's around a few people getting trucks or 50K or a government job or some other piece of junk. I understand why people go for -- job or no job? Duh. Truck or no truck? Duh. 50K or no 50K? Duh.

The Canadian state has produced a culture of victimhood for aboriginal peoples by treating them like garbage, and when they stand up for their rights, they get shot, thrown in jail, deprived of housing, and otherwise fucked over.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yes, I think you were restricted for arguing that the poor were poor because they didn't take advantage of the educational opportunities gracefully provided by the bourgeois state.

The CC thought differently.


The CC is a form of forum management. They don't decide factual matters based on their interpretation. They're factual matters. And frankly, I'm in the best position to tell whether I'm blaming someone. Blame is a specific emotional viewpoint. I think most murder victims died because they weren't wearing a bullet proof vest. I don't blame them for not wearing one.

The CC restricted me without contacting me to plead my case. They didn't remove the restriction after I renounced the view because it was thought "I gave up the view too quickly." I guess when I put 2+2=5 on my elementary school test, the teacher should've assumed my future answers were "correct too soon." No way someone could learn such a difficult concept as "2+2=4" or "material resources are the root cause of poverty, not resources" in a small amount of time. No, it isn't like a simple presentation of the data is enough for a reasonable person to change their mind. Of course not!

Oh, and at the time, I had the view that "it's possible that abortion might be undesirable," but I still said I support a woman's right to choose. People thought these were pro-life arguments in a "nuanced style" and "implicitly" revealed my position. Talk about a joke! I've since given up the view that abortion (in the vast majority of cases) has any moral implications. I change my mind all the time. Either way, a "possible" objection to abortion wasn't grounds for considering my restriction (which I know some people did). Furthermore, I didn't even have that objection personally. It was a theoretical consideration. Like considering "the moon might be made of cheese, and here is an argument for that, but I don't really "believe" that is true."

And what was my terrible "blaming" that I did? I didn't argue it was a lack of education opportunities. I argued it was a lack of education knowledge/life skills that result from generational advantage. For instance, I know how to shop for cheap clothes. Life skill. Poor children might know how to do that. or they might have their parents working so often they never see them. Safe sex. Generational advantage. The poor are often victimized by religious things and anti-condom attitudes perpetuate their poverty. These things add up and perpetuate the cycle of poverty. If these people had a certain "set of information," they'd be at far less a disadvantage.

I have renounced the view, but it was hardly as "evil" a perspective as people thought it was. They really misinterpreted my post.



You have the knack of regurgitating some of the most crass bourgeois propaganda, echoing the hacks of the New Right:

Well, that's a problem then. I appreciate you correcting me so I can learn new information and change my views. Also, that is an exaggeration. Secondly, as for the work issue:

Nonetheless, according to Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky), "social democrats and anarchists always agreed, fairly generally, on so-called 'welfare state measures'" and "Anarchists propose other measures to deal with these problems, without recourse to state authority."

That about sums up my position. I used the phrase "take away benefits." Does that mean I would suggest doing such a thing? No. Does that mean I considered it for a moment, when I was writing the post? Yes. Is considering things a crime? Notice that after AugustWest points out that this would entail I either give benefits to everyone or no one, I backtrack. I clearly want to keep benefits around. However, it has been suggested socialism will involve benefits according to effort. Restructuring benefits according to that could be a potential solution. Again, just throwing things "out there."

If a friend of mine talked said something racist or something that entailed something terrible, I'd say "you don't really mean that, do you." Here I make logical mistakes or say stupid things. I am met with sarcasm, insults, and/or threats (generally). I guess it's tough love, but I wish people would be a bit more polite. If I'm posting on a leftist board, it doesn't mean I'm an expert in everything political, a brilliant mind, and/or not holding any reactionary views I gained through my upbringing in a capitalist society.



But, honestly, Dooga, it is well known amongst Leftists that all the empirical evidence points to equality being good for individuals and society. Individuals in more equal societies have longer life expectancies; their societies have lower crime rates; indicators for happiness and self-fulfilment are higher. Of course, greater equality in a society which creates inequality, requires high progressive taxation and generous welfare provision for those who are economically and culturally disadvantaged. Any argument to the contrary is an argument for increasing inequality and deepening the misery of those who lose out.

Thanks for the links. I see I've been beaten on this matter. Thanks for the information. I will say what causes the problems in Aboriginal communities is still a mystery to me. My lack of incentive theory is gone. I'm not right-wing (or that stupid), so I can't take the lazy way out (i.e) racism. Maybe someone has some information on that. I'd be curious.

But I don't see any point in arguing. I agree with everything you mentioned, although the wealth/motivation correlation I'm not 100% sure on as it is some sort of complex economic thing I'd have to look up more information on to fully decide. I guess I'll be neutral on that (therefore not believing it for now).

August pointed me in the right direction. Then you pushed me a little further. Now I'm done. I changed my view in less than 2 days. I must be lying, of course. Sorry, I'm just a little frustrated.


From a purely theoretical point of view, you may be right. From a political point of view, you end up supporting welfare cuts!


Isn't there a way to consider both? For instance, De Beauvoir attempts to accuse women as participating in their own subjugation to mobilize them to action. Is this a bad tactic? Did she do something special that made it alright? Not appealing to authority here. Just curious what your view is. The basic idea is women let men define their existence for the financial benefits and to avoid examining and deciding for themselves the nature of their own existence (sometimes called a metaphysical advantage).


Well, I'm sure most of them don't see being aboriginal and being human as mutually exclusive categories.

I didn't imply that, to my knowledge. I am simply saying I have personally spoke with Aboriginal people. Some have said they deserve benefits because "they are Aboriginal" and "other people do not deserve those benefits." That being said, a small sample doesn't reflect an entire group. That being said, is there a reason for someone to hold this view? Does this view harm both Aboriginal and leftist groups?

Lastly, I'd like to say if I appreciate the assistance. However, I am really "naive" as you put it. However, the consistency is that I always restructure things around a leftist position when I am made aware of the facts of the matter. I am a leftist because my rationality and my emotion tells me it is a necessary conclusion that the rest of the world must be aligned with. Other conclusions of that nature are much less controversial to me. Not killing innocent babies for fun is such a conclusion.

So whenever I have a terrible view that somehow entails reactionary politics, simply tell me how it does and why I'm wrong. I will appreciate it and, most likely, change my viewpoint.

The reason I am frustrated isn't you specifically. It's that being unrestricted is different from being a regular member. I thought about changing my name/avatar, but I didn't. However, whenever I do something, stupid, people call me on it more. That is fine. However, they're often far less polite than they used to be about it. A horde of people are always ready to thank everyone who insults me in posts. It's really like a psychological whipping. Luckily, it's an internet forum and despite my rather unstable personality, I'm quite alright.

I'm still on my toes having to specifically monitor how I word things, and I still get in trouble. Sometimes I get in trouble for accidentally editing something improperly when trying to make my argument as "forum appropriate" as possible. Every word implies some crazy thing to somebody, and everybody is ready to jump on "that guy who was restricted once." Everyone believes word choice secretly tells you something about the political views of the person posting. Half the time when I accidentally say something I don't actually believe, I don't admit it because I know people won't believe me. I have to manipulate what I said into some new argument that's "at least" neutral enough to keep me out of trouble.

I've always taken internet forums way to seriously because I practically lived in them when I was younger. Anyway, thanks for the help!

[Plagueround]

Frankly, I have no idea what Aboriginals should be doing to solve their issues.


Then this is where I would recommend you stop talking.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Then this is where I would recommend you stop talking.

I'm just throwing things out there. I play with ideas to see if I can come up with something or if other people can refute them/build on them/provide a real explanation.

Ideas don't always come to people people in a strike of genius. Sometimes they come from throwing things out there. Also, it's unlikely I'm going to solve any important issues. I'm just tossing ideas and possibilities out for the purpose of learning and finding possible explanations that satisfy me.

Also, I obviously have rough ideas about how groups can improve their situation. However, I don't remember every saying something along the lines of "Aboriginals should do this." I was trying to understand the phenomenon occurring that causes Aboriginal Canadians to be in the situation they are in and "remain" there.

From participating in this thread in the manner I have, the following things have happened:

1. I have learned I held some false viewpoints and corrected them.
2. Anyone who holds viewpoints similar to the one's I held now has access to well-written refutations of those views.

My method of participating as "annoying as it is," seems to had more positive than negative results. I don't know. I'm sleepy.

Sorry guys. Random interjection. I'm going to take a forum break due to exams/medical stuff I think. I'm going to get a temp ban if possible cause I have no self-discipline (related to medical stuff). Sorry if I've been a little crazier than usual. Exam stress + new medications.

[danny bohy]

Its even worse in Australia. we have aboriginals living in 3rd world conditions in central australia, police abuse (often killings) towards aboriginals and alchoholism are rife within the indegenous community. what does our government do. send the army in to "stop child abuse".

[FreeFocus]

Its even worse in Australia. we have aboriginals living in 3rd world conditions in central australia, police abuse (often killings) towards aboriginals and alchoholism are rife within the indegenous community. what does our government do. send the army in to "stop child abuse".

While I don't doubt the severity of the situation of Native Australians, "Third World" conditions exist on nearly every reserve/reservation in North America, alcoholism is ridiculously widespread, and police and military abuse is also commonplace (not military so much as police, but you'll have things like Oka, Gufstafsen Lake, etc that involve the military).

I'll get to the rest of the thread sometime tomorrow, there were some rather annoying comments made.

[Woyzeck]

I would have thought the answer was obvious: dismantle the imperialist Canadian state and replace it with a federal, worker-controlled arrangement. Such a model should be applied to any bastard spawn of imperialism (the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Israel etc. and of course all the largely artificial boundaries that resulted from the carving up of Africa, Asia and the rest of the Americas). How we get from A to B regarding this solution is another matter altogether. :(