Karma is a bitch, and it's real in that you reap what you sow. Some day, it will be your turn to be on the short end of the stick, and when you're there, I can guarantee that your lack of compassion and empahty will come back to haunt you.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: wolfboy</cite>Who is this "they" you speak of?</blockquote> The aboriginal people who live in poverty and have higher rates of violence and alcohol abuse.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: wolfboy</cite>Anyway, I'm done with this, 71.
Karma is a bitch, and it's real in that you reap what you sow. Some day, it will be your turn to be on the short end of the stick, and when you're there, I can guarantee that your lack of compassion and empahty will come back to haunt you.
Bonne chance.</blockquote> Is that your polite way of wishing me bad luck because you have a weak argument?
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: wolfboy</cite>...And some of you won't acknowledge that we have our own third world? ...Compare them to Bangledesh. ...Is it "third world"? Not exactly, no...</blockquote>I've always said native/aboriginal/Inuit discussions is a contentious polarizing topic. This thread proves that to a "T".
I also said in a previous post I won't compare anyone living in Canada to a third world country. Which provoked wolfboy's response, of which I've selected specific sound bites... I did not eloquently state what I meant. Today's Winnipeg Free Press editorial said best what I so poorly attempted to do.
"Many aboriginals, like Tibetans, believe they are an oppressed people, but any similarity between the two groups ends there. <i>The most important difference is that Canada is a modern democracy, one of the freest countries in the world where dissent is permitted as a matter of right.</i> Indeed, the fact that aboriginals can publicly discuss their plans to disrupt the Vancouver Games without fear of being arrested, persecuted or tortured is itself evidence of the stark differences between the two groups.<br /><br />That doesn't mean that Canada's hands are squeaky clean. First Nations have many legitimate complaints about mistreatment in the past, and they have a right to be angry and frustrated about the appalling health and social conditions on many reserves.<br /><br />There are many issues that need to be resolved, but it is not a one-way street. Among other things, <b>aboriginals ought to explain why some of them continue to live on remote, inaccessible reserves where there is no opportunity for economic development and living conditions bear little resemblance to anything that might be understood as native culture. </b>Would it not make sense to consolidate failing reserves with thriving ones? Or is the subject not up for discussion?"<br /> If we suspend just for a moment how we came to be in these circumstances (convenient for me, yes) and focus upon why we choose to remain in these circumstances, perhaps we might better understand.
My point is we do invest billions annually and we seem to be spinning our wheels endlessly.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: grumpy old man</cite>@ wolfboy
Why do you insist on another revealing his/her identity when you too are completely anonymous? This seems a little hypocritical don'tcha think?</blockquote>
I suspect a lot of people on here already knew that.
I agree w/ your point about it being a polarizing issue. And it's true that aboriginals in Canada have access to (often wasted) resources that Tibetans do not have access to.
AND i agree about consolidating reserves-- it's what the gov't did with non-native in Nfld, and while it's not popular in the short-term, it seems far more effective.
However, I could tell stories about kids I've worked with that would curl people's hair.
Which is why i find that "they won't help themselves" or "they're just lazy" viewpoint infuriating. It ignores a whole host of issues, and focuses on symptoms or effects rather than the real problem. No one can tell me that a kid who has been sexually and physically abused since they were in diapers, and who hasn't had a single positive influence in their life is just lazy, or won't help him/herself. It's way more complex than that.
Terry Nelson grandstanding in the media doesn't get me as upset as some of the things I saw in youth care work. That's not, imo, the real issue, nor is it what we should be focusing our energy on.
ps. And I asked R71 to reveal his identity, b/c, as I suspected, he wasn't willing to put his real name behind the inflamatory statements he was making.
I've said things on here I regret, and later apologized for. But for the most part, what I write on here is something I would say in print, or on camera, or to anyone's face.
Maybe put your name in your profile otherwise you remain potentially anonymous except for those with strong memories, unlike mine, which is very selective and convenient.
This entire notion of "fault" is moralising and irrelavent. Consider this scenario: A person has fallen off the edge of a cliff. You happen upon them and have knowledge of first aid. What do you do?
1. Try to help them. 2. Scold them for being stupid enough to hang around a steep cliff, tell them it's their fault that they fell off, and walk away.
This entire notion of "moralising" is condescending and annoying. Funny, I really don't feel smug or superior. But I'll bet that comes off sounding that way eh?
I have not "scolded" anyone. I have not "blamed" anyone. I have not "walked away" from anyone.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Munchkinguy</cite>This entire notion of "fault" is moralising and irrelavent. Consider this scenario: A person has fallen off the edge of a cliff. You happen upon them and have knowledge of first aid. What do you do?
1. Try to help them. 2. Scold them for being stupid enough to hang around a steep cliff, tell them it's their fault that they fell off, and walk away.</blockquote> Choosing to follow a path that leads to ruin is a moral decision. The onus for making bad decisions rests entirely with the decision maker. Blaming others for your poor choices is an abdication of personal responsibility.
''My point is we do invest billions annually and we seem to be spinning our wheels endlessly.''
I am eternally grateful for this comment.^^
Abolish the reserve system - they don't work. Even some of the very wealthy ones have many social problems.
Canadian Natives feel treated badly by the government because there is a reliance on the goverment for their well being, financial and otherwise - something I'd, personally, never count on.
I found the following artlice somewhat relevant to the direction of this dicussion: The Segregation of Native People in Canada: Voluntary or Compulsory? http://www.tgmag.ca/Magic/mt3.html
The paper was written in 1986 by Michèle DuCharme. a descendant of Louis Riel. It ends with the following closing remark comparing reserves to the system of apartheid, which is somewhat dated, though iti is still relevant.
"... South Africa is not the only country where the native population has been set apart legally, geographically and economically on a purely genetic basis... "
This was very true. Key word "was". Canada did set natives apart under an apartheid-like policy. That is not true so much today. Any citizen of Canada is free to come and go anywhere he or she wishes.
"Dean have you ever been on a researve , remember they once roamed all of this land and we put them on reaserves what made this right . Because we were smarter or better looking what tell me. "
Jim.. I probably have been on more reserves then most people on here. Most people then Winnipeg even and that counts a good chunk of the Native population that has only been on their own reserve.
Also Jim...I have nothing against Natives, nor the fact that they recieve the money and entitlements they do. I do howeverhave a problem with them thinking that they are anything at all like Tibetans. At one time? Oh hells yes. Now? Not even close. Proper management of the resources they do get is what is needed to ensure that their living conditions improve.
When you have jackasses like Mr Nelson saying he will spend $1 million of his bands money on a lawsuit that he has no hope in hell of winning, instead of spending that $1 million to improve his citizens lives. Do You maybe start to see where the real problem is?