Yes. We saved them from themselves. If anything they owe the Europeans.
Last edited by: BC_Nuggets on Sept. 29, 2022, 12:12 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Yes. We saved them from themselves. If anything they owe the Europeans.
Posted by: syncro
Maybe a better question is why does this bother you so much and why are you in such a hurry to throw Indigenous people under the bus? They weren’t the ones who purposely tried to eradicate (genocide) Europeans so they could steal their land and resources.
How is a full understanding of history "throwing them under the bus"? Do you think that maybe you throw western culture under the bus?
We don't have to travel to the great lakes for brutality in indigenous culture. The Haida were about as close to the Vikings as you can get conducting raids all the way to the Fraser. They stole plenty of resources, and people for their slave trade (including sex slaves). I think these are valid points when so much time is spent telling the story of the evil forked toothed white man. The subject here is humanity and I think it is important to understand we are not really any different from one another.
As a patriot, I strongly believe Canada must make amends to the people that lived here first, but I don't need to put their cultures on a pedestal to do that. I agree with you Syncro, their common belief of being a part of nature and not its ruler is a better way, but we don't need to throw our own culture and history under the bus to see that.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: syncro
Maybe a better question is why does this bother you so much and why are you in such a hurry to throw Indigenous people under the bus? They weren’t the ones who purposely tried to eradicate (genocide) Europeans so they could steal their land and resources.
How is a full understanding of history "throwing them under the bus"? Do you think that maybe you throw western culture under the bus?
We don't have to travel to the great lakes for brutality in indigenous culture. The Haida were about as close to the Vikings as you can get conducting raids all the way to the Fraser. They stole plenty of resources, and people for their slave trade (including sex slaves). I think these are valid points when so much time is spent telling the story of the evil forked toothed white man. The subject here is humanity and I think it is important to understand we are not really any different from one another.
As a patriot, I strongly believe Canada must make amends to the people that lived here first, but I don't need to put their cultures on a pedestal to do that. I agree with you Syncro, their common belief of being a part of nature and not its ruler is a better way, but we don't need to throw our own culture and history under the bus to see that.
How do you define a full understanding of history, and who is telling that history?
The context of the "full history" as presented here acted to pull Indigenous people down and say they were bad people too so that excuses colonialism. Taking one example of a people as recounted by Europeans with zero understanding of Indigenous culture is highly prone to being a flawed interpretation. It's also highly flawed to take that one example and apply it to all Indigenous cultures and treat them as a monolith. We need to stop cherry picking negative examples and holding them up as a reason to dissolve ourselves of our responsibility for what happened and continues to happen under colonialism or as a means to say that we are not any different.
I'm not putting their cultures on a pedestal, but see key points of their culture and worldview as a better way of doing things than some of the current Western ideologies. As for our own culture, how do you define Canadian culture and beliefs and do those beliefs actually line up with how we treat other people and the environment?
Posted by: chupacabra
How is a full understanding of history "throwing them under the bus"? Do you think that maybe you throw western culture under the bus?
We don't have to travel to the great lakes for brutality in indigenous culture. The Haida were about as close to the Vikings as you can get conducting raids all the way to the Fraser. They stole plenty of resources, and people for their slave trade (including sex slaves). I think these are valid points when so much time is spent telling the story of the evil forked toothed white man. The subject here is humanity and I think it is important to understand we are not really any different from one another.
As a patriot, I strongly believe Canada must make amends to the people that lived here first, but I don't need to put their cultures on a pedestal to do that. I agree with you Syncro, their common belief of being a part of nature and not its ruler is a better way, but we don't need to throw our own culture and history under the bus to see that.
I thought about this a bit more as I find the comparison of egregiousness between Indigenous people and colonizers a bit perplexing. So let's say I give you your point, what have been the long term nation wide effects of the "Viking like" behaviour of the Haida and how does that compare to what Indigenous people endured and continue to endure under the colonizing state of Canada? I fail to see how raising this point helps to achieve the goals of reconciliation.
There's a lot of victim blaming going on in this thread.
I probably should've waited till after Truth and Reconciliation day.
OP was about getting rid of borders and living harmoniously in the world.
Posted by: three-sheets
Posted by: syncro
That would be taking an Indigenous Worldview where the concepts of Relationality and Reciprocity are of the utmost importance.
Or you could also call it anti-capitalistic, but that would require a wholesale change of the Western Worldview where individual ideology would have to take a back seat to collaborative and ideology.
Except the part where nations (tribes) raped and pillaged each other, just like everyone else.
What I find highly interesting is the issue, that Europeans described each and every tribal warfare they encountered or witnessed as "savage" and "uncivilized". Historically, each and every band of humans has had conflicts and violent encounters, at least from the beginning of the so-called Stone Age Age. As far as I know the data before the Stone Age is difficult to assess, the sources are not as clear as some of the younger findings from the Stone Age (mass graves, bones and skulls showing clearly signs of violence).
The difference between a lot of tribal warfare and what the Europeans brought to the world is the form of violence, most often, tribal warfare has been described as highly ritualized (and brutal, nevertheless), this holds true from what French priests encountered in the French colonies, to what has been described about Haida raids, as well as to the Amazon tribes or those living on Papua New Guinea.
And then there are people/tribes like the Sami in Scandinavia who apparently never had a word for "war", and intertribal violence was unknown of until they were "taught" by the invading kingdoms in the middle ages. I know of at least one tribe in present day Columbia who is similar in that respect, forgot the name though.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/indonesia-soccer-riot-1.6603282
Humanity is going to the wolves.
174 dead at a soccer riot in your 2023 FIFA U20 World Cup host country.
This is tribal warfare between people chasing a ball.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: syncro
Maybe a better question is why does this bother you so much and why are you in such a hurry to throw Indigenous people under the bus? They weren’t the ones who purposely tried to eradicate (genocide) Europeans so they could steal their land and resources.
How is a full understanding of history "throwing them under the bus"? Do you think that maybe you throw western culture under the bus?
We don't have to travel to the great lakes for brutality in indigenous culture. The Haida were about as close to the Vikings as you can get conducting raids all the way to the Fraser. They stole plenty of resources, and people for their slave trade (including sex slaves). I think these are valid points when so much time is spent telling the story of the evil forked toothed white man. The subject here is humanity and I think it is important to understand we are not really any different from one another.
As a patriot, I strongly believe Canada must make amends to the people that lived here first, but I don't need to put their cultures on a pedestal to do that. I agree with you Syncro, their common belief of being a part of nature and not its ruler is a better way, but we don't need to throw our own culture and history under the bus to see that.
How do you define a full understanding of history, and who is telling that history?
The context of the "full history" as presented here acted to pull Indigenous people down and say they were bad people too so that excuses colonialism. Taking one example of a people as recounted by Europeans with zero understanding of Indigenous culture is highly prone to being a flawed interpretation. It's also highly flawed to take that one example and apply it to all Indigenous cultures and treat them as a monolith. We need to stop cherry picking negative examples and holding them up as a reason to dissolve ourselves of our responsibility for what happened and continues to happen under colonialism or as a means to say that we are not any different.
I'm not putting their cultures on a pedestal, but see key points of their culture and worldview as a better way of doing things than some of the current Western ideologies. As for our own culture, how do you define Canadian culture and beliefs and do those beliefs actually line up with how we treat other people and the environment?
I thought about this a bit more as I find the comparison of egregiousness between Indigenous people and colonizers a bit perplexing. So let's say I give you your point, what have been the long term nation wide effects of the "Viking like" behaviour of the Haida and how does that compare to what Indigenous people endured and continue to endure under the colonizing state of Canada? I fail to see how raising this point helps to achieve the goals of reconciliation.
None of what I said absolves anyone of responsibility, but if the goal is reconciliation then we all need to come together as a people and agree on things. I think it is going to be difficult in an atmosphere where we consider the creation of Canada and the people that came here as nothing more than a curse and where it's taboo to speak of any good to come of it. We should be accessing the value from both of our cultures to move forward because we have to do it together. We can also look back at our pasts and identify that we all need to change and that the moral high ground is complicated. This is just truth and I am not tearing down who they are, I am pointing out that all of our pasts were brutal and we are currently building a better world for all of us that will be different. This is my worldview. That culture is constantly changing and there is no need to cling to any of it, just take what is good from it and bring it forward. This is why I don't use the term "settler". There is truth in our past and we should all know our history, but it is not who any of us are today.
I love the comparison between the Vikings and the Haida because it shows how similar we actually are. The Nisga'a people feared the Haida just as the Anglo Saxons feared the Danes, looking out to the water hoping not to see warships on the horizon. You were the one that touted the indigenous worldview of reciprocity, I am just pointing out that as you say, they are not a monolith. Haida were not big on sharing.
Canadian culture is a project. With all of the cultural forces that are a part of the country, it isn't one thing, but that means we have the opportunity to make something better from all of the pieces. To me, truth and reconciliation mean that as Canadians it is important that we know the truth of Canadian history and that we should understand and support initiatives at reconciliation by Canada, the churches, the Crown, etc.
I bring up a point about relationality, reciprocity and collaboration as a way forward and instead people choose to raise certain examples and say "but these people were bad too" so maybe we shouldn't listen to that. Well why not? What does that serve? What is the point of saying that? Were all Indigenous peoples across this land like the Haida or were a majority of them much more cooperative in nature? If the goal is to move forward then we should be advocating for ideologies that do that instead of trying to point to examples that serve to excuse listening to cooperative principles.
You are right that there is truth in our colonial past, but it would be wrong to say that is not who we are today. Systemic racism is still prominent in Canadian society and there are more than enough recent examples to show that to be true. You're also right that reconciliation includes coming together to agree on things and imho that begins with recognizing the goals of past Canadian governments was to eradicate Indigenous peoples and their cultures. Unfortunately government policies still exist today that deny Indigenous peoples their rights and equitable treatment with people who are not of this land. Canada as we know it was built on theft of land for resource extraction and that continues to this day. We need to look past the Western worldview of consumerism to one that creates better balance.
For me, it just seems like a one-way street in the conversation. Were all Indigenous peoples across this land like the Haida? No. Were all people that left their homelands and came to Canada sociopathic capitalists? No. Is consumerism the worldview of the west? No. Why bring up worldview at all if the entire subject isn't open to scrutiny?
We are not the same as the people that came before us and all of our cultures are merging on a global scale. Is there racism? Is there still work to be done? Of course, but we have grown and if you want to find a worldview that most Canadians actually have I would say continued progress toward inclusion and fairness is at the heart of most people's thought processes. There wouldn't be Truth and Reconciliation if we hadn't changed.
Ok, so what do you think forms the world view of the West? I do not at all think that progress towards inclusion and fairness is at the heart of most people's thought processes. It may be on their radar, but not at the heart.
I think the amount we have grown is overstated. Until we've made significant steps forwards to changing the systemic faults that still exist it's way to early to be patting ourselves on the back about progress.
Posted by: syncro
Ok, so what do you think forms the world view of the West? I do not at all think that progress towards inclusion and fairness is at the heart of most people's thought processes. It may be on their radar, but not at the heart.
I think the amount we have grown is overstated. Until we've made significant steps forwards to changing the systemic faults that still exist it's way to early to be patting ourselves on the back about progress.
Yet that is the arc of our history. It was not that long ago that we had the head tax, that we sent Japanese to internment camps, that we openly hated the LGBTQ community, that we denied women the vote, etc. These are regressive ideas that would bring on scorn if advocated in public today, but they were the norm just a few generations ago. If social justice wasn't part of our worldview how can you explain this steady progress? How are these not significant steps?
Our worldview allows for a multicultural community, which few societies have ever even attempted. Without a commitment to inclusion and fairness, none of this would have come to pass. If you work in an office in Vancouver, look around at all the people with backgrounds from around the world working together. This has never happened before.
Personally, my worldview is that of a secular humanist and I believe that there are more of us every day. There is nothing in my belief system that disagrees with relationality. I am committed to justice for the First Nations of this country, and we owe them the opportunity to regain the cultural ties that were deliberately severed with the purpose of ending their cultures. This should mean massive amounts of land put into their hands, even where they were conquered since I really don't see how an agreement with a gun to someone's head should be any more acceptable than the doctrine of discovery. I think that is as much as we can do since it is far too late to actually decolonize.
Your worldview sounds great and yes many things have changed including the arc of our history, but I'd argue that you are mistaken if you think most people held the same thoughts in their heart. My comment was not that some things haven't changed, it's that there is still much changing to do. There are still reserves, the Indian Act is still a thing, unequal access to health care is still a thing, lack of access to clean drinking water is still a thing. Remember the incident with Maxwell Johnson not too long ago? Consider the number of points in that incident where things could have been done differently so he and his granddaughter didn't end up handcuffed on a busy sidewalk just for trying to open a bank account for her. Then consider why it even happened in the first place.
Decolonization is about much more than giving land back. It starts with understanding the differences between people, seeing people for who they are and not who we thing they are and then removing barriers and systems of oppression that are still in place to this day in areas such as health care, child welfare and the legal system. Consider what I first said in this thread and then look at the "Yeah but" examples that followed right after. What was the need for those? They didn't bring any balance to the comments. Those things didn't have any affect on our current society unlike the effects that colonization has had. Decolonization means we don't make those yeah but statements; it means people like Maxwell Johnson can open a back account for his grand daughter without trouble or people like Joyce Echequan don't die in hospital while having racial slurs thrown at them and then have the leader of Quebec deny that systemic exists in their province.
Forum jump: