Religiosity is literally the worst documentary I've ever seen.
[Question] Post about the last time you thought or did something bigoted.
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
Because it helps with making a mental representation of a person. If someone is telling an anecdote "I was with my friend Irma, in the shopping mall, when all of a sudden the town drunk comes u pto us and...." etc, I'm trying to visualize that encounter. I know what the shopping mall looks like (or, if I don't know which one, I can still fill it in with info from my memories of several malls), I can imagine my friend. What does Irma look like? Without any other information, I'll make a mental picture based on the name, and who she was with - but I could be completely off. Ethnicity is one of the most "obvious" and immediately visible cues to describing a person's look. Not racist, just efficient.
If I tell you about my girlfriend, without showing a picture, and I tell you that she's got long dark brown hair, grey-blue eyes, and a big open slime, you still can't really picture her. I tell you she's tall, it helps a bit. I tell you she's white, it helps a lot. Body type is another one of those things. Discriminating against someone, disliking someone or being prejudiced towards someone based on ethnicity, body type, or whatever may be wrong; using them in a description isn't necessarily (though I always have to laugh with our patrol guards trying to be non-racist when describing people. "They're...ehhh...a sort of mediterranean look, but more south than north, if you know what I mean, err,..."
Just say they looked Moroccan/Turkish/Egyptian and get it over with, dude), though it can be when used to stereotype someone.Many aspects of looks are culturally bound (hence why "all asians look alike" to white people who aren't used to dealing with them, and vice versa, for example). Even skin colour - the same colour can be perceived as "lily white" or "deep tan" or whatever, depending on where you're from. The same person can be seen as "fairly light" or "coffee with cream", depending on where the describing person is from. Opposed to, say, eye-slant, hieight of cheeckbone, firmness of lips, size of ear, and a host of other descriptors, skin colour is one thing most anybody will notice about someone, though, and as such, is useful information.
Canada's treatment of natives kind of makes America's look good by comparison. Then again, most Canadians I've talked to have a pretty low opinion of their natives and the Idle No More movement. It's not really conducive to discourse when your opening statements accuse the predominately White government of continuing attempts at cultural genocide.
how is there a worse treatment than genocide
GasBandit
Staff member
There's having to listen to you talk about it...
I'm talking modern treatment. Last time I checked, it hasn't been routine for American Indians to get the boots put to them for speaking out against the American government since the 50's.
Our government is putting out a straight up smear campaign against the chiefs that are leading the Idle No More as well.
As if pointing out that a chief isn't great with money makes it ok to demolish environmental protections so that companies like DeBeers can pour toxic sludge into waterways upstream from reservations.
As if pointing out that a chief isn't great with money makes it ok to demolish environmental protections so that companies like DeBeers can pour toxic sludge into waterways upstream from reservations.
You missed "cultural genocide" which means "if we think we're being influenced by anybody, we've lost our native culture from hundreds of years ago, so pay us money to compensate." It's not killing people.
He's saying the American's treatment was regular-type genocide.
Oh and there's examples of that in Canadian History as well, but "Cultural Genocide" as is in Ash's post that Charlie didn't completely quote is what I was responding to. That's a popular buzzword and quote amongst native protesters up here.
I have some questions actually. I have a good Canadian friend of mine here in China who has spoken at some length on this subject. He says at times it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for them for a variety of reasons. Namely, millions upon millions of dollars have been given to them, only to show up missing and their villages still without paved roads and terrible housing. Many villages (I believe it was over 60%) didn't even keep a record of the money given and when asked, couldn't account for it. It's also extremely difficult for these people to be integrated with Canada in any sort of fashion because they live hundreds of miles from any sort of civilization, where the only way to get supplies is by air, so building a wood shack costs $250,000 since everything to build it has to be flown in, and they shouldn't be surprised when they have absolutely no economic development for it. A large majority are also substance abusers of a large variety. He also claims that a lot of natives abuse the special environmental privileges, like fishing, based on ancestral hunting grounds by using modern, high-tech equipment and overfish lakes without any concern for a sustainable population because they are not subject to the same limits as other Canadians.
Of course he acknowledges Canada hasn't always been on the up 'n up in their treatment of them, including taking children from their homes and placing them in boarding schools all the way up to the 1970's.
Would this be a(n) (un)fair representation of the situation or at least a general representation of the Canadian opinion about the Natives?
I'd call that relatively fair from a "view from outside big summary" perspective IMO.
I am First Nations Ojibwe hailing from the Wikwemikong Unceded reservation located on the largest freshwater island in the world.
What you've said Terrik is the perspective Canadians have of us, it's not entirely untrue, there are many cases of abuse, however, as I mentioned to Frank in a previous post - there are alot of good people who are living as best they can with the knowledge they have. It's a shame that the media is so ready to highlight our flaws rather than praise any of us on our merits. But bad news sells better, hmmm?
Also, I say with this much respect to all. Please, don't make the mistake of thinking we need to be "integrated" with Canadian society. My people, my culture were doing just fine before the advent of the European settlers coming to this continent. If you believe we need to be assimilated, we neither want nor need your brand of "help". If I can make a statment here - people don't get to invade our country, continually mistreat us throughout the centuries then criticise us for not being modern like the rest of society. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Also, if you've looked at our history of mistreatment and believe that simply throwing money at us, it solves all problems, you are woefully ignorant of us.
Though I seem calm, I assure you I'm shaking with rage here. I'm growing tired of the countless atrocities perpetuated on my people, and I'm not the only one. These issues need to be resolved and soon, otherwise we may well be headed down another dark and tumultuous period of history. A road I fervently hope we don't go down again.
What you've said Terrik is the perspective Canadians have of us, it's not entirely untrue, there are many cases of abuse, however, as I mentioned to Frank in a previous post - there are alot of good people who are living as best they can with the knowledge they have. It's a shame that the media is so ready to highlight our flaws rather than praise any of us on our merits. But bad news sells better, hmmm?
Also, I say with this much respect to all. Please, don't make the mistake of thinking we need to be "integrated" with Canadian society. My people, my culture were doing just fine before the advent of the European settlers coming to this continent. If you believe we need to be assimilated, we neither want nor need your brand of "help". If I can make a statment here - people don't get to invade our country, continually mistreat us throughout the centuries then criticise us for not being modern like the rest of society. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Also, if you've looked at our history of mistreatment and believe that simply throwing money at us, it solves all problems, you are woefully ignorant of us.
Though I seem calm, I assure you I'm shaking with rage here. I'm growing tired of the countless atrocities perpetuated on my people, and I'm not the only one. These issues need to be resolved and soon, otherwise we may well be headed down another dark and tumultuous period of history. A road I fervently hope we don't go down again.
That's one side. The whole system is designed to foster resentment on both sides.
I would just like to say, not all Canadians see it that way. Than again, I've never been a vary popular person.
No worries, I don't believe that opinion is actually the majority. Just a small, angry, and vocal minority.
Well, as someone who deals with this, what would be ideal in your mind? Would you prefer to be left entirely alone, even if it meant less or no funding from the Canadian government? Do the First Nations have plans to be economically self-sufficient without Canadian assistance or do First Nations people want economic support but political autonomy? In regards to things like the DeBeers diamond mine---is that something that shouldn't be built? Or built and (more) shares of the profits given to the Native peoples land it occupies? or high-salary jobs? I've tried doing by own research, but truth be told, its usually full of flowery political speech with no real content. So as someone who's First Nations himself, what would be a preferable state of affairs?
Having a decent economic sustainability would be the first real step towards achieving political autonomy as we greatly prefer to govern ourselves, the less funding that is granted/needed by the Canadian government -- the better. I can't speak for all reserves, but ours does have it's own plans to generate income. Our problem at the moment is we lack the skills, funding, and drive to see these projects to fruition, they are serious problems though I am confident they will be resolved -- for those wondering, an idea for a casino/resort/bar and grill was put forth as tourism is one of our main sources of income, one of many plans. In regards to DeBeers diamond mine or any other lucrative industrial businesses, I would love to see these in reservations as they can greatly aid finances for those bands. However as you said so succinctly; any time a contract is drawn up by those companies, they're full of flowery business/political words that favor the companies in the long term that is ultimately detrimental to the people. A balanced partnership would fix this, but my people and the companies in question never seem to be able to compromise on what is 'fair'.
tl;dr version - more economic stability = political autonomy, 99 problems to work on, it's a bitch to work through all of them.
tl;dr version - more economic stability = political autonomy, 99 problems to work on, it's a bitch to work through all of them.
I'd be opposed to the DeBeers diamond mine, if only because they've used nigh illegal tactics to corner the diamond market and keep competing diamonds off the streets. I really doubt they'd honor any contract, especially with a group that doesn't have the clout or resources to fight them over it.
You have a good point Ash, since the treatment and cleanup of the environment is often the biggest point of contention between us, the government, and any corporations involved when drawing up kind of formal contract.
North_Ranger
Staff member
I find myself growing a tad anti-American every time GasBandit starts one of his trademark libertarian tirades. Particularly the ones about armed civilians against a tyrannical government.
Why wouldn't you just grow anti-gas?
North_Ranger
Staff member
I blame the fact that the argument, nobly pronounced by men of conviction and smashing wigs, has been adopted by the kind of people I wouldn't trust with a BB gun.
GasBandit
Staff member
So when people you don't like adopt an argument you agree with, you don't agree with that argument any more? Sounds reasonable.
But, in all fairness, I have to point out that the reason why my posts are long, forceful and repeated is because the great majority of my countrymen are not in agreement with me - which may come as a surprise to you I'm sure.
North_Ranger
Staff member
If that were true, I'd be against (reasonable) environmentalism. Y'know, because of the Austrian guy with the funny moustache.
I understand the ideal, I just don't like it when people prefer idealism to, say, dead kids. Or this whole "if X happens, it's going to be civil war" mentality. Or "if X happens, we're gonna live in the Soviet Union/North Korea/Nazi Germany/some other place I don't like". But that's just me.
In fairness, most of these things aren't related.
North_Ranger
Staff member
They still piss me off.
- Status