There’s an astonishing arrogance to ideologues of any stripe, isn’t there? I find it correlates directly to their level of ignorance on the topic at hand.

For another depressing reminder of how condescending the mainstream Conservative line of thought on Aboriginal issues is, revisit this posting, “The Great White Father Explains It All For You from earlier this year, in which Monte Solberg condescends to tell his native children what’s wrong with the way they see the world. I don’t think I’ve read this kind of paternalism since the journals of the Hudson’s Bay factors.

What’s your problem with what I wrote? What’s your alternative?

And stuff a sock in it Balbulican. Your own interactions with natives to the contrary notwithstanding, natives on reserves live in abysmal conditions. To just sluff off alternate viewpoints on what to do about the problem and question the sincerity of people concerned about the problem is irresponsible.

Peter, I hope for your sake you never venture outside of your tidy little townhouse and encounter the real world, in which you will be severly beaten if you ever try and propogate Solberg’s views on Aboriginals.

Peter Rempel: What’s your problem with what I wrote?

It’s backwards, uninformed, and quite ignorant of the issues.

Peter Rempel: What’s your alternative?

I’ll open with the federal government living up to it’s treaty and land claims obligations instead of ducking them if the going gets tough, followed by mainstream southern Canada actually being somewhat concerned that their government is not living up to its treaty and land claims obligations.

The problem with your mode of thinking Peter is that it has no balls, it’s gutless, and/or utterly self centered and culturally egotistical…..

Our government doesn’t live up to its legal obligations, and:

- oh woe is me I’m powerless to do anything about it.

- and I don’t give a flying f*** because my governments’ obligations might cost me money.

Hear Hear stageleft.

Trust me, when you have actually LIVED in these conditions, then you don’t just sluff off alternate viewpoints. We are actually desperate for other ways to make things work.

I am sluffing off SOLBERG’s viewpoint, for the simple fact that it is insulting, condescending, and a cheap disguise on their real intentions, which is assimilation.

Stageleft’s solutions are both Common-Sense solutions, and also “Constitutionally Protected” solutions, in that the Land Claims agreement is Constitutionally Protected.

Implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement would improve the lives of its inhabitants so dramatically that it is the obvious first course of action in Nunavuts case.

I have cut the Maschismo Peter, now I want to hear you solution to the problems aboriginals face. Really, I am really genuinely interested. Really.

With all the money floating aorund in Calgary, CpoC supporters must be sitting around thinking up new ways to help everyone else out. Lets hear it.

“It’s backwards, uninformed, and quite ignorant of the issues.”

Thanks. I was hoping for something a bit more substantive. Silly me.

“I’ll open with the federal government living up to it’s treaty and land claims obligations…”

Right. Throw more money at the problem. This always solves welfare problems. Thanks for the innovative thought.

As for the rest: You make no sense. I’m not convinced of my own powerlessness on this issue, nor am I terribly concerned about the costs of treaty obligations. What I am concerned about is the effects of those treaty obligations on the pathologies present on reserves. But you keep on pummeling your strawmen.

“Throw more money at the problem”?

Wasn’t it Mulroney (who I am sure was one of your childhood heroes) who signed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement?

What was he thinking?

Since it would appear you are so concerned about the well-being of aborignals Peter, maybe I do want to hear more of your views.

Can you please explain these pathologies to me?

Since I am so busy thinking of myself as an aboriginal first, I am not aware of these pathologies that you mention.

Please, enlighten me.

I calls ‘em as I see’s ‘em Peter, they are backward, uninformed, and quite ignorant… and they show little understanding of the reasons that Aboriginal conditions are what they are. Furthermore, and not to be petty or anything, your solution of “fuck ‘em” simply is not legal.

I said the government should live up to its legal obligations, not thow money at “the problem”, which is in large measure a problem because the government has not lived up to its treaty and land claims obligations.

Do you really believe that the government should seek to avoid their legal and constitutional obligations in this respect?

Has it occurred to any of you that the Indians already are assimilated? that welfare pathologies are therefore a very relevant analytical framework from which to assess what’s gone wrong with reserves? or that maybe the Indians need to stop justifying the actions of their oft times corrupt leadership in the name of preventing “cultural” extinction?

Seems rather obvious …

Oh, and George…share your insights on assimilation of “the eskimoes” while you’re at it.

I see that you completely copped out of answering George’s question or addressing his point. Does your wife still do things that her ancestors did a hundred years ago? Of course not; she’s been assimilated.

Assimilation is a red herring.

In Canada, they are Indians before aborignals, governed under the Indian Act. If you don’t like it, move to Australia and debate native issues there.

Also, they were first immigrants, tribal and nomadic, before they were sovereign first nations—if ever they were. More generally, they are descendants of the “natives” of North American prior to Columbus discovering them, calling them Indians because he thought he was in India.

How are they assimilated? They drink beverages like us, eat food like us, wear clothes like us, live in houses, drive trucks, etc. They are able to vote in Canadian elections. Many of them identify as Canadians and, believe it or not, Christians.

They also have been assimilated into many of our same social ills: drug, alcohol, and other substance abuse; government corruption and money theft; and unstable families. But of course, these social ills are made worse because of the welfare pathologies on Indian reserves.

Like I said, their assimilation seems pretty obvious.

George, using your logic, then that would mean that Iranians have been assimilated, and the Chinese have been assimilated, and the Russians have been assimilated, and the South Africans have been assimilated, and so on.

Identifying myself as a Canadian does not mean I have been assimilated, it means that I live in a country that is called Canada. I thought you would know that.

Hmmmm, interesting.

Also, you claim that indians are indians because Columbus called them that. Well, then if I called you a redneck cracker, would that legitimize the term? No, it wouldn’t. My mistake if you are not actually a redneck cracker, but because I have already called you that, lets continue to do so.

Throbbin I’m not achin one bit for you to be like me. I just think you and your people should find a better path to self-sufficiency than the perpetual expectation of government hand outs. And many of your good leaders think this way too.

Regardless, you are assimilated and you already are part and parcel of Canadian society—irrespective of the odd traditional practice from your heritage. You are blogging today, after all.

As for the other societies you mention, in many ways they are assimilating in order to get on in the same world as Western powers. But politically, many of the powers you mentioned still exhibit less civil society than Canada, and the differences they exhibit relative to us—linguistic, dietary, political, religious, etc.—still make them very distinct.

But again, Indians never were sovereign nations and if so, they have long since made peace with Canada; to the point that they now consider themselves Canadian and they exhibit little ambition for forming their own country.

Columbus didn’t call the natives Indians as an insult; but, the name stuck, that’s what they are called in Canada. Redneck cracker may or may not be an insult, and if I knew what you meant by it, I may or may not actually be one.

Just to help you out, you may want to consider that it means something, especially in politics, to possess civility. And on that point, some societies are more civilized than others.

“Just to help you out, you may want to consider that it means something, especially in politics, to possess civility.”

Ah. “Civility”, of course, being exemplified by continuing to use terminology offensive to the group you’re discussing? Or accusing me of lying about my wife? Just curious about where you set the bar, George.

“The treaties are not rental or lease agreements, the land was ceded and the Indians were/are compensated—reserves being part of this compensation.”

Wrong, George. Compensation neogitated in perpetuity, George…as long as the rivers flow and grass grows.”

“Those of your persuasion simply want to continue throwing money at problems that won’t be solved by throwing money at them.”

Sorry, George. I realize that going further than the standard Conservative talking points would actually require some familiarity with the issue. Until you do that, all I can suggest is that you read the Auditor General’s Report (you know, that really smart, nice lady that you like to quote when she slams the Liberals?) on the implementation of Land Claims: she notes that INAC has simply refused to honour its agreements, and that all of the treaty and Claims measures designed to develop Aboriginal economic self sufficiency have been stalled by INAC’s failure.

Put simply, George: First Nations and Inuit agreed to allow Canada to access their land for specific considerations…a good metaphor would be that they agreed to trade access in exchange for a car and a lifetime supply of gas. Then they refused to provide the gas. You and your Conservative friends are now standing on the sidelines screaming at the First Nations because the car’s not moving.

Canada agreed to provide the gas. Canada didn’t. Clear enough?

“Your distinction between assimilation and adaptation is spurious at best.”

One sentence evasive cliches that don’t address the point raised are pointless at best…and at worst, indicative of a shallow ideologue for whom this whole issue is a high school exercise in theory and rhetorical point scoring, and nothing to do with real life.

“As for sovereign nations, Indians have never recieved the status conferred by the Treaty of Westphalia.”

Ummm…thanks for providing us with one of the most limited definitions of “nationhood” I’ve ever seen. It serves your purposes, I suppose.

“In any case, I find that the term Indian is correct and awakens a certain forthrightness and honesty on this subject.:

You’re a rude and arrogant person, and like many such folks, you convince yourself that there’s something “refreshingly honest” about your rudeness and arrogance. That’s fine. I’ve met folks like you all my life, and I expect to meet more. Just don’t sermonize about “civility”. That’s a little bit more hypocrisy than I can stomach.

In that case, Balb, you’re going to have to patronize me and clarify what it is you think Flanagan means when he uses the term “assimilate.”

Ian, sometimes I think these right wing-nuts are so tight and liniar with their thinking that they must walk around with wedgies. That might also explain some stuff.

It’s wierd but this person is describing me, my children, family, and friends as being like him - an assimilated drone. I gag. However, I take great pleasure when reading his nonsense noting how different we actually are.

Alone each is harmless as a mass they are frightening.

“I’d be really interested to know how a term that grew out of a misunderstanding about geography has any forthrightness and honesty attached to it.”

I can think of a couple of venues I’d like to invite George to, in which he can inspire some forthrightness and honesty, and experience a bit of free and frank response from those less sophisticated in their ironic deployment of colonial vocabulary than he.

Sorry, I meant to provide a link to George’s profundity for your collective delectation and admiration: http://ianism.com/?p=41#comments

My thinking exactly. And don’t forget to frame the presentation with George’s views on cannibalism and anal sex.

I would have expanded on that a bit Mike

The Manitoba Métis Federation says an e-mail written by a Conservative candidate in Manitoba contains a threat about the implications of endorsing the Liberals during this election campaign.
The e-mail was written by Inky Mark, the incumbent candidate in Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette, to David Chartrand, the president of the MMF.

In it, Mark expresses surprise over the MMF’s endorsement of the Liberals. Mark says, “taking sides will hurt you and your organization sooner or later.”

(emphasis mine)

I wonder if he feels the same way about CPoC endorsements by other groups or if it’s simply a case of “vote CPoC or else”?

Apparently this is the full text of Inky’s e-mail:

Hi David.

I’m surprised that you would take a partisan position again in this election. I’m told by your members that MMF is supposed to be non-political.

I don’t need to tell you that taking sides will only hurt you and your organization sooner or later.

Métis people in Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette think for themselves.

Cheers, Inky.

My thinking too StageLeft. Damit..I think I might have to change my vote again!