George Orwell said that all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
This certainly seems to apply to Canada's first nations people, who receive something like $8 billion dollars per year in care-and-handling and handouts courtesy of the eternally patient Canadian taxpayer. While these subsidies make it onto the reserves, apparently no taxation flows out -- status Indians living on reserves pay no taxes (at least this is my understanding). Even if they have a good job in town! Plus they get free university tuition, etc. etc. etc.
The American Revolution was kicked off with the slogan, "no taxation without representation". Here, we have something like the opposite situation: representation, and welfare rights, and subsidy entitlements, without taxation or responsibilities to contribute to the greater society.
This can't go on forever.
A lot of it is guilt-based. As in, "when our European ancestors stole the land from the Indians."
Was it theft?
When the first European settlers arrived in the territories that now constitute Canada, there were absolutely no laws prohibiting or restricting immigration to the area.
So our European ancestors broke no laws by settling here. They had just as much right to immigrate to this vast territory as the Indians; to suggest otherwise would be racist.
When they came, they brought European views of law, land ownership, etc. These views prevailed, and the country of Canada is the result.
What to do?
It is time to end the apartheid, make first nations full Canadians equal to everybody else, under the same laws and system of government.
Either abolish the reserves, or, if first nations wish to retain them, make it clear that the arm of the Canadian welfare state stops at the entrance to the reserve.
If first nations people wish to share in the privileges of the socialist state, it's time for them to also accept the responsibilities.
I hope I am not being unkind in saying this. It is not my intent.
I believe it is best for all concerned.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
12 comments:
The native people are playing the victim card. It is a popular way to gain funding. Many loony advocate groups have become very good at it.
Unfortunately, the victimized group to which I belong, Taxpayers Anonymous, never seems to elicit any sympathy.
The general consensus seems to be that we should negotiate with the aboriginals.
In exchange for a peaceful solution we should give them Toronto.
It looks like the people of Caledonia are getting fed up.
Who is giving the orders so that the police are defending the lawbreaking Indians?
If anyone else blocked railways and roads they would be dealt with promptly.
Why are the citizens who pay the taxes for the police and also are forced to pay for the non-taxpaying deadbeat Indians being prevented from using the public roads?
Caledonia dispute
There were no laws !?!?!?! . Europeans did not see the laws. Indians were too weak to supress the european invasion. Even animals has boundary and don't allow others to get in. Just because you don't know, it does not make it right.
There were no laws !?!?!?!
There was no "rule of law". Indians came to NA in various waves of immigration. The first wave did not restrict the second wave; the second wave did not restrict the third wave, etc. Where there were disputes, they were solved by negotiation or warfare. NA was "open". So, when the Europeans came, they simply represented the next wave of immigration.
To say, then, that all ethnic Indians had a right to immigrate, but non-Indians did not, would be discrimination based on race and ethnic background, would it not?
Would it not be racist, in an open territory, to exclude persons by race or ethnic background?
"Indians were too weak to suppress the European invasion".
You may believe this, but according to the Indians' own testimony, they believed in sharing the land, welcomed the Europeans, and did not view the Europeans as "invaders".
Prakash, all I'm trying to do is provide a fresh perspective.
I realize that the native communities suffered in many ways, from disease, displacement etc. However, the arrival of Europeans also brought many, many benefits. Few natives would exchange modern day life for a life of hunting-and-gathering.
I welcome your comments and thank you for them.
>>Would it not be racist, in an open >>territory, to exclude persons by >>race or ethnic background?
I agree but Only if the supressed race has become powerful (economically as well as politically) enough to compete with the rest.
"I agree but Only if the supressed race has become powerful (economically as well as politically) enough to compete with the rest."
The unspoken subtext, of course, is that the European culture, with its laws, technology, books, was in fact vastly more developed, more advanced, "superior" if you will, than that of the Indians.
How did it get that way?
Western culture thrived and has become incredibly prosperous by progressing and adapting, by importing ideas, technologies, etc. from other cultures.
Indians appear to want to have some kind of freeze-dried culture based on ways of life from 400 years ago. If the same had been applied to my ancestors, I wouldn't speak English, I wouldn't be a Christian, and I'd be stuck in some kind of primitive Celtic pagan culture. Thank God that there was no government programs back then insisting that my ancestors had to identify with the Celtic collective and retain their Celtic ways, and to nurse eternal grievances against the arriving Romans or whomever were supplanting the indigenous culture.
For better or worse, the anglo-saxon culture is here (Canada), it is dominant, and, with its marvellous technological development and prosperity, it is greatly to be preferred to a primitive pre-western Indian culture.
Of course, it is considered impolite to say such things.
But...
What Indian would want to give up prescription lens, snowmobiles, off-track vehicles, motorized boats, modern medicines, central heating, books, higher education, healthcare, roads, etc. etc. etc. etc. for the life they had before europeans arrived?
Again, I acknowledge that many Indians suffered. On PEI where I live, a whole tribe became extinct through disease. The coming of the white man was a mixed blessing, but, on the whole, it was a good thing.
And certainly, after 400 years of being here, non-natives surely have a right to this country without being accused of being usurpers who "stole" the land from the Indians (which was what prompted my point about their being no laws prohibiting immigration).
And Indians have a full right to participate in Canadian society. I just wish more would choose this route, rather than the self-imposed segregation and futility of life on a reservation. Undemocratic. No personal land ownership. Collecting welfare. Nursing collective grievances. Housing that degenerates into slums. Disfunctional; lacking even the basic skills of a municipality. Rampant sexual promiscuity and abuse, fetal alchohol syndrome, drunkenness, drugs, suicide, despair.
It's not a pretty sight.
How can we love them?
By encouraging them to give up their fantasy of being independent nations and joining the 21st century as Canadians among other Canadians. By "tough love" -- an end to perpetual welfare and a sense of perpetual entitlement. By ending the reservation system in favour of individual land ownership.
The best thing that ever happened to the Indians was the bringing of the gospel of Jesus Christ to their communities. Many Indians are faithful members of Christian churches, and I acknowledge them as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Off topic, but I am astounded at how small the world has become when a blogger from southern India will respond to your article.
Can you tell me how you are qualified to make a statement "superior if you will, than that of the Indians" ? Meaning, Have you had read any of literatures that discuss about their ethics and laws and all ?. May be they took a different route, which you don't understand.
Let us take India/any Buddhist countries as example. The core system (Hindusim and Buddhuism) accepts that this world is unsatisfactory and desire/hatred are seeds for suffereing. Without desire, their wont be much economical power (in other words this-is-enough-for-me attitude). Without hatred, their won't be much violence (These countries concentrate on defence than offence). Obviously the system took a different route. Westerners can call the east indians as cowards (as they don't go for fighting most of the times), they can call, stupid pagans (as most of them practise simple pagan life).
Also, Can you guys use some other word to differentiate the real indians (i.e., east indians) with the red indians.
"Have you had read any of literatures that discuss about their ethics and laws and all ?."
They didn't have any "literature"; western civilization had had literature for thousands of years -- that's a cultural difference right there.
And they didn't have any "laws", at least not in the formal written sense that western countries had had for millenia.
And they didn't have science, or the scientific method, which underpinned western innovation and invention.
I know enough about native American culture to know that it was not the rosy peace-with-nature ideal that has been pictured by western sentimentalists. I have seen photographs of Indians being swung with hooks through their breasts. To my mind, that is barbaric. (Not to say that western man also is incapable of barbarism.)
Hinduism/Buddhism
I studied and considered both systems as part of my quest for reality in university. Both view the world as evil, desire in particular, and view cessation of desire as a good thing.
Fine, except I discovered I was unable to control or eliminate my selfish, self-centred desires. I was a wretched man! And I prayed, "who can save me from this wretchedness".
Then I discovered Jesus. He said, "except a grain of wheat falls into the ground and die, it abides alone, but if it does die it bears much fruit" -- thus encompassing and surpassing the wisdom of the east.
He also said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me".
He provided me a way "out". Indeed, he himself is the way. And ultimate reality is not impersonal as in Buddhism; it is personal and relational, as Jesus called God his Father.
And so, the truth is, ultimate reality is relational, and ultimate religion is based on relationships -- towards one another, but, most importantly, towards God Himself.
And, in learning all of this, I also learned that God's will is not the cessation of all desire, but the crucifixion of sinful desires, and the birth of good, natural, healthy, and righteous desires through the rebirth that comes from trusting in Christ.
Far better to be an apostle Paul, engaged with the world, bettering it, than a Buddhist or Hindu monk, selfishly concentrating on his own salvation to the exclusion of all else and all others.
God comes to redeem this fallen world, not cancel it, or annihilate it, or negate it.
Here's some lyrics from a song:
I could follow the Buddah
Learn to ignore the pain
If life's an illusion, reincarnation is more of the same
I could follow the eightfold path
But even if I do
I could never be worthy, Lord, of you
Prakash, good to hear from you! How are things going with you?
>>>They didn't have any "literature"; western civilization had had literature for thousands of years -- that's a cultural difference right there.
If you go by this argument, then eastern "civilzation" is older than western. Then we shd call you guys barbaric. Logic/Infinity concepts were existed 3000 years back in India (in vedas/mahabaratha/ramayana) . "Thirukural" was written 2000 years back. still I don't see any other literature that deals with ethics to this extent( and still applies to the whole universe.)
>>>I studied and considered both systems as part of my quest for reality in university. Both view the world as evil, desire in particular, and view cessation of desire as a good thing.
Both system does n't view world as evil. Their is no Satan. It views good/bad relatively not as a static view as in Christianity. It views world as unsatisfactory and provides way for "ultimate satisfation". it tells desire leads to desire, you can never satisfy by holding a desire. All it says is to do good, don't judge others (karma), meditation is the path to God.
>>>Then I discovered Jesus. He said, "except a grain of wheat falls into the ground and die, it abides alone, but if it does die it bears much fruit" -- thus encompassing and surpassing the wisdom of the east.
Jesus is from east (present day middle east).
>>>Far better to be an apostle Paul, engaged with the world, bettering it, than a Buddhist or Hindu monk, selfishly concentrating on his own salvation to the exclusion of all else and all others.
Both system beleive in Karma. so it beleives a man can not be forced to get enlightened. over the period of rebirths, he will be enlightened (accoring to the system). so it beleives in providing direction, not pushin him in that direction. These system says accumulating good deeds also won't lead salvation (end up in good birth). so it insists on meditating.
Hinduism says everyone is god. Bagavat Gita says, "He is one and in everyone". This is same as the holy ghost concept.
Poem is nice. that is the truth. Hinduism and Buddhism are not real religions. you can be Christian and yet be Buddhist or Hindu. Buddhism is more simple and clean form of Hinduism I guess. All it says is to meditate.
Guide to meditation
1) Forgive all your enemies
2) Forgive yourself ( By acknowledge your fault and feel sorry to Jesus or any God u beleive or urself )
3) Deviate from big desires
4) concentrate on one thing (Can be Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Rose)
I don't think above guidelines contradicts to any religion.
If you go by this argument, then eastern "civilzation" is older than western. Then we shd call you guys barbaric.
The point is, western civilization absorbs the best from other cultures; it is not static.
>>>I studied and considered both systems as part of my quest for reality in university. Both view the world as evil, desire in particular, and view cessation of desire as a good thing.
All it says is to do good, don't judge others (karma), meditation is the path to God.
Except it isn't.
Jesus is from east (present day middle east).
And the Church encompasses both the east and the west.
Hinduism says everyone is god. Bagavat Gita says, "He is one and in everyone". This is same as the holy ghost concept.
It is not. The holy Spirit is God's Spirit; He inspires trust in Jesus and inhabits those who accept Him. Buddhism and Hinduism are false.
Poem is nice. that is the truth. Hinduism and Buddhism are not real religions. you can be Christian and yet be Buddhist or Hindu. Buddhism is more simple and clean form of Hinduism I guess. All it says is to meditate.
You cannot be Christian -- believing that Jesus is, exclusively, the way, the truth and the life, and also be a Buddhist (who doesn't even acknowledge the existence of God, or a Hindu (who believes in a myriad of gods.) These are mutually exclusive options.
Guide to meditation
1) Forgive all your enemies
2) Forgive yourself ( By acknowledge your fault and feel sorry to Jesus or any God u beleive or urself )
3) Deviate from big desires
4) concentrate on one thing (Can be Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Rose)
I don't think above guidelines contradicts to any religion.
They contradict Christianity, which teaches that man is moste emphatically not saved based on meditiation or good works, but by trusting something that has been done on his behalf.
You cannot meditate your way either to God or heaven, because your sins have separated you from a holy God. God provides faith in Jesus Christ as the way, and the only way, to God and heaven.
Post a Comment