Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Supreme Court approves development on Native sacred land


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 02 November 2017 - 05:48 PM

Supreme Court ruling removes barrier for year-round ski resort on sacred First Nation land

Quote

Building a large ski resort on B.C. land considered sacred to a First Nation does not breach religious rights, the Supreme Court of Canada says in a decision released Thursday.

The Ktunaxa believe the project will drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat'muk, the traditional name for the spiritual territory, and permanently impair their religious beliefs and spiritual practices.

Interpreting the scope of religious protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court said those protections include freedom to hold such beliefs and manifest those beliefs, but do not extend to the protection of sacred sites.

The nine justices were unanimous in the decision to reject the Ktunaxa appeal on grounds of public interest,
….
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde said the decision reflects a need for judges and legislators to more deeply understand traditions of First Nations people, who see ceremonies as inextricably linked to the land and water.
...
Despite the court ruling, the project still has to clear environmental and other regulatory hurdles in order to proceed.

Anyone think that if this was a Christian sacred site that this would have happened?
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#2 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 02 November 2017 - 10:56 PM

This is happening in the US, too, with national parks and traditional native lands, grave sites, etc.

Here in Saskatchewan, much of our remained wilderness, forests, natural grasslands, and marshlands, are in the process of being auctioned off.

That's what happens when you leave swine in charge of the pearls.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#3 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,258 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:26 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 02 November 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

Supreme Court ruling removes barrier for year-round ski resort on sacred First Nation land

Quote

Building a large ski resort on B.C. land considered sacred to a First Nation does not breach religious rights, the Supreme Court of Canada says in a decision released Thursday.

The Ktunaxa believe the project will drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat'muk, the traditional name for the spiritual territory, and permanently impair their religious beliefs and spiritual practices.

Interpreting the scope of religious protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court said those protections include freedom to hold such beliefs and manifest those beliefs, but do not extend to the protection of sacred sites.

The nine justices were unanimous in the decision to reject the Ktunaxa appeal on grounds of public interest,
….
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde said the decision reflects a need for judges and legislators to more deeply understand traditions of First Nations people, who see ceremonies as inextricably linked to the land and water.
...
Despite the court ruling, the project still has to clear environmental and other regulatory hurdles in order to proceed.

Anyone think that if this was a Christian sacred site that this would have happened?

I think the question is misguided.  Christian "sacred sites" are bound to a sense of history.  This is where X happened, and this is where Y happened.  And Christian belief in the Divine permits that the Divine transcends the physical.  That largely means that a statue can be erected in the spot to mark the history and thereby honor the occasion.  Even in Catholic systems of belief (and this I say by way of observation, having never been Catholic) - the spot will retain its spirituality regardless of what is built on the spot (and statuary built on the spot can be more sacred than the spot).

Conversely, Native American beliefs hold that the spirit is intrinsically linked to the natural world - it is not transcendent - OR if there is a belief in a transcendent God (Great Spirit) it does not supersede the intrinsic spiritual qualities of the natural environment.  So - the value systems are different.  And yes - if it were a "Christian site" I am pretty sure it would have gone the same way, because the Christian system does not contradict a fundamental outlook of American land use - namely that land needs to be used for something.  Leaving the land to nature when something needs to be built would require a value system that places the spirit IN the land, as opposed to in an object which can be erected alongside a shopping mall (for instance).

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#4 G-man

G-man

    Is there a problem?

  • Moderator
  • 8,261 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:02 AM

^^^ A point in support:  In my neighborhood, a local church was torn down and they are building an apartment building on its lot.  Mind you, I don't know just how active the church was, but it pretty much had been a feature of the neighborhood for as long as I can remember.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself

Edited by G-man, 03 November 2017 - 11:03 AM.

Let me strive every moment of my life to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, so that all may profit by it.
Let me think of the right and lend my assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice.
Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.
Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens, and my associates in everything I say and do.
Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.
-- Doc Savage

Few people want to be moderated, most people see the need for everyone else to be moderated. -- Orpheus

#5 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:01 PM

You can't lump all North American native beliefs together. They entail vast cultural differences, and many, many beliefs.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#6 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:56 PM

View Postgsmonks, on 02 November 2017 - 10:56 PM, said:

This is happening in the US, too, with national parks and traditional native lands, grave sites, etc.

Here in Saskatchewan, much of our remained wilderness, forests, natural grasslands, and marshlands, are in the process of being auctioned off.

That's what happens when you leave swine in charge of the pearls.

I know, this is the probably the 10,000th lyrical stanza of the same dysfunctional ballad, and I don't expect it to end soon…. I read two books in the last 20 years that gave much more knowledge about this than all my years of schooling:
The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America by Thomas King
Where the Lightning Strikes: The Lives of American Indian Sacred Places by Peter Nabokov

The second one (which I read first) is specifically about American Indian/First Nation's Sacred Places, so really relevant to the topic actually, now that I think about it.
It introduced me to a new term: non-human persons.

Edited by sierraleone, 03 November 2017 - 01:57 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#7 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 01:59 PM

View PostG-man, on 03 November 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

^^^ A point in support:  In my neighborhood, a local church was torn down and they are building an apartment building on its lot.  Mind you, I don't know just how active the church was, but it pretty much had been a feature of the neighborhood for as long as I can remember.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself

When I think of sacred, I wasn't thinking Church's, because I know decisions going into maintenance and building/demolishing those all the time. I was thinking more of where people pilgrimage (and Native American's have their own places they pilgrimage to, depending on tribe). There aren't many well-known Christian sacred places like that in the U.S.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#8 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 02:55 PM

I am not feeling well today, so my apologies in advance if I make less sense than normal ;)

View PostQueenTiye, on 03 November 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

Quote

Anyone think that if this was a Christian sacred site that this would have happened?

I think the question is misguided.

At first I thought we were pretty far apart, and now I am not so sure.

Do you consider this either justice, or at least a fair and impartial process and therefor close enough? Or not?

Quote

Christian "sacred sites" are bound to a sense of history.  This is where X happened, and this is where Y happened.  And Christian belief in the Divine permits that the Divine transcends the physical.  That largely means that a statue can be erected in the spot to mark the history and thereby honor the occasion.  Even in Catholic systems of belief (and this I say by way of observation, having never been Catholic) - the spot will retain its spirituality regardless of what is built on the spot (and statuary built on the spot can be more sacred than the spot).

Or where they *think* or *believed* something happened in their history. The place it is believe Abraham almost scarified Isaac is considered sacred. I am sure there is a lot more history, both real and believed, tied up in the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

I think a better parallel would be imaging their sacred land as being their sacred texts. Their spirituality and religion is so tied up in being connected to the natural land, and typically not having a written language, to them their oral (and life-style) traditions are near wholly tied up in the land and vice-versa.

And when it comes to history history…. oral history is not as unreliable as the layman believes. Think of bards(?) from the middle ages having to memorize epic ballads perfectly… Native Americans/First Nations had to do the same, and treated such tasks with great respect as their identity as a people depended on it.



Quote

Conversely, Native American beliefs hold that the spirit is intrinsically linked to the natural world - it is not transcendent - OR if there is a belief in a transcendent God (Great Spirit) it does not supersede the intrinsic spiritual qualities of the natural environment.  So - the value systems are different. And yes - if it were a "Christian site" I am pretty sure it would have gone the same way, because the Christian system does not contradict a fundamental outlook of American land use - namely that land needs to be used for something.  Leaving the land to nature when something needs to be built would require a value system that places the spirit IN the land, as opposed to in an object which can be erected alongside a shopping mall (for instance).

QT

I am not sure what your point is, other than trying to further point out that you think my question was misguided ;)

Are you saying your perception of their non-Abrahamic value systems being different justifies giving it less importance or weight when discussing accommodating their beliefs?

Even when Native American/First Nation history is manifested in the environment (rock paintings/carvings, earth mounds, etc), some people will treat such things with disrespect and vandalism, and I'd imagine that the resources the government puts to protect those sites are much less than to protect other sites deemed important.

Also, I don't think Mormons would want a government filled with non-Mormon people decide what to do with their sacred places. (The only other religion I can think of that started on American soil…. Well, other than Scientology, but I respect them and their beliefs about as much as snake-oil salesmen…). And while the Mormons have had issues with the government before (polygamy), I don't think it would ever now occur to the government to tear down or modify a Mormon sacred place. Luckily for them they are the majority in the state government of Utah at least, though I understand they have special religious sites outside of Utah also.


My own thoughts on this…. This does exactly have to do with value systems, and not just religious or spiritual ones, but cultural ones, economic ones, demographic ones. I read an interesting science-fiction book recently that had some alien aliens in it, and one species was intelligent but due to its psychology it never developed math but great at moral/ethical quandaries. Anyways, a human and another math-inclined-species alien postulated that maybe their own species were often stymied on ethics because of their brains being more geared towards math, and that moral/ethical quandaries were through of through the prism of mathematical problems (just think of the cliche/classic "Trolley problem").


The idea that we can look at situations like this in a-historical way, using a justice system designed not only without their values or meaningful input, but designed against them? I think that is folly.

Is the Native American/First Nation religious/cultural value system incompatible with the U.S. and Canadian cultural/institutional value system? If so, what does that mean, that the Native American/First Nation have to accommodate the U.S./Canada values forever? Isn't that what they have been doing for 500 years? When does the favour get returned?

Speaking of values… The court decided it was in the public interest to go forward.
Who defines public interest?
Does not meeting that definition mean that something, especially involving nominally public land, was a wrong decision?
What does that mean, once you analyze it?
Is it just me that hears in public interest at least some of the following:

non-Native/First Nation (including ignore the history that deprived them of this land)
free market-fundamentalism
economic growth &/or greed is good
development/resorts/recreation/tourism is more important than conservation and sacred places

Yes, those values are in opposition to many traditional beliefs, and not just Native Americans'/First Nations'.

Edited by sierraleone, 03 November 2017 - 03:02 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#9 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,258 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:00 PM

Oh dear... I didn't read your whole post just enough to see I was misunderstood.

I'm not saying I see the situation as just or unjust.  I'm saying (more or less) that I agree with the person in the article you quoted who said people need to be educated on Native American beliefs.  The unanimous decision suggests (to me) a flawed understanding of the Native American outlook.  The justices believed that Native American beliefs are not being violated.  THat suggests (to me) a clash of world views).

Be back soon as I can to properly read your post, but wanted to get that in for now.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#10 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:27 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on 03 November 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

Oh dear... I didn't read your whole post just enough to see I was misunderstood.

I'm not saying I see the situation as just or unjust.  I'm saying (more or less) that I agree with the person in the article you quoted who said people need to be educated on Native American beliefs.  The unanimous decision suggests (to me) a flawed understanding of the Native American outlook.  The justices believed that Native American beliefs are not being violated.  THat suggests (to me) a clash of world views).

Be back soon as I can to properly read your post, but wanted to get that in for now.

QT

Thank you :) I am glad to have read your first post twice over and realizing that my original read on it wasn't as clear as I thought it was, but I had no idea you were just agreeing that people need to be educated on Native American/First Nation's traditional belief systems.

I think it is more than just a clash of world views though… Our governments tend to be *very* wary of deciding what is legitimate religious belief, because it is so personal (is it based on textual/oral history, leaders communications, is it common, or is it one's own personal and atypical interpretation?) because they do not want to be the arbiter of valid/legitimate/authentic religiosity. If someone says the government is impinging on their religious beliefs, the courts will try to let them have their way, unless it is impinging on others' rights, then they will try to balance if possible.

So why are they not so wary in shooting down Native American spiritual beliefs? (This isn't the first time, though maybe land and land-use issues are the most contentious).

I just think Native American/First Nations beliefs have a unique place between having developed here. (and Mormon's, but their idea of sacred places is much closer to the Christian tradition, and is much less threatening to other "American values" like businesses, development, and profit. I wouldn't be surprised if Mormons are making money having their sites be tourist draws).

Between the relationships they developed with the environment, which they depended on for life, it is not surprising that they 'anthropomorphized' and 'deified' natural places. Though I don't know that they wouldn't have followed the path of the middle east if they had such a bounty of readily domesticable animals.

Though I like to say we all live off the land…. It is just that some of us outsource the work and pay someone else to do it.
The environments, and land-use issue, should therefor matter to all of us.

Edited by sierraleone, 03 November 2017 - 06:28 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#11 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 09:31 PM

I don't like what is happening, but I will say it doesn't just happen to the Native Americans, and it doesn't surprise me. When the government or a big company decides something, it seems nothing else matters.
In the 90's, they began planning to replace the two lane highway with a four lane. In the path of this change, was a 100 year farm. To me, the obvious choice was to move the highway a bit north, leave the historic farm alone. To the planners of this highway, that wasn't an option because it would place a slight, very slight curve in the road and they were proud of that straight stretch. The people in several counties objected, screamed, complained, but the road went through the historic farm, which meant it was no longer on the historic registry.

No one in the government cared, not even Grassley who makes big claims about caring for the farmer.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#12 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 06:27 AM

^ I don't doubt that that happens, heck something similar happened here regarding a 100 year old family farm and a military base expansion.

I doubt it would have happened if these farms were where Joseph Smith, founder of LDS/Mormonism, lived and wrote the Book or Mormon, and these places were held by the Mormons to be sacred. Of course Mormons have plenty of powerful influential friends in high places, in the business world and the political world.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#13 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 12:00 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

^ I don't doubt that that happens, heck something similar happened here regarding a 100 year old family farm and a military base expansion.

I doubt it would have happened if these farms were where Joseph Smith, founder of LDS/Mormonism, lived and wrote the Book or Mormon, and these places were held by the Mormons to be sacred. Of course Mormons have plenty of powerful influential friends in high places, in the business world and the political world.

Which is my point. It's not religion/beliefs, it's money. If someone of power lived on that farm, say Grassley, the highway would have gone around. If the Native Americans had millionaires in control of Qat'muk, the land wouldn't be touched. It's not the people, it's the poverty. Governments can run right over them any time they wish.

Back again to that highway, one of the original plan options was to run that highway through my mother's land. If they had decided on that option, there would have been nothing we could have done, nor any of the neighbors, to stop it. This is wrong. Right of eminent domain is used (which was used on the 100 yr. farm) even when it isn't a necessity. In my opinion, it is more often than not, used to steal land to profit those that already have more than they need.

huh, do I sound bitter? Because, I kind of am.
:lol:
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#14 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 01:03 PM

View PostElara, on 04 November 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

It's not the people, it's the poverty. Governments can run right over them any time they wish.

Back again to that highway, one of the original plan options was to run that highway through my mother's land. If they had decided on that option, there would have been nothing we could have done, nor any of the neighbors, to stop it. This is wrong. Right of eminent domain is used (which was used on the 100 yr. farm) even when it isn't a necessity. In my opinion, it is more often than not, used to steal land to profit those that already have more than they need.

huh, do I sound bitter? Because, I kind of am.
:lol:

Not that it makes much of a different to poor white people, but considering Native Americans/First Nation as an ethnic group have been forced into poverty as a whole (even compared to their hunter-gatherer-agricultural economic systems… they at least had access to the most productive land. And especially compared to their present day neighbours for all sorts of historical reasons)… I could see a poor Christian church in a poor white neighbourhood being demolished, which would probably be a decision the larger denomination made not the local neighbourhood… But never would you have most Christian churches under threat. Yes, though, injustice is injustice, whether it is micro or macro. I just don't think trying to point out the micro injustices when people try to point out the macro ones is very useful.


Eminent domain though, I agree, is awfully abused, against anyone deemed powerless. It shouldn't just be use because special, or even public, interests want development in general, or want specific infrastructure in a specific location. A 'useful' way the government has taken away Native Americans'/First Nations' treaty lands, sacred lands, and sacred medicines is dams. Damned dams. This has also had the effect on affecting their hunting, fishing, and gathering treaty rights, on grounds that were "no longer theirs" but that by treaty that they were to continue to have access to to continue their traditional hunting and gathering.

I remember reading about another case along those lines, but with regard to oil and gas development… I don't think a decision has been made yet. Ah, here is an article on it, almost exactly a year old, in The Globe and Mail: First Nations fight to halt resource development in northern B.C.

Quote

The Blueberry River First Nations are arguing in court that based on promises made by the Crown in 1899, resource development should be halted in a huge swath of northeast British Columbia, an area that encompases some of the most intense oil and gas, pipeline and logging activity in the province.

In an injunction application made Monday in the Supreme Court of B.C. the BRFN seek to protect hunting, trapping and fishing rights which they say were guaranteed by Treaty 8 more than 100 years ago. They claim those rights are now being destroyed by the cumulative impact of developments.

Judges would always let each small pieces of development proposed that came up go ahead, generally arguing that small small development would have very minimal impact. But over time all these developments have had a greater impact over all.

Quote

In the area, there are currently about 16,000 oil and gas wells, 28,000 kms of pipelines, 5,000 km2 of logging cut blocks and 45,000 kms of roads. Since 2012, the province has authorized in the area the construction of more than 2,600 new oil and gas wells and the building of 1,500 kms of pipelines.
​….
BRFN lawyer Maegen Giltrow told court that many areas within the traditional territory of the bands are "perceived as being spoiled or unsafe" because of industrial activity.
​….
Ms. Giltrow said sites that have lost game are described as having "gone dark" by BRFN members and that darkness has been spreading rapidly across the landscape near Fort St. John where they live.
….
Ms. Giltrow told court that already about 84 per cent of the BRFN traditional lands are within 500 metres [~1/3 of a mile] of some kind of development.


​ETA: Here is a slightly more updated article on that on CBC from Jun of this year, looks like the dispute is headed to civil court March 2018. From there:

Quote

Even when animals are found, elders refuse to eat the meat, after having watched them lick chemicals from old flare pits.
​….
The case will be heard in the spring of 2018 and watched carefully by all sides — to see if this First Nation can draw a line that truly protects treaty rights before industrial damage renders them meaningless.

Edited by sierraleone, 04 November 2017 - 03:01 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#15 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 02:03 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 04 November 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Not that it makes much of a different to poor white people, but considering Native Americans/First Nation as an ethnic group have been forced into poverty as a whole (even compared to their hunter-gatherer-agricultural economic systems… they at least had access to the most productive land. And especially compared to their present day neighbours for all sorts of historical reasons)… I could see a poor Christian church in a poor white neighbourhood being demolished, which would probably be a decision the larger denomination made not the local neighbourhood… But never would you have most Christian churches under threat. Yes, though, injustice is injustice, whether it is micro or macro. I just don't think trying to point out the micro injustices when people try to point out the macro ones is very useful.

Small injustices lead to big injustices.

What I have said has not taken away from what you have said, it was just to point out that it happens to everyone, people just don't take notice of the little ones. And the little ones are as important as the big ones, because until we fix one, we won't fix any.

To give an example of a wealthy Native American *settlement. The same highway mentioned above, as it was built in front of their casino, was adjusted over because they didn't want the casino traffic slowed down when the second lane went in. They even prevented the fix that was to be put into place to smooth the transition from the rest of the highway to the part in front of their casino. This is why I said:

Quote

If the Native Americans had millionaires in control of Qat'muk, the land wouldn't be touched.


It is important to know it is money that moves or stops projects. All people forced into poverty share the same lack of power over their lives.

Now, since you do not appreciate what I have said, I will stop. I apologize for taking the discussion in a direction that you dislike.

* They were encouraged by the local white people to own their land (state law passed to allow this). Not saying it was all peaches and cream between the peoples, but it was good that the non-Native Americans wanted more for the Native Americans (as told to me by a Native American friend, not anything I read in a paper).

I want to add that I found the rest of your post interesting. I will have to watch for new developments in that case.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#16 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 03:28 PM

View PostElara, on 04 November 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Small injustices lead to big injustices.

What I have said has not taken away from what you have said, it was just to point out that it happens to everyone, people just don't take notice of the little ones. And the little ones are as important as the big ones, because until we fix one, we won't fix any.

To give an example of a wealthy Native American *settlement. The same highway mentioned above, as it was built in front of their casino, was adjusted over because they didn't want the casino traffic slowed down when the second lane went in. They even prevented the fix that was to be put into place to smooth the transition from the rest of the highway to the part in front of their casino. This is why I said:

Quote

If the Native Americans had millionaires in control of Qat'muk, the land wouldn't be touched.


It is important to know it is money that moves or stops projects. All people forced into poverty share the same lack of power over their lives.

Now, since you do not appreciate what I have said, I will stop. I apologize for taking the discussion in a direction that you dislike.


I don't think I should have used the term micro or macro. I generally agree with your point. One could call people in poverty a class of people too, just not as readily identifiable as an ethnicity, and the roots of their poverty may not be as obviously tied to other groupings of people you could claim them as.

I find it frustrating when people are having a discussion about a specific issue, and people say, well look at our problems! And the previous problem is often (though not always) discarded. Like BLM bringing up the issues affecting them disportionately, and some people who are either anti-BLM, or indifferent/ignorant/etc, don't discuss solutions but either blame BLM (black on black violence is a bigger issue! Focus on that, not on cops!), or make it about themselves (police brutalize white people too!). Not that I am pointing the finger at you accusingly and making you out to be a bad actor, just that this kind of thing happens frequently enough across conversations and it becomes a tad tiring.

In some ways, other than discrimination and institution bias, there are ways to tackle issues that affect people who are black or white at the same time. True, over-policing, police brutality, over-charging, too long-sentencing, the war on drugs, may impacts people who are black (and indigenous) disproportionately. And police reform, justice reform, and anti-poverty initiatives maybe positively affect people of all 'races'. Though we should listen to different groups who might need slightly different reforms on things that impact them disportionately (which could likely be made applicable to everyone for everyone's benefit).

However, whatever reforms and initiatives that are made for the average powerless U.S./Canadian citizens would not work as well on Native Americans/First Nations, because of the history of the treaties, reservations, and how they work (or don't). And talking about getting rid of the treaties as a 'solution' is a non-starter for most Native Americans/First Nations. So I think it is especially strange to imply that if we fix systemic issues that address poverty for people who don't have a relationship to the U.S./Canadian government involves treaties and reservations that it also help those that do have such a relationship with the U.S./Canada. They would probably only help non-status Natives/Indigenous.

I don't say this to argue with you, but just to explain, as I understand it, how the systematic issues affecting the Natives/Indigenous may not have the same or similar solutions to those affecting 'official' non-Natives. Other than more resources :) The difference is more structural and rigid due to the treaty and reservation system. One can't just response that poverty is bad, and what will fix non-Native/Indigenous poverty will fix Native/Indigenous poverty, whereas you *might*, relatively, be able to say that about other groups in America, assuming non-reservation impoverished areas were equitable helped. Anyways I think I have written enough about my thinking on this :)

Quote

* They were encouraged by the local white people to own their land (state law passed to allow this). Not saying it was all peaches and cream between the peoples, but it was good that the non-Native Americans wanted more for the Native Americans (as told to me by a Native American friend, not anything I read in a paper).


Thank you for that feel-good story :)

It is certainly not all bad. Since there is such diversity about Native American Tribes/First Nations there are certainly cases of some success stories, and others not so much.


Quote

I want to add that I found the rest of your post interesting. I will have to watch for new developments in that case.

Thanks.

Edited by sierraleone, 04 November 2017 - 03:37 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users