So What's Up Canada

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkB

Why isn't it possible?? Animals and trees are still there, water is still there. What am I missing?

---

LOL!!! are you serious?? 200yrs ago natives traded these "animals" and "trees" for modern goods. They were never just bow and arrow people... when Europeans first showed they traded furs, seeds, foods and hand made tools for flint lock guns, spices and grains - prior to that they would travel hundreds of KM's to trade with other tribes that produced goods that weren't available locally. They taught the europeans how to survive, where to hunt, how to farm in this climate, how to navigate etc... using your logic all eurpeans should go back to europe, go back to farming, stop using cars etc... every society evolves. When you take away the ability for a community to live and evolve freely, and don't allow them to assimilate (yes, natives were being bred out, killed and enslaved in residential schools, on reserves, and in cities) - the culture itself dies, but the people remain. What did you expect would happen? These people lived in these traditional locations and survived because they had trading partners and a culture with extensive knowledge and many generations of each family living together to pass knowledge. All of that was taken away - to expect these people to easy and simply go back 200yrs to a simpler time, or that they should just pick up and move isn't an option. These people have been stripped of everything that made them great and lack the skills and knowledge thanks to our government and our society.

FishFrenzy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

The Reserve system and the Indian Act are no longer realistic, assuming they ever were. Isolating people in remote reserves with no chance of economic sustainability just makes them under funded wards of the state that we hide in the bushes. It is time to move them off these reserves as main residences into modern society. Trying to build and fund functional communities in the middle of swamps in places that in some cases are only ice road accessible is crazy. Whenthere is absolutely nothing to do and look forward to it's no surprise they are so desperate. Before the internet and television they didn't really know what was out there. Now the new generation is on the outside looking in. It will only get worse. Sometimes you just need to demolish the building and build a new one.
Ranting about what happened 300 yrs ago is in no way useful. What happened can't be reversed. You can keep working back into every civilization and see similar timelines with exploration, expansion, wars and assimilation. These First Nations did the exact same thing. They were tribal societies that were quite often brutal and at war with each other, the idea that they were peaceful people is far from reality. They were no different than the white man who invaded the land except for being hundreds of years behind in technology. .Somewhere sometime somebody killed one of your ancestors and stole either his land or wife or both.

---

Well said Terry !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

No doubt they could live like they did 200 years ago but those skills and determination are likely long gone for the same reasons the white man wont want to live like we did 200 years ago but to say it cant be done is incorrect.

---

Yes for the most part they are gone. A previous coworker of mine brother in law is a school teacher in Nahanni Butte and works closely with the native population. He is a white school teacher working with the young students and teaching them their culture that wasn't passed down to them from their elders or lack of. He also has been teaching them how to live off the land because of the same reasons. Very few of them will live off the land but will be learning their history be educated ,find jobs on the reserve or leave for other opportunities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

The Reserve system and the Indian Act are no longer realistic, assuming they ever were. Isolating people in remote reserves with no chance of economic sustainability just makes them under funded wards of the state that we hide in the bushes. It is time to move them off these reserves as main residences into modern society. Trying to build and fund functional communities in the middle of swamps in places that in some cases are only ice road accessible is crazy. Whenthere is absolutely nothing to do and look forward to it's no surprise they are so desperate. Before the internet and television they didn't really know what was out there. Now the new generation is on the outside looking in. It will only get worse. Sometimes you just need to demolish the building and build a new one.
Ranting about what happened 300 yrs ago is in no way useful. What happened can't be reversed. You can keep working back into every civilization and see similar timelines with exploration, expansion, wars and assimilation. These First Nations did the exact same thing. They were tribal societies that were quite often brutal and at war with each other, the idea that they were peaceful people is far from reality. They were no different than the white man who invaded the land except for being hundreds of years behind in technology. .Somewhere sometime somebody killed one of your ancestors and stole either his land or wife or both.

---

Good post Terry. I wish our native leaders and federal leaders would get with the times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

No doubt they could live like they did 200 years ago but those skills and determination are likely long gone for the same reasons the white man wont want to live like we did 200 years ago but to say it cant be done is incorrect.

---

My thoughts exactly. It is not that it is "impossible", it is that it is undesired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FishFrenzy

LOL!!! are you serious?? 200yrs ago natives traded these "animals" and "trees" for modern goods. They were never just bow and arrow people... when Europeans first showed they traded furs, seeds, foods and hand made tools for flint lock guns, spices and grains - prior to that they would travel hundreds of KM's to trade with other tribes that produced goods that weren't available locally. They taught the europeans how to survive, where to hunt, how to farm in this climate, how to navigate etc... using your logic all eurpeans should go back to europe, go back to farming, stop using cars etc... every society evolves. When you take away the ability for a community to live and evolve freely, and don't allow them to assimilate (yes, natives were being bred out, killed and enslaved in residential schools, on reserves, and in cities) - the culture itself dies, but the people remain. What did you expect would happen? These people lived in these traditional locations and survived because they had trading partners and a culture with extensive knowledge and many generations of each family living together to pass knowledge. All of that was taken away - to expect these people to easy and simply go back 200yrs to a simpler time, or that they should just pick up and move isn't an option. These people have been stripped of everything that made them great and lack the skills and knowledge thanks to our government and our society.

FishFrenzy

---

And here is a perfect example of how someone has TOTALLY misinterpreted a point ...

That is NOT what I'm saying at all. I'm going to make it simple.

Step 1: READ THIS ENTIRE THREAD (from the original post)

Step 2: Find where someone stated that some Indians want to "live off the land"

Step 3: Read my responses CAREFULLY, SLOWLY, try and understand, not interpret.

Step 4: If you've done Steps 1 to 3 properly, you will understand that my MAIN POINT is that you cannot have your feet in both a "live off the land" society and a "capitalistic" society. It's hard enough to survive when you commit 100% to just one of these philosophies. A SUB POINT I made, is at some point in time before europeans arrived (ok say 300 years ago) there was no trade, they purely survived on the land. I still think it is POSSIBLE to do that today. Would I want to ... NO, but it is POSSIBLE. And if someone (who last I checked has free will to decide) WANTED TO, they probably could. I'm not saying, THEY HAVE TO.

STEP 5: If you did not arrive at the conclusion of STEP 4, Read STEP 1 to 3 again. If you have done this 5 times over and still cannot come to the conclusion in STEP 4, then go to sleep and try again tomorrow.

... It really irritates me when people jump into the middle of a conversation, twist everything up, add things that were never said, quick to judge, and then come on here and make VERY disrespectful comments like "Are you serious", which is basically the same as saying "are you a dumb a$* ".

Not cool.

I read the entire thread. After you decided to play devils advocate and ask a question, you made a statement:

"I still don't understand what's stopping them from living like they did 200 years ago, truly off the land? I'm not being demeaning here at all, in fact, some days I wish I could do that. Indians didn't have money, diesel, TVs and iPads 200 years ago. Their way of life, so I'm led to believe, wasn't easy, but it was rewarding ... I don't think depression was an issue with Indian people 200 years ago.

The true problem I believe is that the politics (maybe the Chiefs, I don't know, don't know enough about it), keeps one of their feet in the "live off the land" society and the other in the "capatilistic" society ... and it doesn't work to do 2 things 50%. As I indicated before, it's hard enough surviving with capitalism even when you give 100%."

You then said:

"Why isn't it possible?? Animals and trees are still there, water is still there. What am I missing?"

I responded to your statements (sorry for the lack of quoting both comments). You stated that the politics surrounding natives is what may be driving depression because 200yrs ago natives lived off the land and were happier. You think that living off the land would end depression in these communities - if I've misinterpreted this, please level set me. You said they need to choose between living off the land and capitalism - can't be 50% in. In saying this you're stating they need to give up on one or the other to be successful. Natives were always a capitalistic society via trade; trading that was possible due to their knowledge and skills with the land they occupied - both no longer exist. My response indicated that I didn't agree with either of your claims. My intention wasn't to call you dumb a$*, but to disagree with why it would be impossible for this community (and all others) to go back 200yrs and truly live like they once did or just jump into society as we know it today. As I wrote in my post, both (ability to join society and assimilate and go back to a completely traditional way of life) were made impossible by the way this country structured their approach towards natives.

As it turns out, it's quiet easy to misinterpret things written on the internet....

FishFrenzy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FishFrenzy

You stated that the politics surrounding natives is what may be driving depression because 200yrs ago natives lived off the land and were happier. You think that living off the land would end depression in these communities - if I've misinterpreted this, please level set me. You said they need to choose between living off the land and capitalism - can't be 50% in. In saying this you're stating they need to give up on one or the other to be successful.

As it turns out, it's quiet easy to misinterpret things written on the internet....

FishFrenzy

---

I'm going to level set you, you've misinterpreted this. I never said those things, neither did I mean to say them. Those are words you are putting into my mouth, and conclusions you have put together, not me.

This is what I am saying ... l

(1) Living off the land IS POSSIBLE. Bring me facts that say you can't, not opinions.

(2) 200 years ago (or maybe longer ago, before europeans arrived) ... Indians live off the land, and found a way to survive ... what I'm led to believe is that they had a "rich" life (not $$$, but rewarding). We can unpack that statement, it would take another 10 pages on this thread (not going to go there).

(3) It's going to be hard to survive when you want to "live off the land" and also have the benefits of a capatistic society.

That's it. Point 3 is the key point. Please do not add any more words, do not draw any further conclusions, do not interpret it to mean anything else.

And sorry ... "Are you serious" is not very professional, it's what I expect from my 14 year old son (actually I expect better from him too). It's a pretty demeaning statement. Go back to when you wrote it, and think about your frame of mind ... be honest about what you were saying, not political and diplomatic. I've been around long enough ...

(1) Living off the land IS POSSIBLE. Bring me facts that say you can't, not opinions. -This is not my opinion; it is impossible for the natives to go back to living like they did 200yrs ago (or however long you want to go back). They no longer have the knowledge, land or partnerships they once had due to the way the government structured their communities. Could they attempt to live strictly off the land in today's world? - sure. I was looking at this from a historical view based on the timelines you provided and asking why they couldn't live like they did 200yrs ago.

(2) 200 years ago (or maybe longer ago, before europeans arrived) ... Indians live off the land, and found a way to survive ... what I'm led to believe is that they had a "rich" life (not $$$, but rewarding). We can unpack that statement, it would take another 10 pages on this thread (not going to go there). Agreed, nothing to disagree with you on this. I was stating why it isn't possible to go back to that point in time as the world has evolved in such a way that lifestyles of the past aren't possible. Could they live off the land, yes. Traditionally, no.

(3) It's going to be hard to survive when you want to "live off the land" and also have the benefits of a capatistic society.

That's it. Point 3 is the key point. Please do not add any more words, do not draw any further conclusions, do not interpret it to mean anything else. My point was they were successfully able to benefit from both prior to the destruction of their society.

And sorry ... "Are you serious" is not very professional, it's what I expect from my 14 year old son (actually I expect better from him too). It's a pretty demeaning statement. Go back to when you wrote it, and think about your frame of mind ... be honest about what you were saying, not political and diplomatic. I've been around long enough ..." I know exactly what my frame of mind was... "I can't understand why this person would think this is possible / easy"... your condescending "SLOWLY, CAREFULLY" statements in your response tells me you expect others to follow your ethics, morals and professionalism, but when you feel slighted it's OK for you to demean others. As much as you want to believe my statement was made to call you a dumb a$*, you'd be wrong - it was exactly what was on my mind when I read your statements. Again... very easy to misinterpret others statements on the internet and again it wasn't my intention.

FishFrenzy

It's time for the Liberals to revisit the Chretien White Paper on Indian Affairs and Nothern Development that he wrote as IAND Minister with the Trudeau I regime. It was shelved unceremoniously,then,because it told many inconvenient truths the politically correct were NOT prepared to deal with......loathe as I am to give a Liberal any credit for anything,Chretiens treatise was bang on..