http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04...?intcmp=hplnws - sounds worse then Detroit - what's the solution -
Printable View
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04...?intcmp=hplnws - sounds worse then Detroit - what's the solution -
From what I read there are a lot of "attempted" suicides, but only one that was a success. The attempts are sure getting results though. Just don't understand the relationship between the Indian Affairs dept ( federal) and Toronto politicians....
I was thinking about this on my drive to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by patvetzal
People who want to kill themselves do, those who are looking for help attempt it.
I understand how anxiety and depression work, I think that we do not put enough emphasis on mental health yet in this country and this is a massive problem in the north and not just a problem of native populations.
Well here's my take on it - natives want to live a life that keeps their culture alive - kinda like living off the land - but in this modern world one can't live the old ways and be competitive - native must adopt western values which means they need to get educated and learn trades or other useful ways of making a living - sure it's nice to keep the old culture alive in a ceremonial way but not as a way of life - unless they realize that they will always be on the bottom of the totem pole - often times it may require a move off the reservation - well anyway - sounds like Canada has its problems too
Once again you surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
It is a problem of the North not a problem of culture, they survived here and saved our European butts for a lot longer than we have been forcing them on to reserves.
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.
I would end the reserve system all together and tear up the whole Indian act (or whatever they call it these days) at the same time. I truly feel for them but know matter how much money you throw at the reserves the problem wont go away. How sad it must be for the youth whom have no employment , no hope and no future other than drinking ,sniffing gas and dying while they watch the band chief and her select few live like kings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
Which just proves they aren't any different than any other society. Socialists and communist regimes typically have as many starving in poverty while the Elites get fat as any free market democracy. In a country like Canada with abundant land and relative wealth it's only the self serving politics that prevents people from living well. We waste enough money and food that no kid should do without anything here.
OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate ...
What's wrong if someone wants to live off the land? Here's 2 simple rules though ... (1) they should have full liberty to survive as they were able to do 200 years ago, which means access to fertile land, liveable conditions (not in the arctic north), and (2) they should live by the land 100% and not want a part of another society's way of life. Wanting to live off the land, but also wanting a cellphone is not sustainable. Living in between "world's" will never work. You either commit yourself to living off the land and surviving in that environment, or commit yourself to capitalism and do everything to survive in that environment (which isn't easy either). Point is, if you do not commit yourself 100% to these ways of life, no matter which way of life it is, it doesn't work.
I doubt more than 10% of First Nations live off the land anymore. My guess is that's not much different than many Western Societies. The world has changed and you can't put the Genie back in the bottle. If you don't adapt to a changing world then you eventually become extinct.
Interesting subject. The native situation is a monstorous problem in Canada. One that bothers me immensely.
TerryM, Hunter John, JoePa - I agree with everything said.
The problem is so huge and complicated it is possibly unsolvable as it has become more sever in the past 50 years.
Trudeau's government throwing more cash around without core change doesn't help in the slightest.
Interesting thread. This is something that really bothers me as well, and everyone's comments so far have been insightful. Thanks for giving me material to consider as I dwell upon this issue.
No one is "forcing" them to live on reserves? It's an option each individual chooses. First nations people have the same, in fact more, opportunities available to them than any other citizen of this country. The biggest problem for them is that they (not all, but many)haven't or won't capitalize on what's available to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
As but a small example; Last year I worked on a dam repair project in northern Sask. We hired several fellas from the reserve close to where the job was. Free work boots/cold weather gear, rain suits, etc. Labour wages for them was almost $30/hour, 7-12 hour days/week with O/T after 50. (you do the math) The foreman would pick them up in the morning and drop them off after work. All they had to do was show up for work? After the first week, only 1 guy showed up. After 2 weeks, no one? The job lasted for almost 8 weeks. That would have put a nice chunk of change in anyones pocket, but they made the decision to stay home? Now who do you want to blame for that?
It’s outrageous that Ron Giesbrecht, chief of the 80-member Kwikwetlem First Nation in B.C., made $914,219 tax free last year and a further $16,574 in expenses. That’s the equivalent of a taxable off-reserve income of more than $1.3 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
Even Canadian senators who are padding their incomes with $20,000 or $30,000 a year in dubious housing and travel expenses only make about $170,000.
Giesbrecht made the equivalent of seven-and-a-half times what a senator makes!
But as galling as the Giesbrecht revelation was, there were two others last week that were at least as bad.
For one, while Giesbrecht wins the 2013 First Nations salary lottery, his compensation is not that far off what a lot of chiefs make.
Of the 630-plus band chiefs in Canada, nearly 100 make more than the prime minister. And an average band has fewer than 600 members.
Money is an easy way for the Liberals to CLAIM they are doing something, problem is they already have or said they would get rid of the accountability and disclosure laws the Conservatives put in place for chiefs and reserves. No one would have known what Giesbrecht was making without that law. Some reserves are ran well, entrepreneurial in nature and fully disclose and account for the finances but most don't. The Anawapiscat soup diet chief couldn't account for millions in spending when she was finally forced to and what she could show was big pay outs to her boyfriend etc. According to a friend of mine that camps on one of the reserves the corruption is terrible and his wife brags about the good deals on netted fish that as near as I can tell they are actually poaching and selling illegally (not sure but what I have read suggests it).
The race based policies of the Indian act and reserves should be phased out as quickly as possible in my opinion. Paying no taxes (not contributing to Canada essentially), free tuition at University, gov't handouts etc. do nothing more than promote further greed and entitlement in the majority of the cases it seems.
Many of these huge land claims should be dismissed or settled with them actually having ownership NOT being a ward of the country and not having the ability to own, sell and lease as they choose. In many ways it is kind of like me finding out where one of my ancestors homes were that had been foreclosed, sold, seized etc. and suing the current gov't somewhere in Europe to pay me. Somewhere in the last ??? thousands of years my ancestor migrated to ??? in Europe... even if I could show a treaty or legal agreement think a land claim that it was my ancestral lands would get much other than laughter if I laid a land claim on some big chunk of land in Europe?
Given the current logic the reasonable course is for an animal rights group to make land claims against the Indians, after all the deer, moose etc. were here first. :moose::moose::moose::moose:
http://globalnews.ca/news/2635738/at.../?sf24286859=1
Attawapiskat: Jean Chrétien says ‘sometimes’ people on First Nations reserves ‘need to move
That is how the reserves started, they were forced on to the reserves or be killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
Look at the US system, Oklahoma was originally a dumping ground for natives, check out the "Trail of Tears", we did a similar thing to our natives.
The problem of suicide in the North is not just a problem for Natives but there tends to be more Natives in the north. The North of Canada is an area of economic depression, there is not a lot of money and there are not a lot of opportunities but you run into a situation where people are being told to move south for work where they have no ability to pay for rent or buy a house due to the cost of living and they are stuck in a vicious cycle. The abuse of alcohol is a native problem due to native culture, it is a northern problem, same with the drugs, there is nothing else to do and there is a huge problem with mental health.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
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%.
There is no ability to live as you did 200 years ago, period, it is not possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
I am all for opening the books, why not, every other group has to prove where the money goes but the problems of the North are not defined by Native culture but rather a problem of the North, it just makes the news when it is Native.
Why isn't it possible?? Animals and trees are still there, water is still there. What am I missing?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
FishFrenzy
Well said Terry !Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
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 Hunter John
Good post Terry. I wish our native leaders and federal leaders would get with the times.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
My thoughts exactly. It is not that it is "impossible", it is that it is undesired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
And here is a perfect example of how someone has TOTALLY misinterpreted a point ...Quote:
Originally Posted by FishFrenzy
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishFrenzy
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..
Exactly. Excellent article imo:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...r-trauma-bonds
Sad about the kids. Is this the reserve that chief Spends was running a few years ago ?
Yep, the soup diet media queen.... over the last 10 years if you add it up the reserve of about 2,000 received over $1,000,000,000 and you add in the reserve revenues from the diamond mine on "their" lands that is atleast $50,000 per person each year. She got the boot as I understand but there is alot she should be held accountable for!Quote:
Originally Posted by cantcatchacold
The Conservative gov't started the first small steps in the right direction with the accountability legislation (same as the Unions, reversed by the Liberals) but it was going to be a long road in some reserves to get leadership that was both capable and accountable it seems. The gov't needs to step in and provide training and book keeping and disclosure of spending to make them accountable for the lives that corrupt chiefs are ruining. Hopefully getting the kids help (either on or off the reserve) is a big part of it! When Sun TV they went around to several reserves, some have good leaders building the economy, training and accountable... then there were chiefs like Spence that robbed, ruined and were incompetent!
Yet Spence was embraced and honoured by the Liberals. JT, Paul Martin and a bunch more all lined up at the teepee protest and flaunted her as a saint. She was actually checking into a luxury hotel at night and dining there. This is the level of common sense we now have running the country. Scary.
Not buying it. Lol!!! Are you serious? !?Quote:
Originally Posted by FishFrenzy
You are just back tracking now. Done with you. If you don't even have the decency to apologize I don't need to waste time on you. I've been around for a long time my friend, and read people as a business.
Oh ... and my wife is half native American Indian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
Great :)
FishFrenzy