"A completely unsustainable way of life. If Canadian taxpayers refused to pay for it, it could not continue. Those relegated to inaccessible reserves would be relocated to economic centers where they would have a real chance at a modern life."
I'm wondering how much you've thought this through, James.
1) "Completely unsustainable" is a completely unsustainable claim. It's just obviously a way more complex issue than that ascription would allow for. (Amerindians did manage to sustain themselves, their cultures, their societies, for a pretty good period of time in their ancestral territories here in Canada before whitey came to the 'rescue'!)
2) What do you mean "would be relocated"?? Like, it would just happen??
3) What is "modern life"?? Is it really your place to impose a narrow vision of what that means on other people?
4) Do remember that the problem here is not primarily the lying/clueless/totalitarian Amerindian or 'indigenous' ideologues. The real problem is the (post-)Enlightenment western whiteys (in the Powell River fiasco, a bunch of often university-indoctrinated mindless hippie potheads) who are the vast majority, who have the power, and who foment and enable and fund the BS cult of BS 'indigeneity.' (A lot of good people in 'British Columbia' (bad, insensitive, hurtful colonial name!); but still, on the whole dominated by people who are thoroughly lost in the ideological labyrinths of (post-)Enlightenment 'progressive' ideologies.)
1) are you suggesting that a hunter/gatherer way of life is actually sustainable and feasible? The Treaty 8 territory, to just pick one, is bigger than France, and available to all the signatories and adherents to the treaty, and yet not one band has maintained that life style to the exclusion of any other. There is hunting, sure, moose hunting from the back of pickups and from quads (and the incursion of seismic lines has made that exercise much easier), there are very limited trapline activities. Seems like Treaty 8 adherents and signatories (again, just to pick one) earn way more from government economic benefit payments for resource use and government payments as the result of litigation than anything else. Those payments allow some kind of lip service practice of a hunter/gatherer lifestyle because income and survival does not depend upon that lifestyle. Suggesting that returning to a "time immemorial" hunter/gatherer lifestyle is feasible, to the exclusion of anything else (as you seem to suggest and you can certainly correct that) seems, well, odd.
3) seems like the definition of "modern life" is pretty easy to set out, is it not?
1) Clearly it is sustainable (certainly as a matter of historical fact!). Then again, the very concept of 'sustainability' is pretty fraught with contention. Obviously a lot of people believe that 'modern life' is seriously problematic precisely because it is not sustainable. That's a question for futurology, a pseudo-science which I think we ought to treat with a good deal of general skepticism. But we do know what was sustainable in the past. As for 'feasible,' that depends. I would emphasize what I originally said: it's *complex*. It seems highly implausible to think of a simple return to traditional ways of life, to the exclusion of anything else, mainly because: why? no one wants that! But that's an ultra simplistic proposal, as opposed to what would actually be on the table in the real world with its real complexity. The reason trapping, hunting, fishing, etc. for subsistence living is not 'feasible' is only because such a life is hard, and with easier options on the table, next to no one chooses it. (See Marshall Draper's nice essay relevant to this topic in "From Truth Comes Reconciliation." Or Tomson Highway's memoir "Permanent Astonishment.") But the same thing applies to, e.g., farming with a horse and plough; which next to no one chooses; and yet some do; and, lo and behold! it turns out it is feasible and sustainable -- at least that's what the continuing existence of the Amish would seem to prove!
2) I would suggest reading Augusto Del Noce's "The Crisis of Modernity" and then see if you still think the same. I will quote briefly from the opening essay, "The Idea of Modernity," just to give a flavour of the not-so-easy substantive issues involved here:
1 Modern comes from hodiernus: first of all, the word has a chronological meaning.
2 However, when it is joined to the word "philosophy" or is turned into a substantive by introducing the idea of "modernity," it generally takes an axiological meaning [a meaning in terms of some account of *value*]. It indicates a "point of no return," that "today it is no longer possible."
3 This raises various questions. (a) What "is no longer possible today"? (b) By what process did the transition from the chronological to the axiological meaning take place? (c) The idea of modernity belongs in the context of a certain historical periodization. What is the role of such periodization in shaping theoretical choices? (d) Does the "critical problem" of today's philosophy -- at least regarding its starting point -- boil down to casting "doubt" on the usual interpretation of the "idea of modernity"?
you are just shooting yourself in the foot, these Indeginous sit on reserves, gather big bucks in casinos, drink, abuse their children. and this is a fact!
they have no culture, but the culture of money, and false gods!
If they such good folks, then why when we came to Canada, was there not an office set up somewhere in Toronto, with the nice Indegnous folks, welcoming us to Canada.?
Did they build hospitals/churches/communities/schools/government, NO! they just took!!
I don't believe in Truth and Reconciliation, as a matter of fact everything the government creates...that we think are for the 'good' has actually a nefarious intent.
For instance, I too will walk out of the 'land acknowledgement'.. what happened to the Lord's Prayer?
The government is just using this as a crutch to remove Christianity. That is how it is done, Atheist's, put out there that saying 'merry Christmas' might offend others. Its an excuse and a means to remove anything they don't like. But they use it as a signal to be 'courteous' or 'kind' or 'compassionate', its all double speak.
I am appalled at the lack of attention our Church burnings have gathered, NOT ONE peep, this is the result Trudeau wants. As a matter of fact if you want communism, you must spread hate about Christ. About Christians. Truth and Reconciliation should really mean, we don't like Christians, let's spread false rumors. Its all a red herring!
I’ll say no to you.
"A completely unsustainable way of life. If Canadian taxpayers refused to pay for it, it could not continue. Those relegated to inaccessible reserves would be relocated to economic centers where they would have a real chance at a modern life."
I'm wondering how much you've thought this through, James.
1) "Completely unsustainable" is a completely unsustainable claim. It's just obviously a way more complex issue than that ascription would allow for. (Amerindians did manage to sustain themselves, their cultures, their societies, for a pretty good period of time in their ancestral territories here in Canada before whitey came to the 'rescue'!)
2) What do you mean "would be relocated"?? Like, it would just happen??
3) What is "modern life"?? Is it really your place to impose a narrow vision of what that means on other people?
4) Do remember that the problem here is not primarily the lying/clueless/totalitarian Amerindian or 'indigenous' ideologues. The real problem is the (post-)Enlightenment western whiteys (in the Powell River fiasco, a bunch of often university-indoctrinated mindless hippie potheads) who are the vast majority, who have the power, and who foment and enable and fund the BS cult of BS 'indigeneity.' (A lot of good people in 'British Columbia' (bad, insensitive, hurtful colonial name!); but still, on the whole dominated by people who are thoroughly lost in the ideological labyrinths of (post-)Enlightenment 'progressive' ideologies.)
1) are you suggesting that a hunter/gatherer way of life is actually sustainable and feasible? The Treaty 8 territory, to just pick one, is bigger than France, and available to all the signatories and adherents to the treaty, and yet not one band has maintained that life style to the exclusion of any other. There is hunting, sure, moose hunting from the back of pickups and from quads (and the incursion of seismic lines has made that exercise much easier), there are very limited trapline activities. Seems like Treaty 8 adherents and signatories (again, just to pick one) earn way more from government economic benefit payments for resource use and government payments as the result of litigation than anything else. Those payments allow some kind of lip service practice of a hunter/gatherer lifestyle because income and survival does not depend upon that lifestyle. Suggesting that returning to a "time immemorial" hunter/gatherer lifestyle is feasible, to the exclusion of anything else (as you seem to suggest and you can certainly correct that) seems, well, odd.
3) seems like the definition of "modern life" is pretty easy to set out, is it not?
1) Clearly it is sustainable (certainly as a matter of historical fact!). Then again, the very concept of 'sustainability' is pretty fraught with contention. Obviously a lot of people believe that 'modern life' is seriously problematic precisely because it is not sustainable. That's a question for futurology, a pseudo-science which I think we ought to treat with a good deal of general skepticism. But we do know what was sustainable in the past. As for 'feasible,' that depends. I would emphasize what I originally said: it's *complex*. It seems highly implausible to think of a simple return to traditional ways of life, to the exclusion of anything else, mainly because: why? no one wants that! But that's an ultra simplistic proposal, as opposed to what would actually be on the table in the real world with its real complexity. The reason trapping, hunting, fishing, etc. for subsistence living is not 'feasible' is only because such a life is hard, and with easier options on the table, next to no one chooses it. (See Marshall Draper's nice essay relevant to this topic in "From Truth Comes Reconciliation." Or Tomson Highway's memoir "Permanent Astonishment.") But the same thing applies to, e.g., farming with a horse and plough; which next to no one chooses; and yet some do; and, lo and behold! it turns out it is feasible and sustainable -- at least that's what the continuing existence of the Amish would seem to prove!
2) I would suggest reading Augusto Del Noce's "The Crisis of Modernity" and then see if you still think the same. I will quote briefly from the opening essay, "The Idea of Modernity," just to give a flavour of the not-so-easy substantive issues involved here:
1 Modern comes from hodiernus: first of all, the word has a chronological meaning.
2 However, when it is joined to the word "philosophy" or is turned into a substantive by introducing the idea of "modernity," it generally takes an axiological meaning [a meaning in terms of some account of *value*]. It indicates a "point of no return," that "today it is no longer possible."
3 This raises various questions. (a) What "is no longer possible today"? (b) By what process did the transition from the chronological to the axiological meaning take place? (c) The idea of modernity belongs in the context of a certain historical periodization. What is the role of such periodization in shaping theoretical choices? (d) Does the "critical problem" of today's philosophy -- at least regarding its starting point -- boil down to casting "doubt" on the usual interpretation of the "idea of modernity"?
you are just shooting yourself in the foot, these Indeginous sit on reserves, gather big bucks in casinos, drink, abuse their children. and this is a fact!
they have no culture, but the culture of money, and false gods!
If they such good folks, then why when we came to Canada, was there not an office set up somewhere in Toronto, with the nice Indegnous folks, welcoming us to Canada.?
Did they build hospitals/churches/communities/schools/government, NO! they just took!!
I don't believe in Truth and Reconciliation, as a matter of fact everything the government creates...that we think are for the 'good' has actually a nefarious intent.
For instance, I too will walk out of the 'land acknowledgement'.. what happened to the Lord's Prayer?
The government is just using this as a crutch to remove Christianity. That is how it is done, Atheist's, put out there that saying 'merry Christmas' might offend others. Its an excuse and a means to remove anything they don't like. But they use it as a signal to be 'courteous' or 'kind' or 'compassionate', its all double speak.
I am appalled at the lack of attention our Church burnings have gathered, NOT ONE peep, this is the result Trudeau wants. As a matter of fact if you want communism, you must spread hate about Christ. About Christians. Truth and Reconciliation should really mean, we don't like Christians, let's spread false rumors. Its all a red herring!