Wednesday, March 30, 2011

More Politically Incorrect, While I Am At It ....

In answer to one of the comments of my last blog post:
Of course this is a result of the treaties, be them fair or unfair. They were signed and we have them. But it is the responsibility of those who signed them to uphold them. And the Chiefs of each of the communities that signed the treaties agreed to ensure the Aboriginal people under them would be law abiding and cause no problems to "Her Majesty’s subjects". I do not see that. All I see is Chiefs spending money on themselves and communities going without water, and proper housing, and community members running amuck without community governance.
When I was in University, Aboriginal communities wanted the ability to govern themselves and the ability to have their own community courts. Well, it looks like the treaty allows for Aboriginal community courts, or actually demands them.
You may think this is a racist blog post. It is not racist, it is just not politically correct. There is a difference.


  1. The Chiefs who signed those treaties are long dead, their decedents have to live with them. The youths committing these crimes are the product of generations of poverty and struggle caused by colonialism, not just the treaties. I am not absolving current Chiefs of any wrong doing, but they are a product of this as much as anyone.

  2. Every single nationality, race or ethnic group was oppressed at one point or another.
    Japanese people were treated abominably in living memory -- no treaties or legal agreements signed there. Chinese people suffered tremendously...the list goes on.

    Might I suggest as long as people look to the past, they'll never really move into the future, and find happiness. In the past lies resentment, in the future lies promise and possibility.

    Aboriginal people aren't from Mars, they're not fragile porcelain dolls who need special treatment...they're human beings, with all the rights AND responsibilities that entails. No more, no less. Does it really have to be more complicated than that?

  3. Well, Colin pretty much sums it up.

  4. I think you've missed my point. I think aboriginals would have been better off had there been no treaties or agreements. It's those treaties that have damaged their culture and created a culture of poverty and reliance on gov't handouts.

    We need to understand the past so that we do not make the same mistakes twice. Throwing money at the problem for the last 100 years has obviously not done any good. Community programs and proactive answers are the future.

    Of course they are human beings but it is more complicated. It's that kind of attitude that got us here in the first place, taking a hunter gatherer culture and expecting them to magically become farmers and adopt European ways.

  5. In 1870 King George made a decision. He no longer wanted to have Aboriginal groups killed off, as happened on the East Coast. He decided to come to a compromise with the Chiefs of those groups in the Prairie regions, because England was colonizing the area. Agreements were met between both Aboriginal and European people, the numbered Treaties. It was agreed by the Chiefs that schools would be added to each community so the young could learn the new ways. Each community that wanted a school could have a school. The Chiefs were aware of changing times and agreed to these changes. The Treaties were not forced upon anyone, they were agreed to by all parties. And now we have Treaties, good or bad, we have them. If you feel we should not have Treaties, and would like to dissolve them, this is an issue to take up with the Federal Government and the Aboriginal Chiefs.