I think that Canada may be a little too "Multicultural"
- Thread starter Chiliagon
- Start date
No doubt - all change in this World, because of the laws of Evolution - the Biological Evolution and (as its special case) the Social Evolution.
But I think this is two level of understanding. If we think on the higher (evolutionary) level – we don’t have to do anything. Just sit near the river and look at the water ...
But if we think on the lower (species, individual) level – we must act, we must struggle for survive (as a species or as an individual).
By your example:
From point of view of American Indians – the destruction of original Indian culture by Europeans – is very bad and incorrect action.
But from point of view of Europeans (most of them) – it was very good and correct action.
Now you are in the situation of American Indians. From your point of view a damage of your culture – is not very good and correct action. So, if you want to stop the destruction, you must struggle and do something. And do not bother about laws of Evolution, you submit them without your wish.
I said about publication in newspaper or so as an example of civil position. Of course the publication of one person in most cases is too small for obtain a real achievement in solving any problem. Howewer it's depend from what person make the publication. If this is a famous person - the effect of its word could be very strong.
Only for yourself? What do you mean? You think that every person must do anything in its life only for himself (and its family)?
Hmm.. In Russia (for example) we can't choose our Gov't at all. But if the people really want to change something in the country and solve problems - they try to do that by different ways. In particular - by publication in Press with Truth, or by partisipation in the street manifistation. Or by work in different NGO (theirs work for my opinion is one of the most efective method of influense for Gov't).
Last edited:
I can tell the difference between a burqa and a witch's costume quite clearly.
First off, Islam does not require women to wear such outfits. It's the local culture in certain countries that require them to wear it. In some cases it's imposed on them, while in others they choose to wear it. I don't think we can generalize such a simple-minded fashion here.
Scalping? That was a quaint custom introduced by Europeans. Why not put their kids in residential schools because their parents spent all their time drinking in the casinos. Remember that?
I'm thinking you don't like Indians (as Chrissy called 'em)
You can't limit yourself to material civilization only. Just to take a case in point, the Europeans were militarily far more advanced than the Chinese during the Opium Wars, yet the Chinese were trying to stop the trade of opium for the welfare of their people whereas the Europeans fought and won a war against China for the right to trade in opium for profit.
Based on your argument that material civilization is all that counts, then we must conclude that the Europeans were in the right and the Chinese wrong. If however we consider spiritual civilization as being more important, then certainly China's care for the welfare of its people was far more civilized than the European willingness to sacrifice life for profit.
We can apply the same standard to North American Aboriginal cultures. During potlatches for instance they all shared their food with one another, thus looking out for the wellbeing of each member of the tribe, unlike the Europeans who stole their land, traded in alcohol with those who did not know how dangerous alcohol was, etc.
So, if your understanding of civilization is limited to material civilization only, then on the one hand it certainly is in your keeping with concern for the outward forms of Christmas traditions vs. the spiritual roots of them, but on the other such a materialistic and superficial worldview, if common among the people, is dangerous.
Yeah, but weren't those scalping knives technological marvels?
It was the European, not the 'Indians', who'd invented those, so isn't that proof of how civilized the Europeans are?
Oh yeah, and it's not those 'stupid Indians' who'd developed nerve and blood agents in WWI, or the nuclear bomb? It's not 'Indians' who dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.They're just not civilized enough to do that!
We attempted to facilitate fair trade relations with the Chinese for decades but the Emperor, with his centralized court, effectively decreed it an illegal offense to trade in barter with Europeans. Effectively, we had to trade in silver bullion, which is an extremely unfair trade considering you are trading a rare precious metal for easily attained organic-derived products (i.e. Silk / Silk Worm, and Procelain / Bone).
Opium was a last resort measure and I doubt people slept with good conscious knowing that it was ruining families but ultimately the fault lies with the Chinese Emperors.
In hindsight, the Chinese would have been much better off had their Emperors not been so xenophobic, as actually allowing their subjects to engage in free trade would have brought them into the European trading network, instead of historically remaining isolated from it until the 1990s.
I'm not denying that the Chinese were wrong in their protectionist stance. But who forced the Europeans to trade with them. Certainly Chna would have naturally opened up gradually into a healthy and developed country over time.
Instead, we created today's Chinese Communist Party by forcing so much foreign-caused misery on the Chinese people that they had become so sick and tired of foreign intervention that they turned to whatever ideology most strongly voiced the anti-imperialist message, and that of course was communism.
So are you saying that when a country places trade barriers against Canada, that Canada has every right to go out and force opium on its people to even the score?!
Worse case, we have the freedom to choose to retaliate in kind, but certainly not force opium on them. The fact that the Europeans did that rather than just retaliate in kind shows that your argument is hogwash. They saw opium as a wonderful opportunity to make a profit. And though Europeans of conscience couldn't sleep at night, I'm sure the leaders who'd decided on this war were more than happy with the profits and could sleep like babies. Now that's 'civilization'!
And how do we defend alcohol for pelts with a people who did not know what alcohol is?
Personally, I see the true merit of a people to lie in its spiritual civilization. Without that, its material civilization isn't even worth mentioning.
Capitalism does claim that exchanges are equal but I think we just reinforced the opposite. The Chinese's attempt to shortchange Europeans through demanding silver bullion in return for simple organic products (Silk and Porcelain) isn't at all difference than how Europeans exchanged cheap liquor for low volume and extremely profitable furs.
As much as everyone loves claiming to be an internationalist, the fact remains it has always been a game of "“Victori spolia" (to the victor the spoils).
As much as everyone loves claiming to be an internationalist, the fact remains it has always been a game of "“Victori spolia" (to the victor the spoils).
I agree that we have such problems in all societies. I think a difference was the scale on which it was carried out in an organized manner. For instance, the Opium Wars were not led just by some private opium cartel. It actually had the backing of the full military resources of the British Empire.
Not much has changed.
Considering that oil companies have the backing of the full military resources of the American Empire. The deals being made to secure Iraq's oil are pretty shoddy to boot, i.e. trading armored vehicles like the Stryker (underpowered, overpriced and useless against other APCs and IFVs) for oil. Sounds a lot like how the Europeans traded obsolete muskets to Africans in the slave trade.
First Nations were not destroyed by immigration to Canada, although there was a time when the culture was not valued. There are First Nation schools operating today that emphasize First Nation culture. First Nation rights and First Nation arts/language/land/culture are not destroyed, and many people (even 1/8 First Nation) benefit from the considerations extended to First Nation people. A problem with language preservation in First Nations in Canada is shared with many tribes all over the world ... specifically that the younger people don't care to learn the language, so the language skills are being lost. Canada is not the same as the United States (American Indians?) ... but I'm no expert in the area. I know that the salaries for First Nation leaders were recently in the news because they were astoundingly high for the work performed, with one person receiving two salaries, both in the $200k+, for holding two full time jobs at the same time.
As it stands, First Nation people can ride horses, use a bow and arrow (no crossbows), enjoy special rules for hunting and fishing, do art, dance, sing, speak whatever language they want, enjoy special business laws, and live in underground caves if that's the choice.
Immigration a few hundred years ago, and immigration today, are not the same.
Speaking of Russia, there are a number of young Russian women that have figured out how to jump the immigration line in Canada. They get pregnant in Russia, fly to Canada when they are 6-7 months pregnant, do not declare that they are pregnant or claim they are fleeing a violent relationship, have the baby in Canada, and then the baby has Canadian citizenship. That seems to be a very good first step in bringing the family to Canada.
You are sadly lacking in knowledge of the subject of Canadian and American indigenous people. May I suggest you read 1491 pre-Columbian history of the Americas. Number one, of the 110 million people who lived in the Americas, a full 90% died of European diseases and guns within the first 100 years of contact. Just about every square mile of the Americas were under some form of agricultural manipulation. With the death of so many people, this meant that all their ways of living were made impossible to maintain and most had to revert back to hunting and gathering before the first white settlers even arrived.
BTW, First Nations is preferred by government because the tag has no legal standing in international law. Most Indigenous people prefer indigenous (aboriginal sound too much like abnormal to them). Most US indigenous people would rather be called indians.
I try to use whatever term is out there as being correct. I really have no interest in discussing what immigrants did to Canadian native indian people ... for several reasons. Someone else brought it up, and I answered. If two groups meet, one lives nomadically, the other builds architectural marvels, one chases food and the other keeps it outside their house ... which group will likely have influence over the other? It's obvious. The same thing happened all over Europe for centuries ... the best solution was adopted. What happened a few hundred years ago with immigration in Canada is completely different than what is happening today.
Last edited:
It went beyond that. Indigenous children were forced apart from there families and had their cultures literally beaten out of them in residential schools.
That's not a simple matter of the indigenous peoples being 'influenced', but rather force-fed in the most violent and corrupting of manners. And of course this does not even touch on other abuses. What kind of 'civilization' was that?
Yes, of course you are right, the new immigrants are not slaughtering us, stealing our children and beating our culture out of them.
When the first wave of immigrants arrived, they were taught how to farm the land by the indigenous people. Local farming methods were far superior to European methods because of companion planting allowed for greater yields. If they had not shared their knowledge and introduced such crops as squash and corn to the immigrants, those first waves would have died and the immigration would have stopped.
Charlemagne was critical in moving tradesmen and skills throughout Europe through war. Each time new skills were introduced to a region, the skills were shared ... with the best solution being adopted. There was a transfer of ideas and cultures that resulted in numerous innovations. When immigrants first landed in Canada, there was a similar, obvious situation where the better solutions and skills were adopted. But that's ancient history, and Canadians are not being overrun by war, but are instead generously opening their borders to people that seem to want to embrace our way of life. I definitely have to raise my eyebrows when someone gives the impression they want our way of life, but after being given the green light to enjoy our way of life, they decide they don't really want our way of life, but prefer to transplant their way of life into our backyards. Canada doesn't have a long history and culture, but it does have a culture and maybe there should be a time when that culture is protected, and not left open to blend into who knows what. First Nation is not the only culture that needs to be protected.
Last edited: