There was just recently a event that took place, regarding the stepping down of an MP from his party. The name of the MP is Michael Chong, he refused to accept the nation motion, citing a principle of unity. He went as far as saying, that he opposed ethnic nationalism. Whatever that means?
So I write this letter giving my opinion, it was to the National Post. It never made it into the paper even though I saw little opposing views to Michael’s position. There was a mention of it being nothing more than a symbolic move, with that I concur. But I felt he was espousing a deeper position.
This is the e-mail I sent:
The recent happening in parliament raises some important issues. Specifically where Mr. Michael Chong steps down. It seems rather ironic that here is a man who has obvious ethnic roots and yet he is dogmatically opposed to ethnic nationalism. To me it all seems to be related to dialectics-a argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas, but yet he does not attempt a resolution, therefore he is really being argumentative. This is evident in that he is extreme in his position. He is actually wanting to uphold one culture over another: That I suppose is the Canadian culture. Given that Canada has a history of presiding over other ethnic groups, you would think the folly of such antics would be recognized immediately. However it is cited as being a principle, when in fact Canada is known for its multiculturalism. One does not have to be hard-line nationalist to uphold their ethnicity. In fact the issue here is one of respect and being democratic. The strongest Nations that have nations within, are nations that grant distinction and espouse unity. Two principles that go hand in hand and ultimately create a strong environment.
Canada is in a unique position, in that they have three founding people, First Nations, French and British. Ethnic nationalism is to in fact exalt one people over other people. So if Canada is about exalting on cultural way over others, without first giving due process of respect, than the very thing that is wanting to be avoided is in fact being put in place. Unity can not come until respect comes.
However on the other hand, in terms of respect; if I give respect, am I not working on the larger picture? Indeed a united Canada should be our goal, but that will never come until we exercise some respect. Therefore such a initiative of recognition should be applauded, not opposed. Harper is right in doing what he did.
My e-mail has been modified to be made more clear, but for the most part it is what I initially wrote. Historically, putting a culture and way of life over others has been for the most part something that occurred in many parts of the world. But it is something that is not readily accepted today, in fact it goes without saying such tactics are reminiscent of past dictation’s of control and exclusion. The old premise of nation building being a sort of justification is an old, archaic discourse that outlived its purpose. It is time for other nations to rise and bring strength to our country. It is not relinquishing or losing power but gaining extra hands to do the job. Many of the problems lie with minorities, and if the future is going to see a rise in their populations, they may just need to be included. Any plan that is different, will add and give rise to problems that can be for the most part avoided.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
Punishing the Poor
Just days ago, there was this question that was proposed to the general public. The question asked was, should parents be responsible for their children’s actions? With all the juvenile crime happening, someone has to pay, so the argument goes. It would seem to be a cut and dry argument, but for a few overlooked facts, things could indeed be different when considered at some length.
Firstly, it seems most of the delinquents are often of aboriginal descent or more broadly, minorities: And they are often poor. When the jails hold, particularly, large numbers of aboriginals, it would seem such tactics could swell the ranks further. The forgone conclusion to me seems to be that the jail that houses young aboriginals, will now hold their parents or guardians with them.
Elementary, poverty breeds social ills. I would think the first order of business would be to rescue some of these people from their dire existence. The rich get richer, and the have-nots get hungrier. Material things do create a circumstance where differences in what one possesses becomes a proving ground or a system that blindly classifies people. Beyond that, people are generally the same. Say what? Yes, the person who has no car, is the same as the person who has many cars. But even though that is a truant, people would rather live with an imagination. So in that lala land of differences based on what one owns, we have inadvertently created boundaries between people, and moreover the ways in which we deal with them can even become accepted laws.
Consider the Jim Crow laws in the south, Apartheid, Reserves, or certain legislated acts of exclusion.
They certainly never worked and never will: and moreover to make two laws is clearly unjust. I would be strongly against any law that punishes poor people, or anything that distinguishes one segment of society to be dealt with differently.
It is wrong to punish the poor, because of their circumstance. Unless you have made some serious efforts to help them, and those corrections are then applied, I would think further punishment should be held off.
What happens if such a thing went through? Clearly more bureaucratic red tape will be left to placard the rabble; then these other issues in place will likely avert any honest efforts that might actually bring change.
Maybe what we really need is more compassion for our fellow man. In the great quest to amass should we not think twice about how we deal with one another? Especially if we reside in the same neighborhoods. Social progress will never come where there is a two tier system: Where more bureaucratic rope is put in place as justice. Real and lasting change must get to the roots rather than treat the symptoms.
There is a fork in the road and until we go back and deal with things at that particular junction, we wouldn’t be coming up with things that will further divide our society. Grant it, it may take some forethought and it may even need some input from those involved. But we may be rewarded with a thorough and just plan.
Firstly, it seems most of the delinquents are often of aboriginal descent or more broadly, minorities: And they are often poor. When the jails hold, particularly, large numbers of aboriginals, it would seem such tactics could swell the ranks further. The forgone conclusion to me seems to be that the jail that houses young aboriginals, will now hold their parents or guardians with them.
Elementary, poverty breeds social ills. I would think the first order of business would be to rescue some of these people from their dire existence. The rich get richer, and the have-nots get hungrier. Material things do create a circumstance where differences in what one possesses becomes a proving ground or a system that blindly classifies people. Beyond that, people are generally the same. Say what? Yes, the person who has no car, is the same as the person who has many cars. But even though that is a truant, people would rather live with an imagination. So in that lala land of differences based on what one owns, we have inadvertently created boundaries between people, and moreover the ways in which we deal with them can even become accepted laws.
Consider the Jim Crow laws in the south, Apartheid, Reserves, or certain legislated acts of exclusion.
They certainly never worked and never will: and moreover to make two laws is clearly unjust. I would be strongly against any law that punishes poor people, or anything that distinguishes one segment of society to be dealt with differently.
It is wrong to punish the poor, because of their circumstance. Unless you have made some serious efforts to help them, and those corrections are then applied, I would think further punishment should be held off.
What happens if such a thing went through? Clearly more bureaucratic red tape will be left to placard the rabble; then these other issues in place will likely avert any honest efforts that might actually bring change.
Maybe what we really need is more compassion for our fellow man. In the great quest to amass should we not think twice about how we deal with one another? Especially if we reside in the same neighborhoods. Social progress will never come where there is a two tier system: Where more bureaucratic rope is put in place as justice. Real and lasting change must get to the roots rather than treat the symptoms.
There is a fork in the road and until we go back and deal with things at that particular junction, we wouldn’t be coming up with things that will further divide our society. Grant it, it may take some forethought and it may even need some input from those involved. But we may be rewarded with a thorough and just plan.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Historical terms
On the front page of the Regina Leader-Post it reads, "Then on Monday afternoon, a standoff on the Muskowekwan First Nation near Punnichy ended with the death of a 44 year old male during an exchange of gunfire with RCMP. RCMP received a 911 call from a women around 6:30 am Monday about a man with a rifle. When RCMP arrived on the scene, an aboriginal man had barricaded himself into a house on the First Nation." Nov.14/06
Now I may be grabbing for straws, to some, but there is some underlying ignorance, being espoused in this article. Firstly, if it was a Caucasian, would it have read, "a white man barricaded himself in the house.." Highly not, but it seems ok to designate anyone outside the white race by their ethnicity. It seems to be the norm and nothing seems to be wrong with such insensitive and ignorant rhetoric. Ignorant in that it promotes ignorance. As long as people can first be designated by race, there will always be room for ignorance: and nothing clearly points this out, but doing such a thing so blatantly, for it moreover tacitly conveys that the writers and readers readily accept such ignorance.
We can look more deeply into this argument about words, since many balk at such a junction. Academically speaking, it seems such epistemology, having a different view, is unconventional. And that this is all about making mountains out of mole hills. Certainly these are alien experiences outside the accepted cultural milieus. My insistence that such a term is offensive to some, goes beyond just offence. I see such things as making divisions once a person can be designated outside with some other group. Not only does it breed schisms but it highlight differences. Clearly one side is oppressed and the other is not, thus all opinions are essential.
But that is rudimentary stuff, that there is indeed knowledge beyond some realities, now if anything we have to go beyond all that. I certainly do not have to alot for other's ignorance or justify my opinion. But until we do move in a direction beyond this mush, I am afraid more things will continue to hinder us from coming together. It is funny that I have to argue over a given, That peole have opinions and perspectives, so you really wonder is it is all about domination and control.
Take for instance, I have been reading this book entitled, "Who Killed Canadian History?", written by J.L. Granatstein, apparently a national bestseller. In the book he speaks against immigration, where the education system has to cater to other ethnic groups. Particularly where they have to learn, about the country in another language. It would seem the question would be, why bother? It seems it is quite a task, to teach other nationalities. And they have little interest, and thus teachers scramble to make it interesting. Now supposing those other nationalities are from here, like say the First Nations? Shall they be left out because their mother tongue is not English?
It seems the biggest problems in this country resides particularly with minorities or those outside of the mainstream culture. It would therefore also seem, that if any social advances are to take place it would hinge on these particular groups. How does the answer lie in being indifferent and segregating a population in dire need? Pulling away because they are different, you can understand such ignorance to occur in days gone past, but certainly not today.
Therefore the onus or answer lies with the fact that these groups that are oppressed for various reasons, most certainly must be dealt with justly, and fore-mostly. It is a matter of Canada’s overall well-being, that the people with the most social ills/problems should be the people who are the ones to be first considered, if we are in fact to progress as a country.
Such terms, that create unseen divisions, are doing more against social progress, rather than crossing the ignorant divide. A simple term like, "the man barricaded himself into a house.." would seem more appropriate.
For those who know how words can play against you, also know these straws are what breaks the camels back.
Canadian history, includes First Nations, and if they gave up so much for all that exists here today, it would seem that it is a small price to pay for waiting for them to catch up and to be included in all aspects of Canadian society. Nationalism will never be strong until all her sons, are taught the same things. Canada is diverse and until the whole truth of all the native groups (First Nations, French, English) and how they were a part of construction of this country is readily known to all, then we just hope to become a unified and strong country. It is not so much where we came from, but where we are going that matters the most.
Is it just a term or is it just about history? It is about inclusion, its about being included in the big picture.
Now I may be grabbing for straws, to some, but there is some underlying ignorance, being espoused in this article. Firstly, if it was a Caucasian, would it have read, "a white man barricaded himself in the house.." Highly not, but it seems ok to designate anyone outside the white race by their ethnicity. It seems to be the norm and nothing seems to be wrong with such insensitive and ignorant rhetoric. Ignorant in that it promotes ignorance. As long as people can first be designated by race, there will always be room for ignorance: and nothing clearly points this out, but doing such a thing so blatantly, for it moreover tacitly conveys that the writers and readers readily accept such ignorance.
We can look more deeply into this argument about words, since many balk at such a junction. Academically speaking, it seems such epistemology, having a different view, is unconventional. And that this is all about making mountains out of mole hills. Certainly these are alien experiences outside the accepted cultural milieus. My insistence that such a term is offensive to some, goes beyond just offence. I see such things as making divisions once a person can be designated outside with some other group. Not only does it breed schisms but it highlight differences. Clearly one side is oppressed and the other is not, thus all opinions are essential.
But that is rudimentary stuff, that there is indeed knowledge beyond some realities, now if anything we have to go beyond all that. I certainly do not have to alot for other's ignorance or justify my opinion. But until we do move in a direction beyond this mush, I am afraid more things will continue to hinder us from coming together. It is funny that I have to argue over a given, That peole have opinions and perspectives, so you really wonder is it is all about domination and control.
Take for instance, I have been reading this book entitled, "Who Killed Canadian History?", written by J.L. Granatstein, apparently a national bestseller. In the book he speaks against immigration, where the education system has to cater to other ethnic groups. Particularly where they have to learn, about the country in another language. It would seem the question would be, why bother? It seems it is quite a task, to teach other nationalities. And they have little interest, and thus teachers scramble to make it interesting. Now supposing those other nationalities are from here, like say the First Nations? Shall they be left out because their mother tongue is not English?
It seems the biggest problems in this country resides particularly with minorities or those outside of the mainstream culture. It would therefore also seem, that if any social advances are to take place it would hinge on these particular groups. How does the answer lie in being indifferent and segregating a population in dire need? Pulling away because they are different, you can understand such ignorance to occur in days gone past, but certainly not today.
Therefore the onus or answer lies with the fact that these groups that are oppressed for various reasons, most certainly must be dealt with justly, and fore-mostly. It is a matter of Canada’s overall well-being, that the people with the most social ills/problems should be the people who are the ones to be first considered, if we are in fact to progress as a country.
Such terms, that create unseen divisions, are doing more against social progress, rather than crossing the ignorant divide. A simple term like, "the man barricaded himself into a house.." would seem more appropriate.
For those who know how words can play against you, also know these straws are what breaks the camels back.
Canadian history, includes First Nations, and if they gave up so much for all that exists here today, it would seem that it is a small price to pay for waiting for them to catch up and to be included in all aspects of Canadian society. Nationalism will never be strong until all her sons, are taught the same things. Canada is diverse and until the whole truth of all the native groups (First Nations, French, English) and how they were a part of construction of this country is readily known to all, then we just hope to become a unified and strong country. It is not so much where we came from, but where we are going that matters the most.
Is it just a term or is it just about history? It is about inclusion, its about being included in the big picture.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Smoke and Mirrors
Greetings
Before I post my opinions, I would like to welcome you.
I was intrigued by a news item, that appeared on the tube. It was about Natives, so it caught my attention. It was about a sign that had a red bull sitting at a table smoking a cigarette. The "beef" was, apparently all in the fact that according to the opponents of the sign, it violated a federal law: Some tobacco law for big companies, that says no advertising is allowed, I think it was called the "curtain law." They went on and ranted about it being a two tier thingie. Excuse me, but are not natives, the people who live on segregated land and who are run by a system that resembles African apartheid? Really I surmise once again, that the all emcompassing ignorance has reared its ugly head. Thee old demagoguery of fighting people who are themselves strapped, is ludricrous. It is pretty sad that the poorest of the land have to resort to questionable methods to become self sufficient. Then in their quest for parity, all is taken from them. Justice for a "just society" would probably not entail these circumstances.
Smoking has always been an issue that speaks volumes. There was the Saskatchewan issue, where on my reserve (White Bear First Nation) smoking was allowed, despite it becoming effectual law, it by-passed provincial laws and became an issue of jurisdiction.
see story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/01/22/sask-casinos050122.html
Yes, in a sense there are different laws, but isn't that how its always been?
Sadly the police have become involved, in this slant. Our bands, have the power to make by-laws. Just recently, our Chief was having problems with a member of the community. It was pretty serious, and he went to the RCMP. They retorted, that it was out of their jurisdiction. Now our community, is in shambles because the police refuse to "serve and protect." Equal before and under the law, I assume means everyone. Unless your not within jurisdiction, there is something amiss where corruption is allowed in our Great White North.
If anything, Jurisdiction is becoming the mirror of our discontent.
more to come....
Before I post my opinions, I would like to welcome you.
I was intrigued by a news item, that appeared on the tube. It was about Natives, so it caught my attention. It was about a sign that had a red bull sitting at a table smoking a cigarette. The "beef" was, apparently all in the fact that according to the opponents of the sign, it violated a federal law: Some tobacco law for big companies, that says no advertising is allowed, I think it was called the "curtain law." They went on and ranted about it being a two tier thingie. Excuse me, but are not natives, the people who live on segregated land and who are run by a system that resembles African apartheid? Really I surmise once again, that the all emcompassing ignorance has reared its ugly head. Thee old demagoguery of fighting people who are themselves strapped, is ludricrous. It is pretty sad that the poorest of the land have to resort to questionable methods to become self sufficient. Then in their quest for parity, all is taken from them. Justice for a "just society" would probably not entail these circumstances.
Smoking has always been an issue that speaks volumes. There was the Saskatchewan issue, where on my reserve (White Bear First Nation) smoking was allowed, despite it becoming effectual law, it by-passed provincial laws and became an issue of jurisdiction.
see story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/01/22/sask-casinos050122.html
Yes, in a sense there are different laws, but isn't that how its always been?
Sadly the police have become involved, in this slant. Our bands, have the power to make by-laws. Just recently, our Chief was having problems with a member of the community. It was pretty serious, and he went to the RCMP. They retorted, that it was out of their jurisdiction. Now our community, is in shambles because the police refuse to "serve and protect." Equal before and under the law, I assume means everyone. Unless your not within jurisdiction, there is something amiss where corruption is allowed in our Great White North.
If anything, Jurisdiction is becoming the mirror of our discontent.
more to come....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
