From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Aboriginal nationalism?
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:01:14 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr09.034014.10455@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.144658.17529@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>>I suppose they could vote to secede and then set up anarchistic states.
>
>They _could_? That's something I'm sure the Lubicons would like to
>know... hell, all they want is for Canadians to keep their damned word
>- just once. They can't exactly "leave" since they've never "been."

I wouldn't throw the Canadian government in with the British colonial
authorities necessarily. I agree that various regimes have been
obscenely unfair to the Lubicons and others.
However, we have to agree to one of two things. Either the record shows
that the Lubicons are not a part of Canada or it shows they are.
If the record shows the former, then they are already part of a separate
state, and they should not be receiving federal benefits (sic), but
should be working on a seat in the UN.
If the record shows the latter, then the Lubicon have the right to
secede (etc. as I stated above.) But no one can have it both ways.

 
>
>>However I detect a sense of *victim status* martyrdom in the words of
>>some. The majority of aboriginals prefer to remain within Canada.
>
>How have you determined this fact? (I haven't got a clue what the
>proportions are like in this regard, and have doubts that anyone else
>does either.)

I am going on the basis of the statements of leaders of the Indian 
organizations,
in particular, Mercredi who stated recently that it is *unfeasible* 
economically
for the aboriginals to secede from Canada. I do not suggest that Mercredi
speaks for all aboriginals. However, among many, I would think, h
e is considered more radical than conservative.

>
>>"OUR government"? Why do you assume the crimes against the aboriginals
>>were your and my crimes. Don't we both denounce such?
>
>So long as we sit by and do nothing, as a people, we are guilty. The
>Lubicon story in particular is sickening, and getting worse every day
>- I don't KNOW what the hell to do about it, but I don't think that
>I'm absolved of guilt just because I squawk.


Why do you assume that *we* sit and do nothing. I thought you, at least,
were doing something. When you do something, are you still guilty or
only when you are asleep?
Are you forever guilty because of your skin type? If so, that is a
racist assumption. Are all aboriginals absolved of guilt? Even the
ones that want to assimilate? Or are they permitted the luxury 
of choice by right of their skin tone, once again? 

The next question is in regards to what that *something* is that
is to be done. And whether it is racially-defined or not.
And whether racially-defined somethings are more harmful than good.



>
>>>(I have a Mohawk acquaintance who I see from time to time, and once
>>>when I asked him if he wasn't afraid of being killed by the army -
>>>this when he was leaving for Oka - his response was "The white man has
>>>been killing my people for hundreds of years - we are used to it.")
>
>>And all white men are the same, of course.....
>
>When they have been murdering your people with impunity, yes. Logic
>often finds itself overshadowed with cultural pain. Does he trust some
>white men? Yes, he does. Most of them are his brothers.


THEY???? All of them??? 

If you want to get technical about it, I think you will find that
the murders in these communities are not as you claim.
Not these days.

But this is purely racist reasoning. 
Blaming a people for a crime on the basis
of their skin tone. And I bet you think this is progressive too.
Welcome to New Left (sic) thinking methods.  
How kind to actually trust some "white men." 
What concerns me is that the issue is raised in that context.  Don't
you think the lines should be drawn on the basis of political stance
alone?

Come on, get out of the racialist mode of thinking. 
Your sympathies for justice are interfering with your
objectivity. Justice for all, not just some.

Frank.