From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Aboriginal Self Government
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 14:41:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.035844.19196@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>If you watched last night's (Sunday night, CBC TV 20:00-22:30 EDT)
>program War Against The Indians, you'll find out that there were in
>fact many rather discinct Indian tribes. Most of them that were based
>in what is now known as Canada, with the exception of the Inuits in the
>north, do belong to the same race. When we propose aboriginal self
>government, we are saying that this present group of people, who
>descended from all these Indian tribes that were scattered all over
>present day Canada way back then, are a defeated nation, militarily
>speaking, but still nevertheless constitute a nation, and warrant
>constitutional recognition of that fact.  


"They" certainly are a diverse "group" and to the extent that "they" (like
all other peoples) even speak many different languages and all have different
cultures. It is somewhat amusing to hear you divide "them" into Inuit and
"Indian", because that is a rather arbitrary division. Do you suggest that the
West coast Haida had anything similar in culture to the East coast 
Beothuk or the present-day Micmac, because they had common hereditary
endowments?  Come come.  We're all "Afro-Americans" after all....

>You pick up on the fact that they all happen to be of the same race. Is
>that their fault? Of all the Indians that were in present day Canadian
>territory 300 years ago, there were many distinctly different cultures,
>different Indian nations, and oh yes, they fought and also befriended
>one another, even intermarried, no doubt. Yet they still ended up all  
with reddish skin, with a particular shape of nose, with dark brown
>hair, basically remained in a particular race group. Could they but ....

Don't be ridiculous. You know I reject the concept of "race" to start with.
ANd no they do not all look alike, even if you paternalistically argue that
"this isn't their fault". Fault!?!?!?!

>help ending up that way? If they only could have sailed across the
>Atlantic to Europe, brought over a few hundred White young people,

And what on earth is a "white" person?  Ah, the oppressors, by right
of their skin colour, no doubt....
  
>The true test for whether aboriginal self government is viable,
>particularly in the context of your objection, is how they treat people
>who grew up in their culture but are biologically not of the Indian
>race. That, as we all know, defines whether a nation is culturally   


Biologically of a particular "race"?: this thinking oozes with racism. 
Are you now going to claim that "aboriginal self-government" is not
based on "racial" concepts?

But you miss my point entirely (on purpose?)
I object to self-government ONLY for aboriginals.
And I object to self-government based on "racial" characteristics.


>based or racially based. Hitler's was narrow on both fronts. France's
>original declaration 200 odd years ago was narrow only on culture, and
>broad on race. I have reason to believe that the First Nation will be
>broad based racially, and narrow culturally; just the same as France.  

On what do you base your reason? Every description I've been hearing of
ASG has referred to "race", to "white people's laws" and etc.
This does not sound territorial to me.

But let me be clear.
What I want in my country's constitution is the enshrinement of the
principle of equality, regardless of differences.
If some group wants a different constitution -- where people have 
different rules based on race, etc. -- then I suggest they form a 
separate, aparatheid-like state and fight out their racial prejudices
on their own. I don't want my country reduced to that level of abuse.


>I saw a lot of aboriginal people speak in front of the travelling road
>shows that were gathering public opinion on constitutional reform and
>many of them looked to me as no different from a White East European;
>they had blond hair, a chiseled narrow face, and completely white
>skin. Yet they were representatives of their people; they were real
>Status Indians.  

 
Does that surprise you?

>>If this deal is passed, I see a reactionary current escalating in this
>>country and it will be reacting against the wrongs of this Const. proposal
>>and it will use that resentment to do grave harm.
>
>I suggest you re-examine your own auto-pilot reaction to aboriginal
>self government and remove it as one of your complaints.


I support self-government for all peoples, and self-government based on 
citizenship, not "race."
I believe in inclusion, not exclusion. Does that make me "racist" in your 
view? Or am I just another victim of P-C newspeak?

Frank.