Nunavut defends bear
March 6, 2010 - 1:29pm
More racist trash from settlers who don't know anything about FNs or culture.
"Animal rights activists in the U.S. just issued a study claiming that stalking the big carnivores for trophies is a marginal economic activity benefiting only a handful of people, and asserting that widespread hunting of the animals is only a recently adopted part of Inuit culture. Inuit who organize trophy hunting, it suggests, are violating their culture's tradition of respect for animals."
News flash! Cultures aren't static. They change and adapt over time. The WWF to claim the current Inuit culture isn't exactly the same way it was 500 years before therefor no trophy hunting should be allowed on FN land is another example of racism.
If polar bears become an endangered species hunting them presents a problem, and solid government assistance is required to provide other means of livelyhood.
I also wonder if placing animals on endangered species list protection actually works - does anyone know the results of other species that have been placed on endangered species lists.
If declining polar bears is such a big problem, why don't we attack climate change and natural gas industry expansion in the Arctic rather than a handful of Inuit hunters? Oh yeah--because of the racism.
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/inuit-sue-eu-over-seal-ban
I am not Inuit but one thing I know for sure is that they also have sets of values that are passed down as those of my father's people and of my mother's people.
Another thing that is universal amongst First Nations is respect for living things.
If anyone wants to claim that that is a "racist myth" then do your best.
I've noticed in a few forums there are often internet indians that have people walking on eggshells because they have their hand on the holster like a gun slinger at high-noon ready to pull the race card out at the drop of a hat. What this does - is by the time someone actually has good reason to use that race card it is so worn out from being shoved in people's faces that it is meaningless.
There was one internet forum I seen a few years ago where a couple people were openly racist. One guy said my people were all incestuous and married our first cousins. I stood alone against them but managed to pound their statements into the ground and make it clear to any silent observers that it is taboo for native people to marry anyone that is even distantly related. In our ways - no one from our tribe is permitted to marry another member because even if we are 5th or 6th cousins that is too closely related.
Where were all the brave gunslingers?
They were too busy accusing people (who were already respectful of First Nations culture and who didn't have one racist bone their body) of being racist. They pulled that race card so many times it is worn so thin you can almost see through it - and some people can see through them.
I have a problem with southern settlers commenting on Inuit practices. It's racist for them to think they know better about how to "manage" resources on FN land than the FNs who've been living there for thousands of years.
I can't figure you out E.T. One the one hand you state that you are FN and somewhat traditional. On the other hand, you seem a little too eager to start acting like slick capitalist settlers. I'm not so sure emulating the settler way of approaching land and animals is the way I'd want to go and I doubt it is the way our ancestors wanted us to go. It certainly is not in the teachings of our Elders. .
I don't believe I ever said I was "traditional". I will support 100% the decisions of any FN community in how they arrange their affairs. In this case the Inuit want to organize trophy hunting. Fine. I support them 100%. If we show division amongst ourselves we play right into the setters hands.
Perfect example was the olympics. Vast majority of FNs supported a boycott but a few corrupt chiefs decided to take bribes and there you have it. No common voice against them. Imagine what could have been achieved if Fontaine had come out against the games.
Back to the OP. The Inuit have it hard enough and have decided to allow limited trophy hunting for polar bears. The Sierra Club and WWF , and PETA and other southern elites decide to make their lives even rougher. The point is the Inuit won't allow the resource to be wiped out; they have too much at stake to go that route.
It seems to me that whenever a FN decides to take responsibility its own economic well being some settlers immediately jump on them decrying the methods to be "untraditional" and therefore wrong. Here's a flash: Nuclear power is not a "traditional" settler practice but it's being pursued in Ontario for economic development. It's dirty and dangerous. Shouldn't there be more outcry over it? Oh wait, it's not a FN initiative...
I've noticed in a few forums there are often internet indians that have people walking on eggshells because they have their hand on the holster like a gun slinger at high-noon ready to pull the race card out at the drop of a hat. What this does - is by the time someone actually has good reason to use that race card it is so worn out from being shoved in people's faces that it is meaningless.
Bingo. It is not racist to question whether continued "sport" hunting and guiding by Inuit is contributing to the demise and eventual possible extinction of polar bears. Is climate change also a major factor? No question, but over harvesting by indigenous hunters and their tourist clients is often also a major problem. This can be seen in the western arctic now where the territorial government (which is mostly Dene and Metis) has recently attempted to impose a temporary ban on killing caribou of the Bathurst herds, after scientists warned that over hunting and other factors have led to a dramatic decline in the herd in the past few years. Although some Dene have supported the hunting ban and called for other measures to protect the remaining caribou the majority of Dene "leaders" have insisted that their members have the treaty right to kill the entire herd if that's what they want to do, and they are fighting the ban in court.
It is not racist to denounce irresponsible, asshole "leaders" who happen to be First Nations.
It's not racist for FNs to question them.
It is racist for settlers to question them though.
That's absurd ET. I am Aboriginal and I would welcome anyone, of any race, denouncing the assholes who insist on continuing to slaughter endanged species.
I respectfully disagree Joey Ramone. The history of FNs is full of examples where the settlers felt they could just walk in and pass judgement on FN way of life. They should be aware of that destructive history and just back off and let FNs deal with questions that affect their lives and land. To continually insert themselves into these types of debates is racist.
Governments don't want to crack down on First Nations' over hunting laws because they're racist. We don't hate you. They want to crack down on First Nations' because it's easy. It's much easier to crack down on a small individual group, such as the Inuit in Nunuvut with polar bear hunting, than it is to take on an entire industrial complex.
It's quite naive though, to say that First Nations groups inherently know how to preserve species and protect the environment. We're both human. There's several examples of First Nations' wiping species off the map - the wholly mammoth is an example. The reason western settlers have managed to exterminate far more species isn't because First Nations' are somehow more enlightened, but simply because developed much stronger slaughtering technology.
In that vein First Nations are every bit as much obliged to follow conservation law as western settlers, no more, no less.
I respectfully disagree Joey Ramone. The history of FNs is full of examples where the settlers felt they could just walk in and pass judgement on FN way of life. They should be aware of that destructive history and just back off and let FNs deal with questions that affect their lives and land. To continually insert themselves into these types of debates is racist.
This is a red herring. I in no way said I support "settlers" continually inserting themselves into debates that only affect FNs. This is about selfish assholes doing a very bad thing to the environment and advising their members to also do the same bad thing. This affects everyone. The fact that they are Aboriginal assholes should not shield them from the criticism they fully deserve. I find that approach condascending and patronizing, and a disservice to principled FN activists and leaders who could use allies from anywhere when debating with the asshole "leaders".
I will support 100% the decisions of any FN community in how they arrange their affairs.
Really? Even if democratically elected FN leaders decide to endorse the Olympics?
Hey Lou? This is the Aboriginal Forum. You know, where FNs (emphasis on FNs) can discuss things in a safe environment. Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute? If not GTFO and go back to being a moderator, not an interloper.
By the way, your "democratically elected" band councils are based on the racist Indian Act. They have no real moral authority. but in many cases they're unfortunately all we've got... sad.
ooops
I respectfully disagree Joey Ramone. The history of FNs is full of examples where the settlers felt they could just walk in and pass judgement on FN way of life. They should be aware of that destructive history and just back off and let FNs deal with questions that affect their lives and land. To continually insert themselves into these types of debates is racist.
This is a red herring. I in no way said I support "settlers" continually inserting themselves into debates that only affect FNs. This is about selfish assholes doing a very bad thing to the environment and advising their members to also do the same bad thing. This affects everyone. The fact that they are Aboriginal assholes should not shield them from the criticism they fully deserve. I find that approach condascending and patronizing, and a disservice to principled FN activists and leaders who could use allies from anywhere when debating with the asshole "leaders".
The question is really one about sustainability then, isn't it? I would agree with your asertion that it's a bad thing to hunt a species to extinction, if that's what is really happening in Inuit territory. I think that since the Inuit have been carefully managing the various animals in the arctic for thousands of years they've developed excellent skills to ensure the Polar Bear and other species continue to exist. If they want to allow limited trophy hunting and forgo hunting an equivalent number of animals themselves then there's really no net negative effect on the bear numbers.
I can't figure you out E.T. One the one hand you state that you are FN and somewhat traditional. On the other hand, you seem a little too eager to start acting like slick capitalist settlers. I'm not so sure emulating the settler way of approaching land and animals is the way I'd want to go and I doubt it is the way our ancestors wanted us to go. It certainly is not in the teachings of our Elders. .
Good point.
When it comes to supporting his idea that we should sell as many baby seal pelts to the ch!ne$e and (a small number of) the Inuit should be allowed to help Caucasian millionaires put "trophies" in their den suddenly he is not a traditionalist and disagrees with the teachings of the elders.
Then if a modern FN chief who was elected by the people doesn't believe the Olympics should be boycotted they are "assholes". [edit-added: But I do believe there are quite a few elected chiefs that put their own greed before their people. Especially if ET went back to his supposed reserve and became the chief.]
If anyone disagrees with him they are racist.
I think that since the Inuit have been carefully managing the various animals in the arctic for thousands of years they've developed excellent skills to ensure the Polar Bear and other species continue to exist.
The idea that the Inuit, or any other Aboriginal people for that matter, are less likely than non-Aboriginal people to endanger animals or their habitat through over hunting, waste and other nasty stuff is largely based on the racist myth of the "noble savage". I have witnessed many cases of FN people casually harming animal habitats and FN hunting parties killing calves and nursing cow moose. Recently I saw the massive waste left behind by a very efficient Dene hunting party in the NWT who slaughtered 14 caribou and took only the tenderloins, a few pounds of steaks and the antlers from each animal, leaving the rest to rot. These hunters were from one of the Dene communities whose leaders now insist on their "right" to continue killing caribou of the sharply declining Bathurst herd. It may well be that their ancestors practised good management of wildlife, but FN "leaders" today have proven themselves just as irresponsible as the worst of the "settlers" and they are due no more respect than any settlers behaving likewise.
The idea that the Inuit, or any other Aboriginal people for that matter, are less likely than non-Aboriginal people to endanger animals or their habitat through over hunting, waste and other nasty stuff is largely based on the racist myth of the "noble savage".
I thought it was because the Inuit have more experience with the arctic animals, 10000 years or more worth.
I find that hard to believe that it's a common practice to treat the animal resouces that way by the Dene.
E. Tamaran, re post #15. You can't tell anyone to GTFO (get the fuck out) of a discussion. Stop it.
I find that hard to believe that it's a common practice to treat the animal resouces that way by the Dene.
I spend a lot of time in the NWT and I've done some hunting with my Dene friends. Many Dene have told me how ashamed they are that their "leaders" are calling for continued, unrestricted hunting of a species in serious decline. http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/2010-01/jan28_10car.html
Hey Lou? This is the Aboriginal Forum. You know, where FNs (emphasis on FNs) can discuss things in a safe environment. Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute? If not GTFO and go back to being a moderator, not an interloper.
For what it's worth, i should have paid more attention to what forum this thread was in. I generally surf rabble from the TAT page, and sometimes don't pay enough attention to the forums. I just want to clarify that I wasn't trolling in the Aboriginal Forum looking for a fight.
Carry on...
Surely, we aren't suggesting that assisting trophy hunters to come to Nunavut, and kill an endangered species in order to demonstrate how manly they are, is now part of FN culture?
It is no more a part of FN culture than selling duty-free cigarettes and running casinos is.
Surely, we aren't suggesting that assisting trophy hunters to come to Nunavut, and kill an endangered species in order to demonstrate how manly they are, is now part of FN culture?
It is no more a part of FN culture than selling duty-free cigarettes and running casinos is.
KeyStone, here is the reason why your post is racist:
There are hundreds of First Nations. To expect there to be one all-defining culture is outrageous. Would you consider saying "Asian" culture? Yet you've no problem with "FN culture"! You lump all First Nations into one, all-encompassing culture.
A particular First Nation may sell cigarettes to earn money. A particular First Nation (or here in Manitoba a group of First Nations) may run casinos for the same reason. Those activities then become part of that First Nation's culture. Just like when the English started using machines during the Industrial Revolution, that activity became part of their culture.
Clear?
Why on earth would First Nation's people need money? After reading government and other propaganda, I was under the impression that FN's have more money than they know what to do with and that life is easy in the North?
Why on earth would First Nation's people need money? After reading government and other propaganda, I was under the impression that FN's have more money than they know what to do with and that life is easy in the North?
Saved for moderator review.
Fidel. No sarcastic or ironic racism. You know better.
A particular First Nation may sell cigarettes to earn money. A particular First Nation (or here in Manitoba a group of First Nations) may run casinos for the same reason.
Selling crack and meth can also be very lucrative.
Surely, we aren't suggesting that assisting trophy hunters to come to Nunavut, and kill an endangered species in order to demonstrate how manly they are, is now part of FN culture?
It is no more a part of FN culture than selling duty-free cigarettes and running casinos is.
Ah...myths abound.
In fact guiding has been a tradition for many First Nation peoples, inlcuding the Inuit who helped explorers to the North Pole, and the Mohawks who led the Jesuits into Upper Canada. So yes, it was and is today still part of many First Nation cultures.
Selling duty free cigarettes is also a tradition since the Mohawks (where much of the tobacco originates) have traded in tobacco (and tobacco products) long before contact. Same thing with gambling, since the peach pit game as one exmaple has been played for as long as international trade among First Nations.
So while you might be trying to be cute, you missed that you were wrong. Myths have no place here, so next time try to be a bit more relevant.
Thanks to Charter Rights I think we can wrap this up.
The Inuit plan to allow limited trophy hunting of polar bears is an acceptable activity from cultural, economic, and environmental standpoints. Good for them!
I really am enjoying being able to have these conversations in this space.
E.Tamaran,
I agree with what Charter Rights said, in fact I was going to mention the thing about gambling.
I know it as 'moccasin games'. It is very ancient and it is likely similar to the 'peach pit' game he mentioned.
But just because he is right about those things doesn't suddenly mean that everything you say is justified.
Your message always seems to be that we should kill every living thing in sight for short term profit.
Establishing economies dependant on a fashion trend or the extravagant whims of millionaire trophy hunters is not a means to economic independence in the long run for any nation - FN or otherwise.
As has been witnessed in other corners of the world, the value of an animal's death increases in value as it becomes rarer and rarer. Whether it's death is due to it pelt or it's position of prestige in a trophy room the species desired at the time is hunted to the point that someone is willing to pay millions for the very last one.
At that point, laws as well as the ethic to protect a nearly extinct species become meaningless to those seeking fortunes and trophies.
I watch a popular Canadian hunting show on the weekend. The host travelled to Igoolik to hunt walrus. He was guided by a couple of Inuit hunters, and the whole process was monitored by and Inuit elder.
They were selective in their hunt and managed to take a huge male with a single shot.
No doubt the hunter / guides were paid well for their assistance. The host hunter got a trophy. The meat was put into a cache for the community. It was as near a perfect enterprise as could be.
You assumption is a problem LWB because you make the mistake of assuming that what happens in the rest of the world will ultimately happen to the Inuit -that greed will prevail. I would suggest that food is still the top priority for most of these men and providing some extra cash while at the same time providing for their communities is not immoral, or dangerous to the species.
Having watch a documentary with David Suziki, there is a dispute between the Inuit and the biologists that say the caribou are being depleted and all hunting should stop. It isn't a dispute about the right to hunt but of the size of the herds, who the Inuit maintain are not at critical levels. Rather culling is still necessary and their oral history suggests that fluctuations in the populations are part of the normal cycle, as birthing pressures, change in the environment and weather from one winter to the next and increases in wolf populations changes the sizes of herds. Having years of knowledge about the caribou should account for something more than a dispute by know-it-all biologists who also once claimed that the BC salmon fishery should be closed, when stocks were plentiful.
Ah...myths abound.
In fact guiding has been a tradition for many First Nation peoples, inlcuding the Inuit who helped explorers to the North Pole, and the Mohawks who led the Jesuits into Upper Canada. So yes, it was and is today still part of many First Nation cultures.
Selling duty free cigarettes is also a tradition since the Mohawks (where much of the tobacco originates) have traded in tobacco (and tobacco products) long before contact. Same thing with gambling, since the peach pit game as one exmaple has been played for as long as international trade among First Nations.
So while you might be trying to be cute, you missed that you were wrong. Myths have no place here, so next time try to be a bit more relevant.
While these are interesting points that your making I think that your rationalizing those modern practices. Also, don't be so quick to dismiss myths, they should never be taken at face value and hint at someone's Truths. There seems to be two issues. Unfortunately the two practices, guiding and trophy hunting, are being married as one practice. I'm not Innuit so I can't say how much the polar bear hunting is affecting populations. I can only say that I fundamentally disagree with trophy hunting... seen too much senseless waste in my area with deer, elk, and moose. But the Innuit have to determine this for themselves and the best interest of the polar bear. I think that these conservation organisations do need to talk with the people up there before debating things in newspapers.
Charter,
It's a pretty stretched extrapolation that claims slot machines, and roulette wheels as part of many first nations culture, based on the fact that they played the Peach Pit game. Incidentally, the Inuit are not considered First Nations.
You seem to have applied the 'six degrees of seperation' concept to tradition, therefore making 95% of human activity capable of falling under the realm of tradition for many of the First Nations.
But, regardless of what is tradition and what is not tradition, culture and tradition do not trump all other considerations.
Some cultures in the world have a tradition of treating women poorly.
Some cultures in the world have a tradition of treating homosexuals poorly.
Are these to be continued simply because of tradition?
Shall the prevalent cultures of North America continue to ram Judeo-Christian holidays down the throats of the entire populous of Canada because it is tradition?
Shall the tar sands of Fort Mcmurray continue to produce massive pollution, because they now have a tradition of polluting?
What about the son who was shown by his father how to dump toxic waste into the rivers without getting caught? Shall we take away that great tradition?
I realize that we are a horribly speciesist society, where the slaughter of an endangered species for the amusement of others can be justified, as long as someone makes money, but isn't there a line somewhere where we take on a greater responsibility and protect endangered animals?
Perhaps you would like to stick with the traditional definition of marriage?
Things change. People progress. Old traditions are modified, modernized, and adapted to an ever-evolving society.
More and more it seems, tradition, is nothing more than justification for doing the wrong thing, on the basis that the wrong thing has been done for many years.
"If declining polar bears is such a big problem, why don't we attack climate change and natural gas industry expansion in the Arctic rather than a handful of Inuit hunters? Oh yeah--because of the racism."
Great idea, Catchfire. Let's just eliminate global warming. Clearly, no one has thought of that.
I'll make a few phone calls. You call some friends. Hopefully, we can halt global warming before dinner.
E Tamaran,
I'm sure using your racism filter, you could find far more racism in this thread, than my post. I assume you only point out the alleged racism, in the posts with which you disagree.
Let's start with your very first post.
"More racist trash from settlers who don't know anything about FNs or culture."
First of all, the topic is Inuit, yet you suggest the racist setttler trash don't know anything about FN's.
That's rather ironic given that the Inuit are not First Nations people. It would seem to suggest you don't know all that much about FN yourself. For someone who feels entitled to throw out accusations of racism, you should probably get those sorts of things right, don't you think?
Secondly, later in that post, you refer to FN land. Would you refer to it as Asian land? No? Well then, your post is racist based on your own criteria which you have laid out.
I do however appreciate the explanation. It is a good perspective and I have learned.
However, it probably could have been done in a less abrasive way, without calling me a racist, particularly given the very inconsistent judgement system that you appear to be using.
E Tamaran,
I'm sure using your racism filter, you could find far more racism in this thread, than my post. I assume you only point out the alleged racism, in the posts with which you disagree.
Let's start with your very first post.
"More racist trash from settlers who don't know anything about FNs or culture."
First of all, the topic is Inuit, yet you suggest the racist setttler trash don't know anything about FN's.
That's rather ironic given that the Inuit are not First Nations people. It would seem to suggest you don't know all that much about FN yourself. For someone who feels entitled to throw out accusations of racism, you should probably get those sorts of things right, don't you think?
Secondly, later in that post, you refer to FN land. Would you refer to it as Asian land? No? Well then, your post is racist based on your own criteria which you have laid out.
I do however appreciate the explanation. It is a good perspective and I have learned.
However, it probably could have been done in a less abrasive way, without calling me a racist, particularly given the very inconsistent judgement system that you appear to be using.
Saved for moderator review.
You can't come into this place and call FNs racists. That's way over the line.
First of all, I didn't call you a racist. I called your post racist.
Secondly, I'm part FN myself, so it would appear that you've violated that rule yourself.
I'm part FN myself, .
OK. Sorry. Brothers gotta stick together you know.
No worries.
I hear what you are saying. I am just saying you could say it a little nicer is all.
I probably didn't need to fly off the handle like that though.
Edited out after I read Keystone's post.
I didn't see one thing racist about what Keystone said regardless of his bloodline.
Someone's got to get his hand off the holster before he shoots himself in the foot.
Charter,
It's a pretty stretched extrapolation that claims slot machines, and roulette wheels as part of many first nations culture, based on the fact that they played the Peach Pit game. Incidentally, the Inuit are not considered First Nations.
You seem to have applied the 'six degrees of seperation' concept to tradition, therefore making 95% of human activity capable of falling under the realm of tradition for many of the First Nations.
But, regardless of what is tradition and what is not tradition, culture and tradition do not trump all other considerations.
Well actually, they do.....
Some cultures in the world have a tradition of treating homosexuals poorly.
Are these to be continued simply because of tradition?
You have commited a pathetic rebuttal. Your use of generalization neither points to, or identifies your examples as traditions. They are not. And even if they were your references are nothing more than a red herring.
Another lame retort. Judeo-christian prinicples and traditions ARE rammed down Canadians' throats AND this group has largely been behind the residential school system and the institutionalized racism that still exists today. No one suggested that gambling or the cigarette industry is being rammed down everyone's throat. In fact just the opposite is occurring. People have the choice to gamble and to smoke and in the latter case the government is not the sole profiteer. The benefits of either while being a vice for many Canadians, outweigh the problems. If you know any other way to get the government to stop interfering with First Nation economic development then let's hear it because the government is deathly afraid of Natives having money because money is power. With that kind of power, Natives are no longer helpless when governments, mining interests and big corporations try to stela land from them.
You are getting more silly with every statement. This one isn't even worth discussing further.
I realize that we are a horribly speciesist society, where the slaughter of an endangered species for the amusement of others can be justified, as long as someone makes money, but isn't there a line somewhere where we take on a greater responsibility and protect endangered animals?
Perhaps you would like to stick with the traditional definition of marriage?
Things change. People progress. Old traditions are modified, modernized, and adapted to an ever-evolving society.
More and more it seems, tradition, is nothing more than justification for doing the wrong thing, on the basis that the wrong thing has been done for many years.
It is obvious you really don't understand what tradition is and your biggest mistake is trying to present moral corruption in response to maintaining tradition and culture. While it is true that tradition changes, the culture behind it does not. Corporations and governments do not have culture, and therefore do not have traditions to demonstrate culture. Gambling is not wrong and neither is smoking since both are traditional and cultural to many First Nation people. Rather the abuse of these things occurr when the settler society lose control of their own restraint is the problem and like settler society often does, it blames the activity instead their their own lack of self-control.
"Well actually, they do....."
Since you feel that culture and tradition DO trump all other values, that would seem to imply that you wholly support female genital mutilation, foot binding, and forced marriages.
Quote:
Some cultures in the world have a tradition of treating women poorly.
Some cultures in the world have a tradition of treating homosexuals poorly.
Are these to be continued simply because of tradition?
"You have commited a pathetic rebuttal. Your use of generalization neither points to, or identifies your examples as traditions. They are not. And even if they were your references are nothing more than a red herring."
Fine, I will spell it out more. In some cultures, female genital mutilation has been practiced for generations. This is part of their culture. Do you feel that this practice should be continued'?
The purpose in keeping it general, is so that the conversation does not get sidetracked, into specifics about other traditions. I had hoped to establish the obvious truth, that not all traditions have a place in modern society, and that the length that the tradition has been practiced is irrelevant, if it does not conform to modern standards of justice and compassion.
"Another lame retort. Judeo-christian prinicples and traditions ARE rammed down Canadians' throats AND this group has largely been behind the residential school system and the institutionalized racism that still exists today."
This is my point. Do you feel they should continue on the basis, that they have been in place for as long as they have. When I went to school, we said the Lord's prayer each morning. Do you feel that this tradition should continue because it is part of our culture?
I am hoping that by this point, you will at least conced the point that tradition does not trump all other considerations.
"It is obvious you really don't understand what tradition is and your biggest mistake is trying to present moral corruption in response to maintaining tradition and culture."
Well the actual definition of tradition is a belief or custom handed down from one generation to the next. Your definition seems to be: a belief or custom of a previous generation that has any remote similarity to a current money-earning practice of the present.
"While it is true that tradition changes, the culture behind it does not."
You've said yourself that tradition changes. Why then, can tradition not change again? Instead of playing tour guide to rich American trophy hunters, how about becoming tour guide to ecological tourists wanting to see polar bears in the wild? Do we really need to justify every practice that makes money? I mean, what if there was a First Nation with a tradition of dog pit fighting? Would we be defending that as well?
If all you have are fallacy arguments then I suggest you are not equipped to have a reasonable discussion on this matter. Your straw man and ad hominen is a poor excuse for not thinking. Do try better.
Tradition follows the morality of the culture it is part of. It trumps everything....and in a just society it would be used (as it now is with Gladue in pre-sentencing) to evaluate the circumstances of a crime before finding guilt and making sentencing. Tradition does not change JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT SHOULD. That is just plain silliness. It changes when the culture deems it necessary to adapt and not until.
The Inuit have a right to hunt in their traditional territories and invite anyone they want to join them. Whether they hunt polar bear, seal or whale no one can interfere with it, and if they manage to eke a small living doing so - paying for guns, snowmobiles and bullets to make their hunt more efficient - then more power to them. Trying to substitute your feelings as interference to their rights, is absolutely wrong. You are no better than the colonials whom have attempted to justify the abuse of aboriginal people because savages don't know how to manage land and resources properly.
You might re-examine that since your thinking clearly comes from a mainstream worldview. According to my Mohawk friends, there is no such thing as "part FN" and anyone who claims it, is nothing more than a settler wannabe. To be a First Nations, you have to first think like one and once you do, you would realize that there is no such thing as "part" (a colonial construct designed to diminish "Indianess" as a form of genocide) and you are either Native or you are not.
I find it pretty sad that this debate is even happening on this board. For what's worth, I agree with KeyStone. Not all traditions are good. Some principled FN communities have chosen to forego revenue that they can badly use because it comes from shit that is destroying their communities: corrupt deals with mining and oil companies, trophy hunting threatened species, gambling, tobacco, booze and drugs. Nobody here is questioning the right and authority of FNs to make these choices, but why celebrate the communities who choose money over principles rather than those communities that choose to protect land and forego these sources of revenue?
Amen Joey.
Charter Rights, while I can understand and appreciate your response re: "part FN" it is much more than that. Many of us who are mixed (in my case Acadian and Mic Mac) have a hard time trying to straddle two sets of rules. One set is used by the dominant culture, of which many of are are born into, and the other set is the values our Elders taught. As a city person I am not tied to a specific reserve and all the teachings I have received I have sought out myself - drum circles, various ceremonies, speaking with Elders, volunteering with ceremonies and attending weekly teaching circles and my dad.
I claim part FN because that is what I am. I reject your labels because I don't think that splitting us all up into neat little compartments is either conductive to understanding or conductive to the notion of shared community. It is not fair that you, a white man, get to so easily spit out the "well a Mohawk friend told me that anyone mixed is not FN". That is pure and total bullshit.
What do you think of the full blood FN's that have absolutely no traditional values? Are they too not FN? See how ultimately divisive and silly this can get? I have absolutely no idea what Keystone's background is but it would be nice if, instead of proclaiming we can't be FN if we identify as mixed, you would attempt to understand why it may be that some have no access to traditional teachings. I smudge, I do a lot of things at my home in the city to ensure I stay as close as I can to traditional teachings. But others may not have had that opportunity.
IMHO you have absolutely no right to tell anyone they are not FN because they identify as mixed. You know, the fact is a lot of us are mixed.
Thread Drift-I really like smudging, makes me feel cleaner somehow. Also feel that way after a good fire with wood smoke wafting over me.
I'm not telling anyone they can or can't be FN. Rather I am relaying what I am told by my Mohawk friends. They don't have a problem with self definition. And they easily made the separation with Anglo-European worldviews by creating and adhering to the Two Row Wampum, which basically states you are either in "the Europen's boat" or the Haudenosaunee's "canoe". You must decide to be in one or the other and cannot be in both at the same time.
By Mohawk definition, one cannot be "part FN". If one adheres to Canadian - settler values - then they are Canadian. If they embrace Mohawk values, then they are Mohawk. It is just that simple.
The problem with Canadians is that lacking any definable "culture" they really don't understand what tradition really means. One can live in the mainsteam society, participate in commerce and trade and still maintain their traditional principles. Heck. The Mohawks have been trading and bartering long before the settlers /colonials entered the scene. And they have been developing land as long as well. So it is perfectly traditional to be involved in business ventures.
(and just so the naysayers don't accuse me of something.....I reference The Mohawks because that is the information and references that I have. By being more specific I strive to avoid generalizations which are the achilles heel of discussion ....and border on racism....While this is a limited specification, it is nonetheless relevant)
Unsuprisingly, you fail to admit that culture and tradition do not trump all, despite obvious examples making it abundantly clear.
Instead, you choose blanket dismissals, evading the issue entirely, all the while proclaiming yourself to be logically superior. It must get tiring patting yourself on the back so often.
No obviously, it does not. I have given you clear examples, where culture does not trump human rights, which you have conveniently chosen to ignore with pithy little dismissals.
I find it interesting that you feel tradition is unwavering when it comes to adapting for things like endangered species or human rights, but if there is a chance for greater financial gain (such as the tradition of the peach pit game suddnely morphing into running slot machines), tradition easily changes. In fact, it would seem that tradition only changes, when you personally find it acceptable.
Apparently, they do have that right. The United States has the right to ban their citizens from hunting polar bears and other endangered species, just as the Europeans have the right to ban the import of seal products. So, there is no problem. No rights are being stripped here."
I find it quite offensive to suggest that because I am against trophy hunting of an endangered species, I am no better than those that abuse aboriginal people. I would hope you would apologize for such a statement.
Don't you dare tell me what I am and what I am not. I will not re-examine my view and find your suggestion to be unnecessarily polarizing, as well as small-minded and bigoted.
Who is your Mohawk friend? Is it Shawn Atleo or perhaps Phil Fontaine? Otherwise, I'd be curious as to who this Mohawk is who can speak on the behalf of all FN people. Perhaps you mis-remembered and he spoke of the Mohawk people, beliefs and traditions. I, however, am neither full nor part Mohawk so I can not speak to his beliefs.
I can simply not believe that we have First Natiions people that honestly believe that trophy hunting of an endangered species, so that some rich American can have a bear head mounted on his wall, and a rug in front of his fire, is now enshrined in Inuit culture. It simply shames me.
Greetings Sister,
My suspicion is that though he doesn't have any native blood in him he believes he is more native than you based on, "If they [Him] "embrace Mohawk values, then they are Mohawk. It is just that simple."
He hangs out with a few Mohawk youth and "embraced" a few things they told him which may simply be their personal opinion but it is enough (in his mind) to make him a FN and you a settler.
Ah the old straw man fallacy again.
I work with Mohawk people from Elders to youth, from Kanesatake, Kahnawke, Akwesanse, Tyendinaga and Six Nations every day. These are professionals and they are labourers and housemakers. Their backgrounds and status in the communty may vary, but their message does not. That is a whole lot better in my opinion than someone who claims FN heritage but acts and talks like settlers.
I don't care whether you think the US can tell its citizens it can or can't hunt. In Canada you can't tell aboriginal people they can't hunt or tell them how they have to hunt, or what they can hunt. Their Charter Rights protect their traditions and their right to earn a moderate living from that activity. So says the Supreme Court of Canada. So get over it.
Im pretty sure Canada can set conservation limits of hunting and activites like that. At least I seem to recall that they ruled for that,
Ah the old straw man fallacy again...
...
...I don't care whether you think the US can tell its citizens it can or can't hunt. In Canada you can't tell aboriginal people they can't hunt or tell them how they have to hunt, or what they can hunt. Their Charter Rights protect their traditions and their right to earn a moderate living from that activity. So says the Supreme Court of Canada. So get over it.
Ah the old tin man fallacy again.
Tinman fallacy:
To defend a position or argument, that one does not hold.
Example - A Christian defending the deist take on the concept of a god.
In Canada you can't tell aboriginal people they can't hunt or tell them how they have to hunt, or what they can hunt. Their Charter Rights protect their traditions and their right to earn a moderate living from that activity. So says the Supreme Court of Canada.
Are you sure about that? There used to be a quota system with regards to hunting polar bears. I lived for four years in a small Inuit community and there was a yearly quota of two polar bear kills. Someone must have set a rule. If no one can tell an Inuit not to hunt polar bears above that quota then a lot more would be hunted. Muskoxes in those days were not hunted at all, unless with special permission. Has that all changed?
I found the Inuit very responsible as a community, but that did not mean that all individuals were responsible. I have come across cariboo with just the legs removed , for making some kamiks. Walrus that had just their tusks and ussuk removed, and the rest left for the foxes and polar bears. And come across campsides with the shore littered with disposable diapers. And teenagers roaming the tundra on a sunny day shooting at anything that moves. You mean to tell me that there is not one that can tell an aboriginal not to do those things.
Ah the old straw man fallacy again.
Oh, is that what you call it when you are presented with an example that refutes your assertion, for which you have no retort?
I had thought straw man meant something else.
I work with Mohawk people from Elders to youth, from Kanesatake, Kahnawke, Akwesanse, Tyendinaga and Six Nations every day. These are professionals and they are labourers and housemakers. Their backgrounds and status in the communty may vary, but their message does not. That is a whole lot better in my opinion than someone who claims FN heritage but acts and talks like settlers.
It's a sure-sign that you feel you are losing the debate, when you have to haul out your real-life credentials, as if it somehow makes your online arguments more credible. I don't really want to get into a pissing contest about who is more FN. I don't question your credentials, and I hope you don't question mine.
For you to suggest that I act and talk like a settler because I don't think that the trophy hunting of endangered species is a necessary part of Inuit culture is absurd. It's really a testament to how desperate you are to win an argument, more than anything else. We don't agree on this point. That doesn't really justify all your small-minded attacks on my heritage, now does it?
"I don't care whether you think the US can tell its citizens it can or can't hunt. In Canada you can't tell aboriginal people they can't hunt or tell them how they have to hunt, or what they can hunt. Their Charter Rights protect their traditions and their right to earn a moderate living from that activity. So says the Supreme Court of Canada. So get over it."
I realize the law entitles aboriginal people to hunt on aboriginal lands as they see fit, and conserve the animals as appropriate. I would hope that those hunting polar bears would keep conservation in mind. However, due to the tragedy of the commons without a global viewpoint, sustainability does not always happen, particularly with migratory animals that are not always contained within a particular territory.
Good news for Inuit people.
International trade in polar bear parts and products will not be restricted under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, delegates from 175 countries decided Thursday March 18, 2010.
http://www.ecofactory.com/news/cites-turns-down-protections-polar-bear-bluefin-tuna-031910
I doubt this is good news to anyone but people like ET and his buddies that cannot put thier minds beyond increasing short term profit by killing off the animal that depends upon seals for survival.
I suppose polar bears must make way for the new species of parasite like Euch Tweugh that can only survive by leaching off any living thing around them.
This is actually good for a handful of Inuit guides, and for big game hunters, that need to compensate for something by killing endangered wild animals for fun. In the long run, the goodwill lost by the Inuit people by this action, will undoubtedly outweigh the miniscule benefits that they get.
However, if CITES feels that they are not in danger, perhaps they are right. Let's hope they know what they are doing.
CITES has not finished their session and it is entirely possible they could come to an agreement on this again by the end the session which is I belive next thursday
This is actually good for a handful of Inuit guides, and for big game hunters, that need to compensate for something by killing endangered wild animals for fun. In the long run, the goodwill lost by the Inuit people by this action, will undoubtedly outweigh the miniscule benefits that they get.
It's not racist for FNs to question them.
It is racist for settlers to question them though.
I think we have to be careful not to take this too far. For example, would we criticize Singapore if it decided to ignore climate change? Probably. Yet would anyone accuse the person making the comment of being racist?
I'd lived abroad myself, and believe me, in China, Japan and South Korea, they too often criticize policies in their own countries, neighbouring countries, in the West, etc. etc. etc. criticizing both foreign domestic and their own policies.
I don't see why we should treat first Nations any differently. I've met not many First nations, but most I've met are intelligent and articulate, and they certainly don't need to be coddled. I think they're strong enough to handle legitimate and open exchanges of ideas like anyone else. We openly express our ideas on other countries' domestic and foreign policy. Why are the FN any different?