babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I’m not sure I understand your logic of including home schools in that list. People of any race can (and do) home school their kids.
With regard to Christian schools and Catholic schools (not sure why you listed those separately—I would, instead, simply refer to that category as “sectarian schools”), people are not absolutely barred from attending those schools because they have the wrong genes.
As far as private schools for “rich” kids, I’m curious, as a side bar, to know how you define “rich”. My sister is a nurse and her husband works in a parole office (in a non-management position) and they send their kids to a private school. I’m not sure I’d call them “rich”, however. But, in any event, sending their two girls there has nothing to do with their genes their girls possess (in fact, her husband is a POC). Your inclusion of this category is akin to this: New Mercedes can only be purchased by people with a fair amount of money. Therefore, because there are car dealers that sell cars only available to the “rich”, it would be appropriate to have car dealers that only sell to FN, or whites, or blacks. Your analogy is not only inapposite but absurd.
So, getting back to my original list, you would have no objection to having schools set up for Asian kids, white kids, black kids, etc., etc.?
You seem to have no problem with that, but you do with other races.
It would be their choice of attendance to a slect school, or non-attendance, and none of my business.
"Predominently" white, yes, but exclusively white? No.
This would be an exlusively FN school.
What I don't understand is an argument in favor of an exclusively FN, when an exclusively XXX (you fill in the XXX with "Asian", "white", "black", "Chicano", etc.) school is hard to justify.
ETA: At a college level, there is even less segregation than at many secondary schools. I can't imagine a "white" or "Asian" or "black" college. There are "historic" black colleges, like Howard University, but there are no "black only" colleges. Here, we're talking about a "FN only" college.
[ 07 March 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]
But seriously, have you ever heard the word "assimilation"? Do you seriously think that settler governments' efforts over hundreds of years to assimilate First Nations has no relevance to the idea of FN-only colleges?
As a people, we do not exclude others. If we did, we would not have treated the newcomers so well as we did.
If some one who is non-native wants to attend this college, I am sure there would be no barriers in the way.
However, keeping in mind, what I said earlier, that a native school would have a different philosophy of education. Students are there to learn skills, to learn their history, language and culture, and be among those that they are comfortable with, and to be out of the racism that so often is a part of the western university experience (I know, for I have been there). Seems to be the same reasons, that black schools were established.
I don't think exclusivity is what these colleges are all about, but it seems as though Squeamish Sven wants it to be.
That said, aboriginal history in Canada is far different than ethnic immigration in Canada. For one thing, the legacy of Canada's efforts to educate Canadian aboriginals is criminal. FN have tried for centuries to take back control over their own education and there's no reason why this should be discouraged.
At the end of the day, however, it is unlikely, based on my limited legal knowledge, that a school prohibiting any non-aboriginal students would pass any charter challenge.
Thanks for making those observations...
I am not sure Catchfire. In Ontario Catholic Elementary schools only have Catholic Students. The rules call for a student to have a baptismal certificate to go. Now the Catholic High Schools are open to all.
I wonder if the same legal argument could be used that the Catholic Schools use to defend their enrolment.
Hey Sven, no one asked you for your objections in the first place. Aren't you a lawyer? Have you ever reviewed the Two Row Wampum Belt? I'm guessing no.
You don't know the first thing about Indigenous-settler history or law. You are most unwelcome in your continued trolling of the the Aboriginal forum with your stupid comments.
You know that your white-supremacist views are unwelcomed in a forum that is supposed to be about decolonization but you refuse to get a life.
Go be squeamish somewhere else.
[ 07 March 2007: Message edited by: Le Tйlйspectateur ]
Fuck you. That's simply outrageous.
No it is not, you apparently did not get it when I stated in response to your question to me of: "do you have no objections to xxxx type of schools" and I responded it is their choice and none of my business.
You have absolutely NO right to give approval or objection.
Especially when you support the segregation of other people's schools, and particularily when those other people's schools are actually in fact "white" schools.
Number One: I don't advocate racial segregation in schools. To read that into my postings is your failing, my friend, not mine.
Number Two: If there are, in fact, "white" colleges, as you appear to be claiming, then I'll let your own words stand as a barrier to you having any right to advocate against the establishment of such colleges:
In fact, perhaps everyone could? These discussions don't need to be so hostile.
[ 07 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Michelle, if you support the idea of other types of private schools, you are indeed supporting segregation, as what are they except segregated schools? May it be along religious, gender, or socio-economic lines?
What did I actually say that needs dialing back? seriously? Please do tell me?
Is this NOT the aboriginal forum where things are supposed to be addressed from a pro- FN viewpoint?
How do you think it would go over in the feminist forum, if someone male was asked if he objected to exclusive female groups, either educational or otherwise? Or if a male said it made him "queasy" that females were wanting female only programs and educational services?
Seriously Michelle, just how far would that boat float of "absolute worst interpretation of someone's words"? Just how can that "queasy" be interpreted?
Also Michelle, Sven has made it a habit to drop into the Aboriginal Issues and Culture form and insist on his right to say things that are based in a firm misunderstanding of a situation that is greater than his personal opinion.
In fact, FN Babblers have LEFT BABBLE because of Sven and other people who insist on using the Aboriginal Issues and Culture form to assert their right to free speech.
A number of Babblers, including myself, have expressed their view that babble (mods and members) is failing at maintaining this form as a place of solidarity, respect and progress towards a decolonized Canada.
Yes, I'm being 'hostile' but it's not without reason.
Never said you advocated racial segregation my friend, I said you supported the right to exist other segregated schools, and that they happen to be predominently white.
I never advocated against the establishment of any colleges, nor the establishment of any colleges
And by white colleges, I actually mean geared toward white colonialistic learning and teaching.
yes, I said this:
Which means I have NO opinion, as I do not perceive it is my right to have opinions about what other peoples are choosing to do. I was quite clear that I had NO opinion whatsoever other than all have a right to do whatever they want.
Of course i support this idea, as it comes as a solution from within the Aboriginal community. There won't be general consensus that this is a good idea, of course, but SITC, I will ask you to ponder why you assume that such a school will automatically have lower academic standards, as if that's the only way that FN students will succeed there. I think that if you're told you're stupid and inferior long enough, anyone would begin to believe it. That doesn't, however, make it true.
Here's an example of "not getting it" as an "outside focussed" attempt (and fail) to achieve good liberal goals.
(I added the bold)
O my! Such a mystery! Why are they dropping out? Jeez Louise! As if centuries of genocide can be erased by popping a 12 year old kid into a social studies class in Toronto? WTF?
Sounds like they're talking about a species of bird or something. (See Thomas King's "A Short History of Indians in Canada")
I rarely say this, but it's wasting money, and not a heck of a lot of money, by continuing a flawed premise, that is to begin from the board level and to then wonder in a stunned way why they can't find the students.
And these complaints are unanswered and unchanged. How long should anyone expect a population to put up with this? The Native College is a great idea. I say, get high schools and elementary schools next.
Board Tries to Reach Natives: the TO Star
[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
I looked over Sven's posts, and I could see nothing white-supremacist in them. It is quite possible that I missed something: could someone tell me which of Sven's remarks was white-supremacist?
If a person has holds racist views, is the person not, by definition, racist? If a person, for example, believes that blacks are inferior, isn't that the very essence of being a racist?
To say that my "views" are white-supremacist but, at the same time, counter-argue that I am not a white-supremacist, is a weak attempt to excuse your libelous comments.
So, if the David Dukes of this world want to establish white-only schools, etc., you have "NO opinion whatsoever other than all have a right to do whatever they want"?
You may choose to voluntarily strip yourself of the right to object to such things. I don't.
Feel free to engage in a soliloquy on this subject (or to start another thread) but a side debate with me in this thread about exclusionary all-FN (or all-XXX) colleges is, from my perspective over. zazzo and Catchfire’s observations that that is not the intent of the proposed schools are well-taken (the colleges would be open to all) and, so, further debate about the exclusionary aspects of such schools will only serve to derail this thread entirely.
Perhaps the experience of historically Black universities and schools in the US might give some insights into the prospects for Native universities and other Native schools in Canada (and/or the US). I looked into Howard University a little bit, because it's the most well-known historically black university in the United States. I was surprised to discover that it was established by an Act of Congress in 1867: I had previously mistakenly believed that it was privately established. (See here.)
Howard has a 187 page PDF booklet available here. Here's their mission statement: "The mission of Howard University as a comprehensive, research-oriented, predominantly African-American university is to provide an educational experience of exceptional quality at reasonable cost to students of high academic potential. Particular emphasis is placed upon providing educational opportunities for African-American men and women and for other historically disenfranchised groups. Furthermore, Howard University is dedicated to attracting, sustaining, and developing a cadre of faculty who, through their teaching and research, are committed to producing distinguished and compassionate graduates who seek solutions to human and social problems in the United States and throughout the world." And here is their policy on equal opportunity: "The University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, gender, marital status, religion, handicap, age, sexual preference, political affiliation or any other basis prohibited by Federal or District of Columbia law. This policy covers administration of University educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and
loan programs, other University-administered programs, and employment."
Interestingly enough, the "Facts" booklet has a fair bit of demographic information on Howard students, but none relating to race. So I don't know what percentage of students there are white or native or other non-black. The president of Howard does have this to say: "... black institutions were never segregated. The first four Howard matriculants were white. We've never rejected white students wanting to attend. Those seeking to share our unique cultural values should be able to do so while still getting a terrific education. They'll be in a nurturing environment with a shared cultural ethos." (For context, see here.)
Finally, Howard has an impressive Board of Trustees, inclduing the CFO of Cargill, the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange and a Senior Vice-President at Dupont. They also count Thurgood Marshall among their alumni.
It seems necessary to call attention again to the fact that Indigenous people and nations in North America are not in the same situation as black folks, or any other racialized groups.
Canada was created through treaties with Indigenous nations that provided that a settler state and the Indigenous nations could exist on this land and that they would not interfere with each other's business.
Settlers have not upheld their responsibilities and in fact have carried out a sustained (well documented) policy of genocide. This process continues and is supported by the idea that Indigenous people are "just another minority group" in the Great White Canada.
A better comparison would be if Ontario wanted to create a college but first had to ask the US government for permission, then comply to the rules and regulations of the US bureaucracy, and then had to defend their decision to US activists who thought that the college would be an attempt at segregating the North American community.
[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
"zazzo and Catchfire’s observations that that is not the intent of the proposed schools are well-taken (the colleges would be open to all) and, so, further debate about the exclusionary aspects of such schools will only serve to derail this thread entirely. "
I feel his input into this thread wasnt inflammatory. The imput provided by Sven was sound. If Sven has been a pest in past Aboriginal Issues threads, I understand. However, in this thread, his input was appreciated by this Algonquin.
Not trying to take sides, just saying, nothing offensive here to me....
ETA remind
Is this NOT the aboriginal forum where things are supposed to be addressed from a pro- FN viewpoint?
Pro-FN? Im as Pro-FN as they come, and when I first read the article, I assumed a FN only school. Therefore, Im against that idea, and IM a FN. So does that make me anti-FN? Just asking,,,,
SITC
[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: SavageInTheCity ]
I’m not debating that. I’ve said (twice) that this proposed plan of creating a non-exclusionary FN-created college is a great idea…and that I think it would be a place that I’d be interested in taking some courses from if there was such a college here locally.
That being said, remind continued, “You have absolutely NO right to give approval or objection.”
Huh?
I have no right to express an opinion about a subject that SITC expressly invited opinions on in his OP?
With regard to my last post to remind: I was challenging the unqualified breadth of his statements: “I have as much opinion about that as I would ANY other group starting their own college.” (my emphasis) and “I had NO opinion whatsoever other than all have a right to do whatever they want.”
Given those unqualified statements, I simply questioned whether he would not be ceding a right to even challenge a “whites only” college. In effect, he seemed to be taking a very extreme position that “any” group should be free to do whatever they want...and no one has a right to challenge that, or, gawd forbid, even have an opinion about it.
Thanks, SITC.
I guess my fundamental dilemma is that I have a very genuine interest in FN (and American Indian) issues but, as I do with anything I am trying to learn about, I ask questions and challenge statements that people assert to be "truth".
If, for example, someone flatly states, "FN are sovereign nations", I'm going to ask questions and challenge that. Does a FN tribe possess the sovereignty of a Canada or China? No. Does it possess elements of sovereignty? Absolutely. The question then becomes: What are the characteristics of the sovereignty that FN tribes possess and what are the limits of those sovereign rights relative to a Canada or a China?
Now, those are perfectly valid questions. But, there are too many people who want to muzzle questions like from "white guys" who "don't get it" (such as, “You have absolutely NO right to give approval or objection.”). And, if a person cannot ask those questions on babble, then where else can they be asked?
Then I made a list of other schools that had there own segregational standards, and asked you if you supported those.
Then you said:
To which I responded:
Just what you did not get about my stating it is their choice of attendance, I do not know. But you carried on about whether I objected to them or not. Which is where I took exception to your use of objected, you have no right to object to other people's attendance at any type of school, and neither do I.
And everything I said from the point of it being their choice to attend or not was just that. I have no opinion about FN's schools being set up and people attending, just as I do not for Catholic schools, or Jewish schools or private schools.
You somehow have tried to make it appear as if, I am abdicating my right to an opinion. And I said you have no right to have an opinion, on where people attend or not, again it is none of your business.
Then you went on a whole different tangent about David Duke and white supremists, and asking if I would be fine with that. What does it have to do with anything that I have said about their business to set up schools and attend whatever they want? It has nothing.
It would've been nice had you actually read the article, as everyone responded to you as if you had, and were being in opposition by your use of "squeamish" and stating that segregated schools were wrong, when no one was even discussing them from that perspective of completely segregated. It is NOT our fault you failed to read the article, and yet felt compelled to assume and then make a negative response based upon nothing that was being discussed. That you are bashing others for your failure is incorrect.
How about you review the whole thread again, and stop trying to change people's words into what you want, so you can assault them with your wrong viewpoint on what they said.
[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: remind ]