Last fall at Oberlin College, a talk held as part of Latino Heritage Month was scheduled on the same evening that intramural soccer games were held. As a result, soccer players communicated by email about their respective plans. Unbeknownst to the white student, the Hispanic student was offended by the email. And her response signals the rise of a new moral culture America.
When conflicts occur, sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning observe in an insightful new scholarly paper , aggrieved parties can respond in any number of ways. In honor cultures like the Old West or the street gangs of West Side Story, they might engage in a duel or physical fight. People might even be expected to tolerate serious but accidental personal injuries. The Oberlin student took a different approach: After initially emailing the student who offended her, she decided to publicly air the encounter that provoked her and their subsequent exchange in the community at large, hoping to provoke sympathy and antagonism toward the emailer by advertising her status as an aggrieved party.
I appreaciate your white male validation. Who said it was ok for you to say futbol? Trick NO! White students appropriating the Spanish language, dropping it in when convenient, never ok. Keep my heritage language out your mouth! Especially in this context. Do you really think people who were going to go to the talk changed their mind because of my email?
That proves God doesn't exist. Hixon can offer no alibi for his whereabouts the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room at the Smuggler's Inn, murdering his wife with a hatchet! See also, Argument from Ignorance. Availability Bias also, Attention Bias, Anchoring Bias : A fallacy of logos stemming from the natural tendency to give undue attention and importance to information that is immediately available at hand, particularly the first or last information received, and to minimize or ignore broader data or wider evidence that clearly exists but is not as easily remembered or accessed.
Also related is the fallacy of Hyperbole [also, Magnification, or sometimes Catastrophizing] where an immediate instance is immediately proclaimed "the most significant in all of human history," or the "worst in the whole world! The Bandwagon Fallacy also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum : The fallacy of arguing that because "everyone," "the people," or "the majority" or someone in power who has widespread backing supposedly thinks or does something, it must therefore be true and right.
There may not be any evidence, but for anyone with half a brain that conclusively proves that Crooked Bob should go to jail! Lock him up! When information cascades form a pattern, this pattern can begin to overpower later opinions by making it seem as if a consensus already exists. For the opposite of this fallacy see the Romantic Rebel fallacy.
So long as you are faithfully following orders without question I will defend you and gladly accept all the consequences up to and including eternal damnation if I'm wrong. BUT, your crime was so unspeakable and a trial would be so problematic for national security that it justifies locking you up for life in Guantanamo without trial, conviction or possibility of appeal. Sometimes the bolder and more outlandish the Big Lie becomes the more credible it seems to a willing, most often angry audience. Writer Miles J. The November, U.
President-elect's statement that "millions" of ineligible votes were cast in that year's American. You're a hard worker but who am I going to believe, you or him? You're fired! Brainwashing also, Propaganda, "Radicalization. They're trying to brainwash you with their propaganda! Such "brainwashing" can also be accomplished by pleasure " Love Bombing ," ; e.
I know you did. Well, there's lots more where that came from when you sign on with us! Note: Only the other side brainwashes. The fallacy of "persuasion" by bribery, gifts or favors is the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculum. As is well known, someone who is persuaded by bribery rarely "stays persuaded" in the long term unless the bribes keep on coming in and increasing with time. See also Appeasement. Calling "Cards": A contemporary fallacy of logos, arbitrarily and falsely dismissing familiar or easily-anticipated but valid, reasoned objections to one's standpoint with a wave of the hand, as mere "cards" in some sort of "game" of rhetoric, e.
Because witches threaten our very eternal salvation. See also the "Big Lie technique. A corruption of the argument from logos.
- Casting Out;
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Google книги.
- A. Cases Reviewed;
- Franz Schubert.
- Un mariage et cinq célibataires (EMOTIONS) (French Edition).
- Mortalidade (Portuguese Edition).
Confirmation Bias: A fallacy of logos, the common tendency to notice, search out, select and share evidence that confirms one's own standpoint and beliefs, as opposed to contrary evidence. This fallacy is how "fortune tellers" work--If I am told I will meet a "tall, dark stranger" I will be on the lookout for a tall, dark stranger, and when I meet someone even marginally meeting that description I will marvel at the correctness of the "psychic's" prediction.
In contemporary times Confirmation Bias is most often seen in the tendency of various audiences to "curate their political environments, subsisting on one-sided information diets and [even] selecting into politically homogeneous neighborhoods" Michael A. Neblo et al. Confirmation Bias also, Homophily means that people tend to seek out and follow solely those media outlets that confirm their common ideological and cultural biases, sometimes to an degree that leads a the false implicit or even explicit conclusion that "everyone" agrees with that bias and that anyone who doesn't is "crazy," "looney," evil or even "radicalized.
It may be nothing but a clunker that can't make it up a steep hill, but it's mine , and to me it's better than some millionaire's limo. The opposite of this fallacy is that of Nihilism "Tear it all down! Defensiveness also, Choice-support Bias: Myside Bias : A fallacy of ethos one's own , in which after one has taken a given decision, commitment or course of action, one automatically tends to defend that decision and to irrationally dismiss opposing options even when one's decision later on proves to be shaky or wrong.
Sure, he turned out to be a crook and a liar and he got us into war, but I still say that at that time he was better than the available alternatives! Diminished Responsibility : The common contemporary fallacy of applying a specialized judicial concept that criminal punishment should be less if one's judgment was impaired to reality in general. Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter at all since the material results are the same. This also includes the fallacy of Panic , a very common contemporary fallacy that one's words or actions, no matter how damaging or evil, somehow don't "count" because "I panicked!
Dog-Whistle Politics: An extreme version of reductionism and sloganeering in the public sphere, a contemporary fallacy of logos and pathos in which a brief phrase or slogan of the hour, e. Any reasoned attempt to more clearly identify, deconstruct or challenge an opponent's "dog whistle" appeal results in puzzled confusion at best and wild, irrational fury at worst.
In this fallacy of logos an otherwise uninformed audience is presented with carefully selected and groomed, "shocking facts" and then prompted to immediately "draw their own conclusions. However, Dr. William Lorimer points out that "The only rational response to the non-argument is 'So what? The Dunning-Kruger Effect: A cognitive bias that leads people of limited skills or knowledge to mistakenly believe their abilities are greater than they actually are.
Thanks to Teaching Tolerance for this definition! Anthony won equal rights for women, and Martin Luther King said "I have a dream! Why do I need to take a history course? I know everything about history! An extreme example of this fallacy is Waving the Bloody Shirt also , the "Blood of the Martyrs" Fallacy , the fallacy that a cause or argument, no matter how questionable or reprehensible, cannot be questioned without dishonoring the blood and sacrifice of those who died so nobly for that cause.
What's it gonna be? Also applies to falsely contrasting one option or case to another that is not really opposed, e. Or, falsely posing a choice of either helping needy American veterans or helping needy foreign refugees, when in fact in today's United States there are ample resources available to easily do both should we care to do so. See also, Overgeneralization. Equivocation : The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one's terms, or knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. The Eschatological Fallacy: The ancient fallacy of arguing, "This world is coming to an end, so There are some things that we as humans are simply not meant to know!
Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way "by nature," an empty claim that no amount of proof can refute. Don't you know that the French word for "fish" is 'poisson,' which looks just like the English word 'poison'? And doesn't that suggest something to you? As Texas politician and humorist Jim Hightower famously declares in an undated quote, " The middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos. An adolescent fallacy of pathos, attempting to defend or strengthen one's argument with gratuitous, unrelated sexual, obscene, vulgar, crude or profane language when such language does nothing to make an argument stronger, other than perhaps to create a sense of identity with certain young male "urban" audiences.
This fallacy also includes adding gratuitous sex scenes or "adult" language to an otherwise unrelated novel or movie, sometimes simply to avoid the dreaded "G" rating. Historically, this dangerous fallacy was deeply implicated with the crime of lynching, in which false, racist accusations against a Black or minority victim were almost always salacious in nature and the sensation involved was successfully used to whip up public emotion to a murderous pitch.
See also, Red Herring. The False Analogy : The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. Sometimes those involved internalize "buy into" the "job" and make the task a part of their own ethos. But I guess it's OK because for them it's just a job like any other, the job that they get paid to do. I can say anything I want to! I think I'm going to cry! Bill Hart Davidson notes that "Ironically, the most strident calls for 'safety' come from those who want us to issue protections for discredited ideas. Things that science doesn't support AND that have destroyed lives - things like the inherent superiority of one race over another.
Those ideas wither under demands for evidence. But let's be clear: they are unwelcome because they have not survived the challenge of scrutiny. Additionally, a recent scientific study has found that, in fact, " people think harder and produce better political arguments when their views are challenged " and not artificially protected without challenge.
The Fundamental Attribution Error also, Self Justification : A corrupt argument from ethos, this fallacy occurs as a result of observing and comparing behavior. So, for example, I get up in the morning at 10 a. I say it is because my neighbors party until 2 in the morning situation but I say that the reason why you do it is that you are lazy.
Interestingly, it is more common in individualistic societies where we value self volition. Collectivist societies tend to look at the environment more. It happens there, too, but it is much less common. Me, or your own eyes? Think again! You're crazy! You seriously need to see a shrink. Now take a time-out and you'll feel better. A form of Ad Hominem Argument, e.
She's a Republican so you can't trust anything she says," or "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Hero-Busting also, "The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good" : A postmodern fallacy of ethos under which, since nothing and nobody in this world is perfect there are not and have never been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was by our contemporary standards a racist, Karl Marx sexually exploited his family's own young live-in domestic worker and got her pregnant, Martin Luther King Jr.
An early example of this latter tactic is deftly described in Robert Penn Warren's classic novel, All the King's Men. This is the opposite of the "Heroes All" fallacy, below. The "Hero Busting" fallacy has also been selectively employed at the service of the Identity Fallacy see below to falsely "prove" that "you cannot trust anyone" but a member of "our" identity-group since everyone else , even the so-called "heroes" or "allies" of other groups, are all racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or hate "us.
Civil War either with or without freeing the slaves if it would preserve the Union, thus "conclusively proving" that all whites are viciously racist at heart and that African Americans must do for self and never trust any of "them," not even those who claim to be allies. Heroes All also, "Everybody's a Winner" : The contemporary fallacy that everyone is above average or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos not wanting anyone to lose or to feel bad. Thus, every member of the Armed Services, past or present, who serves honorably is a national hero, every student who competes in the Science Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and every racer is awarded a winner's yellow jersey.
This corruption of the argument from pathos, much ridiculed by disgraced American humorist Garrison Keeler, ignores the fact that if everybody wins nobody wins, and if everyone's a hero no one's a hero. The logical result of this fallacy is that, as children's author Alice Childress writes , " A hero ain't nothing but a sandwich. That proves you cheated! I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: The fallacy of regretfully and falsely proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable situation over which one has power.
Or, "No, you can't quit piano lessons. I wish I had a magic wand and could teach you piano overnight, but I don't, so like it or not, you have to keep on practicing. See also, TINA. In this fallacy, valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside or "othered" without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about solely because of the lack of proper background or ethos of the person making the argument, or because the one arguing does not self-identify as a member of the "in-group. An Identity Fallacy may lead to scorn or rejection of potentially useful allies, real or prospective, because they are not of one's own identity.
The Identity Fallacy promotes an exclusivist, sometimes cultish "do for self" philosophy which in today's world virtually guarantees self-marginalization and ultimate defeat. A recent application of the Identity Fallacy is the fallacious accusation of " Cultural Appropriation," in which those who are not of the right Identity are condemned for "appropriating" the cuisine, clothing, language or music of a marginalized group, forgetting the old axiom that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. They even dare to play Mexican music in their dining room! That's cultural appropriation!
See also, Othering. Origins of this fallacy predate the current era in the form of "Yellow" or "Tabloid" Journalism. This deadly fallacy has caused endless social unrest, discontent and even shooting wars e. See also Dog-Whistle Politics. The opposite of the Appeal to Heaven, this is the fallacy employed by the Westboro Baptist Church members who protest fallen service members' funerals all around the United States.
See also, Magical Thinking. Just Do it. Well, find a way! Make it disappear! Just do it! I don't want to know how you do it, just do it! This fallacy arbitrarily proclaims a priori that since we can never know everything or securely foresee anything , sooner or later in today's "complex world" unforeseeable adverse consequences and negative side effects so-called "unknown unknowns" will always end up blindsiding and overwhelming, defeating and vitiating any and all naive "do-gooder" efforts to improve our world.
Instead, one must always expect defeat and be ready to roll with the punches by developing "grit" or "resilience" as a primary survival skill. This nihilist fallacy is a practical negation of the the possibility of any valid argument from logos. When expressed as a percentage of the national debt, the cost of getting a college education is actually far less today than it was back in ! A corrupted argument from logos, often preying on the public's perceived or actual mathematical ignorance. This includes the Tiny Percentage Fallacy , that an amount or action that is quite significant in and of itself somehow becomes insignificant simply because it's a tiny percentage of something much larger.
Historically, sales taxes or value-added taxes VAT have successfully gained public acceptance and remain "under the radar" because of this latter fallacy, even though amounting to hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in extra tax burden. In practice this nihilist fallacy denies the existence of a rational or predictable universe and thus the possibility of any valid argument from logic. This latter is a common practice in American jurisprudence, and is sometimes portrayed as the worst face of "Sophism. A particularly bizarre and corrupt form of this latter fallacy is Self Deception also, Whistling by the Graveyard.
Measurability: A corrupt argument from logos and ethos that of science and mathematics , the modern Fallacy of Measurability proposes that if something cannot be measured, quantified and replicated it does not exist, or is "nothing but anecdotal, touchy-feely stuff" unworthy of serious consideration, i. Often, achieving "Measurability" necessarily demands preselecting, "fiddling" or "massaging" the available data simply in order to make it statistically tractable, or in order to support a desired conclusion. Scholar Thomas Persing thus describes "The modernist fallacy of falsely and inappropriately applying norms, standardizations, and data point requirements to quantify productivity or success.
After some years of a relationship that has swung from partnership to domination, from mutual respect and co-operation to paternalism and attempted assimilation, Canada must now work out fair and lasting terms of coexistence with Aboriginal people. Canada enjoys a reputation as a special place - a place where human rights and dignity are guaranteed, where the rules of liberal democracy are respected, where diversity among peoples is celebrated.
But this reputation represents, at best, a half-truth. A careful reading of history shows that Canada was founded on a series of bargains with Aboriginal peoples - bargains this country has never fully honoured. Treaties between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal governments were agreements to share the land. They were replaced by policies intended to. It is now time to acknowledge the truth and begin to rebuild the relationship among peoples on the basis of honesty, mutual respect and fair sharing. The image of Canada in the world and at home demands no less. The foundations of a fair and equitable relationship were laid in our early interaction.
The third volume of our report, Gathering Strength , probes social conditions among Aboriginal people. The picture it presents is unacceptable in a country that the United Nations rates as the best place in the world to live. Aboriginal people's living standards have improved in the past 50 years - but they do not come close to those of non-Aboriginal people:.
Aboriginal people do not want pity or handouts. They want recognition that these problems are largely the result of loss of their lands and resources, destruction of their economies and social institutions, and denial of their nationhood. They seek a range of remedies for these injustices, but most of all, they seek control of their lives.
A relationship as complex as the one between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people is necessarily a matter of negotiation. But the current climate of negotiation is too often rife with conflict and confrontation, accusation and anger. Negotiators start from opposing premises. Aboriginal negotiators fight for authority and resources sufficient to rebuild their societies and exercise self-government - as a matter of right, not privilege. Non-Aboriginal negotiators strive to protect the authority and resources of Canadian governments and look on transfers to Aboriginal communities as privileges they have bestowed.
Frequent failure to come to a meeting of minds has led to bitterness and mistrust among Aboriginal people, resentment and apathy among non-Aboriginal people. In our report, we recommend four principles for a renewed relationship - to restore a positive climate at the negotiating table - and a new political framework for negotiations.
We discuss the principles at the end of this chapter and the new framework in Chapter 2. Canada can be a diverse, exciting, productive, caring country Aboriginal people have made it clear, in words and deeds, that they will no longer sit quietly by, waiting for their grievances to be heard and their rights restored. Despite their long history of peacefulness, some leaders fear that violence is in the wind. We are getting sick and tired of the promises of the federal government.
We are getting sick and tired of Commissions. We are getting sick and tired of being analyzed We want to see action. Norman Evans Pacific Metis Federation. Every Canadian will gain if we escape the impasse that breeds confrontation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people across barricades, real or symbolic.
But the barricades will not fall until we understand how they were built. Studying the past tells us who we are and where we came from. It often reveals a cache of secrets that some people are striving to keep hidden and others are striving to tell. In this case, it helps explain how the tensions between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people came to be, and why they are so hard to resolve. Canadians know little about the peaceful and co-operative relationship that grew up between First Peoples and the first European visitors in the early years of contact.
They know even less about how it changed, over the centuries, into something less honourable. In our report, we examine that history in some detail, for its ghosts haunt us still. The ghosts take the form of dishonoured treaties, theft of Aboriginal lands, suppression of Aboriginal cultures, abduction of Aboriginal children, impoverishment and disempowerment of Aboriginal peoples.
Yet at the beginning, no one could have predicted these results, for the theme of early relations was, for the most part, co-operation. The relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people evolved through four stages:. Many of today's malfunctioning laws and institutions - the Indian Act and the break-up of nations into bands, to name just two - are remnants of the third stage of our history. But there was honour in history, too; indeed, the foundations of a fair and equitable relationship were laid in our early interaction.
Before , Aboriginal societies in the Americas and non-Aboriginal societies in Europe developed along separate paths, in ignorance of one another. The variety in their languages, cultures and social traditions was enormous. Yet on both sides of the Atlantic, independent peoples with evolving systems of government - though smaller and simpler than the nations and governments we know today - flourished and grew. America, separated from Europe by a wide ocean, was inhabited by a distinct people, divided into separate nations, independent of each other and the rest of the world, having institutions of their own, and governing themselves by their own laws.
It is difficult to comprehend Georgia In the southeastern region of North America, the Cherokee were organized into a confederacy of some 30 cities - the greatest of which was nearly as large as imperial London when English explorers first set eyes on it.
Further south, in Central and South America, Indigenous peoples had carved grand empires out of the mountains and jungles long before Cortez arrived. The forging and maintaining of these confederacies are evidence of great political skill In northern North America, Aboriginal cultures were shaped by environment and the evolution of technology:. The Americas were not, as the Europeans told themselves when they arrived, terra nullius - empty land.
Whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interests and the Security of Our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom we are connected and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved for them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds Royal Proclamation of Encounters between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people began to increase in number and complexity in the s.
Early contact unfolded roughly as follows:. Non-Aboriginal accounts of early contact tend to emphasize the 'discovery' and 'development' of North America by explorers from Europe. But this is a one-sided view. For at least years, the newcomers would not have been able to survive the rigours of the climate, succeed in their businesses fishing, whaling, fur trading , or dodge each other's bullets without Aboriginal help. Cautious co-operation, not conflict, was the theme of this period, which lasted into the eighteenth or nineteenth century, depending on the region.
For the most part, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people saw each other as separate, distinct and independent. Each was in charge of its own affairs. Each could negotiate its own military alliances, its own trade agreements, its own best deals with the others. Treaty making among Aboriginal peoples dates back to a time long before Europeans arrived. Aboriginal nations treated among themselves to establish peace, regulate trade, share use of lands and resources, and arrange mutual defence.
Through pipe smoking and other ceremonies, they gave these agreements the stature of sacred oaths. European traditions of treaty making date to Roman times, but in the seventeenth century, they took on new importance. They became the means for the newborn states of Europe to control their bickering and warfare - indeed, to end it for long periods.
Treaties were a way of recognizing each other's independence and sovereignty and a mark of mutual respect. In the colonies that became Canada, the need for treaties was soon apparent. The land was vast, and the colonists were few in number. They feared the might of the Aboriginal nations surrounding them. Colonial powers were fighting wars for trade and dominance all over the continent. They needed alliances with Indian nations. The British colonial government's approach to the treaties was schizophrenic.
By signing, British authorities appeared to recognize the nationhood of Aboriginal peoples and their equality as nations. But they also expected First Nations to acknowledge the authority of the monarch and, increasingly, to cede large tracts of land to British control - for settlement and to protect it from seizure by other European powers or by the United States. Over several hundred years, treaty making has been used to keep the peace and share the wealth of Canada. The Aboriginal view of the treaties was very different.
They believed what the king's men told them, that the marks scratched on parchment captured the essence of their talks. They were angered and dismayed to discover later that what had been pledged in words, leader to leader, was not recorded accurately. They accepted the monarch, but only as a kind of kin figure, a distant 'protector' who could be called on to safeguard their interests and enforce treaty agreements. They had no notion of giving up their land, a concept foreign to Aboriginal cultures. In my language, there is no word for 'surrender'. There is no word.
I cannot describe 'surrender' to you in my language, so how do you expect my people to [have] put their X on 'surrender'? The Two Row Wampum, a belt commemorating a treaty between the Mohawk and the Dutch, captures the understanding of Aboriginal peoples - treaties were statements of peace, friendship, sharing or alliance, not submission or surrender:.
A bed of white wampum symbolizes the purity of the agreement. There are two rows of purple, and those two rows represent the spirit of our ancestors. Three beads of wampum separating the two purple rows symbolize peace, friendship and respect. The two rows of purple are two vessels travelling down the same river together.
One, a birch bark canoe, is for the Indian people, their laws, their customs and their ways. The other, a ship, is for the white people and their laws, their customs and their ways. We shall each travel the river together, side by side, but in our own boat. Neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel. The Royal Proclamation of was a defining document in the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in North America.
Issued in the name of the king, the proclamation summarized the rules that were to govern British dealings with Aboriginal people - especially in relation to the key question of land. It is a complex legal document, but the central messages of the proclamation are clear in its preamble. Aboriginal people were not to be "molested or disturbed" on their lands. Transactions involving Aboriginal land were to be negotiated properly between the Crown and "assemblies of Indians".
Aboriginal lands were to be acquired only by fair dealing: treaty, or purchase by the Crown. The proclamation portrays Indian nations as autonomous political entities, living under the protection of the Crown but retaining their own internal political authority. It walks a fine line between safeguarding the rights of Aboriginal peoples and establishing a process to permit British settlement.
It finds a balance in an arrangement allowing Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people to divide and share sovereign rights to the lands that are now Canada. More than a hundred years later, in , the arrangement we know as Confederation would also allow for power sharing among diverse peoples and governments.
But the first confederal bargain was with First Peoples. In the s, the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people began to tilt on its foundation of rough equality. The number of settlers was swelling, and so was their power. As they dominated the land, so they came to dominate its original inhabitants. They gained power as a result of four changes that were transforming the country:. History has not been written yet from the Indian point of view.
Ironically, the transformation from respectful coexistence to domination by non-Aboriginal laws and institutions began with the main instruments of the partnership: the treaties and the Royal Proclamation of These documents offered Aboriginal people not only peace and friendship, respect and rough equality, but also 'protection'. Protection was the leading edge of domination. At first, it meant preservation of Aboriginal lands and cultural integrity from encroachment by settlers. Later, it meant 'assistance', a code word implying encouragement to stop being Aboriginal and merge into the settler society.
Protection took the form of compulsory education, economic adjustment programs, social and political control by federal agents, and much more. These policies, combined with missionary efforts to civilize and convert Indigenous people, tore wide holes in Aboriginal cultures, autonomy and feelings of self-worth. No Canadian acquainted with the policies of domination and assimilation wonders why Aboriginal people distrust the good intentions of non-Aboriginal people and their governments today.
The promises we have to make to you are not for today only, but for tomorrow, and not only for you but for your children born and unborn. And the promises we make will be carried out as long as the sun shines above and the water flows in the ocean. They were not 'Indians', and they were not legitimate settlers. The usual practice was to declare them 'squatters' and edge them off the land they were farming when preferred settlers moved in.
They were promised both in the Manitoba Act of , but those promises were later denied. Many moved further west and north, where they again fought for land and political recognition. In the spring of their forces were crushed at Batoche by a military expedition sent by Ottawa. The people were dispersed again, and to this day, their claims for a secure land base and their own forms of government have not been settled.
Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle that the Aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the state It is clearly our wisdom and our duty, through education and other means, to prepare him for a higher civilization by encouraging him to assume the privileges and responsibilities of full citizenship. Annual Report of the Department of the Interior These laws, and others, were codified in the Indian Acts of , , and later. The Department of the Interior later, Indian Affairs sent Indian agents to every region to see that the laws were obeyed.
Attendance was compulsory. Aboriginal languages, customs and habits of mind were suppressed. The bonds between many hundreds of Aboriginal children and their families and nations were bent and broken, with disastrous results. Those who survived asked for no special honours, but they expected to be treated as other war veterans were on their return to Canada. They were not. They were denied many of the benefits awarded to other vets. Land was taken from their reserves and used 'for military purposes' or awarded to non-Aboriginal veterans. Those left alive today are still seeking recognition for their part in the war effort and compensation for their later losses.
The purpose of the treaties, in Aboriginal eyes, was to work out ways of sharing lands and resources with settlers, without any loss of their own independence. But the representatives of the Crown had come to see the treaties merely as a tool for clearing Aboriginal people off desirable land. To induce First Nations to sign, colonial negotiators continued to assure them that treaty provisions were not simply agreed, but guaranteed to them - for as long as the sun shone and the rivers flowed. Policies of domination and assimilation battered Aboriginal institutions, sometimes to the point of collapse.
Poverty, ill health and social disorganization grew worse. Aboriginal people struggled for survival as individuals, their nationhood erased from the public mind and almost forgotten by themselves. Resistance to assimilation grew weak, but it never died away. In the fourth stage of the relationship, it caught fire and began to grow into a political movement. One stimulus was the federal government's White Paper on Indian policy, issued in The fact is that when the settlers came, the Indians were there, organized in societies and occupying the land as their forefathers had done for centuries.
This is what Indian title means Supreme Court of Canada Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia The White Paper proposed to abolish the Indian Act and all that remained of the special relationship between Aboriginal people and Canada - offering instead what it termed equality. First Nations were nearly unanimous in their rejection. They saw this imposed form of 'equality' as a coffin for their collective identities - the end of their existence as distinct peoples. They began to see their struggle as part of a worldwide human rights movement of Indigenous peoples. They began to piece together the legal case for their continuity as peoples - nations within Canada - and to speak out about it.
They studied their history and found evidence confirming that they have rights arising from the spirit and intent of their treaties and the Royal Proclamation of They took heart from decisions of Canadian courts, most since , affirming their special relationship with the Crown and their unique interest in their traditional lands. They set about beginning to rebuild their communities and their nations with new-found purpose. The relationship between the government and Aboriginals is trust-like rather than adversarial, and Supreme Court of Canada R. Sparrow The strong opposition of Aboriginal people to the White Paper's invitation to join mainstream society took non-Aboriginal people by surprise.
The question of who Aboriginal people are and what their place is in Canada became central to national debate. A dozen years of intense political struggle by Aboriginal people, including appeals to the Queen and the British Parliament, produced an historic breakthrough. This set the stage for profound change in the relationship among the peoples of Canada, a change that most governments have nevertheless found difficult to embrace.
The policies of the past have failed to bring peace and harmony to the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians.
Search Our Blog
Equally, they have failed to bring contentment or prosperity to Aboriginal people. In poll after poll, Canadians have said that they want to see justice done for Aboriginal people, but they have not known how. In the following chapters, we outline a powerful set of interlinked ideas for moving forward. In the years since the White Paper, Canadian governments have been prodded into giving Aboriginal communities more local control.
They have included more Aboriginal people in decision making and handed over bits and pieces of the administrative apparatus that continues to shape Aboriginal lives. But governments have so far refused to recognize the continuity of Aboriginal nations and the need to permit their decolonization at last. By their actions, if not their words, governments continue to block Aboriginal nations from assuming the broad powers of governance that would permit them to fashion their own institutions and work out their own solutions to social, economic and political problems. It is this refusal that effectively blocks the way forward.
The new partnership we envision is much more than a political or institutional one. It must be a heartfelt commitment among peoples to live together in peace, harmony and mutual support. For this kind of commitment to emerge from the current climate of tension and distrust, it must be founded in visionary principles. It must also have practical mechanisms to resolve accumulated disputes and regulate the daily workings of the relationship. We propose four principles as the basis for a renewed relationship: recognition, respect, sharing and responsibility.
The Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy have described the spirit of the relationship as they see it in the image of a silver covenant chain. However, it does become tarnished. So when we come together, we must polish the chain, time and again, to restore our friendship to its original brightness. We propose that treaties be the mechanism for turning principles into practice.
Existing treaties between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, however dusty from disuse, contain specific terms that even now help define the rights and responsibilities of the signatories toward one another. We maintain that new and renewed treaties can be used to give substance to the four principles of a just relationship. How they can be used is explained in Chapter 2. To restore the essence of the early relationship between Aboriginal and settler societies described in Chapter 1, the elements of partnership must be recreated in modern form. The starting point for this transformation is recognition of Aboriginal nationhood.
The arguments for recognizing that Aboriginal peoples are nations spring from the past and the present. They were nations when they forged military and trade alliances with European nations. They were nations when they signed treaties to share their lands and resources. And they are nations today - in their coherence, their distinctiveness and their understanding of themselves. Recognition of Aboriginal nationhood poses no threat to Canada or its political and territorial integrity. Aboriginal nations have generally sought coexistence, co-operation and harmony in their relations with other peoples.
What they seek from Canada now is their rightful place as partners in the Canadian federation. This chapter shows how the foundations of Aboriginal nationhood were undone and how they can be rebuilt. Aboriginal people trace their existence and their systems of government back as far as memory and oral history extend. They say that the ultimate source of their right to be self-governing is the Creator. The Creator placed each nation on its own land and gave the people the responsibility of caring for the land - and one another - until the end of time.
Aboriginal nations have accepted the need for power sharing with Canada. In return, they ask Canadians to accept that Aboriginal self-government is not, and can never be, a 'gift' from an 'enlightened' Canada. The right is inherent in Aboriginal people and their nationhood and was exercised for centuries before the arrival of European explorers and settlers.
It is a right they never surrendered and now want to exercise once more. We believe Aboriginal people must be recognized as partners in the complex arrangements that make up Canada. The three orders are autonomous within their own spheres of jurisdiction, thus sharing the sovereignty of Canada as a whole.
Aboriginal governments are not like municipal governments, which exercise powers delegated from provincial and territorial governments. Shared sovereignty is an important feature of Canadian federalism. It permitted the early partnership between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, and later it permitted the union of provinces that became Canada.
Canadian governments are coming gradually to accept the idea of shared sovereignty and Aboriginal self-government. But they have been loath to hand over the full range of powers needed by genuinely self-governing nations or the resources needed to make self-government a success.
It should be exercised by groups of a certain size - groups with a claim to the term 'nation'. The problem is that the historical Aboriginal nations were undermined by disease, relocations and the full array of assimilationist government policies. They were fragmented into bands, reserves and small settlements. Only some operate as collectivities now.
They will have to reconstruct themselves as nations. Self-government is a right they never surrendered and that they want to exercise once more. We believe strongly that membership in Aboriginal nations should not be defined by race. Aboriginal nations are political communities, often comprising people of mixed background and heritage. Their bonds are those of culture and identity, not blood.
Their unity comes from their shared history and their strong sense of themselves as peoples. The work of reconstructing their nations poses great challenges for Aboriginal people. They will need to. They will need to develop their human resources. They will have to build an Aboriginal public service from the strong base in community administration they have now.
They will have to encourage the attitudes necessary to be self-governing. And they will have to promote healing - the deep social and spiritual recovery process already under way in many Aboriginal communities. To support the rebuilding of Aboriginal nations and shift from paternalistic policies to partnership relations, we propose a bold starting place: a new Royal Proclamation, issued by the Monarch as Canada's head of state and guardian of the rights of Aboriginal peoples. A new proclamation would signal, in dramatic terms, a new day for Aboriginal people.
Its all-important preamble should contain these elements:. The proclamation should be followed by the enactment of companion legislation by the Parliament of Canada - legislation to create the new laws and institutions needed to implement the renewed relationship. Their combined purpose is to provide the authority and tools for Aboriginal people to structure their own political, social and economic future. Traditionally, there were checks and balances that were functional and appropriate for the Anishnabek. The leaders were servants to the people and upheld the values that were inherent in the community.
Accountability was not a goal or aim of the system; rather it was embedded in the very make-up of the system. Union of Ontario Indians Brief to the Commission Of particular importance among these laws is an Aboriginal Nations Recognition and Government Act to give the government of Canada a mechanism for acknowledging established Aboriginal nations once their processes of internal reconstruction and institution building are complete. To prepare for the new start, the federal government will need to undergo some reorganization of its own:. The Prime Minister should assume responsibility for launching and sustaining the renewed relationship and signal the significance of the new deal by participating at every stage.
Aboriginal visions of self-government are as varied as their traditions, circumstances and aspirations. Scores of detailed proposals for self-government have been drawn up by Aboriginal peoples across Canada. The Commission identified three basic models, each with many possible variations. These models are all realistic and workable in the framework of the Canadian federation. Aboriginal people with a strong sense of shared identity and an exclusive territorial base will probably opt for the 'nation' model of self-government. Inside their boundaries, nation governments would exercise a wide range of powers and authority.
They might choose to incorporate elements of traditional governance. They could choose a loose federation among regions or communities, or a more centralized form of government. They will need to find ways of representing the interests of non-Aboriginal residents in decision making. In some regions, Aboriginal people are the majority in territory they share with non-Aboriginal people - for example, in the more northerly parts of the country.
Existing agreements such as the Nunavut Agreement signal that Aboriginal nations in that situation will probably opt for the 'public' model of self-government. In this model, all residents participate equally in the functions of government, regardless of their heritage. Structures and processes of government would likely be similar to those of other Canadian governments - but with adaptations to reflect Aboriginal traditions and protect Aboriginal cultures.
The Teslin Tlingit Nation in the Yukon are building from the clan to the nation through the establishment of several branches of government: a general council, an executive council, an elders council and a justice council. While these councils are not duplicates of traditional Tlingit institutions, they do reflect the importance of the clans in their composition and in their consensual decision-making style.
In urban centres, Aboriginal people from many nations form a minority of the population. They are not 'nations' in the way we define it, but they want a measure of self-government nevertheless - especially in relation to education, health care, economic development, and protection of their cultures.
In our judgement, the right of Aboriginal governments to exercise authority over all matters relating to the good government and welfare of Aboriginal peoples and their territories is an existing Aboriginal right and is therefore recognized and affirmed by the constitution. This governing authority has two parts: a 'core' and a 'periphery'. The core of Aboriginal jurisdiction consists of matters that are of vital concern to the life and welfare of a particular Aboriginal people, its culture and identity - but do not have a major impact on neighbouring communities and are not otherwise the object of transcendant federal or provincial interest.
Legally, nothing prevents Aboriginal governments from taking charge of core issues in their communities and nations tomorrow. Practically, of course, they are tied into existing program arrangements with other governments. Before they can reasonably be expected to take charge, agreements about new funding formulas and many other issues are needed.
Matters on the periphery of Aboriginal jurisdiction - matters that affect the lands, resources and other interests of neighbouring people - must be subject to agreements with other governments. We have in mind such occasionally controversial issues as pollution control, road and rail access, wildlife protection, certain aspects of the justice system and so on - issues that will require shared or co-operative management arrangements. The financing of Aboriginal governments will require new approaches - approaches that acknowledge that much of the wealth of this country comes from lands and resources to which, in many cases, Aboriginal people have a legitimate claim.
If self-government is accompanied by fair redistribution of lands and resources - as we argue it must be - Aboriginal governments can become largely self-financing in the long term through greater access to what are called 'own-source revenues'. Own-source revenues flow to governments through familiar channels - taxation, investment, borrowing, business fees and royalties, public corporation revenues, proceeds from lotteries and gaming, and so on.
These sources of revenue can and should be made available to Aboriginal governments. It is especially important for Aboriginal governments to develop their own taxation systems. Most Aboriginal people pay taxes now, but to provincial and federal governments. We are recommending that those who live on Aboriginal nation territories pay taxes primarily to their own governments.
Those who live off Aboriginal territory would continue to pay taxes to federal and provincial governments. It will take time for Aboriginal nations to develop own-source revenues. Even then, transfer payments from other governments will be needed - but to a lesser extent.
We expect that treaties and other agreements among governments will free transfer payments from some of the restrictions on their use that now frustrate Aboriginal people.
In the old days, we had a tradition of caring and sharing. If a man was sick or injured, the chief would delegate others to hunt for him and provide fire wood [for his family].
Polybius • Histories — Book 3
We redistributed our wealth for the good of all. And that is just what any good system of taxation is supposed to do. Aboriginal nations, like the provinces, will have unequal access to resources and economic opportunities, so their level of prosperity will vary.
Related KEEPING MY SECRET SAFE (Domination, Submission and the Violation of Violet West)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved