Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidate  I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you mean it wasn't fair for her ancestors, and that because she has inherited partial genes that are aboriginal and therefore has inherited the collective damage done to her people from the past, or do you mean that being given benefits like a red carpet to university without having had to earn it like the other students isn't fair because it will inevitably set her up to think that because she is aborigine she deserves to be given perks that white people don't get?
I think setting a whole tribe of people up to think like that actually will harm them in the long run, because it spoils them into thinking they can get away with pulling a guilt trip any time they don't get what they want.
I'm not saying that it's fair what happened to their people...obviously it was heinous, but I wonder if 'solving' the issues by buying them is really going to make up for it? Nothing can make up for what happened to them. |
This highlighted answer is closer to what I'm saying, but not exactly it. I mean that if someone knows they don't have to study to go to University, it's more than likely that they won't. Which is going to make their transition into University much more difficult than it was for the other students.
I don't think buying them out is going to solve anything. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think they should have guaranteed representation in Parliament that covers at the very least the percentage of the population that they represent. I don't know how it is over where you live, but all I see in the Canadian parliament is an overwhelming majority of white males.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZephyrusX I agree with the caucasian american thing. Some how, being white and Anglo-Saxon is always made invisible in our labels. Do not labels, in them selves, distort reality though? I actually don't like the term black as it lumps all dark skinned people together, when in reality, there is a tremendous amount of cultural and historical difference between black people. African American, again, is dubious because Africa is a huge place with different cultural, political, economic realities depending upon the geographic location. Aboriginal, again, distorts reality. I forget the precise number, but there are either other 200 or 300 First Nations tribes in Canada alone (along with the Metis and the Inuit). There are some similarities, but it would be a mistake to think that all Aboriginal tribes are homogeneous.
But yah, what can you really do? Do you have an alternative to labels? Was your point that we should adopt neutral labels? But then, what are they? |
I don't think the term ''black'' is a label, it's a descriptor. It's quite inaccurate, as you point out, but then using different terms for different shades of brown would be ridiculously complicated. Do you object to the term ''white'' for the same reason? The term ''Aboriginal'' may be imprecise, but then again it's enough of a descriptor to understand that they're descendents of people who were on the land before the Europeans re-discovered their lands and subjugated their people. There's terms for each tribe like Metis, Inuit, Mohawk etc. If you need to specifically reference someone who's from a specific tribe, you can use one of those words.
I like the terms ''white'' ''black'' and ''aborigine''. Although I have to admit that I don't know where the term ''aborigine'' comes from.