Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In my archeology class we had discussion on native reserves, so at the moment I'm wondering if Dakka thinks it's a good idea or not. For me I'm kind of iffy about it on one hand it seems a bit like ghettos and also the idea was introduced during a time in history that was very racist and had

little respect for native people's values but on the other hand removing them might severely damage first nation cultures and might cause even more assimilation. So Dakka what's your opinion on native reserves?

I think this issue is so complex that a poll is somewhat insulting to the issue.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think this issue is so complex that a poll is somewhat insulting to the issue.

It's more to get a general consensus of what Dakka thinks I'm not expecting expert knowledge, I'm just curious about what people think about native reserves.

The reservation system is a bad joke but no idea how to really fix it.

We should definately wall off scotland again and let them get on with it. They even make their own fire water!

We should definately wall off scotland again and let them get on with it. They even make their own fire water!

let's start a kick starter to rebuild Hadrian's wall but this time will have auto cannons and mines just to make sure.

...On which side? =)

 Cheesecat wrote:
In my archeology class we had discussion on native reserves, so at the moment I'm wondering if Dakka thinks it's a good idea or not. For me I'm kind of iffy about it on one hand it seems a bit like ghettos and also the idea was introduced during a time in history that was very racist and had

little respect for native people's values but on the other hand removing them might severely damage first nation cultures and might cause even more assimilation. So Dakka what's your opinion on native reserves?

You probably need to define what you mean by "native reserves."

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...On which side? =)

Both, it can all be remote controlled from a little shed on either side of the wall

 FM Ninja 048 wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...On which side? =)

Both, it can all be remote controlled from a little shed on either side of the wall

Just so long as the rest of the union doesn't have to pay for the scotish stuff any more

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
In my archeology class we had discussion on native reserves, so at the moment I'm wondering if Dakka thinks it's a good idea or not. For me I'm kind of iffy about it on one hand it seems a bit like ghettos and also the idea was introduced during a time in history that was very racist and had

little respect for native people's values but on the other hand removing them might severely damage first nation cultures and might cause even more assimilation. So Dakka what's your opinion on native reserves?

You probably need to define what you mean by "native reserves."

Same thing as Indian reserves, "Indian" is considered politically incorrect in Canada we use terms like first nations, natives or aboriginals instead, for actual people from India they're still called "Indians" or "East-Indians".

Ah yes, places where old people are relieved of their incomes in gambling establishments.

The other reason it might throw some people off in the states is that we don't call them reserves, we call them reservations; it isn't the Navajo Reserves, it is the Navajo Reservation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Ah yes, places where old people are relieved of their incomes in gambling establishments.

I never really got how a couple of groups were able to pull this off (and there is still a lot of problems with them that is unrelated to this), and so now there is this conflation of native and casino.

Also a good place to buy smokes to. I do believe their federal tax free.

 Cheesecat wrote:
on the other hand removing them might severely damage first nation cultures and might cause even more assimilation.

Explain how the eradication of traditional culture, and its replacement by modern culture, is a bad thing. In this age, when assimilation occurs, the most desirable traits, if any, are preserved and disseminated, while undesirable traits are replaced by positive ones from other cultures. Mass communication is the death of localized culture, and this is a good thing.

It's highly unethical to allow populations to continue in faulty, antiquated states to protect their special-snowflake-ness from the boring successfulness of our system. Doing so is relegating them to the status of novelties; it's treating them like some sort of exotic animal to be left on display for the amusement of anthropologists.

They're humans, not a museum exhibit; letting them suffer for the sake of some insane ideal of cultural preservation is outright sadistic.

It seems your understanding of the situation is woefully inadequate. It is, otoh, highly steeped in a European mindset of how others should feel and be treated on others.

We focus on the Native American Reservations?

 Jihadin wrote:
We focus on the Native American Reservations?

White Man's Burden

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
on the other hand removing them might severely damage first nation cultures and might cause even more assimilation.

Explain how the eradication of traditional culture, and its replacement by modern culture, is a bad thing. In this age, when assimilation occurs, the most desirable traits, if any, are preserved and disseminated, while undesirable traits are replaced by positive ones from other cultures. Mass communication is the death of localized culture, and this is a good thing.

It's highly unethical to allow populations to continue in faulty, antiquated states to protect their special-snowflake-ness from the boring successfulness of our system. Doing so is relegating them to the status of novelties; it's treating them like some sort of exotic animal to be left on display for the amusement of anthropologists.

They're humans, not a museum exhibit; letting them suffer for the sake of some insane ideal of cultural preservation is outright sadistic.

Yeah, and everyone should learn to speak English too, right?

Because random superstitions and aesthetic styles are more important than things like having some motivation and purpose in life greater than drinking yourself to death in a trailer, or living conditions better than a shack and probably enough food to scrape by on.


And European culture is dying the same as any other. The crucible of mass communication doesn't play favorites, it just removes the non-functional.

Not that "functional" in this sense necessarily means useful, only functional/able to exist in this new environment we have built for ourselves.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because random superstitions and aesthetic styles are more important than things like having some motivation and purpose in life greater than drinking yourself to death in a trailer, or living conditions better than a shack and probably enough food to scrape by on.


And European culture is dying the same as any other. The crucible of mass communication doesn't play favorites, it just removes the non-functional.

Not that "functional" in this sense necessarily means useful, only functional/able to exist in this new environment we have built for ourselves.

The ignorance in your rants in this thread is breathtaking.

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about, and I'm frankly embarrassed for you. Welcome to the ignore list. I love a good cringe, but you're not even amusing.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because random superstitions and aesthetic styles are more important than things like having some motivation and purpose in life greater than drinking yourself to death in a trailer, or living conditions better than a shack and probably enough food to scrape by on.

Culture is a lot more complex than just random superstitions and aesthetic styles.

It's rather mind-boggling that anyone can genuinely sit down and argue that native americans should be kept stashed away in extremely insular, impoverished hell holes for the sake of preserving their culture. A population cannot exist in modern society and maintain the integrity of its culture; improving their lives means destroying their culture.

There is no value to culture beyond the fact that it encompasses technology and provides a framework for social interaction; existing in society in this age of mass communication invariably eradicates cultural elements that cannot compete with those from other connected cultures, resulting in a culture comprised of only the best elements from any given culture, in addition to entirely new elements generated within this environment. Ideally speaking, of course; reality is messier than this, and it's by no means an instant process, but it quite clearly is happening, and it cannot be seen as anything but good.

This thread is not worth the trouble. It's a big internet and this discussion can happen somewhere else.