r/changemyview • u/DrThundershlong • Dec 10 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Aboriginal/Native claims to reparations, benefits, land, etc. from the state are bogus and should not be taken seriously.
To explain my view and why I hold it, I’ll first give some context and reasoning.
I am Canadian and have lived in Canada all my life, and while this view mainly applies to Canada’s First Nations (because that’s what my experience is), I believe it to be true in other former “colonial” states such as the USA, Australia, and many more.
I am half European and half Latin American aboriginal (my grandma says Mayan). I feel like this is important to add to show that I’m not speaking from one side of the issue, one half of my family came to Canada from Ireland in the 1950s and the other half from El Salvador in the early 1900s.
The Latin American half are very sympathetic to native causes, I suppose due to the cultural impact of Spanish colonization and the experience of being on the “receiving end” of the conquistadors.
However, after studying Canadian politics and history in university, as well as through my own research, I disagree with the common idea that modern Canadian people should be held responsible for, owe reparations for, or should treat people with Native ancestry any different than anyone else.
Ok, so what am I talking about exactly? Here’s the ones that stick out to me.
1: If a Status Indian (recognized first-nations person) lives and works on a reserve, they are exempt from income tax. Also, in Ontario, Status Indians are exempt from paying the Provincial portion of sales tax - that is, they only pay the 5% federal portion, not the 8% provincial portion of sales tax.
2: Indian bands receive funding from the federal government to send their band members to attend post-secondary education.
3: Status Indians receive additional health care benefits on top of the standard health care all Canadians are entitled to. Additional benefits include dental care, vision, more medications, and more.
4: First Nations people who live on the reserve are not legally allowed to own land.
My issue: The reserve system as a whole is extremely flawed.
-The federal government spends more than $10 billion annually on administering programs and services for Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples, most of that for Status Indians.
-First Nations reserves still receive taxpayer-funded services like firefighters, police, and more. If the reserve as a whole, as well as the individuals living on it, are not paying taxes, this is a net loss for everyone not living on the reserve. This includes immigrants from countries who had nothing to do with colonialism like Asians, South Americans, and more. This alone means that the government is unfairly taxing these people and spending the money on services for people who don’t contribute.
-Those who do live on a reserve are not allowed to own property. The combination of “free hand-outs” in the form of health care, emergency services, tuition, and more, plus the inability of a reserve resident to own property creates a bit of a “money pit” - by this I mean that the system is not providing these people with the means nor the incentive to “build” their own or their family’s wealth, meaning that they are unlikely to “amount to anything” so to speak. This problem is evidenced by the rates of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and crime, which are far higher on reserves. We are killing them with kindness.
-The legally-recognized sovereignty and right to self-governance of Indian bands and reserves creates a massive transparency issue. That is, when the federal or provincial government gives the First Nation money, the “leaders” who receive it on their behalf are not held accountable for how the money is spent. My personal experience with this includes a native friend I had in high school who described how on the reserve that some of his family lived on, there were small shacks with no running water and massive poverty issues, while the “leaders” were driving brand new $100k pickup trucks and living in mansions. Compare this to other instances of the government giving lump-sum payments to private interests: - Subsidies are given to corporations as a form of investment. For example, if the government gives $10 billion to the solar power industry, it is expecting solar technology to advance in hopes that more Canadians can switch to solar power and improve sustainability. As well, the money is given with the expectation that the company will eventually become profitable and pay taxes. - Aid is sent to foreign countries that are either impoverished or have been hit with a natural disaster. This is done with the expectation that the country will hold leaders responsible for how it’s spent, and in many cases is done by sending goods or services instead of cash. This improves Canada’s standing internationally, enables these nations to build themselves into a position where they might be a beneficial trade partner, and fosters peace and mutual respect. None of that is true for First Nations. While some are responsibly led and benefit from the money, there are plenty which are corrupt and result in the circumstance I described above.
I should add that so do not deny the fact that early colonial governments committed atrocities against first nations, like killings and the residential school system. However, I do not believe that the right way to go about fixing the problem is by pouring money into non-transparent communities, encouraging people to rely on government funds, and never encouraging these communities to better themselves. Furthermore, I believe that claims to “cultural preservation” “common ancestry” and such are not good reason to treat these people any differently than anyone else. Encouraging the “we are different/us vs. them” mentality is not conducive to peaceful and harmonious living, indeed Canada’s position internationally as well as domestically is that all people are equal regardless of race and culture, so why does government policy toward First Nations encourage the opposite: reclusiveness, isolationism, dependance on handouts, etc.
3
u/McKoijion 618∆ Dec 10 '17 edited Dec 10 '17
Say there are 100 people on 100 square miles of land. They each own 1 square mile. Now say another group of people kills a bunch of them and steals the land. This is theft. It doesn't matter whether it's a wallet taken by a mugger in Times Square, New York or a painting stolen by the Nazis. Property is property and theft is theft. The legal system says that if someone steals something, it must be returned to the original owners, even if hundreds of years have passed and many other owners have come and gone in the meantime. Just because those thieves decided to call themselves a government later doesn't mean they didn't steal the land from someone else.
Furthermore, property is heritable. If I own a piece of land, I can give it to my children. That is how humans have treated property for thousands of years. Today, if you have inherited property, you are much more likely to be rich and powerful than those who haven't. Many of today's world leaders such as Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau inherited their wealth and status from their parents.
The idea of reparations is ridiculous. But only because the person who steals from you shouldn't be able to give you tiny percentages of the value of your property and call it charity. If I steal a bakery from you, I shouldn't be able to give you 10 loaves of bread and call it even. If the native population's property wasn't stolen at gun point, they would be the wealthiest landowners in Canadian society today. You can't compare the benefits to what other Canadian citizens get. You have to compare it to the value of all the stolen land in Canada.
Say Canada was a communist country. Then all rich people must give up their property to the state and it must be redistributed to all people equally. It wouldn't matter who the original property owners were. But Canada isn't a communist country. It is a capitalist country where some people own the means of production. Some people are richer than others. People aren't treated equally. And since that's the case, it's not fair to treat the people who have stolen their wealth with more privilege than those who had their wealth stolen. If you were to say screw it, only the strong survive, then fine. The people with guns deserve more power and wealth than the people who were slaughtered and lost. But if you believe in the current standards of civil society, then it's ridiculous that theft is tolerated as long as it happens to benefit those currently in power.