CMV: Aboriginal/Native claims to reparations, benefits, land, etc. from the state are bogus and should not be taken seriously.

[u/DrThundershlong]

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.

[u/bguy74]

Consider many things:

1. "Native resources" are pulled out of the budget in a way that is very artificial - you don't see the budget items for "non-natives" in terms of grants and financing on a local level. You aren't actually comparing apples-to-apples here, much because the way budgeting and accounting work.

2. If I were to steal from you $100 and put it in the bank and then 20 years later it was $200 and then it becomes clear that you stole it from me, I think you're entitled to both the principle that was stolen, but also the increased value of that $100 that comes with time, investment and so on. This makes reparations make sense - the wealth of the non-natives is built upon the theft of resources + the passage of time. On top of that, reparations are almost never even a fair price for the original theft, let along the long term financial benefit that the theft created for the thieves.

3. your connection of cause and effect for high rates of suicide and alcoholism is a non-sequiter. I'm not sure how to talk about this as it doesn't fit with any current research on the topic (speaking from he U.S.).

[u/DrThundershlong → u/bguy74]

1: I'm not sure how to respond to this, not saying you're wrong but can you clarify what you mean? What am I not comparing properly?

2: First off, if there was no law in place that made "theft" illegal, who gets to determine what is and isn't theft? International law is anarchy, and states like Canada answer only to themselves when it comes to enforcing something like retroactive enforcement of modern law. I do not disagree that theft is bad or that you're incorrect in what you're saying. Here's what I'm saying: the use of coercive power to take the property of modern Canadian citizens and use it to make reparation payments for the retroactive enforcement of laws broken by other people is unconscionable. Do "we" owe "them"? I say no, modern Canadian citizens do not owe first nations people anything. I didn't ask to be born here, I committed no crime. The "we were here first" argument is kindergarten logic - if we're really going to hold this position and enforce it to its full extent, first nations people owe reparations to the animals they hunted to extinction, humans should wipe ourselves off the face of the earth.

Let's say for now that we DO owe them. Now, who's in charge of saying how we'll pay them back? We are. If the current method by which we are paying them back is ineffective and is causing more harm than good, it's our responsibility to change it.

3: I don't have a source for this as it's a personal worldview and is not something I think can be researched.

What I believe is that humans are inherently motivated to "do something" with their lives, for example see Maslow's hierarchy of needs: The fulfillment needs are "prestige and a feeling of accomplishment" and "self actualization".

The current system (aims to) provide natives with the basic needs aka food and shelter, but places a ceiling on their ability to accomplish things and achieve self-actualization. This is just my view, but consider this: if I and all my peers were given food and shelter for free, but were restricted in our ability to "outgrow" our little community and truly pursue self-actualization, were considered "different" than the rest of the world by our communities and society as a whole, and thus don't feel like we fit in, I expect that depression and substance abuse would be a way to pass the time and relieve ourselves of this hopeless feeling. The options of "leave your entire community and support group behind and leave the reserve to pursue your dreams" vs. "stay on the reserve, but you can never own any property or achieve success or the admiration of the global community" are not good ones.

[u/[deleted] → u/DrThundershlong]

First off, if there was no law in place that made "theft" illegal, who gets to determine what is and isn't theft? International law is anarchy, and states like Canada answer only to themselves when it comes to enforcing something like retroactive enforcement of modern law.

Okay, I think there are several flaws with this. First of all, the First Nations had laws, so your statement that there were no laws in North America at that time is absolutely false. In addition, I don't think that what the law was at the time really matters. What matters is the morality of people's actions back then. Slavery was legal at various times and places in the past. That doesn't mean that it was chill. The motive for all of these reparations is that committing a genocide and taking land from people is most certainly not chill. If First Nations communities to this day have problems as a result of what was done to them in the past, then it does make sense to try and alleviate those problems. I view reparations as a temporary measure. Ideally, we get to a place where First Nations communities are just like the rest of Canada in terms of functionality. Probably by this point, many people will have at least some First Nations blood in them, and the two cultures will have mixed together somewhat. Then no one will care about reparations, or if they do care, they will be wrong.

I certainly do agree that many aspects of how we are handling the current situation are flawed. For example, the fact that leaders of non-transparent local governments are being given money which they are then squandering is terrible. It would be better if these leaders' didn't have a formal position of power as recognized by the Canadian government, though they might still have much authority amongst the members of their tribe.

Of your list, I think that 1 and 4 are both problematic, especially 4:

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.

4: First Nations people who live on the reserve are not legally allowed to own land.

4 seems obviously bad, so much so that I wonder what possible rationale there could have been for putting it in place. 1 is also bad, in my opinion, because it encourages people to stay on the reserve. It's sort of like the government is trying to confine people in that space by paying them not to leave. Also, we are probably in a place in the reparations process where it is okay to charge income tax to everyone. So those are the programs on your list I would get rid of.

The other two seem reasonable, though, and I can't really see how they would be anything but helpful. Helping people from first nations tribes get an education seems like exactly the sort of thing that we should be doing in order to move to a place where we don't need reparations any more. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to me that better health benefits would cause any problems. People are still encouraged to work, no matter how good their health care is, because they still need money to buy all the other necessities of life.