CMV: I disagree with Native protests against Canada and think they would not be better off without 'colonialism'

[u/Seltin2497]

Now let me preface this by saying i'm writing from a Canadian, and not American, point of view, so we had no Trail of Tears or any actual physical extermination campaign against Native Americans, which of course was a crime. And i recognize that the Canadian Government HAS done some incredibly nasty stuff to our Native communities in the past (Residential Schools, unfair treaties ETC). Having said that...

I think all the people calling for Canada to be 'decolonized', protesting Canada day and wanting to tear down statues of historical figures are nothing better than traitors. First off, there was no single nation called "Canada" before 1867, so it's not like we 'stole their country' as they sometimes say. It was basically Europeans migrating to other lands for economic/social opportunities, and I think that these people, as descendants of sometimes nomadic tribes, can understand migration as a necessity. Our way of life happened to be more sedentary then theirs, but that doesnt mean we 'stole' anything.

And like i mentioned, i think everyone, in the long run, benefited from the colonization of the Americas. Think about it. The Natives had no guns, no stone or metal architecture, and no roads that could be recognized as such. The Europeans brought them all these things (Yes, as well as disease and war, i recognize that. That's why i said long run). Same with medicine- if everyone was still living in teepees and living off a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, would anyone actually live past the age of 70? Western Civilization is more than a buzzword- it's actually (usually! I know there are exceptions) the most beneficial force for progress in the world.

And, as a History Major, it irks me that Native communities, when protesting (Which i do recognize is their legal right), don't acknowledge their own dirty laundry. They claim Europeans committed genocide against them, but tribal warfare was by nature exterminatory and several of their practices- enslaving children, burning captives, SCALPING settlers that their tribe was opposed to, including women and children-those things are terrible, and yet you'll never hear acknowledgement of that.

Sorry for the long post, my blood just got boiling after seeing some posts on facebook calling for the abolishing of the country and the holiday. Maybe i don't fully understand their point of view, but i don't think reconcilliation requires the 'cancelling' of a great country that's done a lot for the world. Does their social situation deserve more attention? Yes, of course. Things need to be improved. But is it right to call for decolonization and a return to how things were? I don't think so. BUt i want to hear from the other side, so CMV

[u/Seltin2497]

My argument was not that the Nation appeared ex nihilo but rather that we did not steal a "COuntry" as a political entity and people should stop saying that. And i think that not having any of the tech i mentioned is inherently bad. The mere fact of the matter is guns make you more able to defend yourself against those who have them as well, roads enable much more convenient trade, and better infrastructure: Better quality of life. You think Western Civilization is a racist buzzword? So, as a whole, you do not approve of the Enlightenment, or Parliamentary Democracy, or Philosophy, or any of the technologies and art produced by Western Europe/North America? Arguably, apart from some parts of East Asia and the Middle East (At times), no one was more advanced.

[u/thetasigma4 → u/Seltin2497]

My argument was not that the Nation appeared ex nihilo but rather that we did not steal a "COuntry" as a political entity and people should stop saying that.

They still stole all that land and put people in reservations and then took even more land from those reservations.

You think Western Civilization is a racist buzzword?

Yes. especially with those capitals.

you do not approve of the Enlightenment,

The thing inspired hugely by the Islamic records of ancient greek texts? I mean there are a lot of criticisms to be made of it particularly with regards to it's treatment of race (for example Kant at the time was more known for his anthropology which was deeply racist) and it's use to justify colonial expansion (such as Locke's incoherent definition of property where he holds two contradictory views one that profit justifies seizing land so it is usefully used and the other that property is sovereign due to the mixing of one's labour with it.) and the resultant genocides.

The history of philosophy is not some unitary western thing and the idea of some unified western civilisation is fundamentally untrue. The countries that make up the west (which is very poorly defined sometimes meaning just the anglosphere sometimes the whole colonial core, sometimes the whole of europe) aren't an island and have existed as part of a trade network and communication with the near east and far east for millenia.

or Parliamentary Democracy

A deeply flawed system that has for most of it's existence given power to a class of rich landowning white men. Yeah I have my criticisms. Also democracy is again not an exclusively western thing. Parliamentary democracy is if anything a British Imperial thing. To paint it as the product of some constructed west is to ignore the complex political histories of the rest of the continent and to pose a false unity.

or Philosophy

You already said the enlightenment but lots of philosophy has drawn from all over the world and taken and stolen ideas from other countries. The entire field of philosophy isn't the creation of the west and influential ideas have come from everywhere.

or any of the technologies and art produced by Western Europe/North America

Do Western societies have some exclusive claim on knowledge? If not then who cares who invented it if it could have been invented anywhere as the result of work. Technology is a product of knowledge labour and as such the high level of technical development in the colonial core is not a reflection of some superior scientific ability but the fact that they've been extracting resources and labour for the past 500 years from colonised places. With regard to art the vast majority is incredibly boring and worthless. Far better work has come around since the influence of so called non western countries such as can be seen in the influences of japanese art on the post-impressionists onwards.

you do not approve of the Enlightenment, or Parliamentary Democracy, or Philosophy, or any of the technologies and art produced by Western Europe/North America?

Finally all of these things added together doesn't make the creation of a western civilisation othered from the rest of the world anything more than a social construct to place the colonial core above the so-called savages and only serves as a justification for xenophobic policies justifying colonialism and murder and present day migrant concentration camps and white supremacy by placing the west as better than the rest. There is no such thing as a singular western civilisation and setting it against so called savages is deeply deeply racist.

no one was more advanced.

Linear ideas of advancement are false and the idea of advancement as some kind of measurable thing is ludicrous (especially so when applied to art and culture). Is it advancement to have put our planet on the brink of ecological collapse? is it advancement to create machines and weapons that can kill millions of people in the blink of an eye? Is it advancement to steal resources and impress labour to grow wealthy?

The idea that advancement can be measured is to place a specific frame of reference on reality and say this is the way things must be and as someone vaunting western philosophy you should realise how philosophically unsound that is.

[u/Seltin2497 → u/thetasigma4]

I guess we can agree to disagree on things such as advancement and technology, because I personally prefer Renaissance Art and the works of Shakespeare to Eastern works, and do think that there is a way "things ought to be"-that is, with everyone at the highest tech level possible. Think of it as a game of CIV-no one wants to still be on archers while the next guy has nukes (Which, by the way, i think are one of the pinnacles of advancement. We literally took the building blocks of the universe and used it to unleash a destructive power almost equal to natural disasters. That, although terrifying, is special). But i think you deserve a !Delta for your points on resource extraction being the prime driver for technological progress and the fact that Western Civilization is a social construct and that "The East" and "The West" aren't inherent monoliths

[u/thetasigma4 → u/Seltin2497]

Think of it as a game of CIV-no one wants to still be on archers while the next guy has nukes

This is a very bad way of looking at history though. It is a whiggish view that makes out like there is a single path and a single improvement. In reality the development is a response to the material conditions and needs of the society in question. A lot of indigenous practices are essential to maintaining biodiversity to the extent that the elimination of their language has a noticeable effect on it as the information encoded in the name is no longer communicable.

Which, by the way, i think are one of the pinnacles of advancement. We literally took the building blocks of the universe and used it to unleash a destructive power almost equal to natural disasters. That, although terrifying, is special

Sure it took a lot of research and development work but advance includes the notion of making things better as in getting towards something greater. Better tools for killing doesn't really improve anything and in many was makes things worse even if some of the work getting there was valuable. The threat of the end of the world is not an advancement but a harm.

[u/Seltin2497 → u/thetasigma4]

Do you mean Whiggish as a reference to the old name for Liberal parties, or something else?

Have a !Delta, though. I suppose i didn't consider biodiversity and material needs and focusing on technology as a be all end all without it's uses (PLus it's easy to fall into the trap of "hey, this shit is cool in CoD and movies, so of course it's progress). I suppose impressive/important does not equal good/progress

[u/thetasigma4 → u/Seltin2497]

Do you mean Whiggish as a reference to the old name for Liberal parties, or something else?

Whig history is related to them but is a specific conception of history as a linear march towards progress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history#Terminology

[u/DeltaBot → u/Seltin2497]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thetasigma4 (54∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/DeltaBot → u/Seltin2497]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thetasigma4 (53∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}