Hi redhead,

Simply put when we stick our nose into somebody else's business we can choose to side with the oppressed.

When we consider our own business we stand as oppressor.

The former is more comfortable.

While it is popular in the United Church to claim to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted it is clear that it only applies externally and internally we prefer to be comfortable.

Grace and peace to you.

John

apologoies for typos and inserted errors; I do have some limitations with typing and I do try to be careful

eg I Ihit the slash often instead of the the return key , just so you know

Much better said than I.  Thanyk you ReJohn

sorry. it is not so easy for me to type well  pls excuse typos

does anyone have anything to say regarding our own domestic issues

On the other hand, the United Church is taking a proactive stand in terms of First Nations people, and acknowledges our share historically of the role of oppressor.  I don't understand why we can't work to reverse our role as oppressor in Canada at the same time as standing with the oppressed elsewhere.

How much different would North and South America plus other non- European countries of the world be had they not been first oppressed? Would civilization as we know it, that all enjoy (not saying it is better)  have caught up or would these areas remain as some areas that refused the advancement of the European influence?

Jim Kenney: How exactly is is the UCCan doing this?

Redhead, mostly I am just a lurker. I am happy to see you back posting.

Hi Jim Kenney,

Anything that has taken place after the Blackwater trial cannot be considered proactive.  That The United Church of Canada had to be dragged into a courtroom means that all response is, on some level reactive.  Lets also not forget that in that whole debacle The United Church of Canada also stated that it is not its policy to apologize (this in light of apologies made already to First Nations and Homosexuals) so it repented instead.

While I prefer repent over apology we didn't do it because it was truer to our Christian faith we did it because it is somewhat less than a legal admission of guilt.  That isn't us being accountable that is us being weasels.

That said, where we have sat down with First Nations members and listened to the harm done them and the suffering that has come as a result of that harm we willingly stand in the place of the oppressor and allow those whom we have hurt to reclaim their voice that much more.  In that we cannot help but be reactive, not that it is automatically a bad thing to react.  Honest reaction is part of being accountable.

Working to reverse our role as oppressor sounds like revisionism.  With respect to the Residential Schools this denomination willingly engaged in oppression.  That will never be reversed.  Much care needs to be taken to determine just how oppressive we actually were.  Kevin Annett's indictments for example make us out to be bigger monsters than most testimony validates.  Annett's delusion notwithstanding we were still monsters.

That doesn't have to interfere with our ability to stand with the oppressed elsewhere.  It would, I hope, inform how we stand with the oppressed.  Further, if we have gained any insight from understanding the mechanics of the oppressor, we might find our communication with other oppressors to be more fruitful as any correction to oppression might also come with a "we" component.

We tend to think of standing alongside of one and standing against another.  Picking sides is always problematic and that shows clearly in the fallout every time this issue is discussed.  One would hope that we understand that standing alongside means we are supportive of both conflicted parties even when we find the action taken by one to be grossly out of proportion to the action taken by the other.  A failure to do so inevitably results in pissing contests about who hurts more and who shoulders the most responsibility for all of that pain.

Again, the full call from Micah is to do justice (which as a denomination we are keen to do), love mercy (which we tend to think gets in the way of doing justice) and walking humbly (which gets in the way of us patting ourselves on the back and pointing out how many "firsts" we get to check off some prideful list pointing to our greatness) with our God.

One would think that if we spent anytime at all listening that when we get around to opening our mouths we would be able to speak without tripping over our own words and being a distraction.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Well said John.  The feeling I got at General Council was a greater willingness to address the need for us, the UCC to go beyond the compensation we have already paid to doing more to restore right relationships.  Doing so requries admitting our complicity in oppression.  Rather than "reverse our role" I meant to say that we have, reactively, become more willing to work at repairing some of the damage we have done.  Not as willing as I wish we were, and not going as far as I would like, but taking some baby steps.  Real courage and real repentance would have us increasing our financial support to aboriginal ministries, not doing the across the board 5% cuts as is happening.  I believe we should as a national church making stronger statements of support for aboriginal communities in their ongoing struggles with the federal government, and our conferences and other church bodies could be urging provincial governments to put the well-being of individual children and communities ahead of their jurisdictional battles with the federal government.

There are individuals and congregations in Alberta, particularly in the Calgary area, that are working at establishing helpful relationsips with the aboriginal communities in the Calgary area (Dakota Soiux, Tsu Tina, Tsit Sika, Peigan and others.

To say why this cause and not that one is really to say you're wrong to do anything at all. Why help native peoples instead of our own? Why help people in another province and not in our own? Why help this sick person on the left - and not that sick person ono the right?

And there's another dimension to it.

The situation in the middle east is quite capable of becoming a business that affects us. We are very close to be asked to take part in a war very close to Israel, and it is a war that could well become a world war.  And I rather think a world war could be very much our business.

Of course, that raises another question. Why fight this world war, but not another world war.

Graeme, why are you referring to war? 

My understanding of boycott, as posted in many threads recently, is peaceful (re) action in the guise of social justice. 

Furthermore, my question specifically in this thread is what can we do here in Canada, where there is still so much work to do with regard to how First Nations people have been oppressed and their lands occupied for centuries.

Hi Jim Kenney,

Maybe.  I see some effort.  I'm not convinced of the motive behind it.

It still appears to me that we so desperately want to be on the right side of the oppressor/oppressed line that we are not willing to do what is most needful for us to do.

Money is great.  It at best is a band-aid and if it is placed on a hemorrhage it will quickly be washed away by the sheer volume of flow.

At GC-40 in Kelowna we listened to three Residential School Survivors tell there stories.  They simply wanted a chance to tell their stories.  It was mighty uncomfortable to listen to.  Why?  Well because to listen properly we have to sit as the accused and hear the sad story of what our best intentions did to our neighbours.  It requires us to stand as the villains in the story and that is a role our pride has not prepared us to play.

If Hero is the strongest role our humility equips us to play then we need to know that we are neither the hero nor are we humble.

With respect to the Residential Schools.  We are most definitely not heros and we are decidedly lacking in humility.

Are we trying?  Yes, we are trying.  Trying to do what though?  That for me is key.  As the villains in this story it isn't up to us to save the day.  I think it is fair and right that we allow the First Nations' peoples to be the heroes of their own story and to do that we have to shut up and listen more than we are want to do.

Possibly it would.  If that is what our First Nations brothers and sisters asked of us then we should do all that we can to comply.  Regrettably, the Western Culture which caused the mess tends to think if you throw money at a problem it will go away.  So, I'm not convinced that all of us villains saying toss more money at it is a fair and just solution.  Sounds to me more like denial and thinly veiled justification for what excellent and nice people we really are.

Talk, so the saying goes, is cheap.  We've already proved it with weasel words of our own.  Which is why our standing with the oppressed on this matter is difficult.  How can we stand with them and not have it end up being all about what good people we are?  Kevin Annett uses First Nations peoples to stroke his own ego and we are offended by that yet, we are not that different and we manage not to offend ourselves.

If they listen as they do so then they are way out in front of most and we would be better served by shutting up and watching how they do it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

redhead,

you're perfectly right

people should find their group, their tribe, their passion, and go for it and not worry aboot trying to do everything or be everything to everyone...it is alright not to care aboot Israel -- there are enough people in the world who do it already...

in effect, sombunall people have made 'Israel' part of their morality and social norms...and you know how people in groups operate, how we tend to follow authority...so 'Israel' just happens to be, in our group and culture one of these things...

thank you for pointing out that WE ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE...

California has just passed a law. Any criticism of Israel is now illegal and, no matter what its merits might be, is officially anti-semitism.

A powerful Israeli lobby has driven the US and Canada to uncritical support of Israel in their official policies. Obama is the first to (quietly) back away from it - and it could cost him the election.

Israel wants war. It want's Palestinian land. It wants to expel Israeli-Palestinians. China, US, Russia, Britain, France all have big stakes in that region.

And Israel is the wild card that's willing to take dangerous risks that could plunge us all into war. We have to draw a line for Israel.

Our native peoples certainly deserve our help. But they, at least, are not likely to drag us into World War Three. Israel is. It would be a shame to save all our native peoples just in time to see them all disappear in a mushroom cloud.

They did not pass a law.

Israel does not start wars. They are not welcome. They cannot play games of attrition. So they are a hornets nest in the desert - you kick it and the reaction will be ten fold.  That is the way it has to be.

Iran threatens nuclear strikes...

Israel kills their nuclear scientists.

A fading church in Canada pokes them with a stick...

Nonsense.

California passed the law last week.

Israel does not start wars? I suggest you look at the list. One can safely begin at the Suez canal war which was started by Israel, Britain, and France.

Iran has not threatened nuclear strikes. It has no weapons to strike with. 

Israel does not just kill Iranian nuclear scientists. It's secret service was infolved in the South African apartheid wars, fighting on the side of the Whites. It was also involved assisting the US in its slaughters of the Maya people in Guatemala.

It also takes land illegally from Palestinians on what is supposed to be Palestinian terrority. that is called an act of war.

Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons. Isn't it just a little - odd - to accuse a nation with no nuclear weapons of threatening a nuclear attack on one that has over 200?

Graeme, your arguments regarding the Israel conflict are not welcome here.

I started this thread specifically to address a serious issue domestically, that does have a parallel to what is happening in Israel, in a poltical sense.  That said, this thread is open to discussion regarding First Nations issues.

then you shouldn't you be berating Saul, now Paul for changing the subject? I was responding to him.  (besides, you referred to Israel and Palestine in your opening post - clearly suggesting the two issues were linked..)

As to first nations issues, you cannot resolve them. The major issues are that we have taken their land and we have deprived their languages of much of their use.

That's a world that is destroyed. They can't return to. Nor would they want to return to a world as their ancestors lived in it 500 years ago any more than I would want to return to live as my ancestors of 25 years ago.

So the first thing to do in helping native peoples is to get rid of all the romanticism about it. I well knew an Iroquois who determined to live the simple, agricultural life  his ancetors had. He's a sincere and charming person.  however, skippliing lightly over his use of a car and TV and electricity, it is absurd to think that all Irquois could go back to a simple life of subsistence farming using wooden tools.

Similarly, we cannot restore a culture. For openers, almost nobody knows what a culture is - and it is not possible to preserve a culture, anyway. Cultures naturally change as the world changes. If they didn't, none of us could survive.

In the long run, natural forces make us change to meet changing conditions. and the changes now are often world wide.  Who would have thought thirty years ago that Beijing traffic jams would resemble New York's. On TV, the Miss Hong Kong contest not  only looks like Miss America, it has all the same dumb questions and dumb answers - but in Chinese.

Immediately, we can do two things. Invest heavily in native education to produce people who are equipped to live in this world. Two - provide incentives for business to provide employment in native regions.

With luck, this might start to show results in about thirty years. The damage is done. We can't just wave a magic wand and make it go away.

The Canadian Govt suddenly closes the embassy in Iran.

Dun Dun Dun (In ominous base tone)

sometimes i think in Global Leadership school, yanno, where the Baracks & the Stephen Harpers of the world learn how to act globally, they intentionally put them through a Kobayshi Maru* scenario of the Near East.

i also think that it could be a kind of Rite of Passage amongst Christians to be Involved with the Near East...also, there are those who get their wood off of some kind of divine survivalist fantasy**...

i think that the ordinary person should feel free to pick and choose a 'cause' to involve themselves in and not feel any obligation to try to be involved in every 'cause'...

* which, it seems, culture after civilization has tried to deal with...the latest attempt at pacifying that part of the world, the Brits, have had certain results

** involving a kind of celestial landlord kicking out the 'original' landowners and perpetual Evil People, the Phoenecians (Palestinians) worshippers of pigs & Ba'al and Asherah etc etc etc...

I suggest that all of human conflict, oppression and supression, is based squarely in the human realm.  It is always about power, money, control; control of people and natural resources.

That said, there are leaders throughout history and currently, who drag religion into it, because it enables these leaders to drag people of belief into battle.

This boycott of Israel is an example of blending and blurring politic and religion.  If one examines the history and current state of the Israeli/Palestinian confict, and is honest in the examination, one would see the decades of internal terrorist attacks by Arab-Israelis.  And the Israeli governments have shown restraint and initiated peaceful negotiatians over and over the last three decades.  These talks and efforts have not succeeded.

Here is a question:  how does a government deal with suicide bombers who continue to this day kill innocent citizens?  And the suicide bombers are not Jewish.

Not many here want to talk about that.

My efforts in this thread were to discuss the issues here, where First Nations people have been oppressed for centuries.... yet it seems that Canadians are more willing to be involved in foreign affairs than to focus on issues at home. 

It is hypocritical.  It is tragic.  And it speaks to the fact that optically it looks good to work abroad on behalf of those who are oppressed than to actually (hu)man up and work toward repairing all the damage done in our own backyard, whether it be through Church roles and/or government roles.

We cannot repair the damage we have done. We cannot restore a Canada of wilderness. We cannot preserve what no longer exists. And if we could, our native peoples would be dreadfully ill-equipped to survive in it as their ancestors did. 

Nor is there any point in casting this as good guys and bad guys. If we are the bad guys, we aren't likely to change. If native people are the bad guys, who cares what they think?

We, all of us, have to start with a clean sheet of paper to find workable solutions. Native people have to learn to adapt to an urban society (no easy task). We have to learn the most effective ways to help them because we are the ones who have the power. That may be wrong. But that's the reality.

The same is true in Israel and Palestine. This is not a case of good guys and bad guys. It's a case of two societies placed in dreadful conflict by forces that neither had any control over. It's a case of two societies trying to restore old dreams while ignoring new conditions.

We have used our power to make the Middle East worse. The US, in particular, has encouraged the behaviour of dominance by Israel.

And before you she more tears for those poor Israelis, may I suggest you do a body count for both sides?

Yes. I know my comments are not appreciated. I'm a bad guy. I can live with that.

Just came across an interesting statistic. Of all Netanyahu's political campaign funding, 96.8%, comes from outside Israel. of that percentage, a full half comes from one family in Florida.

So much for Israeli democracy and the voice of the people.

As well, the author says that Netanyahu has been saying for ten years that Iran is within months of a nuclear bomb. I know that to be true because I've been reading statements for at least ten years.

Both these items appear today in International Clearing House, a free site on othe web which I have found to be a good deal more reliable that ANY North american newspaper, TV or radio station.

One should also consider the absurdity of the Romney claim that Iran is the greatest threat to world peace. If it got one bomb? In a world of 11,000 plus nuclear bombs?

Common sense should dictate that countries with lots of bombs are a far bigger threat than countries with few.

And, in any case, most intelligence sources in the US and Israel say iran is NOT developing a bomb.

Anyway, the biggest (only) nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel. The biggest in the world is the US. Those are the two biggest threats to world peace.

By the way, the existence of Israel is a blurring of politics and religion. That's why American Jews are rapidly becoming critical of Israel. That's why the majority of American Jews are expected to vote for Obama.

First, statistics and polls must be used with caution.  Sources, biases, methodology and statistical relevance must all be taken into consideration.  Rarely, graeme, do you back up your information with provable, analytical evidence, and when others present any argument contrary to yours, you resort to informal fallacies, and in some cases, personal attacks.

Start your own thread on why you hate Israel, and lay off my thread, which was proposed to focus on what can be done domestically to repair what damage has been done to First Nations people, their culture, their history, and violations of their rights, whether it be under the auspices of government or church (and historically those relationships were combined).

I have noted that when you feel cornered, or when a thread does not seem to be supporting your own views, you attack... and that is very poor form.... but then again, in another thread, you admitted you were ne3ver a very good student.... and so I say this to you:  mathematics and logic are so very linked, and that you admit to being a poor math student begs the question? 

Yes, I am angry with your posts, only because you refuse to be respectful, considerate, and engage in dialogue and debate within the traditional respectful conduct that clearly you missed in your studies, which allegedly you suggest you understand.  It is called baiting because it brings others down, and I freely admit that you are succeeding in irritating me.  That said, I still know that most of what you write is actually crap.  And yes, I have debased myself here by writing this, but I think it has to be said, and your crapstorm needs to be challenged.  And when you always bring threads down, at a certain point, we have to join your base, anti-Semetic, entitled level just to call you out on it.

you seem not to understand my point. Many, many situations cannot be repaired. They are broken. What was is gone. We cannot restore native society in Canada. That way of life is gone. We cannot restore the Africa or the middle east that was. They have been destroyed. We did it in something over a century. Nor is there the slightest evidence that any western government has the faintest interest in repairing native peoples, Africa or the Middle East.

As to the term anti-semitic, please use a dictionary (that's a source) and find out what semite means. Palestinians are semitics. Most israeli Jews are not.

The accusation of anti-semite is just a mindless slander. My position on the region is shared by many close friends who are observant Jews and Zionists. Learn something about Israel before you make foolish. ill-informed and slanderous accusations.

Again you resort to abusive ad homile.  I know exactly what the term anti-semitic means and I used it purposefully. For others who are unaware, anti - semetic is a term for arabs and Jews, for both derive from a middle eastern, genetic heritage - a fact that Graeme likes to blur.

Who cares about your close friends, Graeme, bring on evidence and facts that are valid, scientifcally verifiable and historically accurate with footnote proof.  Or shut up, the way way you you try to bully others into not speaking and belittling evidence with mindless droll

Here is some evidence, which you demanded of me; that said I acknowledge that internet info is not the best scientific source, and must be verified as I suggested above, but as a start I present (in this medium, where there is no  easier option)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

The word is ad hominem and,, so,  far, you are the only one to use ad hominem attacks. "anti-semitic" is one of them.

That is a standard trick, and a vicious one, of the Israeli lobby. If  you disagree with Netanyahu, you're an anti-semite. Sure. And if you disagree with Harper, you must be  anti-Canadian. And if you disagree with you, you're an ignorant bully.

You really should check the meaning of ad hominem.

Thank you for the list of  bombings by Palestinians. Nobody has ever questioned whether such bombings took place. Now, do you have a list of how many Palestinians have been killed by Israelis?

(Oh, I know they had excellent reasons, of course. But how many Palestinians were killed?)

The majority of Israeli Jews are Ashkenaze. They are not semitic. They originate in Eastern and Central Europe. Semitic Jews are not crazy about them. (Most of my Jewish friends are Ashkenaze.)

Who cares about my Jewish friends? Well, I do. They are observant Jews, ardent Zionists; and they are heart-broken about what is happening in Israel.

I have also known a number of Jewish Israelis who enjoy telliing jokes about burning the homes of Palestinians, shooting them, etc. You'ld like them.

Now, write back and call me some more names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

yes, indeed forgive my typo.  And for many here, I have participated in such a basic argument before.  You are repsonsible for your side of the argument, as am I.  And for any who are not familiar with informal fallacy, the above link will shed light on how you, Graeme, formulate many of your fallacious premises and attacks.

What is sad is that once again, as it happens on so many threads within which you post, you cause distraction and derailment.

Provide creidible evidence for your your premises.  That is not my job. It is yours.  And to be clear, be specific and provide verifiable, imparitial and verifiable evidence.

Start with understanding that Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews differ ony in observant  ritual practises, not origin.  Both sides acknowledge being Jewish.  See as comparison: Protestant and Catholic - no one disputes belief in Christianity; disputes are around practise of ritual and observance. Interpretation.

It is interesting that you claim to care for anyone, given the level of hate and the dismissal of groups of people, currently, and historically, in so many of your posts.  how do you account for writing that First Nations people,, to paraphrase what you have written recently, should just suck it up and adapt to an urban colonist established society because there is simply no way retribution can be accommodated?  That is exactly what you have written about.... so why should your perspective be different regarding Palestinians, who for many hold within this argument hold a similar First Nations position with regard to territory and heritage - should not they also suck it up and adapt to the prevailing dominant presence?  That is your argument, figure out how to back out of it.

redhead,

might i suggest that you /ignore graeme?

he has chosen his particular path and no one else has to follow it...

(and you've seen his behaviours, how he tends to react)

Inanna, you are correct, and I have written that I have sunk to a new low in responding to some of what Graeme writes, but I cannot let his contradictions and dismissive comments go unchallenged, especially in light of his use of informal fallacies to try to persuade others.  It is at times, hateful, baiting and irritating. 

It just makes me plain batshit crazy, and I don't want him to win because I take the high ground and walk away from the crap he spews...

So now I dwell in the underworld of the ad hominem, but I I will try to swim up to the surface of charitable listening and consideration, which are both components of a decent, balanced debate/discussion.

I am justird of being Graeme's punching bag, and he has been doing it to me for years.

* should read:  I am just tired...

You are not alone -- there are sombunall WCers who have been on the receiving end

Remember, those that matter never mind and those that mind don't matter :3

Keep up the good work :3

((((((((((((((((Redhead))))))))))))))))

Look at you......!!!!!........joy to the world.....lol...you're back at WC.....a miracle.....I'm so excited because you fell down such a big rabbit hole. You've overcome it.......its all so wonderful I'm at a loss for words. Your vocabulary.....wow.....its simply smashing and brimming with intelligence. I can scarcely believe my eyes.

 May God and the angels watch over you and protect you always.

Redhead, I am puzzled by your claim a few posts up that you started this thread to focus on the situation of First Nations people in Canada, but most of your opening post is about the very limited boycott proposed by GC41 regarding west bank settlements.

I am not proud of the path the United Church has taken so far in dealing with First Nations peoples.  It took us too long to really apologize for what we did, and we for too long saw First Nations people as mission fields instead of as brothers and sisters under God.  While I am not proud, I appreciate that the UCC finally made the apology it could have made in 1986.  I also appreciate the willingness of our leadership to walk with and listen to First Nations communities as we wade through a swamp created by history, not sure of where we will come out, or what we will need to do to get there.  The destination will be theirs to choose.

From my 9+ years of teaching in First Nations settngs and 1.5 years as a pastor to a First Nations church, I have come to believe the first thing they need from the rest of us is respect.  Once we are able to engage in truly respectful relationships, we will be able to develop new, positive relationships.  I can still remember a conversation with a dean of the residence at Grouard (for adults) when he was expressing disgust with the newest crop of Northlands teachers with their prevalent, "I am here to save the Natives", attitude.  He had a blunt approach to sharing his thoughts, and I appreciated his willingness to have long conversations with a young white man trying to understand a world that was totally new to him.

I hope that, if you are genuine in your comment above that your intent for this thread was to focus on First Nations issues, that your remaining posts will develop this conversation.  I would like to know what you suggest we should do as a church or as a nation to work for healing.

Hi Jim,

First, I have always been genuine in my posts regarding First Nations issues.

Second, I  have never suggested that UCCan members should NOT be working abroad with regard to social justice issues of oppression.

Rather, I pointed out that there is much work to be done here , especially with regard to our history, and our present state of affairs concerning the sytematic, governmental and societal biases of First Nations people.

Why is the UCCan focusing abroad, when there is much work to be done here? 

That is one of my questions.

I feel ashamed as I examine how colonial forces messed with First Nations people, took over their lands,  wiped out their traditions, trading routes and screwed with their cultulur and values.

Contrary to what I have read on some posts, \i believe that there is still good work that can be done regarding retribution and frankly, payback.

It starts with spending money at home, and supporting values and heritage of First Nations people. And yes, it is a welfare - ish situation, but we created the problem and inbalance  with reservations and restrictions; we as descendants of colonists created a trapped environment for First Nations people; they can barely survive in artifical boundaries of reserves or they can leave family, friends, heritage, and the reserves and enter into a bigoted non-Native (aka white) world to try to succeed.

Framkly, I think it should be a lot of money, sincere apology, and a great review, analaysis, and re-presentation (with First Nations input) of the history we promote, internally and externally, as Canadian.

Thank you, Jim, for asking a very thoughtful question.  I appreciate it.

When we clump all First Nations, or any group, into one group, are we not playing the role of oppressor? As a commissioner for GC41, I was able to see that the UCC is indeed doing a lot to restore right relations with First Nations peoples. There is excellent FN leadership within the UCC, and the FN voices are being heard. Of course, this is a journey, and can always be improved upon.

I do not think it is up to us to "fix" the FN "problem". It is up to us to listen and walk with our FN brothers, sisters and cousins. We need to listen to what they tell us they need, if they need, and not to tell them what we think they need. By focusing on right relations, I believe the UCC is doing that. I believe this is also why the GC41 commissioners voted as they did on the Israel Palestine issue. We heard from a group that was being oppressed, and felt called to respond.

Quite right. There are problems that cannot be fixed. we can provide help when asked. We can get out of the way. But nobody can reconstruct a society that was suited to a world that no longer exists.

redhead - evidence that gives only one side is dishonest. You offered no record of Israeli terrorism that dates back over sixty years, and contninued yesterday with the killing of several Palestinians.

As for Ashkenazes and sepharics having common origins, nonsense. If you just knew some and looked at the two groups, you would see pronounced physical differences. Ashkenazes are converts. Sephardics are the original Israelites.

                -  I do not usually give sources because a)it is my experience that people like you won't pay any attention to them and b) I have more to do with my day than look up sources for you.

But above all, never think we can "fix" a society. People who say they want to save a culture rarely mean any such thing. What they want to do is to change it so it keeps some old features, but also fits into today's world. When the Parti Quebecois passed its language laws, it next put forward a Bill 102 for culture. It was absurd. The people who talked about preserving Quebecois culture in fact wanted to change it all. In all the years of research since then, nobody has ever come up with a definition of Quebecois culture. 

we cannot help native people by decisive interventions. What they need to do is to decide what they want. Then we can offer help - under their direction.

Hi Northwind,

It is ironic that "clumping" is a way of defining a unique group of people within the context of multiculturalism.  It causes an odd juxtaposition;  being part of a unique group while still being a part of a larger group, and sometimes groups.... also toss into the mix the notion of individuality, and it becomes apparent that simply being is complicated!

I am as careful as I can be to use language that is respectful, and of course I may fall short, but I believe that First nations is a completely acceptable term, as is non-Native, a term used to describe other groups of people/society(ies).

I am not naive, and I do believe that people from different heritages can work together to create better living conditions while preserving and celebrating heritage, culture, languages, and religions.  This is not impossible.  But it does require effort, thoughtfulness and consideration.  It is a kind of post-colonial world in which ideologies, politics and issues around ownership of resources and histories can be shared, and honest. 

Graeme, I am Jewish, just so you know.  And I know that I have posted that here before.

So? I lived most of my adult life in Jewish society. Many a Jewish mother has sighed to me, and said, "Oi, Graeme, if only you were a Jewish boy." I once thought of becoming Jewish - though it would have been reformed.

The Coalition for Peace is Jewish, too. There are lots of jews who are very critical of Netanyahu.

Hi Jim,

I respond to your puzzlement regarding the parallel I presented.  Why is it so easy to respond to a foreign issue around oppressor/oppressed when we at home have the same unresolved conflict?

Very simply, because those who are entitled, in positions of economic gain, power, and influence, do not want to give it up, or pay back.

I am all for listening, working together, and moving forward... that said, I suspect that many would and do consider this process as mushy feel-good crap that does not really pan out at the end of the day.

I am writing about accountability and transparency now, and moving forward.

It is not easy to do, but it is ethically valid.

Hi Northwind,

I respond to the idea that it is not up to us to "fix" the problem...

Actually, it is up to Canadians to "fix" the situation that was created systematically from colonsation through governmental actions that exist to this very day.

And First Nations people have been asking, and demanding peacefully, to address these issues, through discussion and peaceful protest (eg. recent Oka and Caledonia).

My take is that the "West" — in the shape of the victors of 1945 —  is the opppressor in the Middle East: it was these leaders who unilaterally imposed "Israel" on Palestine and freighted the survivors of the Holocaust there so they didn't have to give them entry to their own countries. Sure, this "West" was horrified by what the Nazi "West" had done but few had done what they might have done to avert it during the 1930s.

The Jewish people, like the Rom, had been the subject of progroms, persecutions and all-round vile treatment for many centuries previously. The Arabs were weak, scruffy, disorganised, probably pro-Nazi and no harm was thought likely if the "West" continued screwing them for their resources (oil in particular), treating them like inferior creatures, mocking their religion and took over a chunk of their land as a way of cleaning up the refugee camps that were marring the landscape of the vastly more civilsed regions of Europe.

Now the West blames the Jewish people for their feistiness and the Arabs for their being generally pissed off. They are nothing but troublemakers.

There are difficulties in finding any resolution: "The West" is hard to define because, more than people or nations, it is a consituency made up of values, attitudes and strategies… there are "Westerners" in Chinese villages, the Hindu Kush and Tierra Del Fuego… there is no collective because "Westerners" are individualistic and always take personal over collective advantage.

The "West" is a negation of culture and society, as Maggie Thatcher so eloquently affirmed. The closest thing to "god" is The Economy. Previous Imperiums have had identifiable epicentres… the "West" is more diffuse. So war and terrorism is these days are aimed more at symbols and "movements" than at objectives and "enemy" nations… there are no landscapes to conquer with tanks or foot soldiers. There are just ideals, emotions and dogmas. 

In the Middle East, the "West" generally favours "Israel" because it created "Israel" — the Jewish people still don't rate much higher than Palestinians but losing Israel would throw a big fat ugly question mark in the face of the "wisdom" that created it …and that was "Western wisdom". That might make some of us very uncomfortable… after all, we are doing just fine, thank you. 

In Canada, it was the "West" that offered First Nations "civilsation"… the squalor and oppression, therefore, must all be self-inflected and not  the result of brutal bigotry, unrestrained exploitation, greed, inhuman indifference  and broken promises. Heavens! Canadians aren't like that!

So… the more gargoyles and gingerbread work that tumble from the collapsing edifice, the more the "West" deepens its commitment to its values of greed and individualism, and the more angry it gets about the forces that oppose it… but those forces are, ultimately, the laws of nature, as we are already seeing as climate change starts — very palpably — to kick in.

The "crises" we identify are peripheral to the deep, real wrong… and that is a place we do not want to go because we would have to stop being "Western".

Thank you, Mike for sharing  and for be more daring than I.  However, I am shoring up , and I agree with what you have presented.

It is very difficult to be living in an entintitled, privileged position, socio-economically (add religious/political ideology, if appropriate), and address the issues of oppression, racism , when one has a concience and understands the effort and sacrifice social justce requires.

It means that we renounce and challenge what has been taught as history.  It means that we confront past and current governments, and it means, at the end of the day, that we are honest about the past and that we tell our children the truth, and hopefully there will be change.

What is also interesting about this topic is that many  WC members are avoiding it.... where angels fear to tread.  How dare members of UCCan who support a boycott internationally, based on the ideology of of oppression, not turn attention to inequality at home?

Who says people are ignoring this thread? They just aren't posting in it for some reason. We don't know the reason. Also, many who are not posting are absolutely paying attention to inequality at home.

If we "fix" the problem for the FN people, we are continuing the colonization process. We need to listen to them, and walk with them in order to make the necessary changes. Not fix them.

Very true, Mike.

It's alsoo true that most of our native peoples are not native peoples. The Iroquois, for example, originated further south. They came here, displacing other tribes, even destroying them in the process. The Plains Cree are not native to the Plains at all. They came from the East.

Nor are all n ative peoples the same. Iroquois, Micmac and BC coastall tribes had very different societies. All of those different societies were d ifferent because of condition of their economies, climate, resources, technological development.

Their is no single native culture to be "fixed". And if we did "fix' them, they would be hoplessly out of place in today's world.

The choice is not to 'fix' anything. it's to be of help to people who have to build a whole,new society.

A sense of guilt is a false basis for taking any action. and It commonly does not help anybody.