--
----------
>From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Thomas Lunde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Marx, Keynes and Ancestors
>Date: Mon, Jul 26, 1999, 10:17 PM
>
> Just a couple of points on Thomas Lunde's response to Keith Hudson: Point
> one is that one should not romanticize American aboriginal people. Prior to
> contact, they were enormously diverse, many peaceable, many warlike, some
> with very advanced cultures, others comparatively backward. In many cases,
> they did not like each other. Warfare, exacting tribute and the taking of
> slaves was not at all uncommon. The conquest of Mexico by Cortez was as
> much a rebellion against the Aztecs by tributary states as a military
> victory by the Spaniards.
Thomas:
Given that I agree with most of this critique and I agree that I often speak
as if the First Nations were a homogenous group, I know they were not and
that there was continual warfare between Indians and Eskimos and various
Indian groupings. And yes, I am guilty of jumping around from the highly
developed and large groupings of Eastern Canada to the more sparsely settled
and nomadic groups in areas more difficult to survive in.
Ed wrote:
>
> Point two is that Nunavut is a territory defined by legislation. If it were
> a province, it would have to be entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, a
> much more difficult thing to do. Moreover, the Government of Nunavut is a
> public government, not an ethnic one. That it will be dominated by Inuit
> arises from the fact that some 80% of the population is Inuit. There is
> nothing preventing non-Inuit from becoming members of the legislative
> assembly if they can get enough votes. Much of the bureaucracy will, for
> some time to come, consist of non-Inuit, though Inuit will no doubt become
> more representative as they develop management and professional skills.
Thomas:
I, conversely, expect that in fifty years this territory will evolve with a
distinct cultural identity that will reflect native experience rather than
just another legal entity in Canada.
>
> Personally, I'm skeptical about Nunavut's future. It does not have much of
> a resource base, though there are potential diamond mines. Its population
> of some 20,000 is not very well educated by Canadian standards and there are
> many social problems. For quite some time, the major industry will be
> government, and the major source of government revenue will be transfers
> from the Government of Canada, and we know that he who pays the piper calls
> the tune even if he pretends not to do so. Anyhow, that is my take on the
> situation.
>
> Ed Weick
Thomas:
The social problems you allude to are real. They have been caused primarily
by our imposition of the money system in trade, the blatant use of alchol
and the interference from a southern bureacracy that knew little and learned
less, to say nothing of the imposition of the Christian religion and it's
effect through reservation schools and the destroying of the spiritual
culture that existed among the Native peoples. Despite all this, I still
have faith that a people that have thrived in one of the harshest portions
of the Earth will overcome the handicaps we, the Canadians, the Hudson Bay
Company, the Church's have imposed on them.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
