is it easy living?

Question

We, have a thought... and this will likely get some Native (American) Canadians upset at me (I'll deal with your messages as they come but you better be open minded) here goes anyway:

1. I did not steal your land. I don't know who did and will never meet them.... They're dead. (If my great grandfather killed your great grandfather, would I go to prison?)

2. No one stole YOUR land. You were not alive when it happened and do not know anyone personally whom it happened to.

3. I'm white. but I have Native American in me (many times through multiple generations as most Canadians are) ... Am I less deserving of land because of the colour of my skin?

4. What do you need the land for? Cutural hunting grounds or a Casino? I'm sure casino's were up and around during the peace pipe days and must be your cultural heritage.

5. I pay taxes. If you want help from a government, you should too. You want help with water problems? pay taxes, or at the very least organize your own, get it.

Answer 1

We have similar issues in America, and I suppose it's not all that different from Israel and Palestine.

Throughout history, one nation has taken over another. Often it is military might, but sometimes it is done by other means. In North America, a very underpopulated continent was invaded/discovered by people from Europe who needed land. They made treaties, they practiced deceit, they did all sorts of things.

But you are right that this is ancient history, and no one is alive now who could remotely be considered guilty of these crimes. However, the issue of heritage remains.

Some of the ones who took over were able to grow wealthy, and some of that money remains in the hands of their direct descendents. Many more did OK, were able to prosper enough to own a farm or a business, and those have been inherited by the current generation -- sometimes. None of this has anything to do with guilt or innocence, but it does have to do with opportunities. People whose parents have money or land have more opportunities than people who do not.

If the country were socialist, this might be a reason for special projects favoring those with less legacy. But even without the historical reasons, it is in any nation's best interest to see that the young people get as much education as they can absorb, and the opportunity to prosper. It pays in taxes directly, and in general prosperity more indirectly.

So let's stop debating about whether or not there are historical reasons, and deal with the issue of what's good for our nations: make top quality education available, facilitate investment in small businesses and farming, and those other areas of endeavor where the young and eager only need a bit of a start to prosper.

It is still true that we need each other, and we benefit from cooperation rather than in-fighting.