The relationship between aboriginal cultures, and the larger majority societies they live in, has undergone turmoil in the past and still raises awkward questions today.

Guilt, racism, financial expediency, political correctness, and altruism can all be seen in various combinations. Cultural and racial views can vary over time, and today we quite often see a kind of glorification of tribalism and minority groups. This is a landmark change from the 1950s, when Native Americans were thought of only as Hollywood extras that were going to take a bullet from the cowboy hero, at some point in the movie.

Today, thankfully, we have moved ahead to a large degree. But I think there is a double-edged sword here. On the one hand, it is great, perhaps essential, to understand and be proud of one’s past. Lack of self-esteem and self-worth can be very negative factors in personal and community functioning. I think we have seen this in the past in my part of the world. Many native communities simply saw themselves as the marginalized losers of a past conflict. We also saw at the time much higher rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, and suicide. Today, there is renewed pride in being aboriginal, and there is a much greater appreciation for native culture and history. There are also many more aboriginals going on to a more successful and fulfilling life, including going to university and finding work in the professions.

But there is the other edge of the sword. I think pride has to be genuine and pragmatic, or it will become hollow, and eventually set things up for a fall. There was a lot that was horrible about tribal societies, and elevating them to the point of deification will end up bringing charges (correctly) of political correctness. Genuinely having pride today, as an aboriginal in the twenty-first century means, I believe, accepting things as they are, and mastering life in a self-sufficient and practical manner. Taking what is good from the past is good too, as long as the past isn’t seen through rose-colored glasses.

There have been a number of programs in Canada that attempt to address past wrongs in regard to aboriginal culture. There has certainly been altruism in these, but there have also been gross misappropriations of funds as well. Some has gone to band chiefs, and much has gone to the legal profession, which has approached this new cottage industry in the manner a moose approaches a cow in heat. Court cases have abounded.

Good intentions can be distorted, certainly so when a lot of money is floating around. Ultimately, aboriginals may suffer because of this, if their case is seen to be an awkward and expensive attempt at political correctness, and a siphon of money to the unworthy. Another political change in the winds could occur. This would actually be a double hit for them- swindled in the nineteenth century by settlers, and flim-flamed in the twenty-first by lawyers and their own corrupt leadership.

One of the biggest projects to date has been the creation of Nunavut, the self-governing Arctic territory within Canada that has been the goal of the Inuit people for some time. This has given them a measure of independence, but it is tenuous. The small population there is able to carry on with some traditional activities, but they are not self-supporting. The annual per capita subsidy given to Nunavut is (or was a couple of years ago, last time I looked) was C$28,000. Yes, I did say per capita. In other words, in an attempt to provide just solutions, the federal government has simply created a kind of false economy and society, paid for and, to a large extent, run by outside consultants.

The problem here is not so much a moral one I think, as a pragmatic one. Eventually, the larger majority in society may tire of this, and insist on uncomfortable change. Also, and perhaps more importantly, eventually self-esteem with again become an issue. The Inuit may again come to see themselves as marginalized.

I think the question is how to reconcile cultural identity and social/economic/political change. This is hugely problematic if you work with a static notion of culture. Various nativist discourses have played an extremely important role in reclaiming a sense of dignity and cultural worth, but by themselves, they can't provide solutions for the accommodation of modernity, let alone for active participation in modernity. And yet a culture can't survive but by changing and adapting constantly. The role of such projects as you describe should not be to preserve traditional lifestyles intact (as you say, it may not even be a viable option), but conceivably they could provide an opportunity for a community take a measure of control over the processes of its own modernisation, which is also a way of maintaining a sense of identity and cultural continuity.

I agree the question of pride in one's past is a thorny one. I've observed this being played out in West African literature. The idealisation of pre-colonial Africa that went with nativisms, a very justified and strategically important reaction to the denigration/denial of African history in colonial discourses, eventually turned out to be counterproductive, but it has taken time to recognise the need to have done with the binary opposition between idealised tradition and (Western) modernity. I suppose this is an even harder knot when the community in question is a minority in an ex-settler colony, without even nominal control of its country.

One side of your double edged sword appears to be much duller than the other side. Better to err on that side than the other one, don't you think?

MillsianUtilitarian wrote:One side of your double edged sword appears to be much duller than the other side. Better to err on that side than the other one, don't you think?

Care to elaborate?

Father O Rielly wrote:

MillsianUtilitarian wrote:One side of your double edged sword appears to be much duller than the other side. Better to err on that side than the other one, don't you think?

Care to elaborate?

Basically - better to err on the side of idolizing natives than the side of demonizing them.

Obviously it is better not to err at all, but humans aren't too skilled at that.

MillsianUtilitarian wrote:

Father O Rielly wrote:

MillsianUtilitarian wrote:One side of your double edged sword appears to be much duller than the other side. Better to err on that side than the other one, don't you think?

Care to elaborate?

Basically - better to err on the side of idolizing natives than the side of demonizing them.

Obviously it is better not to err at all, but humans aren't too skilled at that.

Yes, I agree with you. But the problem today is that idolization can eventually create its own problems.

Because of past discrimination and racism, questioning many of the above mentioned issues can bring condemnation. But ultimately, a truly egalitarian society must be based on reality, or it will be prone to collapse with a slight shifting of the wind.

Today in Canada, for example, the chiefs of some aboriginal groups, administering reserves of only a few dozen, or few hundred individuals, receive a salary (from the federal government) in the $200-300k range. Some of this goes to personal use, and, sadly, some of this, and also other available funds, are siphoned off by the unscrupulous who see a growth industry here. Legal cases are ongoing and epidemic, and benefit lawyers immensely. The utility for aboriginals or all this expenditure has so far been negligible. This isn’t a formula for a better society.