I have taken a couple days off from this debate because i believe i was getting to emotionally attached to it for personal reasons, it was wrong of me to do so, and i had misinterpreted some of your arguments as personal attacks, so i had in turn committed them myself, that was wrong, , they had nothing to do with the debate and were out of line, certainly. while, i still wish to continue this debate as i believe there is more to argue about.
You are confusing word "sedentary" with sitting and doing nothing. Once again, go to the simple farm and see how hard people work. Otherwise you don't know what you are talking about.
Once again many experts agree that a hunter gatherer lifestyle is much more strenuous, observe the Chukchi people, or San bushman, and i am sure if you learn about them enough you will see they are they live some of the most active lives in today's world, and this is with current technological advents that have allowed for an easier hunt.
Tell me, how many Native agricultural civilizations collapsed in Americas due to adverse weather conditions, especially prolonged droughts? With your affinity to archaeology, or maybe even a degree, you should know that.
Somehow you've chosen to omit archaeological knowledge about this side of farming, because it didn't fit your premise, or dare we say, agenda.
A civilization is different from a small group of agricultural people, when speaking of sophisticated cultural, political,ethnic etc. society, most Anthropologists consider its origins much later than farming, probably around 2000 to 4000 BC, a sophisticated civilization is a much larger entity and takes a lot more structure to maintain, where as a small group who do not live in such sophisticated society can be so durable, and long lasting.
I've read and I know your train of thoughts. My conclusion is that your observation skills are not great, and pattern recognition effected to much by your emotions on this subject.
Seriously i know you misread what i said, maybe it was to complex to relate for you, or it was worded poorly.
I've asked you why they don't farm and you answered that they don't hunt.
I have stated why these societies cant farm just a few posts back. Maybe you don't understand, that most of our earth is consisted of inarable land, this is why we cannot farm everywhere. Canada has very little arable land particularly as you go toward to north, and this is why we don't boast large populations like the US or Europe (which have much arable land). Australia is in the same boat as us, and therefore only has 23 million people living around its most arable land, the eastern shore. They cannot farm because crops wont grow. Las Vegas, is an example of the effort and resources it takes to build a city on a stretch of land that is unaccepting of agriculture.
You didn't understand me then. Nobody wants to harm natives purposely these days. Actually they are treated above the law as some sort of extraordinary citizens. For example, couple of months ago due to Idle No More Acton few natives stopped traffic on one bridge in the middle of Calgary, for a day. And guess what, they've broke law and nobody was arrested for this. Obviously they carry around some sort of immunity these days.
As I've argued before, today's pro native polices are more harmful than helpful and they divide Canada more than ever. Thanks to skewed understanding of causes of native's apathy, alcoholism or other adaptations or lack of them.
Regardless of alcohol consumption, there problems that are caused directly because of the capitalist system, and our government. Lets use the biggest example, Alberta. Right now the tar sands are being extracted from by various companies, of which are drilling on native lands. What the companies do is dangle money in front of tribes, and get one to bite. The one that takes the money and allows for extraction, does it out of desperation to try and build an economically viable reserve. The other refuses the tainted money, and abides by their ancestors. The result is both tribes end up having people dying of diseases caused by arsenic and other chemicals released from the extraction. The Harper government is also violating treaty rights and giving companies the right to extract on lands without the consent of its respective tribe.
Other than hunting i don't think natives are exempt any more than you are to civil disobedience laws, unless committed on a reserve. I believe that you are allowed to protest peacefully, this is a democracy, and if these people weren't arrested it is either because Calgary police were sympathetic to their cause, a cause you do not understand, or they could not arrest them under the law, of which would apply to you to.
Try well argumented points, extensive examples or scientific research.
I have given you points, you refuse to egknowledge them, i have given you articles and studies, you refuse to read them (you have given none by the way), and i have even corrected on your historic and anthropological claims, but choose not to listen or respond. Maybe you just have trouble accepting things other than your own views, i cannot help that.
Constantly playing a victim is the worse way to go. My people moved and were moved too many times to remember, and were killed and persecuted by neighbors. Heck, the huge part of European history is about killing, pushing, enslaving each other.
But finally we decided to shake hands (at least most so far) with our neighbors, forgiven the sins, and concentrated on building common future. And look, today's Europe is a prime example that it is much better way to go.
You underestimate their history, and current situation, i am pretty sure you yourself have never experienced such strife. It wasn't just the death and destruction, it was the rate of which it occurred, and by the end they were left with nothing to salvage. I believe that native cultures will return to prominence, if they continue to fight, but the fact is we as a country can either be with them or in opposition its your choice.
This isn't playing victim, it is giving you facts, this is why the situation exists.
Your argument (same as mine from yeas ago) makes sense till you learn about history of Jewish communities around the globe. There is probably no nation on this planet who went through so much persecution, intimidation, genocides, discrimination, etc. I'm sure you can sympathize with this, because this is comparable with suffering of Canadian Natives, together with losing their own land.
Extremely interesting is the fact how different economic outcomes these two groups represent, in spite of going through similar persecutions and victimization century after century.
I have shown that other countries and ethnic groups with deep agricultural roots, have not fared well into the modern day. I cant see why one ethnic group can trump all others.
this is my theory on Jewish success. The most successful Jews by far, were the Ashkenazim, the rest did not fare well over the years. My theory on why the Ashkenazim are the most prominent today, is simply they were in economically viable locations at the right time. They ventured from the Mid East during the medieval age, and came to Germany, at this point Europe was on its way to over taking the Middle East as a world power, after the turn of the 20th century, they ventured to the US, also a time when this country was becoming the world power. It seems to me that despite the persecution, they remained in places where they could always prosper.
What is your explanation for it? Keep in mind that nobody helped the Jews in any way. Their success is their own doing.
Maybe you would like to retract this statement. Israel was given to the Jews after World War II by the UN, if this isn't compensation than what is.
Can you tell me why, Jews as ethnic group, are always on top of economic and educational ladder in every country on this planet, although they faced similar persecutions as Canadian Natives?
Other than in privileged countries this isn't the case, they aren't, most live in abject poverty, and are persecuted, in many countries, hence the mass immigrations to Israel. this is the case in many impoverished countries, another point to back my theory on why the Ashkenazim are the most successful.
