" The legacy of colonialism is alive and well in Canada and it is still actively destroying many lives."

Canada is, and continues to be a Colonial project. This is an objective reality, not an ideological statement. That's just what it is. It was put in motion a long time ago and continues to be that.

While it may have some negative aspects, Canada is actually a beacon many positive ways - largely because of what the Colonialists have managed to create.

It's also not really true at all to say 'Colonialism continues to hurt people', because it's mostly just the opposite. All citizens of Canada live immensely higher standards of living than they would otherwise under the Colonial umbrella - including aboriginals.

Canada is one the top destinations for immigrants, and Canada is probably hands down the #1 place for 'easy integration'. Swedes try to help Syrians but it's hard for them. Syrians and others, tend to do consistently well in Canada because integration is more manageable. People 'get along' in Canada probably more so than anywhere, which is firmly Colonial manifestation.

Paradoxically, even for the aboriginals, of the 'solutions' ahead amount to ... 'more colonialism'. For example, the Federal government building for aboriginals their housing, and water facilities. The really successful hockey program that's getting young Quebec aboriginals to stay focused and in school. The extra effort on getting Aboriginal kids to finish school and the availability of post-secondary systems. Most of these measures look like they have the same intentions as the Canadian Government in 1900 - just not as draconian. They are all de-facto 'Colonialist' measures.

The political situation on many reserves is more of a hindrance than not and will require reform, which will probably take the shape of falling more under the Canadian legal norms, i.e. 'Colonialist'. Many tribes have 'elders' who's positions are hereditary, and they lord over the tribes, sometimes against their will like literal Monarchs. There are problems with allocating land ownership and control to individuals making housing formation and especially small business formation very difficult. No tax base -> no ability to collect municipal taxes -> no water facilities etc.. The lack of transparency and inconsistent management has meant there's a 'more than comfortable' amount of corruption on some reserves, with Government money going into the pockets of a few.

I should point out that it's very different in almost every situation. Different bands, reservations, locations - there's no specific pattern.

Some 'non colonialist' aspects include opportunities for local, more traditional governance, which definitely should be experimented with, for example, the RCMP (i.e. justice system) can relinquish power in certain areas (i.e. Manitoba) in the hopes that local, more tradition forms of governance may work out at least on the criminal side of the issue.

On the whole, for every 'traditional measure' of improvement, there will be a bunch of measures which are effectively Colonialist.

It's fair to point out that there are aspects of Colonialism which haven't been very good, on the whole it's been totally the opposite. The groups trying to misrepresent the term 'Colonialism' I think have serious ideological underpinnings. I think they should find a different word.

> While it may have some negative aspects, Canada is actually a beacon many positive ways - largely because of what the Colonialists have managed to create.

Canada is a positive beacon in many ways in spite of its origins as a colony, not because of them.

> All citizens of Canada live immensely higher standards of living than they would otherwise under the Colonial umbrella - including aboriginals.

What is "the Colonial umbrella" you are referring to here? Canada's standards of living are attributable to a number of factors, including an immense land area with plentiful natural resources, a highly industrialized economy, a robust system of law and government, etc. Like Japan, the UK, the US and the other G7 countries (only two of which were originally colonies).

Secondly, I challenge your assertion that the native peoples of Canada would have lower standards of living were it not for colonialism. On the contrary, I think the evidence is clear that colonialism has been an unmitigated disaster for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately we will never know what standards of living the indigenous peoples of North America might have achieved in the 21st century had Europe respected their sovereignty.

> Paradoxically, even for the aboriginals, of the 'solutions' ahead amount to ... 'more colonialism'.

I take your point in the sense that many of these measures are "interventions" in a sense; they are initiatives imposed (or presented) by the federal government. I think they are fundamentally different from the original acts of colonialism, however, in that they seek to confer rights, status and resources as opposed to taking those things away.

Where this goes beyond my understanding of the issues is in trying to determine who wants what, who speaks for whom, and so on...for instance you point out "problems with allocating land ownership and control to individuals". Of course that is problematic when, as I understand it, in many indigenous cultures the idea of owning land is considered absurd. It is, indeed, colonialist to insist on answers to questions like "who owns this land?" without considering that perhaps, no one does - and perhaps no one ought to.

"What is "the Colonial umbrella":

"Canada's standards of living are attributable to a number of factors, including an immense land area with plentiful natural resources, a highly industrialized economy, a robust system of law and government, etc." <--- Yes. The imposition and expansion of this into North America is Colonialism.

The expansion of education, language, justice, culture, industry, the economy, the political system, religion, and Enlightenment ideals - that is 'Colonialism'.

i.e. civilization (as we understand it).

The alternative, which was present before, is neolithic culture, which is how they would be living 'without colonialism'.

If there is a 'paternalistic' view it's that Aboriginals somehow don't want at least the advantages of 'civilization' which they benefit from tremendously.

Do you really think that Aboriginals would be happy and fruitful without hot water? Foraging for meals, living in tents and stick homes? No medicine, education, no effective social organization even at the tribal level?

Aboriginals want warm homes, cars and Televisions just as much as anyone else - and the material benefits require all the supporting systems of 'Colonialism'.

The 'situation' among Aboriginal communities is far better than it would be otherwise, they live at roughly the standards of the bottom 1/3 of Canadians. They have access to education, healthcare, homes, travel i.e. modernity in general - a relatively fair justice system - untold benefits - mostly provided to them for free (!!).

Their 'problems' are almost entirely local: drugs, alcohol, violence among themselves, and an unwillingness to participate in many of the things they'll need to do (i.e. jobs) if they want the material benefits of the system.

The current 'disequilibrium' is that they want access to modernity and all that comes along with it - without active participation in creating it.

You’re conflating colonialism with modernization. They are not the same thing. Of the G7 only two countries are colonies, which shows that nations (and the indigenous peoples of North America were indeed nations - engaging in treaties, sending diplomats to Europe, etc.) are able to modernize with being subjected to colonialism. It is absurd to claim that indigenous nations would not have modernized without the “benefits” of colonialism.

It is also absurd to claim that “aboriginals” lacked access to hot water until European settlers showed up. I think some reading about the accomplishments of the native societies of North America would be beneficial.

There could have been a fruitful and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas, technologies, ways of life, etc., between Western and indigenous nations when Europeans made contact with native Americans. Instead what took place was genocide.

> All citizens of Canada live immensely higher standards of living than they would otherwise under the Colonial umbrella - including aboriginals.

I mean, that was a typical argument in favour of slavery. After the apartheid ended in South Africa there was a pretty large movement of former slaves protesting about their lower quality of life and demanding a return to the previous status quo. We don't only consider standard of living when making moral judgements about structures of government.

It is the standard paternalistic European attitude. And the last vestige of justification remaining for residential schools so I'm not so quick to just let it slip. It's the analogy to a parent soothingly telling a child in tantrum: "You'll understand why I'm doing this when you're older". As if they should thank us for raising them out of their savagery.

I also reject your comparison to immigrants, like Syrians literally running for their lives from a civil war in their country of origin, to aboriginals who were living within their own land of origin and had this life thrust on them unrequested. The circumstances couldn't be any different. Immigrants make a choice of self-determination while aboriginals are being deprived of self-determination.

> The political situation on many reserves is more of a hindrance than not and will require reform, which will probably take the shape of falling more under the Canadian legal norms

On this we agree and it fits into the complexity of the situation. One area that most Canadians would find hard to stomach is that some traditional tribe hierarchies are patriarchal. It is a difficult balance to allow self-determination while also upholding concepts like universal human rights.

We've gone a bit deep here and I admit I'm pretty far out of my depth. In fact, the only real thing I'm confident on is that this issue is too complex to fix with money alone.

"I mean, that was a typical argument in favour of slavery. "

This isn't even anywhere near true.

First - Canadian colonialists did not, and do not, benefit from the labour inputs of aboriginal citizens. They were never some kind of advantage to Canadian development.

Second - that Canadians of Aboriginal descent live at considerably higher standards that the neolithic people they were, and would be otherwise - is unambiguously factual.

"aboriginals who were living within their own land of origin and had this life thrust on them unrequested"

They are living in homes, have cars and TV 'unrequested'?

We are 'forcing' them to do this? They couldn't just go ahead and live in huts and tents if they so chose?

How 'paternalistic' is it to contemplate that somehow Aboriginals really want to live as their ancients did, in skin tents and huts, with no hot water, no medicine, education or any of the advantages of material advancement?

In reality - they want all the same thing we do: homes, heating, hot water, grocery stores, cars, food, entertainment. They're just not organized enough to 'trade' services or labour to the point where we care to give them anything for it.

They want the material benefits of Colonialism for the same reasons we do.

So we end up mostly giving it to them.