Reflecting on the White paper, I was able to see the intent of Trudeau's government was positive movement toward a just society. He presented ideas that he truly felt would help move from the past, to an equal future, while giving back to the ‘Indians’ their independence. The delivery, wording, and western ideals applied toward approaching this equality and Indian independence however riddled with poor considerations and deliverance. Trudeau's Government speaks about considering the information gathered through extensive consultations with Indian people yet I feel the root knowledge of these consultations was ignored. I agree with the White Papers ideas of being able to have full, free and non-discriminatory participation of First Nations within
…show more content…
I completely disagree with all of Trudeau's implementations of transferring ownership of reserve lands to Indians. I find the deliverance to have a paternal undertone. Treating First Nations as thou, they are children who are not advanced enough to understand and not mature enough to handle responsibilities. I find this oppressive and discriminatory which contradicts the claimed agenda of the White Paper Itself. Reflecting on the Red Paper, I was able to see there were great amounts of anger, frustration, and disbelief toward the White Paper. Sarcasm and heckling seen throughout the Red Paper toward the White paper was quiet surprising. Personally, I use sarcasm believing it can be used to serve a purpose in certain moment. The extent in which it was delivered at times I found myself questioning the professionalism of the deliverance. However, I support the Red Paper and their arguments fully in comparison to the White Paper. I also understand that this deliverance came from the heart and the sarcasm highlights the true emotions of those …show more content…
Another point I agree with about reserves lands is keeping them in trust without the notion of taxes. The western ideologies of paying taxes towards governments for lands that were stolen is just ludicrous to me personally. If lands were never taken, governments never imposed control, then these individuals would not only be living off the land free of cost of ‘taxes’, but flourishing while doing so. Overall, by reading these two papers it was evident that at this time of 1969-1972 awareness was occurring that change was needed for First Nations within Canada. Equality, non-discrimination, anti-oppressive legislations, and relationships needed to become the priority, and these notions continue today. Ultimately, the means in which change was sought failed, as true considerations of needs, and full understanding of culture differences were not respected. The issues addressed within these papers of status, treaties, and reserve lands are continually debated and continually unsolved in many cases. These papers however set a beginning point, and starting line for change to occur. Providing an example through history mistakes occurs and we must use them for teaching and guidance toward
I completely disagree with all of Trudeau's implementations of transferring ownership of reserve lands to Indians. I find the deliverance to have a paternal undertone. Treating First Nations as thou, they are children who are not advanced enough to understand and not mature enough to handle responsibilities. I find this oppressive and discriminatory which contradicts the claimed agenda of the White Paper Itself. Reflecting on the Red Paper, I was able to see there were great amounts of anger, frustration, and disbelief toward the White Paper. Sarcasm and heckling seen throughout the Red Paper toward the White paper was quiet surprising. Personally, I use sarcasm believing it can be used to serve a purpose in certain moment. The extent in which it was delivered at times I found myself questioning the professionalism of the deliverance. However, I support the Red Paper and their arguments fully in comparison to the White Paper. I also understand that this deliverance came from the heart and the sarcasm highlights the true emotions of those …show more content…
Another point I agree with about reserves lands is keeping them in trust without the notion of taxes. The western ideologies of paying taxes towards governments for lands that were stolen is just ludicrous to me personally. If lands were never taken, governments never imposed control, then these individuals would not only be living off the land free of cost of ‘taxes’, but flourishing while doing so. Overall, by reading these two papers it was evident that at this time of 1969-1972 awareness was occurring that change was needed for First Nations within Canada. Equality, non-discrimination, anti-oppressive legislations, and relationships needed to become the priority, and these notions continue today. Ultimately, the means in which change was sought failed, as true considerations of needs, and full understanding of culture differences were not respected. The issues addressed within these papers of status, treaties, and reserve lands are continually debated and continually unsolved in many cases. These papers however set a beginning point, and starting line for change to occur. Providing an example through history mistakes occurs and we must use them for teaching and guidance toward