The Iron Bridge over the Conestogo River, looking south towards Waterloo

The “Iron Bridge” is a single lane bridge spanning the Conestogo River about a half kilometer up stream from where the Conestogo meets the Grand River. I’m sure there is a history of this bridge somewhere, but I wasn’t able to find it.

The Township of Woolwich has been pretty non-committal about keeping it in good condition. For the past few years the surface of the bridge has been very rough, consisting of asphalt pavement over a layer of old planks (I think). Vehicles crossing the bridge must do so very slowly.

Searching for a history of the bridge is complicated by the fact that there appears to be (or was?) an “iron bridge” over the Conestoga River in Lancaster County Pennsylvania.

If you know anything about the history of the bridge, or where information can be found, please leave a comment.

This photo was taken with my Blackberry Bold, so it is not the clearest or sharpest pic in the world. But it has a nice soft hazy look, appropriate for the very hot day that it was.

The Nez Perce led by Chief Joseph and Chief White Bird - 1877

From “time immemorial” the Nez Perce (pronounced “nez purse”) occupied a large area in the Columbia River plateau region between Idaho and Oregon. Their own name for themselves is the Niimi­ipu people.

The group was first encountered by the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1805 and referred to as “Nez Perce”. This name erroneously attributed to them the practice of nose piercing (nez perce means “pierced nose” in French).

It is estimated there were approximately 6,000 tribe members at that time, living in about 70 permanent villages. The traditional lands occupied by the Nez Perce included about 27,000 sq. mi. in 1805.

By the 1840s and 1850s whites were being drawn to these traditional lands by the promise of free land in Oregon. And as happened everywhere across the Americas for hundreds of years, many Indian leaders resisted this encroachment.

Nevertheless, throughout the entire period of white encroachment the Nez Perce remained willing to cooperate with whites. Many even willingly adopted Christianity. In 1855 the new Washington Territory was being reorganized and the Nez Perce agreed to restrict themselves to a 10,000 sq. mi. area within their former territory.

In 1863, in a familiar pattern repeated across the new United States, the Nez Perce were “asked” to reduce their reservation to just 1,000 square miles in Idaho. Many Nez Perce agreed – except for one.

Chief Joseph (the elder)

Young Chief Joseph

In 1877 the “non-treaty” Nez Perce people led by Young Chief Joseph were given an ultimatum to move to Idaho within 30 days or be forcibly removed.

In the interest of avoiding armed conflict Young Joseph was prepared to accept, and even had the support of many of his much more militant fellow leaders. But an unfortunate outbreak of violence led to the killing of several white settlers and a number of US cavalrymen. So the “Nez Perce War” was on.

The Nez Perce “War”

Chief Joseph’s response was not to fight, but rather to pack up his entire band and set off to join Sitting Bull who was then in exile in Canada. Over the course of the next four months roughly 600 US troops pursued the fleeing Nez Perce on their 1700 mile trek to freedom in Canada.

Chief Joseph and his family

With the help of Cheyenne scouts the soldiers eventually caught the Nez Perce group just 40 miles from the Canadian border. After several key leaders were killed in the ensuing battle, Chief Joseph and the remaining leaders of the group agreed to end hostilities and settle in Idaho.

Chief Joseph and his immediate followers were sent to a different reservation in Washington, and were never allowed to return to the Wallowa Valley. He died in 1904 “of a broken heart”.

Chief White Bird – one of the leaders of the Nez Perce who was unwilling to accept the capitulation – led about 100 family and followers through enemy lines on the night of the agreement. They reached Canada and settled in the Pincher Creek area of what is now Alberta.

In 1880, residents of the Wallowa Valley town of Silver Lake, Oregon changed the town’s name to Joseph in honor of Chief Joseph. Many other buildings, streets and points of interest in the northwest have been named after Chief Joseph, including the Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River in Washington. It is the 2nd largest hydro-electricity producing dam in the U.S. and the only one to be named after an American native.

As of April 2010, when the virus had essentially run its course, the total number of Canadians who had died from the H1N1 “pandemic” was 428. Compare that to between 5000 and 8000 Canadians who die every year from “normal” influenza.

Worldwide just slightly more than 12,300 people died from H1N1 by last November. Compare that to more than 25,000,000 deaths from HIV/Aids since 1980.

Fuss not justified?

It seems the fuss over H1N1 was hardly justified. However, it is important to keep in mind that the big concern was that H1N1 had some characteristics that made it seem likely that it might mutate into a deadly “1918-style” pandemic. At least that’s what the experts at the WHO and elsewhere thought.

The great 1918 influenza outbreak at the end of WWI killed millions of people around the world. And world health officials – lacking a definitive set of reasons for why the 1918 pandemic even happened – constantly work against the background of such a possibility happening again.

Should I get vaccinated?

One thing is certain. It was not the Tamiflu vaccine that kept H1N1 in check. A significant majority of Canadians did not even get the vaccine. According to one study of Ontario H1N1 statistics, “The impact of immunization appears to have been tiny – reducing the outbreak by less than one per cent. Immunization prevented fewer than 20,000 cases of influenza illness and no more than three deaths. This is not nothing but it is a very small return for an outlay of more than $250 million.” – from The Real Lessons of H1N1

In any event there were questions right from the beginning whether Tamiflu would adequately protect people from H1N1. Given the rate at which flu viruses mutate it is never completely predictable how effective a particular vaccine is going to be.

H1N1 has also made health officials question their standard flu vaccination strategy. It has generally been assumed that the sick, elderly and very young are especially vulnerable to influenza, and should therefore be the ones who especially need the vaccine. But for whatever reason H1N1 seems to have infected somewhat younger people than “normal” influenza. We’ve all heard accounts of the otherwise “perfectly healthy” young people struck down by H1N1.

However, this tendency may have also been overstated. As Dr. Richard Schabas points out the median age of death in Canada from H1N1 was actually 53. And most younger people killed from the virus had other health issues that made them vulnerable.

Realistic conclusions

Early on I developed a pretty robust scepticism about the whole H1N1 pandemic thing. My general feeling about quasi-political pronouncements emanating from agencies like the UN, WHO, or the Ontario Chief Medical Officer is that they are usually motivated by empire-building and chest thumping.

That does not even begin to touch on the obvious sinister commercial implications of mandating the production and distribution of millions of dollars worth of vaccines to be distributed to the population at large.

I must say I’ve changed my mind fairly dramatically about the entire matter. It is almost embarassing to admit that I’ve come to realize these things are much more complicated than I was aware. The truth is, I had barely thought about the “science” of the matter – how viruses spread, how vaccines are developed and how they work, etc., etc. On these matters my opinion, and the opinions of the vast majority of us are virtually worthless.

My eyes were opened just a tiny bit by reading the book called Splendid Solution – Jonas Salk and the Conquest of Polio. As it happens, long before developing the polio vaccine Salk worked for the US military to find a vaccine to prevent influenza and thereby avert a repeat of the 1918 pandemic. He was largely succesful where many others had failed.

Salk then went on to develop a vaccine against the polio virus. He didn’t do it alone – there were hundreds of researches working on all aspects of the problem.

What struck me about the process was the amazing complexity of it all. There’s a popular belief that many significant scientific discoveries are the result of an accident – you know, the mold growing in the dish that led to penicillin sort of thing. But what the movies about these things gloss over is the years of research that lead to these breakthrus.

I still believe there are many corrupt officials motivated by the wrong things. And I still think the general public is mostly in the dark about the real story behind most issues.

This is partly because the media sensationalize and present only a superficial view of issues. It is partly because people are uninformed or lazy. But it is mostly because the world is just a very complicated place.

Some Resources:
The real lessons of H1N1

As swine flu pandemic ends, Canada must rethink flu-fighting strategy: Expert

E/0 E/0 E/9 E/9
B/10 B/12 B/10 B/12
G/11 G/11 G/11 G/11
D/0 D/0 D/0 D/0
X/x X/x X/x X/x
X/x X/x X/x X/x

You probably wont be able to get the strummin right unless you
listen to the cd.

The arpeggio is simple.

E/-12——/
B/—12—-/
G/—–12–/
D/——-12/
A/———/
E/———/

Here are the chords and lyrics:

Verse 1
G Arp x1 D Riff x2 Arp x1
Come a little bit closer, hear what I have to say.
G Arp x1 D Riff x2
Just like children sleepin, we could dream this night away.

Verse 2
G D Riff x2
But therse a full moon risin, lets go dancin in the night
GDRiff x2
We know where the musics playin, lets go out and feel the night

Chorus
G A Em
Because I’m still in love with you, I wanna see you dance again
G AD
Because I’m still in love with you. on this harvest moon.

Intro x1

Verse 3
When we were strangers I watched you from afar.
When we were lovers I loved you with all my heart.

Verse 4
But now it’s gettin late and the moon is climbin high.
I wanna celebrate, see it shinin in your eye.

Chorus x1

Verse progression x1 with harmonica solo

Chorus x1

Riff x1

I just read a glowing tribute to the “Olympic spirit” displayed by all the happy young Olympic athletes. The focus of the tribute was on how we can apply some of the dedication shown by Olympians to our personal, business and professional lives.

Now I don’t want to come down on anybody, but I think a little bit of reality about this Olympic dedication thing would be a good thing. Surely the big question one must ask about dedicating yourself lock stock and barrel to snowboarding or skiing or (horrors!) mastering the luge is “Why am I doing this?”

Glorifying the Winners

Just saying “Because I want to be the best at what I do” is not a very good answer.

First, the odds of actually being the best – or even in the top ten or twenty – is a long shot at best. So isn’t this a rather bad investment of your time, energy and (probably someone else’s) money if the likelihood of your success is so low?

Yes, sure we glorify the winners once every four years. We see winners parading to the podium one after the other. But isn’t that rather an unrealistic picture given that there are probably at least 10 losers for every winner?

That isn’t even to mention the thousands who never make it to the games. What about them? What about the guy who continually comes up 16th or 17th in the short program or the half pipe? Is he or she “living the dream”? Or are they just the fodder that keeps the machine humming along?

Being the Best We Can Be

Second, what’s so great about “being the best” anyway. Is it an ego trip these people are on? Are we encouraging them to be and feel superior to everyone else? Is it the monetary payoff that justifies it? Or is it just the “Olympic spirit” (whatever that is) or “being the very best you can be” that makes us all value this process so much?

If “being the very best I can be” is such a cherished goal, why are not the rest of us doing it? If we say we value this sort of thing but don’t live it in our own lives, doesn’t that make us hypocrites?

Probably, but there is a much more practical answer to why most of don’t care about “being the very best I can be”. It is impractical, hard work, and ultimately rather pointless. There is simply no payoff. Most of us are happy to make our moderate living, live our unspectacular lives, and play a round of golf with our buddies on the weekend.

I’ve been involved in competitive sports pretty much all my life, and I know how addictive the idea of “winning” can be. But when all is said and done, in any competition there is one winner and a whole bunch of losers.

Is Tiger Happy?

If you go into a golf tournament, for example, to win, chances are you are going to be disappointed. Only Tiger Woods can consistently beat the odds and that doesn’t seem to have made him a very happy person.

I am not just talking about being realistic about your chances of winning. I am talking about being realistic about how much of your “spirit” you should invest in trying to win.

The Olympic Spirit

This is really what the classic Olympic spirit is about – and sportsmanship in general. Playing the game because you enjoy it, and keeping it in perspective with the rest of your life.

Today’s Olympians who are paid to devote their entire existence to training and striving to win are not exemplifying this spirit at all.

When you get right down to it most of them are naive young people being used for the benefit of commercial and political interests. They are being pushed and cajoled by parents and coaches into performing to feed their egos and the public’s gluttonous (and often profitable) appetite for entertainment.

This technology has been in development for quite a few years, and the Kindle is already in its 2nd version (Kindle2), so it is approaching maturity, and obviously quite a few people like the idea.

Like many others I enjoy what you might call the “tactile experience” of holding a book, turning pages, etc., but when you stop and think of it the idea of having to print out millions of paper pages just to read stuff we can get on our computer screens, iphones, blackberries and digital book readers doesn’t make a lot of long term sense.

So it’s not the gadget-envy associated with the Kindle that interests me, and it’s definitely not the name. It’s more the idea of being able to download entire books in digital form and read them immediately without having to wait for the physical books to be shipped from somewhere a thousand miles away.

Turns out you can do that now. There is a version of the Kindle software you can run on your PC or Mac. So you can buy the Kindle version of a book – if it is available – and then just read it on your PC. No Kindle required.

Recently I went looking (on Amazon) for a number of books on Native American History. There were quite a few listed, and many were available for between $2 and $6 as used copies from various dealers.

I plodded through the selection process and when I was done the books were about $15 and the shipping about $75. So I looked to see if Kindle versions were available.

Nope. Just a few of the more obscure ones. So I cut my order back to the bare essentials and ordered the old fashioned Amazon way. About a week later I had one of my books. I’m still waiting (about two weeks later) for the others.

Apparently the age of the Kindle has not yet arrived. At least not for the kind of books I am interested in.

This myth holds that these people had no permanent attachment to any specific piece of land, they did not live in permanent homes, and they did not live in towns or villages like the rest of mankind. Instead they lived in temporary shelters they could pick up and move at a moment’s notice. Their social group consisted of a tribe of 50 or 100 people, and similar tribes were scattered throughout the forests and plains of North, South and Central America. This is what we might call the Primitive Indian Myth.

We think of these people as living in “harmony” with their surroundings – hunting and foraging for their food – wild animals and plants such as berries that grew naturally in the forest. They had no inclination to hoard or pile up food or any other kind of possession for that matter, so the idea of “selfishness” was foreign to them. They took only what they needed to survive, using only the natural elements presented to them for their day to day survival.

According to this myth American natives were stone age people living from one season to the next on the very edge of survival. As with any simple-minded animals, they had a wild, untamed, unpredictable side. This made it impossible for them to coexist with others – even other tribes of natives – in a more complex organized society, and unable to be reasoned with in any meaningful and lasting way. Primitive Indians would simply turn vicious when their life, family, tribe or food supply were threatened. That is why there were called “savages” by Europeans.

The core feature of the Primitive Indian Myth is that American native life before contact with Europeans was basic, simple, undeveloped and primitive in virtually every way. Their tools, their weapons, their craftsmanship, their language, their literature, their art, their religious beliefs, their social structures, their political organization – all of these things were barely developed beyond the primitive level that must have existed thousands of years before.

The Primitive Indian Myth has been created by stories told and written over the 500 years since “contact” in the late 1400s and early 1500s. It has been reinforced and developed in a very deliberate way in Hollywood movies stretching back to the beginning of movie making in the early 1900s and in popular novels and histories written as far back as the 1600s.

Undoubtedly many believers in the Primitive Indian Myth were well-intentioned people, but at its heart the motives behind the promotion of the myth were sinister. As with most myths, this one was developed and promoted for specific social and political purposes.

The promulgation of the Primitive Indian Myth has served as a justification for the systematic marginalization of American natives, the theft of their land and resources, the rejection of their moral and political claims to self-government, and the outright extermination of millions of American natives over the last 500 years.

There are some important facts about pre-contact native life in the Americas that are distorted and misrepresented by the Primitive Indian Myth, and I will be discussing these in my next few posts. These include the following commonly held assumptions:

- That the Americas were sparsely populated before European contact
- That virtually all American natives were hunters and gatherers with no fixed attachment to villages, towns or places of residence
- That American natives had no use or understanding of technology
- That American natives did not engage in extensive agriculture
- That American natives were incapable of more advanced social organization
- That American natives held only simplistic, primitive religious beliefs
- and more…

Often I buy books when I’m travelling somewhere. Some airports have pretty good bookstores. For example a year or so ago I was stuck in Tampa waiting for my golfing buddies who were coming in on another flight. They were delayed about 4 hours because of a thunderstorm, so I had a lot of time to read. That time I found Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. This was one of the best books I’ve read in years, and really opened my eyes to how much of a rotten bastard Mao was. I’m currently reading it for the 2nd time (yes, all 700+ pages), and it has inspired me to find out more about China.

Last week, for instance, on the bargain table at Chapters I found The Long March: The True History of Communist China’s Founding Myth by Sun Shuyun. The mythic “Long March” is also covered in Mao, but Shuyun’s version is much more sympathetic. Too sympathetic in my view. However I will comment on that at a later date.

Also speaking of China and airports, about three years ago on my way to Prince Edward Island for another golfing trip, at the Toronto airport bookstore I found 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, by Gavin Menzies. This was another absolutely eye-opening book, and I recommend it highly. Menzies’ claim, in a nutshell, is that a massive Chinese expedition took place in 1421 at which time Chinese navigators sailed to virtually every continent (except, apparently, Europe), and mapped every place they visited. Menzies claims that Columbus had copies of these maps, as did Magellan, and virtually all the other Portuguese, Spanish and English explorers.

I don’t want to get off topic here. The topic was “Books from the Bargain Table”. All I really wanted to say was you can find some good books for cheap on the bargain table at one of the bigger book stores. As I’ve mentioned, last week it was The Long March, and this week (yesterday) it was The Greatest Lies in History by Alexander Canduci.

That one wasn’t particularly cheap ($17.99), but I thought it was worth it because it contains some nicely condensed information on some topics I am currently researching: Mao (perhaps history’s greatest bald-faced liar), and the subjugation and forced migration of Indian tribes in the southeastern U.S. during the early 1830s. There’s some other good stuff in there too, but that will also be fodder for more posts in the future.

In this case, the site I stumbled onto is called Glyn Hughes’ Squashed Philosophers. If you’ve ever wondered what Plato or Nietzche are all about, this gives you a good overview. In the case of Plato, for instance Glyn Hughes condenses Plato’s Republic down from about 130,000 words to about 15,000. That’s still a substantial read, but it’s a lot easier going than the original.

In other words because of the encroachment of the new immigrant population and the establishment of British and then Canadian overlordship, their freedom as independent, autonomous peoples was removed, their way of life forcibly changed, and their ability to look after themselves dissolved. Perhaps if native leaders in 1814 could have predicted the fate of their peoples over the next 200 years they would have opted for more direct assimilation. Perhaps, but not likely, because even today many native leaders would never accept that assimilation is inevitable. They believe they can reshape their communities, restore their sense of fully autonomous selfhood, and become independent, self-sustaining “nations” again, within the framework of the Canadian federation, but no longer dependent on the Canadian government for support.

Whether this ever happens or not, it is clear that the loss of native autonomy took place during the several decades before and after 1800, and that this led to virtually all the policy decisions that were made by Canadian governments after that time. In short it led to the realization that the Canadian government must assume the responsibility for protecting the interests of Canadian natives as best they could, and for organizing and managing their lives.

The policies that flowed from this realization included the Indian reservation system, the policies of what is now the Canadian Department of Indian Affairs, the almost immediate recognition of the importance of education to the development (and assimilation) of the native population, and the gradual development of the Indian Residential School system. Just as surely, the developments in the “modern” era of native affairs flow from the same source. This modern era began during the 1960s and continues to this day. It is characterized by a recognition that the old assimilationist policies have not worked, and a general recognition that natives must somehow be given the opportunity to look after their own affairs.

How were Canadian natives subjugated to the British crown?

The question remains as to how Canadian natives were subjugated to the British crown in the first place. Was it through agreements or treaties? Did they willingly accept this change in status? Were they forced to become subjects?

My conclusion is that natives generally did not accept this change in status through a process of negotiation or treaty making. It was gradually forced upon them by events that took place in the decades between 1760 and 1814.

If this is true then it supports the common native claim that the treaty making process that took place in previous centuries was viewed differently by whites and natives. For whites these treaties were legalistic agreements between two consenting parties. For natives signing treaties was an exercise in giving up a lot in order to gain a little. The alternative was to end up with nothing. In other words, it was a form of extortion. There is certainly something to be said for the claim that to sign an agreement with a virtual gun to your head is not to give free consent.

In other words, treaties and agreements notwithstanding, Canadian natives did not freely give up their way of life, their claims to territory, or their right to run their affairs as independent peoples.

Were native tribes ever autonomous self governing peoples?

In order to accept this conclusion it is an important question of fact whether natives actually were autonomous self-governing people before their status was radically changed. Even to ask this question is almost an insult to the history and traditions of native peoples. But given that so much hangs on this question, even this claim is aggressively disputed by some authors, academics and political theorists.

One of the most outspoken is Tom Flanagan, a political science professor at the University of Calgary. In his book First Nations – Second Thoughts, Flanagan deconstructs the claims made by native leaders (and their advocates) that they are not like the rest of Canadians.

Most native leaders and their advocates claim that during the years prior to Confederation the British crown acknowledged native “sovereignty”, that natives never surrendered their sovereignty, and that their land and culture were taken from them through a combination of force and misleading treaty making.

(Note: Native leaders and advocates often frame this argument in terms of “sovereignty” because they are fighting this battle in the courts where such terms have fairly specific meanings. I have preferred the term “autonomy” – literally, “self-ruling”. The term “sovereignty” is much more politicized, and ironically, much more the product of the very Euro-centric view of the relationship between governments and subjects that most native leaders say is so different from their own. Arguments about “sovereignty” are political arguments. Arguments about “autonomy” are moral arguments. )

In examining these claims Flanagan discusses things like what being “first” is supposed to get you, whether natives lived in settled communities and occupied specific territories for long stretches of time, whether native tribes had any of the usual machinery we associate with organized “states”, and, perhaps most importantly, whether natives were “civilized” enough to count as equal parties in negotiations with white governments.

According to Flanagan, this last question bears directly on whether it is legitimate (by which he sometimes seems to mean “morally justifiable”) for one nation to march into territory held by another and occupy and eventually take possession of that territory. We know this happens all the time in international affairs, but in the case of Canadian natives there seems to be some serious doubt that normal standards apply.

Let’s grant for the moment the self-evident fact that the British crown signed treaties with the native occupants of British North America. And let’s also grant that, as many native spokesmen would have it, this implies the British considered them autonomous peoples – even “sovereign nations” (although that is doubtful).

Flanagan seems to be arguing that even if this is the case – even if this was the British attitude when various treaties were signed – there is still justification for later disavowing these treaties, going back on their promises, or reneging on their agreements. Why? Because the native tribes were nowhere near as “civilized” as their white antagonists, their societies nowhere near as well organized, or their territories nowhere near as settled as is normally the case with nations.

Therefore, as the argument goes, in the confrontation between a more civilized European culture and a much less civilized aboriginal one, the outcome is inevitable. The less civilized culture will be forced by perfectly natural processes to give way to the more civilized one. Because at least to some degree, “civilization” in this context refers to control of physical and intellectual resources, technological sophistication, social organization, and, in the language of political philosophy, the concentration of coercive power in the hands of what we now call “the state”.

But this is not very convincing. It is hard to see how this amounts to much more than the claim that “might makes right”. Of course in the interplay of peoples and the confrontation of societies, power usually is the deciding factor between opposing parties. But what we are willing to accept in international affairs, we often are not willing to accept in domestic affairs.

Precisely why this might be the case I will address in more detail in a later post. But I think it is clear that the fact that natives in Canada moved from being autonomous peoples, cooperating with the British, to de facto subjects of the crown, means they must be considered, at the very least, as fellow citizens. In other words, they cannot simply be written off as “conquered peoples” (as has been suggested to me), whose rights and privileges the rest of us have a supposedly God-given right to dictate as we wish.

Why is this important?

This is important, because it is one of the main points that the debate about right and wrong with respect to native Canadians turns on. There is the clear fact that the British made agreements and signed treaties with what they considered autonomous peoples. And there is the other clear fact that when circumstances changed (in the late 1700s and early 1800s) they no longer viewed natives as autonomous peoples. They now viewed them as subjects whose interests had to be balanced against the interests of other subjects. Not two (or many) nations, but one. Not two (or many) equal parties to agreements, but one government negotiating with one segment of the population to find a fair and just solution to benefit the whole nation.

There is an important sense in which Flanagan’s arguments about moral and political justification are both irrelevant and important at the same time. We can look back on historical events and try to “justify” them, as Flanagan tries to do. But the fact that history has turned out the way it has makes these justifications somewhat irrelevant.

But Flanagan’s point is not so much about the past as it is about the future. If the justification results in a dismissal of some of the historical facts (the early British attitude towards native autonomy) then this clearly stacks the deck against the aspirations of many native leaders who want to re-establish that autonomy. If we agree with Flanagan that native autonomy and sovereignty never existed in any politically significant sense, then the claims of many of today’s native leaders are spurious and misleading, not to mention factually incorrect – hearkening back to a past that never existed.

Impact on Government policy

If this is true, then the willingness of Canadian courts and Canadian governments to even listen to native arguments for greater autonomy are misplaced and ill-advised products of a romanticized reinterpretation of history. Rather than seeing native “nationhood” as the solution to native problems, Flanagan would rather see the gradual dismantling of alternative native governments and the assimilation of natives into mainstream Canadian life.

This would not necessarily mean the dismantling of distinctly native communities, but it would mean the gradual elimination of special native status, government subsidies for native communities, or special treatment for native institutions such as schools. Native land claims would also be abandoned, or at least seen in a very different light.

It would mean natives would have the same rights as all other Canadians, no more and no less, including the right to own property (which non-status natives already have), and make their own way in the world. Natives could still band together in communities, associations, and commercial companies, to share resources and exploit joint opportunities, but these would be no different from other communities, associations and companies formed by other Canadians.

I must admit, this view of the matter has a good deal of appeal, and I suspect that if presented this way, many Canadians would agree. In fact many native leaders might also agree if native band leadership and community organization were ever made more truly democratic. But to get from here to there is a long road, and it has to deal with the current fact of native dependence, poverty, lack of eduction, and poorly organized undemocratic (sometimes downright corrupt) political representation. It also has to deal with the moral prerogative that this be a free choice which natives themselves make.

My own inclination is to think that the Canadian government and courts are trying to strike a balance, and that they are right in doing so. They generally acknowledge that natives had a self-sustaining culture before it was irretrievably dismantled by British and Canadian government forces. They also acknowledge that because of these historical facts, natives should have a special status, if they want it.

Possibly, as is already happening, many more natives will not want special status and reservations with all their poverty, welfare-dependence, favouritism and undemocratic or currupt leadership will simply wither away.