It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Reservation versus Assimilation: What is best?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:11 PM
Many countries had differing approaches to colonialism.

Some segregated the colonial "Other", and it was hoped their culture could survive in designated spaces.
Others tried to force children into Western culture.

What was the best policy, and which policy should we see today?

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:24 PM
I've read that in the US there was an Indian Reorganization Act.
Apparently this divided all the falsely promised "hunting grounds" into individually held parcels of family land.

Was this a good thing?
edit on 18-11-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:26 PM
We are Rigel4..........Resistance is futile.
You'll make an excellent drone.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by rigel4

I don't understand that.

A common theme that I do see is that native people were seen as living in filth and dirt.
Half-breed kids were seen as being saved from that, and in Austrialia and SA, some very painful tribal practices.
Back then people thought that half-white kids belong to white culture too, and they will not go through those tribal horrors.
Australia saw it as the white man's burden.
In SA we saw it differently.
We didn't quite want that exploding burden, and we hoped to contain their practices in their tribal lands.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

We are Rigel4..............We are the one and the many , the beginning
and the end. We are the one who brings order to chaos.

Resistance is futile.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:45 PM
I always thought "separate but equal" should have been given a real chance.
But, protectorates usually don't protect very well. When one group is powerful, they tend to get their way good or bad.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by halfoldman

We are Rigel4..............We are the one and the many , the beginning
and the end. We are the one who brings order to chaos.

Resistance is futile.

Well, when children are put through tribal cultures, how much is allowed before it becomes abuse and torture?
Should we say "yay" or nay"?
edit on 18-11-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:40 PM
As Western people our "love" is always disputed.

On the one hand we were not invited.
On the other hand people want our technology and medicine.

Somewhere between anti-imperialism and black nationalism, everybody wants a car and a TV.

Nobody really wants to live like a historic culture.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:49 PM
How can it be that in the US there are 310 reservations , but over 500 recognized tribes?

In SA the Afrikaner people want a "homeland".
So they look very closely at such modules.

Technically we already have one with Orania.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:15 PM
Orania was bought at an auction as an old ghost-town, and dam-construction community in the late 1980s.
Since then there is little doubt that it is a success - all of it built with Afrikaner sweat and tears.
Some interviews also claim it has a dark side.
There is a "poor white" side of Orania that is never shown in interviews.
As a general model it leaves questions on homosexuality and cannabis unanswered.
It has thrown people out for moral reasons.
Nevertheless, many Afrikaners are very proud, and Orania should link up to any wider "white state" in popular imagination.

Whether it has a place for artists and cultural critics remains to be seen.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:59 PM
Most of SA now is in the hands of "African culture".

Now, whites in SA allowed them their lands and culture.
I have heard of white men who went to the Xhosa initiation schools, but generally their customs are not our customs.

Modern Xhose initiation (circumcision) school:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:12 PM
Well, from what I've been reading lately US reservations are a mixed blessing.

Some Presidents liked the idea of keeping the distinct cultures alive within the American melting pot, and others just hated it.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:50 PM
Neither option was best for native cultures. The best would have been for them to continue to live their lives the way they had. That being said, I would say that it depends on how successful individuals did on the reservation or those that went out and assimilated. Some have done well doing both, some have not done well doing both. It was a cultural decimation of a people and a sink-or-swim situation I would have to think. You would survive or not. How well depended on the individual.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:17 PM
From the famous 1984 documentary on "Urban Indians" in New York.

Part two shows the reservation as a very isolated place.
However, it's interesting here that the film-makers get confronted by people who say that the focus on alcoholism and unemployment is unfair.

Whatever the case, the thrust of the documentary implied that the Indian is happier outside the city, and back on his reservation.

Even at the time this contradicted the growing "urban Indian" population.

edit on 18-11-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:42 PM
I suppose one argument goes that "reservations" block the anti-Imperialist struggle.

In southern Africa most of the liberation movements were not very interested in tribal structures and traditions.

They were more intent on creating an urban and rural proletariat.

They used much force and intimidation to scare tribal people into their fold.

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:49 PM
I like the system used in the 14 remaining British Overseas Territories where they are largely self governing and the British government has control over defense, foreign affairs, the police/internal security, the courts/judiciary, the civil service, customs/immigration, currency/finance policy, citizenship, etc (things that would normally be handled by a 'national' government) while the territory's government controls everything else like schools, healthcare, taxation, etc. I mean yes, technically speaking they are colonies but they are also self governing to a large degree. Ultimate responsibility lies with the British government via the governors who report to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

I think it works well and even in the few overseas territories that could handle independence (such as Bermuda) there is very little desire to become independent.

top topics


log in