FIRST READING: B.C. human rights chief declares that it's colonialist to stigmatize drug use
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/b-c-human-rights-chief-declares-that-its-colonialist-to-stigmatize-drug-use?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Posted into Full Comment @full-comment-NationalPost
What a load of crap.
Anyone who thinks a hunter gathererer society doesn't stigmatize drug use (or at least unmanaged drug use with negative externalities) is an idiot.
A member of a small society like that would be given a few chances to reform, but eventually they would be kicked out, and they'd die as an outcast, lacking the support of their tribe. That's because there isn't that much to go around, and someone who isn't carrying their weight will eventually need to go because everyone else was fighting to survive. That's written into our DNA, in our extreme, today irrational fear of social rejection. In our shared past, it wasn't just uncomfortable, it was life or death.
Anthropologically, you can even see this in agrarian societies, where individuals live only a few miles from where their ancestors lived a millennium ago. In non western societies, getting kicked out of your village was a similar sort of death sentence, and only very recently has high technology made such events less fatal. Before you hit banishment, you'd better believe milder social stigmas kick in.
What's colonialist is the Rousseauian noble savage archetype that assumes the people in the lands not yet tamed by Europeans were living like advanced space aliens with no want nor judgement of any kind.
Many successful native tribes in North America heavily stigmatize drug and alcohol use, because of course they do. Also, many non western countries heavily stigmatize drug and alcohol use because the colonial history of the west is feeding drugs to them to get them addicted to take all their stuff. Far from demanding a stigma around these things, colonialism took advantage of the lack of stigma around drugs and alcohol to take advantage of communities. In that way, stigmatizing drug and alcohol use isn't colonialist, it's anti-colonialist.
Maybe these idiots should read about the history of colonialism instead of just saying whatever they dont like is colonialism? This argument borders on offensively historically illiterate.
Anyone who thinks a hunter gathererer society doesn't stigmatize drug use (or at least unmanaged drug use with negative externalities) is an idiot.
A member of a small society like that would be given a few chances to reform, but eventually they would be kicked out, and they'd die as an outcast, lacking the support of their tribe. That's because there isn't that much to go around, and someone who isn't carrying their weight will eventually need to go because everyone else was fighting to survive. That's written into our DNA, in our extreme, today irrational fear of social rejection. In our shared past, it wasn't just uncomfortable, it was life or death.
Anthropologically, you can even see this in agrarian societies, where individuals live only a few miles from where their ancestors lived a millennium ago. In non western societies, getting kicked out of your village was a similar sort of death sentence, and only very recently has high technology made such events less fatal. Before you hit banishment, you'd better believe milder social stigmas kick in.
What's colonialist is the Rousseauian noble savage archetype that assumes the people in the lands not yet tamed by Europeans were living like advanced space aliens with no want nor judgement of any kind.
Many successful native tribes in North America heavily stigmatize drug and alcohol use, because of course they do. Also, many non western countries heavily stigmatize drug and alcohol use because the colonial history of the west is feeding drugs to them to get them addicted to take all their stuff. Far from demanding a stigma around these things, colonialism took advantage of the lack of stigma around drugs and alcohol to take advantage of communities. In that way, stigmatizing drug and alcohol use isn't colonialist, it's anti-colonialist.
Maybe these idiots should read about the history of colonialism instead of just saying whatever they dont like is colonialism? This argument borders on offensively historically illiterate.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2