Remiel

It is always going to be a matter of critical judgement whether sexual preference played an important role in the accomplishments of any particular individual. The unimportance of the sexuality Bell to the invention of the telephone should not be used to reason that the sexuality of Alexander the Great was not important to understanding his success. Prior to the last forty or fifty years, when exactly is the sexual preference of a given figure not going to figure into the inequalities, abuses, legal battles, and punishments they faced?

What I want to know is where is the Brother-and-Sisterhood of Not-White People that is going to usurp the power and influence of the White Folks even after they have become a minority of total citizens?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/phone-hacking-whistleblower-found-dead-police-say/article2101000/ Article says that the police are not treating it as suspicious. Which either means the police are lying, or they are stupid. Even if appeared to be suicide or an accident, you would have to be truly moronic to persue it as being suspicious in a situation like this. Reckless self-endangerment, suicide, or foul play? Because it sure as Hell is not a coincidence.

History is not a list of accomplishments, for one thing. At the very least, it is a list of accomplishments in context. If I say to you " Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, " you could reply " Why does what rivers or forests Caesar crossed have to do with real history: the fact that he became Emperor of Rome? " You would, however, not understand the history at all.

I agree, but do you really think the article and legislation in question mean " gay " as anything other than a synonym for " homosexual " ?

If you may excuse me because I am becoming a bit of a Devil's Advocate here; my distaste for thinking about some kinds of homosexuality is not unlike Oleg's even: but is what you are saying, in some way, like attempting to teach history without mentioning whether historical figures are male or female? I mean, you could not mention that almost every historical figure we know of in Greek antiquity is male, but then you would not really understand what Greek society was like: dominated by men.

Partake in the gay phenomenon? Is teaching about the Nazis forcing children to partake in the white supremacist phenomenon?

We already have knife control in Canada. No jack-knives or ballistic knives allowed; and no belt buckle knives, for you crazy Albertans. And if you are in possession of a weapon and you appear to be threatening anyone, you are breaking the law. I mean, I do not even know how you would create perameters in " knife control " outside of concealment and spring-loaded...

I am optimistic that the success of the show may actually drive him to finish the next book sooner than the last. If he is happy with the show, it could be a powerful motivator to keep him going.

It is not a class, as far as I can tell. It is more like the addition of some content to current textbooks.

Part of the problem is, I think, that if you never mention homosexuality in history, it gives the impression that it is somehow merely a modern phenomenon.

That certainly would seem excessive. However, your title and the article title are also somewhat misleading, I think. Rather than teaching gay history specifically, it seems more that they are to include the "gayness" that is already there. I mean, World War II history is taught (perhaps poorly) everywhere, but if you are going to include a section on the Enigma machine in that history, then when not also include a note on Alan Turing?

Do Air Canada flights even have both 7-Up and Sprite? That would certainly make them different then most restaurants. Besides, even speaking the same language does not mean you are never served something you did not ask for. That has certainly happened to me a couple of times. The court ought to throw this out.

Don't be dense. Ask Jason Kenney if he thinks the Conservatives won by reading blogs.

Outside of the other stuff, I think it would be an interesting question to ask what te USSR would do in the current environment of concern over climate change. Would they deny it and carry on as they had, or would the Politburo have implemented changes?

In that case, I think your remark was rather unfair to Shwa. Even reasonable people have issues for which they have entrenched beliefs, and if Shwa is native it is only natural that some of his entrenced beliefs be in relation to that. Your comment may have been about this issue, but it seemed more like a general indictment. And in any case, if you do not think you and I are biased on this issue... well, then you are not being very objective, .

To be effective, I almost think such a leader would need to feign ignorance of the tension there is for some people between Canadian and Aboriginal. Like, if someone were to ask, "Do you consider yourself Canadian or Aboriginal first? " then they would have to answer "I do not understand what you mean: I am Canadian and I am Aboriginal and I am a Man/Woman and Catholic/Protestant," because it would be equally foolish for such a candidate to be treated like he has an albatross around their neck in aboriginal communities. All you have to do is look at the hatchet job done on Dion for his dual citizenship that he inherited from his mother and you can see what a minefield it is if it becomes an "issue".

Not all reserves with problems are in the middle of no where, though I imagine most of the worst ones may be. I agree though that this is one of the avenues at which cross purposes must be squared.

I think most people do underestimate the destruction caused by the residential school system. Some of the others vastly overestimate it. I cannot remember for sure, but I think in one of my classes, it may have been suggested that around 50,000 children died. Here is a quote from Wikipedia, though: So, the 50% death rate is not baseless. However, it appears that it is quite possible that it may be for a certain period in time in a certain period of the country, not everywhere all the time. If we say that it was that bad for the period from 1894 and 1922 in the West, that is a pretty damn horrific system of governance. But unless most of the deaths accrued in this short period, it does not really tell us what was happening in the bigger picture. However, in this one class I had, the tone of which generally allowed for feeling of "Residential schools were Satanic," one possible alternative theory was reviewed. I just do not remember clearly what it was. I think it may have been something to do with sick children rating more funding from the government, but I do not recall exactly. I think the consensus was though that if it was what happened, the administrators were not out and out evil, but stupid beyond all reasonable limits. It would not exactly surprise me were it the case that having a lot of children without much resistance to tuberculosis being cooped up in large numbers in poorly ventilated areas was in itself responsible for much of the devestation caused, rather than it being primarily wanton genocidal murderers.

How do you figure? 17 people died out of 13.2 million, and you decide that because Dalton did not happen to get nabbed by the 1 in 780,000 odds he was never at risk of the repercussions of his actions? Whether it is Dalton's fault or now, that is just shoddy reasoning.

Did you mean Shwa or charter.rights?

I am not talking about equality on paper. I am talking about the sort of equality where young native people are not so traumatized that they take their own lives in vastly disproportionate numbers. The sort of equality where people are able to equally enjoy living.

If you know something you have spent several pages not writing about, I think it is clear that a very large share of stupidity is due to you.

I think it is time to just ignore Chippewa. Anyone who thinks that there has ever been a situation compared to which the extermination of Jews and as many other people during the Holocaust is just like the " Boy Scouts " is clearly a raving lunatic at best.

I am all for reforms that bring more equality to our aboriginal countrymen.