Accountability Now

So it's ok for you to spew your stuff about the SCC but asking questions about it is now derailing the thread?

Changing your tune so suddenly? So I guess we did have wars. What treaties did Canada break. Be specific to the exact treaty

You still haven't answered my question about the pending SCC ruling on Metis rights. Scared of something?

No kidding. She likes to rewrite history according to her liking. It's sad that there's people out there who believe this

Really?? Conflicts along the Okanagan Trail in 1858 in British Columbia were related to the Yakima War in Washington Territory Fraser Canyon War (1858) British Columbia (white irregulars in British territory against the Nlaka'pamux) Lamalcha War (1863) British Columbia (Royal Navy vs Lamalcha people Chilcotin War (1864) British Columbia (White workers against the Tsilhqot'in) Fisherville War (1860s) British Columbia Tobacco Plains War (1860s) British Columbia Rossland War (1860s) British Columbia Red River Rebellion (1869) Nord-Ouest/Rupert's Land Great Sioux War (187677) Wild Horse Creek War (1880s) British Columbia (see Fort Steele) North-West Rebellion (1885) Saskatchewan Territory (Métis people against Canadian forces) Poundmaker's War (1885) Saskatchewan Territory (Canadian army against Cree warriors) Battle of Cut Knife (1885) (Canadian army against Cree and Assiniboine warriors) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America I tried to exclude the ones that happened on US soil even though most of those were still British soldiers fighting the Indigenous. The treaties followed the wars as the natives realized that their best bet to survive. Of course I haven't touched on the brutal battles that First Nations used to have with each other because we all know that they were a peaceful group who only did bad things once the Europeans came

Scott....the problem with this entire scenario is that the difference in what we used to think was good/bad versus what we now believe is good/bad. We continue to look back at those times with our modern moral compass and say those guys were evil. However, that was the time and place they lived. Their idea of force was somewhat normal. They literally just finished fighting wars with these people. Now they were trying to educate them? I'm sure they thought forcing them was a good thing as it was the proper means to the end.

Nope. He is referencing the forced assimilation in his apology. As such I am accusing you or quite easily pointing out that you are confused yet again by taking this statement out of context. Forced assimilation is not the same as assimilation....no matter how hard you try to spin it. Do you not view a new world order in the way things are done? Do you not envision or desire for drastic change to happen? Is that not what this TRC thing was all about? If not....then why did they do this? Just to return to the same ol'? Since you chose to gloss over my one question, I thought I would ask again... I'm quite curious on your take with this.

They did act honorably. They took what they saw as savages and tried to assimilate them to be like them in order to have a chance in the future world. Drama...again? Even after I showed you logic that showed this. Tsk....tsk... By the way....who is 'we' when you say 'we are not amused'. You've made it clear there are two sides...the Crown and Aboriginals (ie nation to nation). I know which side I'm on and quite sure you're not there. As always jacee...easily confused. You need to focus on the wording....specifically on the 'this policy of assimilation". He is not saying 'assimilation' was wrong rather 'this policy of assimilation' was wrong. Meaning....forced assimilation. Many Canadians past and current are assimilating into our society in a very successful and enjoyable manner. Assimilation is not wrong....forced assimilation is. As per my previous quote, the intent of the Crown was for assimilation which ultimately turned into forced assimilation. The intent was good and in a new world order, the aboriginals are going to have to accept that. So please try your best to understand the terms before being so dramatic. And there it is again....'forced assimilation'. Do you know what that means by now? I do love how you think that everything that the SCC says is gold. Let me ask you this....what do you think of the upcoming SCC ruling on Metis being given full Indian standing to Metis? We know the Federal Court already ruled in favor.

Wow...quite the drama....even for you jacee. Of course what I said was common knowledge to anyone with logic. Here....from a website titled First Peoples of Canada: http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_treaties/fp_treaties_two_views.html Wait....what's that.....a First Nations website acknowledges that the British intent was to extinguish the rights of First Nations and was the first step of assimilation into Canadian society. Perhaps jacee you have the blinders on yet again. Maybe you should continue to read the points I made instead of stirring in your own ignorance. My point was that if the First Nations want us to acknowledge their side of the treaties then they need to acknowledge the Canadian side. This website gets it....why can't you? Not to mention, there should be some unbiased and realistic conversation acknowledging the situation leading up to the treaties. You can try to put whatever spin you want on in but the natives in that day knew it was a matter of time before they would be exterminated either by a pressing British army or the Americans. I would even be honest enough to say that the British knew it would be very difficult to fend off the Americans (after already losing to them in the American Revolution) and having to deal with a French faction in Quebec as well. The first treaties were signed out of desparation and included little in reward. As the treaties started getting signed out west the natives realized they had more negotiating power and upped the ante. In either event they realized that treaties were inevitable. The ultimate reality is that the British didn't enter into the treaties as equal partners. Now....you were saying something dramatic.....perhaps you would like to switch to logic?

Here's my thoughts: 1The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors of Canadian society. Canada has already endorsed this declaration but as noted it is non-legally binding and it will stay that way. As such having this as a point is somewhat moot. 2 First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, as the original peoples of this country and as self-determining peoples, have Treaty, constitutional, and human rights that must be recognized and respected. As always, this comes down to the treaties which I have said before and will say again are the one thing screwing over aboriginal people. When you read the treaties they are written objectively to provide only certain things which in turn excludes them from everything else. All other items natives wish to garner from treaties have been won by interpretation in the courts. As such if the treaties remain then the litigious nature of dealing with treaties will continue and will get us no where. The other side of the coin is that if Canada really started holding the treaties to the word of the law then certain treaties state that natives are not allowed to have alcohol or block roads. So if these happen in any form then there would be repercussions. With treaties comes the Indian Act which is the most racist act we have but is also sought after by the aboriginals simply because it gives them their aboriginal rights. The treaties put a limit on what funding the federal government is supposed to provide. As long as the treaties are in place, this funding will be kept at the minimum level listed in the treaties. 3 Reconciliation is a process of healing of relationships that requires public truth sharing, apology, and commemoration that acknowledge and redress past harms. Already been done. Apology from Harper and the TRC was performed to accomplish this. What more is needed? Topics covered in schools? Sure. I agree with that. 4 Reconciliation requires constructive action on addressing the ongoing legacies of colonialism that have had destructive impacts on Aboriginal peoples education, cultures and languages, health, child welfare, the administration of justice, and economic opportunities and prosperity. What are the constructive actions and what are the ongoing legacies of colonialism. Do they again point back to the treaties? If so its a just going to circle back to the same issue. 5 Reconciliation must create a more equitable and inclusive society by closing the gaps in social, health, and economic outcomes that exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. Again...can't happen as long as treaties are in place. You can't have your treaty and then expect to be treated like regular Canadians. Its an either or thing. Reconciliation needs a fresh face where the approach is making First Nations equal by treating them the same as other Canadians. To bring them up to this standard, there would be a serious cash input in exchange for a buy out and transition phase. Additionally there would be clauses put into place to ensure that history would be taught on the plight of the aboriginal people through education, museums and such. Such history would include their rise out of poverty and joining the rest of Canadian society. 6 All Canadians, as Treaty peoples, share responsibility for establishing and maintaining mutually respectful relationships. Again...with the treaties. I thought this was about Residential Schools. Remember, the treaties got them into this mess as they desired to have British education. 7 The perspectives and understandings of Aboriginal Elders and Traditional Knowledge Keepers of the ethics, concepts, and practices of reconciliation are vital to long-term reconciliation. Fully agree with this one. 8 Supporting Aboriginal peoples cultural revitalization and integrating Indigenous knowledge systems, oral histories, laws, protocols, and connections to the land into the reconciliation process are essential. That can work on their land (ie reserves) but Canadian law will always be above such laws. This seems like a vague statement that doesn't really accomplish much other than trying to say that the Indigenous way will be preserved. With that said, do Indigenous people not use written history now? Or what about European knowledge systems? Its far past the point to say that their systems are still practical in today's society. 9 Reconciliation requires political will, joint leadership, trust building, accountability, and transparency, as well as a substantial investment of resources. I really like the accountability and transparency part. I have no problem investing a substantial investment if the funds are going to the right places. However we have seen cases where funds have been sent and were either spend inappropriately or have remained in the hands of the chief or chiefs family. Ultimately I have no problem with native self government as long as the transparency is in place and the understanding that funding is a limited event. You can't keep coming back to the well if you've dried it up. 10 Reconciliation requires sustained public education and dialogue, including youth engagement, about the history and legacy of residential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal rights, as well as the historical and contemporary contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canadian society. Education of past events is warranted. However, the education of treaty rights is a two way street in that we can't accept a romanticized version of how the treaties were made and what they actually intended to offer. If Canada is to accept the negativity of history then the First Nations will have to accept that they had no choice but to sign the treaties and they were on the short end of the stick when doing so. It should also be addressed showing what the true intent of the treaties from the British side as well meaning that one day natives would join and be part of Canada....not this continued apartheid state. Ultimately, I see this as being just more of the same. Respect our treaty rights, more money and a lot of vague statements. Unfortunately by the way this is going, we probably will get over the TRC and move on just like we did with Idle No More. Until there is a real solution that is dramatically different from the way it is being approached now, we will continue to have aboriginal issues.

Still waiting on that citation from one person at the UN stating Canada's treatment of residential schools was genocide. Until then your peanut gallery interpretations of their declarations means nothing to me.

I'm not asking everyone of them....I'm asking if just one of them. These guys are the mechanics of human rights and they have yet to say anything about genocide. Keep deflecting jacee.

No. No answer has been given just a bunch of deflections

Holy F....for the last three days I have asked you every time after you have posted that definition the same question....why has the UN not called it genocide if they believe this example meets their definition. So far I have recieved nothing from you....similar to most of your posts....nothing

Yes 'we' do.....we stop saying it and being a proponent of the idea

Coming from you I take no offense. You have shown a lack of logic in your posts and an inability to carry an argument. This post is no different

The way this works Omar is that you respond to what is said in people's posts not some random narrative. You do the exact same thing....it's called deflection and it happens when you don't want to answer the question because you know it will show the weakness in your argument. She can post anything she wants but it is common courtesy to reply to posts with answers and conversations about the post.

Constructive progress is only accomplished when false narrative such as using the word genocide is not done. After its removal I would be all for it

You're saying the UN wouldn't intervene if they actually thought it was genocide. That is rich considering they intervene on everything else.

No confusion here. Just waiting for you to present some sort of clear argument showing it was genocide instead of your constant deflection and outright avoidance

Do you ever get tired of being wrong. Step up and show the citation where the UN has stated its genocide? Until then your peanut gallery comments arent wanted

Instead of asking questions about my age, perhaps you should be asking questions as to why the United Nations has not declared this genocide.

Well done jacee. Another cut and paste job with the intent of deflecting away from anything I actually said in my post. Do you acknowledge that the only real debate here is the use of the word genocide?

You are literally hopeless. We're discussing whether the term genocide should be used and now you deflect to another topic of whether the natives would have been better off with their own schooling. At what point will you actually defend your position with plausible, logical replies?

Lol. How exactly does this prove genocide?