charter.rights

"Frankly, the concept of "'indiginous people" could use some work." I'll remember this the next time we get into the Israel - Palestine discussion, since you obviously must believe by the same way of thinking that the Jews have no claim to the area they stole from the Palestines. "We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia." Just for clarification purposes let's put this in its proper order. "We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of......" Africa, South Asia, Australia, South America, North America and Europe. Certainly this might appear to be just semantics but at the end of the day it is important to be reminded that the Europeans are archaeologically the late comers to the world organizations. If we are to get into the discussion about what constitutes "indigenous" then it is important to clarify that pretty much all peoples are indigenous EXCEPT the Europeans - especially where in history they attempted to invade and then colonize other indigenous lands. Therefore we only need to point to the colonization of a place by Europeans (since they are the most prevalent disease) to separate what could be considered "indigenous" and what is "foreign". In this context and the legal one, it isn't necessary to get into the details of how long a people were indigenous to the area, only that they were there first before the Europeans arrived and therefore hold all legal and moral ownership of lands (unless they have dispossessed the inhabitants by force, or treaty). In Canada there has never been a dispossession occur since the British colonists decided that "sharing" the land was more profitable. Later, treaties were used to solidify the oral agreements to share the land since the King forbade anyone from directly occupying lands that were declared in 1763 to be exclusively "Indian Lands". Moving forward little has changed in the legal aspect of the Royal Proclamation since the people occupied land illegally to the objection to native peoples.

The Little Racist comes out of you when your back it to the wall, eh? Very interesting....especially for someone who claims they aren't prejudiced..... BTW. People were in the Americas nearly 10,000 years before the first people walked to Europe and 30,000 years before people were theorized to have crossed from Asia. So in a way Native Americans are more advanced than Europeans and Asians, having found a more direct route out of Africa, perhaps not long after the Aborigines found Australia.

John Tory is an ass with no load to carry. Maybe someone should invite him here to defend the right wingers. He would fit right in with all the pickled liver types.

Engineer? That's all you got? Run along now and go play in traffic.

Engineer? Too bad an education can't make you intelligent. No wonder they hand out iron rings. There are plenty of structures that have collapsed over the years to make rings and bracelets, necklaces and cars from all the scrap iron you guys are responsible for.

Still trying to get all your knowledge from the internet I see...... must be what stupid people do......

You got it wrong. The law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The law of "quantum" physics (it is the basis for all science) states that something cannot be created from nothing.

The concept of ourselves is an illusion. Our physical bodies are an illusion. Therefore the death of a mental state and physical body is also an illusion. The law of physics is that one cannot create ~something~ from ~nothing~. The only way that death can become reality is if everyone is equally deluded into believing the fantasy of death.

Loss of brain activity is only the most recent definition of death. Since scientists are learning that cells often act on their won apart from the brain, they are beginning to realize that the brain does not control everything. The philosophy of death is being discussed but the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects of death are not being peer reviewed nor studied with any kind of scrutiny. Sure they are some looking in the lab at the models of death, but not one takes it further because the current definition limits their thinking. Loss of consciousness isn't a good measure for death. In the scheme of things your personality still exists, as does the spirit of life that once occupied the body. Death is an illusion because it is what we believe we see. It isn't necessarily what is happening physiologically, nor can we as observers see what is happening beyond some physical changes in the body we observe. Saying that death is scientifically proven is misleading because it is only something that is formed from a belief - very much religiously believed - and not from an experience. True science then determines things through experience and then determines to repeat the experience over and over again. However, it is never absolute because the factors of the experience can change and alter the result. Science then, must always be presented with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Go back to school. Fascism is no where near socialism.

Religion is studied and peer reviewed scientifically by scholars. 'nough said. Death is an illusion. 200 years ago if you weren't breathing you would be dead. 100 years ago if your heart stopped you would be dead. Just because your brain activity stops doesn't mean you are dead either. Cells continue to live long after the brain activity stops. The atoms and molecules that make up the cells never die. They merely convert to something different. So tell me, has the concept of death in its modern definition been peer reviewed and scrutinized? Of is death still one of those mysteries that scientists still don't fully understand? And what happens to one' personality after they die this simplistic death? Can a "personality" die?

Ya lots of problems. It would put about 30,000 Canadians out of work. Although it would free up another $5 billion that could be put towards real Native issues. But then again the way the government operates they would need a brand new department to manage it.

Looks like whale will be back on the sushi menu pretty soon.....

Nazi Germany was facist - which stems from extreme conservatism. Socialism is the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Actually that is wrong. Religion is peer reviewed, probably much more than scientific information. The Bible is studied extensively by scholars, discussed among ministers and lay people. Storytelling is peer reviewed also. That's how we have developed history and eye-witness accounts in court. IN the latter case the testimony is scrutinized by a judge or jury and weight of its reliability is determined. So science is necessarily real and true just because others say it is so. That is no more than religion acting as science. The minute that you take a scientific premise and treat it as an absolute, you have created a religion. When one stops asking questions it is no longer scientific. To prove the point answer the question I presented earlier. What makes one dead?

There is a certain amount of conditioning involved in believing that present day science hold all the answers. The problem is that just like an error in story telling can be duplicated over the years, errors in science can also lead us astray. Theories become scientific law without necessarily being put to full scrutiny. And then there are those hold on to science religiously as the counter answer to religious mysticism. Science in the context you try to present it is brainwashing and you seem to use the same techniques that cult leaders would use to try to make your point. What you appear to miss....is that science.....is all in the question....and it is not the answer. So long as one continues to question the result one maintains some scientific integrity. The minute you slap someone with the results as if that is all there is to it, you have drifted over into religion. This is a scientific question I'd like you to ponder.....What makes one dead?

The actual "traditional" way of life pre-contact was low infant mortality, large populations with long life spans and stable and generous social institutions. The dis-ease only came after contact with Europeans who came here from towns infested with vermin and disease, and poor hygiene practices.

No. Being that M.DNA is recognized as "ground breaking" means that people are jumping on the band wagon without proper scientific discrimination. And like I suggested it is no more valuable than connecting 2 dots and believing that the rest of the universe is connected in the same way. There is no contradiction. The "their not from here" argument was raised by JCAN. I merely proved him wrong - that being from here was as valuable to the argument as suggesting that Europeans weren't from Europe either. Either you can accept both premises or discount both. LIke I said the only important legal argument is who was here before the settlers.

What a joke. Wake up! Oh..and let me explain to you the significance of the "red path" versus the "white path". A native tradition the Medicine Wheel has 4 primary colours: white at the top representing the north, cold, individuality, the physical aspect of self and a whole lot more. At the right is the colour yellow representing the the east, water, the emotional aspect of self etc. On the bottom is the colour red which represents the south, sun, warmth, social interaction and the thinking aspect of self etc. And lastly on the left is the colour black (sometimes deep blue) which represents the west, death, the spiritual aspect of self etc. When one follows the "red path" they are walking in warmth using thinking to guide them and gather others on their journey towards enlightment. Going on the "white path" which has nothing to to with race, is about being a loner, walking in coldness and living by physical means. The paths are polar opposites with one representing walking away from life and the other embracing it. Your understanding of that teaching is about as perverse as your terribly vitriolic thinking. If you do that math, by the time stolen land is paid for, misappropriated trusts are returned and royalties on stolen resources are paid, there isn't enough money in Canada to repay them. Getting peanuts over the years from our government hardly even makes a dent in what we owe. That for you is the sad reality. Too bad you can't accept the fact. In the legal scheme of things, you are right. Going back 40, 000 or 50,000 years doesn't matter. Natives only need to go back 400 years to prove they were here first and all the land is theirs. And here's were it gets sticky for us because according to the law, we have to prove we legally obtained the land - not stolen, not cheated and not borrowed and never returned. That in itself is all the proof they need. However, the argument that JCAN was making was that natives are not from here. In fact there are more from here than we are from Europe. So in that context he is wrong and so are you. Being here 50,000 years ago forward is considered "being from here" anyway you slice it. Hell immigrants children that came here only 20 years ago are considered "being from here" today.

Actually that amply explains why you make racist statements. BTW All those lame counter points proved you wrong. So you might want to re-examine your arguments if lame counter points can still prove you wrong. Doesn't say much for you point of view now does it.....

Exactly. And by rights he didn't originate in Europe either. Must of been one of those late blooming knuckle draggers from Ethiopia.

Ya ya ya. There are some anthropologists who suggest that migration actually happened the other way from Alaska to Bering to Siberia. Also using mitochondrial haplogroups as a basis for migration is extremely suspect. The theory put forth suggests that because some guy in India had red hair and blue eyes and another in Mongolia had red hair and blue eyes, the Mongolian must have migrated from India. It isn't very accurate and a pretty wild "out there" theory. New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000 Years Ago The occupation of the Americas still beats the occupation of Europe.....by nearly 10,000 years. Prehistoric Bones Point to First Modern-Human Settlement in Europe

Not silence. It just doesn't make sense to acknowledge an irrelevent point. Everybody makes mistakes and you are forgiven for yours.

You might want to read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sect. 35. It proves you wrong. You might want to study a little archaeology. The earliest evidence of aboriginal occupation of that Americas dates back 40,000 years. There is likely going to be earlier finds since for a long time anthropologists believed that aboriginal people migrated here across the Bering Strait, or the Beringer Land link. However, since finding older sites they have generally modified their base belief and have started looking for more sites to confirm earlier occupations did in fact exist. Native people are as much "from this place" as Europeans are from Eurasia. Aboringal rights are "inherent" and "apparent" They wer not given those rights by us. The Charter recognizes those rights as being peremptory to our laws and customs. No. This is a failed argument of most racists. Native people do exercise their rights against the Anglo-European white male cadre, but this does not make them racists. Since you have obviously never met a native person, this statement makes me laugh. They don't blame the "white man" for all their problems. They do blame colonialism, residential schools and cultural genocide for a great majority of social-psychological problems in their communities. HOwever, the majority of native people are as responsible and self sufficient as anyone of us. This very statement points to a strong indication that you are in fact a racist. Another racist statement not worth responding to. Yep we do. We owe them the cash we have been holding onto all these years, royalties on resources we have stolen on unceded lands and cash in lieu of land claims. We also owe them land that was never ceded to the government as required by the Royal Proclamation 1763 (legitimized by the Charter). So again you are so wrong that you make a liar look like a sweet lady. You lose, loser.

No. The point is you haven't a clue about what you are talking about. WE keep natives in the spotlight because those among us like to pick on someone with a different skin colour. Do natives have problems? Yep. But they are simply a mirror of what is wrong in our own society amplified by poverty and the residential school syndrome that has wrecked generations. There is no more discrimination among First Nations than there is in our own towns and cities. Your believing there is, is only a result of your detached and uninformed backward opinions.