CANADIEN

War is war, no matter how you put it. And thank you oh so much for blaming all again on "whitey". Like we are supposed to believe that everything was just fine and perfect until the morning of October 12, 1492. Give your head a shake.

Good description of your writings, indeed, But before you get into another tamtrum... Now, I fully expect to counter "but the Spaniards". Go ahead. I am not engaging into a contest about "who os the better and who is the worst". The point is, and you KNOW I haven't said otherwise, that pre-contact First Nations were humans, nothing more nothing less, and not the quasi-perfect beings that CR wants us to believe they were.

it's because one cannot even hint at the fact pre-contact Natives were, after all, human beings without you showing outrage. Thanks for proving it right here.

There is not much one can do about individuals narrow-minded enough to vote for someone on the sole ground of their ethnic origin. Or people who would NOT vote for someone because of their ethnic origin.

Want me to stay awake? Then avoid the boring litany of "how dare yous" because someone had the audacity to claim that pre-Contact First Nations were not exempt from human failings.

Mind you, responsibility for the current conditions of the First nations lays primarilly at the foot of the Government and those that endorsed its policies. Things could have hardly been worse without that.

Forget about it. You committed the cardinal thing of thinking that Natives and their ancestors are just plain human beings like anyone else.

Rather, it has to do with individual protection from physical and mental harm (torture comes to mind)

Feel free to view the Six Nations as superior more noble human beings. I'll see them as... human beings.

To be fair, he is not suggesting a return to residential schools. Neither is anyone born in this country.

The problem is grasping the concept of nations is yours. At least now you recognize that there is a Jewish Nation, but not a Canadian-Jewish Nation. Aboriginals in Canada belong to their own individual nations within Canada. Those nations do not exist anywhere else in the world (except when they exist across international borders, like the Inuit). Because some individuals identify themselves as Jews, Italians, Chinese, they are members of the Jewish, Italian ancd Chinese nations living in Canada and who are Canadians, and our country is all the better for what they bring to it. But then that part of their identity is linked to a nation that is outside Canada. The Aboriginal nations are not outside Canada (at least, not outside of its borders). To put it another way. If the Albanian culture disappeared from Canada tomorrow, it would still exist in its own land, Albania (and elsewhere). The language would still exist, the nation would still exist. According to the UNESCO, 88 Aboriginal languages in this country are on the brink of extinction, and once they are gone these nations will be gone. It is very easy to say "you can keep your own culture and your own nationhood within Canada" when denying that there are Aboriginal nations to start with.

What is it so hard to comprehend that integration is a pipe dream until and unless the Aboriginals' identity as NATIONS is fully recognized? Integration is a pipe dream otherwise. And btw, their cultures are already Canadian. Integration means recognizing that as well.

I agree entirely with you, except for the second last sentence.

Most Aboriginal children don't even make it pass the early high school years. Schools on the reservations (like other living conditions) would make many children in countries of the Global south feel lucky for what they have. And what faces Aboriginal children or adults when they move off-reserve is not much better either. Aboriginals are free to succeed, you say. Yet by far and large they do not. And they will not until the current paternalistic system is removed and they are free to make their own decisions. As far as the existence of other nations within Canada, I will not be presumptuous and speak on behalf of other groups of people. I can tell you this, though, that there are many large sub-cultures within Canada that have virtually all of the components of a nation. What this means is that the members of these subcultures share a distinct sense of unity rooted in one or more of the following: a shared sense of history and/or destiny, shared language(s), a common faith/religion, similar foods, common values and perspectives unique to them, special arts (music, singing, paintings, sculptures, dance, etc), or ethnicity/race. They only become a nation once they declare themselves to be one, I guess. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of these subcultures still identify themselves primarily as Canadian. Perpetuating the culture and food and values from the "old country" does not make a group of people into a nation. What it takes to make a Nation is more than that, it takes creating something that is different from what was in the "old country". The Canadian society as a whole has done that and is a nation. The same argument can be made for Acadian and French-Canadian societies. But Chinese-Canadians, Italian-Canadians, Lebanese-Canadians? This is no insult to any of these groups and their contribution to this country to say they are not nations. It is an insult to common sense to say that if the Wendat, the Dene or the Inuit are nations, so are they. As I said before, start making some sense.

What an arrogant view point. If anything, Aboriginal people could teach you what happens when entire societies are denied their identity and the basic rgith to govern themselves.

Or the Six Nations, for that matter. Unless we want to manage CR's sensibilities and not mention what they did to the Wendats.

If Aborignals were enjoying the blessings of being Canadians, and were indeed considered to be fully Canadians, there would not be a legal framework (the Indian Act) that was designed specifically to keep them in abject poverty and dependency like little children unable to manage their own affairs. Like it or not, Aboriginal NATIONS are nations within Canada. As I said before, feel free to demonstrate the existence of a Chinese-Canadian nation, or a Muslim-Canadian nation, or start making some sense.

The silliness is actually to deny that the First Nations are exactly that, Nation, then argue that"if there are nations, why not the Chinese?". Feel free to demonstate anytime that there is a Chinese-Canadian nation, with its own distinctive culture not found anywhere else. Either that, or start to make some sense. A legal framework that has proven to be a recipe for corruption, poverty, helplessness and hopelessness by denying them the right to manage their own affairs would be a good start.

Let's get some FACTS straigth, now shall we? 1) the Quebec government does not speak for all of French-speaking Canadians. Unless you want to discount Acadians, Fanco-Ontarians, etc. 2) although there is very limited (to say the least) provincial or municipal government services in English in Quebec, it is still more than the level of services provided in French by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador (none), Nova Scotia (no provision regarding French in provincial courts, unlike Quebec), Saskatchewan (right to use French in the Court, but not to be understood), Alberta (same as with Saskatchewan, with a lesser guarantee of services), British Columbia (see Newfoudland and Labrador).

As nations, they do indeed have a right of self-determination. As a reading of the UN Declaration would clearly indicate that this right is balanced by the right of States to their political and territorial integrity. This is not granting First Nations (to take the Canadian context) any right that is not enjoyed by Canadians as a Nation. Unless you want to argue that Canada is not an independant nation which does not and cannot legally determine its future, determine how it will govern itself, pass laws regarding the control and use of its natural resources, etc. etc.

He doesn't. Which right there is proof of his infinite wisdom

There are many variations of the concept of indigenous people, and indeed the UN declaration should have been clearer on the definition. Most definitions have one thing in common though - indigenous people are those people (as in groups of people) that have existed prior to colonial conquest and have maintained a distinct identitiy. Immigrant groups are not indigenous people. There is nothing in the UN Declaration that gives indigenous people rights not enjoyed by sovereign nations - or their population where democracy exists. Unless you want to argue that Canada does not have a legal right to chart its own future or being party to decisions that affects it. As for the notion of morality. There is nothing moral whatsover in preventing indigenous people from charting their own course for the future.

Not too loud. We do not want to alert CR to the fact that Natives are no more and no less human than anybody else on the planet.

Looks to me like the Barbarians could be construed as those who think that non-Westernized populatins should not even be allowed to be involved in decisions that affect their livelyhood and their future.

Oh imagine the barbarism... Stating that indigenous people, like any other people, should be able to participate in decisions that will affect them. We cannot have that, now can we?