Pay up or leave

[tango]

QUOTE (whowhere @ Aug 22 2009, 12:12 AM) *

The conservatives idea of success is everyone making minimum wage while the corporations keep all the money. The conservatives logic is lower corporate taxes somehow encourages corporations to pay more wages but that is not the corporate mentality. They are selfish greedy enterprises who require to be beaten with a stick for their repressive economics tactics. In down economy the tax burden has to be shifted to the corporations and away from the people. As the economy improves the taxes can be shifted back onto the people and balance struck to maintain the economic engine.

jbg said

I don't know where you draw your conclusions from. Corporations cannot force anyone who doesn't want to work to work. If they have demand they need qualified employees, period. This applies whether or not the corporation is unionized, a possibility you omit.

quote name='whowhere' date='Aug 23 2009, 05:58 PM' post='456328'

Obviously you are clueless to finding employment. Look through the Job Bank and you will see the employers dictate minimum wage or wages close to minimum wage. A lot of these jobs are channelled through employment agencies and many corporations use employment agencies as a way of business. Ten years ago 1 in 10 jobs were through employment agencies, now its 1 in 4 jobs are through employment agencies. As for corporations forcing people to work for minimum wage is more because the conservatives have created an environment where large corporations are employment predators searching for the ever increasing number of immigrants the conservatives are rolling out the red carpet to.

I know this as fact because I have experiennced it and see it on a daily basis. The latest conservative tactic is to allow someone from another country to come to Canada and attend college or university for 1 year and then they are able to go out and look for employment. These people are only to happy to find work and these corporations are all to happy to hire them for close to minimum wage.

So when mr domestic Canadian goes looking for work, mr Corporation says sorry buddy tough luck we're not hiring. These people congest our roads and drive up retail costs on everything all the while keeping incomes low.

The conservatives can make whatever decisions they want about who to let in, jump the queue however they like, thanks to their recent legislation. However, Is this the direction their preferences take? I don't know. For sure it would be purely to benefit the business community. Perhaps some of the business owners here can comment on that.

College or university. That's kinda cool. International students pay big tuition and would also have to have their own means to survive one year. If they can hack college, show they have the English language skills, they can probably work successfully. Sounds like a very reasonable approach to me.

Congesting our roads? We all do that.

Canada is a failed country. When retail costs for beer is 300 percent more for the same beer and gas is 40 percent more than retail in the US, that's a problem.

For this to be going shows the conservatives are either over taxing Canadians or they are guilty of market protectionism. Every time I go to the store it makes me sick knowing I would get a certain item at a lower cost south of the border. To add insult to injury I am taxed on that inflated amount.

The conservative are a fat cat party.

Well ... not exactly a 'failed state' yet. Beer, well that's catastrophic of course, and I don't know why ... cept ours is sure better than that love-in-a-boat* they call beer!

*(f'n near water)

Oil ... we don't have any refineries, so that's the cost of shipping and refining and shipping back, I guess. And maybe they own the oil rigs and oil rights in the first place so we have to buy it from them too, and profits all along that chain are theirs.

This is wandering from the topic, but it's all relevant to Indigenous people since it's their natural resources. It's not like we brought the oil with us from Europe!

As Indigenous people say: "How did 'your' oil get under my land?

Edited August 24, 2009 by tango

[tango]

This is an awesome essay about seeking peace among cultures. The beginning is about Obama's speech in the middle east, not quoted here but worth reading. The ending part is about Canada

http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDi....aspx?e=1712743

...

If stories are the starting point for understanding a people, then place is the starting point for understanding their stories -- Moses, Jesus and Mohammed prayed together in the same land in which God created Adam and Eve.

As the sign at the entrance to the Ziibiwing Heritage Centre of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe in Michigan says, "All creation myths are true."

...

In this regard, Canada is a difficult country. Most of our mythologies come from somewhere else. They are all as true as anyone else's, but here is not their birthplace. And the languages we use to tell them (French, English, Polish, Greek, Chinese, Urdu, Yoruba, Tamil and a whole lot more) are also rooted in lands other than North America.

Those whose stories and spirit and languages do come from this place are Aboriginal, literally "from the beginning." Aboriginal peoples are our Other. Even more so than the French for the English or the English for the French, for both have been dealing (and not well) with Turtle Island peoples for 400 years.

And now Chinese, Jamaicans, Tamils, Indians -- the real ones, from India -- are also not dealing very well with Turtle Island peoples. Turtle Island is what Aboriginal peoples call North America -- the source of their stories, spirit and language. The name itself, Turtle Island, has its origins in Aboriginal myths.

If President Obama is onto something -- if we can begin to understand the Other from their mythologies -- then we must ask, how well do we know the stories at the heart of Aboriginal culture? For their myths -- those stories that define a people -- are very different from ours. There is, I think, more that separates us from First Nations than from Muslim nations. But that's all the more reason to start with the stories of Turtle Island.

"How well do we know their stories" is not an idle question. We are about to hear their stories yet again -- from the new Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, and from residential school victims during the Truth and Reconciliation hearings. Some of what they tell us we won't want to hear. But listen we must and, this time, try to understand them from their point of view -- from the point of view of Aboriginal culture.

I hope the media is prepared to do as good a job in teaching us about Aboriginal culture as they have been about Muslim culture. We all know stories about land claims and Aboriginal rights because the media has reported the facts of the disputes; but do we understand what it is about Aboriginal culture that sets First Nations so at odds with the rest of Canadian society?

We know about residential schools and we know that they have done harm, but do we know why? What is it, exactly, about Aboriginal ways of raising children, of seeing the world, of knowing the spiritual, of relating to one another and to the land that was so damaged by residential schools? And why is it that our governments' policies and practices continue to offend and seem to have no effect on the well-being of Aboriginal peoples?

I suspect the answer lies somewhere in our separate mythologies. All myths are true, but they are not all the same. Perhaps giving people the room to be different by starting with their stories as they wish them told is to let peace settle upon us all.

You can read more essays by David McLaren at

http://mclarenathome.spaces.live.com/

Article ID# 1712743

Submit content

"giving people the room to be different" ... and respecting traditional stories, traditional ways, traditional lands.

Case in point ... How many of us know that we live on Turtle Island (North America)?

It is time for us to put aside our preconceived notions and just listen.

Edited August 24, 2009 by tango

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Case in point ... How many of us know that we live on Turtle Island (North America)?

It is time for us to put aside our preconceived notions and just listen.

Maybe it's just me, but it would be far easier to take your post seriously if you hadn't invoked the offensive term "Aboriginal" and any of it's derivatives. Like another silly term used in Canada ("visible minority"), the term "aboriginal" is loaded with racist context, judgement, conflict, and assumed superiority.

Do we call Europeans "aboriginals" in France or Germany?

[tango]

Maybe it's just me, but it would be far easier to take your post seriously if you hadn't invoked the offensive term "Aboriginal" and any of it's derivatives. Like another silly term used in Canada ("visible minority"), the term "aboriginal" is loaded with racist context, judgement, conflict, and assumed superiority.

Do we call Europeans "aboriginals" in France or Germany?

I totally agree, and that's why I refer to them as Indigenous Peoples.

The article I quoted uses Aboriginal, and that's because the Canadian government has chosen to use that word: Sec 35 "Existing Aboriginal rights are hereby recognized and affirmed".

I believe the government uses 'Aboriginal" to try to separate Canada's Indigenous Peoples from the worldwide movement - eg, at the UN - to prevent them from organizing successfully.

Canada's Indigenous people are supposed to think they are better off and don't need to be activists. (sick joke)

Canada has always tried to suppress the rights and activism of Indigenous Peoples:

“First Nations is interesting. There’s very, very little written on First Nations human rights activism. There’s this weird period between 1910 and 1969 where First Nations were not terribly politically active.”

You might wonder why this might be the case. And unless you’re up to speed on graduate-level Canadian history, you probably won’t guess the real reason. It wasn’t simply because First Nations were poor, or displaced, or lacked support (though these reasons obviously contributed.) It was because Aboriginal activism was explicitly against federal law.

“In the early 20th Century, Aboriginal groups formed organisations to basically call for better conditions on reserves and call for education rights and things like that,” Clement explained. “Sometime in the early 1920s, the federal government essentially criminalised and put in the Indian Act that Aboriginal groups could not form political associations and they were also not allowed to litigate land claims…That lasted until about 1969.”

http://restructure.wordpress.com/2009/08/2...ism-until-1970/

This is a small part of what we have to hear. I sure hope our governments, and all Canadians are listening during the Truth Commission.

Edited August 24, 2009 by tango

[bush_cheney2004]

I totally agree, and that's why I refer to them as Indigenous Peoples....

That's just fine....but I can see that you still don't get it. Such offensive terms (including "indigenous") only reflect the larger barriers and conflict. If you truly want people to listen....start here.

Or at least be fair about it and refer to the "whites" as "boat people".

[tango]

That's just fine....but I can see that you still don't get it. Such offensive terms (including "indigenous") only reflect the larger barriers and conflict. If you truly want people to listen....start here.

Or at least be fair about it and refer to the "whites" as "boat people".

Well I'll take their advice about what to call them before yours, b-c, and Indigenous Peoples, Nations or people it is.

The irony of Canada is that we accept refugee Indigenous people from other countries, pushed off their land by corporations and corrupt colonial governments. Meanwhile we do the same thing to Indigenous people of Canada (Kanata).

Indigenous Peoples have international organizations and common causes so it makes sense to me that in Canada too, they want to identify themselves as such.

[charter.rights]

Maybe it's just me, but it would be far easier to take your post seriously if you hadn't invoked the offensive term "Aboriginal" and any of it's derivatives. Like another silly term used in Canada ("visible minority"), the term "aboriginal" is loaded with racist context, judgement, conflict, and assumed superiority.

Do we call Europeans "aboriginals" in France or Germany?

These kinds of semantics are not helpful to the discussion. Who cares what natives are called, so long as we are respectful about it....

Many Europeans are not aboriginal to their place of birth, just like Canadians. However, there are aboriginal people among the Europeans...Friesians and Scots come to mind.....

[bush_cheney2004]

Well I'll take their advice about what to call them before yours, b-c, and Indigenous Peoples, Nations or people it is.

Of course you will...and you will call that "listening".

The irony of Canada is that we accept refugee Indigenous people from other countries, pushed off their land by corporations and corrupt colonial governments. Meanwhile we do the same thing to Indigenous people of Canada (Kanata).

Great...so what you call the "indigenous" white people?

Indigenous Peoples have international organizations and common causes so it makes sense to me that in Canada too, they want to identify themselves as such.

Sure, just so it is convenient for you as you co-op their cause for your own motives.

[bush_cheney2004]

These kinds of semantics are not helpful to the discussion. Who cares what natives are called, so long as we are respectful about it....

Are you serious? It's mighty nice to control the labels and language so "respectfully"

Many Europeans are not aboriginal to their place of birth, just like Canadians. However, there are aboriginal people among the Europeans...Friesians and Scots come to mind.....

I must have missed where such Europeans are referred to collectively as "aboriginals".

[Guest TrueMetis]

BC exactly what do you call First Nations?

[tango]

bush_cheney ... BUTT OUT.

[DogOnPorch]

BC exactly what do you call First Nations?

A rather fascist sounding name for Native Indians in Canada.

[Guest TrueMetis]

A rather fascist sounding name for Native Indians in Canada.

And Indians is better? And which part of it is fascist?

Edited August 25, 2009 by TrueMetis

[tango]

These kinds of semantics are not helpful to the discussion. Who cares what natives are called, so long as we are respectful about it....

Many Europeans are not aboriginal to their place of birth, just like Canadians. However, there are aboriginal people among the Europeans...Friesians and Scots come to mind.....

The Friesians prize their language and descent from the ancient Friesian people

http://www.everyculture.com/Ma-Ni/The-Netherlands.html

Thanks for solving a riddle for me.

Scot ... not so sure

While the Latin word Scoti[17] originally applied to a particular, 5th century, Gaelic tribe that inhabited Ireland[18][dubious – discuss] and later in history became confused with the Gaelic language until the 15th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_people

And here

http://books.google.ca/books?id=kgLOAAAAMA...els&f=false

it says the Scots (vagabonds) were an amalgamation of the Cymric Picts and Dalriadic Gaels (Ireland).

I agree respectful is the key.

b-c took issue with the words in an article I posted.

I think I'm a Gael.

Edited August 25, 2009 by tango

[charter.rights]

Are you serious? It's mighty nice to control the labels and language so "respectfully"

No one is controlling "labels". However, natives self-identify in any number of ways, including Anishanabe, Onkwehon:we, Indians, Skins, natives, aboriginal etc. So long as we are respectful in their presence, there is no problem (like the ones you are attempting to create).

I must have missed where such Europeans are referred to collectively as "aboriginals".

Not all Canadians are referred collectively as "aboriginals" either. So again you are attempting to create an issue where there is none. This does not discount the fact that there are indigenous people all over the world, including in many European countries. "White" or "European" are not indigenous to any country and are simply labels which define a collective based on racial or geographic demographics. On the other hand, the terms "Anishanabe, and Onkwehone:we" I am told mean "human beings" which does not separate native people from the world, but include them in all of it.

Edited August 25, 2009 by charter.rights

[DogOnPorch]

And Indians is better? And which part of it is fascist?

Both put together.

[jbg]

And Indians is better? And which part of it is fascist?

I'm really getting sickened by the level of political correctness in naming and labeling. While the FN/Native Americans/whatever were not from India, the term "Indian" came into widespread usage. Who was hurt by that term?

Similarly, when sorting out "special needs" programs the indecipherable terminology makes it unclear whether a program was aimed at people who suffered intellectual or emotional deficiencies. Was anybody's treatement really affected by use of the term "idiot" or "lunatic"?

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm really getting sickened by the level of political correctness in naming and labeling. While the FN/Native Americans/whatever were not from India, the term "Indian" came into widespread usage. Who was hurt by that term?

Similarly, when sorting out "special needs" programs the indecipherable terminology makes it unclear whether a program was aimed at people who suffered intellectual or emotional deficiencies. Was anybody's treatement really affected by use of the term "idiot" or "lunatic"?

I really don't care what you call them as long they they don't care. I was pointing out the stupidity that Dog On Porch thought the name First Nations was bad and that Indian was not.

[DogOnPorch]

I really don't care what you call them as long they they don't care. I was pointing out the stupidity that Dog On Porch thought the name First Nations was bad and that Indian was not.

Is 'Indian' a bad term?? Is the West Indies a bad term? The East Indies? India? Indiana? The Indus River? At least "Indian" has some history attached to it. Mainly because early European explorers greatly overestimated the size of Asia of all things...lol.

First Nations is a recent construct found only in Canada which may or may-not be true. For all we know the current tribes displaced some other tribes who had themselves displaced some even older culture...etc. Likely, even.

First Nation Motorcycles.

The Cleveland First Nations.

Yeah...lol.

[charter.rights]

Is 'Indian' a bad term?? Is the West Indies a bad term? The East Indies? India? Indiana? The Indus River? At least "Indian" has some history attached to it. Mainly because early European explorers greatly overestimated the size of Asia of all things...lol.

First Nations is a recent construct found only in Canada which may or may-not be true. For all we know the current tribes displaced some other tribes who had themselves displaced some even older culture...etc. Likely, even.

First Nation Motorcycles.

The Cleveland First Nations.

Yeah...lol.

Since you are stuck in semantics as well, let me set you straight....

"First Nation" refers to the political entity of individual nations. "Indian" is a legal definition of a person with aboriginal status under the Indian Act. "Band" is the legal definition of the group of "Indians" attached to a particular community. "Aboriginal" refers to Indians, Inuit and Metis, all of whom have a historical connection to North America. "Indigenous" means they the "aboriginals" who were here before colonial immigration.

All the terms singularly and collectively refer to groups of aboriginal people. If you had respect for "people" you might have known that. Since you apparently don't, I'm glad to educate you...again...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps the "First Nations" should repay all of the money spent on them in trade for all of the lands they now have, on the condition that they withdraw any other claims or lands in dispute.

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps the "First Nations" should repay all of the money spent on them in trade for all of the lands they now have, on the condition that they withdraw any other claims or lands in dispute.

I would like the "first nations" to fess up and make reparations to each other for the millenia of brutal genocidal warfare they waged against each other.

Then I would be truly impressed.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would like the "first nations" to fess up and make reparations to each other for the millenia of brutal genocidal warfare they waged against each other.

Then I would be truly impressed.

I don't want to be impressed. I want a resolution to the issues of the day. I tire of a people who claim entitlements, I tire of the welfare state. I grow weary of the complaints which see the average citizen held to account for the sins of the fathers.

[bush_cheney2004]

bush_cheney ... BUTT OUT.

Who died and left you Queen?

[bush_cheney2004]

Since you are stuck in semantics as well, let me set you straight....

"First Nation" refers to the political entity of individual nations. "Indian" is a legal definition of a person with aboriginal status under the Indian Act. "Band" is the legal definition of the group of "Indians" attached to a particular community. "Aboriginal" refers to Indians, Inuit and Metis, all of whom have a historical connection to North America. "Indigenous" means they the "aboriginals" who were here before colonial immigration.

All the terms singularly and collectively refer to groups of aboriginal people. If you had respect for "people" you might have known that. Since you apparently don't, I'm glad to educate you...again...

How wonderful that you have defined the legal framework and lexicon for all those poor "savages"....who they are...what they are....and the required labels. It is so convenient.....thanks for setting us "straight".