Harper Colonialism gaffe

crazykai · October 2, 2009

"We also have no history of colonialism..." – Prime Minister Stephen Harper

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...olonialism.aspx

Are you kidding me!? Do I even need to mention basic history that Harper has obiviously forgot or doesn't know. How can he be that dumb and ignorant!?

Harper's comments reminds me of the comments that cost Gerald Ford the presidency in 1976.

"there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration."

Sadly, I see his popularity steady and most shocking of now, me, an avid political follower and quick to find anything wrong with the Tories, have only found about this a number of days after the fact from my wife on the Wedding Bells message board. The fact this seems burried in the back of media just reinforced my belief of Conservative media bias in Canada, along with the factors like Lukidnik Aspers running Canwest and the Tories holding the pursestring of ad revenue, tax credits and the CBC budget.

August1991 · October 2, 2009

"We also have no history of colonialism..." – Prime Minister Stephen Harper
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...olonialism.aspx

Are you kidding me!? Do I even need to mention basic history that Harper has obiviously forgot or doesn't know. How can he be that dumb and ignorant!?

Here is the full sentence and context:

"We also have no history of colonialism. So we have all of the things that many people admire about the great powers but none of the things that threaten or bother them," he said.

Leader-Post

Prior to 1867, all of Canada was a British colony. (This was arguably true until 1931 and heck, the Queen of England is still our Head of State.)

IOW, not just the natives of North America but anyone else here at the time was colonized by the British. Since then, we have obtained self-rule and are now a democratic state.

People who call themselves aboriginals are also Canadian citizens.

-----

Now then, if you think that the Indian Act is a form of colonialism, I'd be the first to suggest that we get rid of it and treat aboriginals as the full citizens that they are.

Griz · October 2, 2009

It's just an example of how brainwashed and dumb the right-wing element are...what do you expect--he's from Calgary aint he?

kimmy · October 2, 2009

As August points out, it's an accurate statement, and trying to spin it as a gaffe will work only with shrieking crybabies who'd never vote for Harper anyway.

-k

scribblet · October 2, 2009

It sure is an accurate statement and is amazing how someone could actually try and spin it otherwise :lol: :lol:

Keepitsimple · October 2, 2009

Amazing how the wingnuts come out of the woodwork. Haper made a very accurate statement......Canada has never tried to "colonize" other areas of the world.....except maybe when there was tongue-in-cheek speculation that Canada might try to buy the Turks and Caicos.

xul · October 2, 2009

As August points out, it's an accurate statement

His statement is more "accurate" than Harper's.....

not just the natives of North America but anyone else here at the time was colonized by the British.

If Obama had 10% smartiness like this, he would change the name of U.S.A. to D.P.R.A. or something and issue some of this D.P.R.A passports to some immigrants named Zhangs, Yamamotos and Abdullahs, and then he would have no need to pay any USA's debts. :lol:

charter.rights · October 2, 2009

Amazing how the wingnuts come out of the woodwork. Haper made a very accurate statement......Canada has never tried to "colonize" other areas of the world.....except maybe when there was tongue-in-cheek speculation that Canada might try to buy the Turks and Caicos.

Canada continues to try to colonize First Nations through policies of assimilation, obstruction and cultural genocide. Harper's statement was fully inaccurate.

M.Dancer · October 2, 2009

I find the outrage over his statement to be purely tripe.

I could not care less about it.

Jerry J. Fortin · October 2, 2009

Yeah thats right, I heard just the other day that there were millions of citizens lining up to get into the reserves.

Topaz · October 2, 2009

Maybe his son, Ben can set him straight and also bring them a little closer and debate this. I wonder if kids of politicians feel embarrassed by their parents?

fellowtraveller · October 2, 2009

what do you expect--he's from Calgary aint he?

wrong again, he is born and raised in Toronto the Great.

ToadBrother · October 2, 2009

Amazing how the wingnuts come out of the woodwork. Haper made a very accurate statement......Canada has never tried to "colonize" other areas of the world.....except maybe when there was tongue-in-cheek speculation that Canada might try to buy the Turks and Caicos.

I tend to agree with this. Canada no more was a colonial power than the Bahamas. It would be a rather bizarre interpretation of colonialism to consider the acquisition of other parts of British North America up to and including Newfoundland as being a colonial project. It was more the British, for various reasons after 1867 wanting to reduce the requirements of direct administration of a number of its larger possessions, and finally to relinquish any notion that those former colonies and Dominions were in fact possessions, after the end of the Empire.

Topaz · October 2, 2009

wrong again, he is born and raised in Toronto the Great.

To be fair, yes he was born in TO but they moved out west when he was 21, after dropping out of school. So he's spent most of his life out west.

g_bambino · October 2, 2009

heck, the Queen of England is still our Head of State.

As usual, your beliefs are incorrect; but, I at least admire the strength with which you adhere to them. It must be difficult to constantly filter out the facts in favour of your wacky take on the world.

g_bambino · October 2, 2009

It would be a rather bizarre interpretation of colonialism to consider the acquisition of other parts of British North America up to and including Newfoundland as being a colonial project. It was more the British, for various reasons after 1867 wanting to reduce the requirements of direct administration of a number of its larger possessions, and finally to relinquish any notion that those former colonies and Dominions were in fact possessions, after the end of the Empire.

This reads as quite accurate, and even as the Dominion was expanded, the lands it was absorbing were already under the sovereignty of the Crown since the Royal Proclamation of 1763; the biggest additions to the geo-political entity of Canada came out of Rupert's Land, which had been property of the Hudson's Bay Company, which itself had been founded by a Royal Charter from King Charles II.

Mr.Canada · October 2, 2009

Ok great lets scrap the Indian Act and treat Natives the same way the rest of Canadians are treated. No special treatment, no tax breaks, no free higher education, no more free land on reserves. Everyone will be equal. Deal?

Alta4ever · October 2, 2009

As usual, your beliefs are incorrect; but, I at least admire the strength with which you adhere to them. It must be difficult to constantly filter out the facts in favour of your wacky take on the world.

So who is the Head of Sate for Canada if it isn't Elizabeth II?

Wake up the real world beckons.

fellowtraveller · October 2, 2009

To be fair, yes he was born in TO but they moved out west when he was 21, after dropping out of school. So he's spent most of his life out west.

To be accurate, he is not from Calgary or the West at all, having been born and raised in Toronto, living there until age 21.

To be more accurate, he currently resides in Ottawa and has done so pretty much full time since 1993, with a four year break which he spent much of in Toronto.

Out of 50 years, he has spent around 35 of them living in Ontario.

Please enlighten me how that works out to 'most of his life out west'?

(I know it is easier to hate and stereotype him if you think he is an Albertan, but you have to arm yourself with at least one fact.)

Edited October 2, 2009 by fellowtraveller

ToadBrother · October 2, 2009

Ok great lets scrap the Indian Act and treat Natives the same way the rest of Canadians are treated. No special treatment, no tax breaks, no free higher education, no more free land on reserves. Everyone will be equal. Deal?

Um, there's these two constitutional documents know as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Constitution Act, 1982, which mean even if you dispensed with the Indian Act, you would still be bound by law to give special status to the native peoples of Canada.

Where did you go to school? In your living room?

ToadBrother · October 2, 2009

So who is the Head of Sate for Canada if it isn't Elizabeth II?
Wake up the real world beckons.

I think what you got wrong was the "Queen of England" part. There actually hasn't been a King or Queen of England since 1707, when Scotland and England merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain (or, as it is often called, the United Kingdom). Also, to Canada, she is in fact the Queen of Canada, and her titles elsewhere have no legal significance here.

Do I get extra points for being doubly pedantic! :-)

Alta4ever · October 2, 2009

I think what you got wrong was the "Queen of England" part. There actually hasn't been a King or Queen of England since 1707, when Scotland and England merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain (or, as it is often called, the United Kingdom). Also, to Canada, she is in fact the Queen of Canada, and her titles elsewhere have no legal significance here.
Do I get extra points for being doubly pedantic! :-)

Sure!

scribblet · October 2, 2009

To be fair, yes he was born in TO but they moved out west when he was 21, after dropping out of school. So he's spent most of his life out west.

Dropping out of school - really - you do know he has a master's degree in economcs and taught at university ?

Mr.Canada · October 2, 2009

Hold on. I thought the Indian Act reminded everyone of the bad "supposed" colonial Canada. Which is it?

So you want the Natives to have special treatment yet you also want to bash the government that provides the special treatment.

Hrm, some dubious double standards I'd say.

The government of Canada is just awful in the way it treats its aboriginals. Tax free living, free housing, free land, free monthly support, free University.

I'm sure many Canadians wish they were mistreated like that.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Mr.Canada

ToadBrother · October 2, 2009

Hold on. I thought the Indian Act reminded everyone of the bad "supposed" colonial Canada. Which is it?
So you want the Natives to have special treatment yet you also want to bash the government that provides the special treatment.

Hrm, some dubious double standards I'd say.

It's sometimes hard to tell whether your trying to be funny, or whether you really are incapable of reading for comprehension.

Constitutionally, Canada is bound to give special status to the native peoples within its borders. The chief document was King George III's Royal Proclamation of 1763, which made very clear that they had to be dealt with as sovereign nations, and that the Crown was to act as their protector. Not only that, but their rights are also enshrined in the Constitution.

What this means is that tossing out the Indian Act doesn't somehow magically make them the same. It means that Parliament would have to replace it with something else, or the native peoples could go to the courts and ultimately Parliament would be forced to create something along the same lines.

Maybe you were asleep (or possibly not born yet, judging by the quality of your posts), but there was this little thing called the Delgamuukw Decision which spelled out very clearly the history of Indian title. About the only thing that could change this would be a constitutional amendment, and any constitutional amendments for anything in the near to medium future is so extraordinarily unlikely that I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.