Racism on the reserve

[Moonbox]

I'm not defending Mr. Canada. It's embarrassing to read most of his posts. I'm just raising an eyebrow at the assertion that he posts to raise his self esteem, especially after criticizing him for playing the ad-hominem game etc.

If he was posting for his self-esteem, I doubt he'd be around anymore.

To get back on topic, I think your signature is hilarious and absolutely, totally, and completely rubbish.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

Narcissists hang out where they are not wanted, most the time. So his low self-esteem feeds into his "isms"

[Moonbox]

Narcissists hang out where they are not wanted, most the time. So his low self-esteem feeds into his "isms"

Interesting. I didn't know that.

Narcissists, however, have high self esteem.

[charter.rights]

Interesting. I didn't know that.

Narcissists, however, have high self esteem.

Narcissists are over compensating for their low self-esteem. It is the mask they wear.

[Moonbox]

Nice. Now we're into psychology.

[Hydraboss]

Narcissists are over compensating for their low self-esteem. It is the mask they wear.

nar·cis·sism (närs-szm) also nar·cism (-szm)

n.

1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.

2. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

3. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.

4. The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits

Have you ever been right about ANYTHING? At all?

First you try to push your b.s. about a bunch of indians and their supposed rights to the entire world, and now you try to change the definition of a psychology term. Mr. Canada's posts definitely leave a lot to be desired, but he's hardly suffering from low self esteem. He may not be in your class of self-proclaimed "experts", but you hardly have the moral cash to pay the bills let alone judge others.

[Hydraboss]

Legally all land in Canada belongs to Canadians. Six Nations can stay on the land we let them live on out of the goodness of our hearts.

They can fish and hunt without a use permit.

I think I found you a new signature.

[kimmy]

To get back on topic, I think your signature is hilarious and absolutely, totally, and completely rubbish.

His boycott of the Olympics was such a success that he's had a hard time figuring out where to go next

-k

[charter.rights]

His boycott of the Olympics was such a success that he's had a hard time figuring out where to go next

-k

Actually it was a success. It made international news.

[charter.rights]

Have you ever been right about ANYTHING? At all?

First you try to push your b.s. about a bunch of indians and their supposed rights to the entire world, and now you try to change the definition of a psychology term. Mr. Canada's posts definitely leave a lot to be desired, but he's hardly suffering from low self esteem. He may not be in your class of self-proclaimed "experts", but you hardly have the moral cash to pay the bills let alone judge others.

Yep. I'm still right about narcissism. There is a difference between a definition and the causation of a condition. If you knew the difference you wouldn't have posted the definition and made yourself look foolish.

[charter.rights]

Legally all land in Canada belongs to Canadians. Six Nations can stay on the land we let them live on out of the goodness of our hearts.

They can fish and hunt without a use permit.

I think I found you a new signature.

I prefer mine because it is the truth and not some made up myth to justify genocide.

[Mr.Canada]

I prefer mine because it is the truth and not some made up myth to justify genocide.

If they want it, why not an all out civil war then. Canadian military vs the Six nations. No of course they wouldn't do that, that would take courage, which they don't have. Plus they are far too sucessful doing wehat they do now. Illegal protests and land seizures then when people ask why, they lay this 3 hundred year old guilt trip on us. White Liberal guilt takes over. Sad that we give into these terrorists when we should just conquer them once and for all.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Shwa]

If they want it, why not an all out civil war then. Canadian military vs the Six nations. No of course they wouldn't do that, that would take courage, which they don't have. Plus they are far too sucessful doing wehat they do now. Illegal protests and land seizures then when people ask why, they lay this 3 hundred year old guilt trip on us. White Liberal guilt takes over. Sad that we give into these terrorists when we should just conquer them once and for all.

Then why don't you hussle your butt down to the rez and tell them that? Wait, I know why - because that would take courage which you don't have.

[charter.rights]

If they want it, why not an all out civil war then. Canadian military vs the Six nations. No of course they wouldn't do that, that would take courage, which they don't have. Plus they are far too sucessful doing wehat they do now. Illegal protests and land seizures then when people ask why, they lay this 3 hundred year old guilt trip on us. White Liberal guilt takes over. Sad that we give into these terrorists when we should just conquer them once and for all.

Why would they want to fight their Royal allies?

Protests (democracy) and land reclamations (constructive trust) are totally lawful. The real terrorists are those who do not comply with the law and consult, negotiate, accommodate and reconcile as required under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms...and those like you who support the lawbreakers.

[Moonbox]

If they want it, why not an all out civil war then. Canadian military vs the Six nations. No of course they wouldn't do that, that would take courage, which they don't have. Plus they are far too sucessful doing wehat they do now. Illegal protests and land seizures then when people ask why, they lay this 3 hundred year old guilt trip on us. White Liberal guilt takes over. Sad that we give into these terrorists when we should just conquer them once and for all.

It's embarrassing to read your posts. It makes it really hard to argue with Shwa or CR when they can score such easy points on your stupidity.

[blueblood]

It's embarrassing to read your posts. It makes it really hard to argue with Shwa or CR when they can score such easy points on your stupidity.

Welcome to my hell...

[Moonbox]

Yep. I'm still right about narcissism. There is a difference between a definition and the causation of a condition. If you knew the difference you wouldn't have posted the definition and made yourself look foolish.

Low self-esteem is the causation of narcissism? First off, it's not that simple. Second, causation wasn't really the word you were looking for. I doubt very much from this post that you know anything about psychology.

I prefer mine because it is the truth and not some made up myth to justify genocide.

The problem with your truth is that it's not actually reality. North America was subjugated by Europeans hundreds of years ago in case you didn't know. That was the end of the First Nations as such. That's reality. The Treaties you often bleat about were written long before myself or my parents or even my grandparents were born. They were written long before millions of immigrants came to Canada. Eventually, sovereignty passes to the actual inhabitants of the land. The First Nations have no more claim to the land I live on than do the Greeks have on Turkey.

Land is owned by the people who live on it. Even if it was taken in the past, the lines that make that distinction eventually blurr and disappear.

[DogOnPorch]

Well said, Moonbox.

[Shwa]

Land is owned by the people who live on it.

Do you own the the land that you live on? If so, show me the articles that give you legal ownership of that land. Please cite Canadian jurisprudence since that differs from that of the US.

[eyeball]

Land is owned by the people who live on it. Even if it was taken in the past, the lines that make that distinction eventually blurr and disappear.

Well, there's no doubt where the lines are in the present in the wake of treaties that were finally signed in my region. If the population goes from the 50/50 native/non-native split that it is now to say 75/25 native/non-native or more in the future, I see little reason why the lines won't eventually blur and disappear again.

[charter.rights]

Low self-esteem is the causation of narcissism? First off, it's not that simple. Second, causation wasn't really the word you were looking for. I doubt very much from this post that you know anything about psychology.

The problem with your truth is that it's not actually reality. North America was subjugated by Europeans hundreds of years ago in case you didn't know. That was the end of the First Nations as such. That's reality. The Treaties you often bleat about were written long before myself or my parents or even my grandparents were born. They were written long before millions of immigrants came to Canada. Eventually, sovereignty passes to the actual inhabitants of the land. The First Nations have no more claim to the land I live on than do the Greeks have on Turkey.

Land is owned by the people who live on it. Even if it was taken in the past, the lines that make that distinction eventually blurr and disappear.

That is factually incorrect.

Six Nations has never surrendered, capitulated or been subjugated by the British or by Canada. Sames goes for most First Nations. While there are treaties they did not submit to the Crown but agreed to share the land for joint purposes. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly upheld the treaties...and mostly in favour of First Nations.

In 1757 the British recognized the territorial jurisdiction of Six Nations to what is now southern Ontario. The Royal Proclamation 1763 sealed the deal and there has never been a surrender of any of this land since.

The Ontario / Canadian title system is merely a "use permit" which allows us to use to a plows depth. However, we do not "own" land nor do we have "property rights". At any time the government, or a corporation with a special interest, can come and take your house and the land it sits on. While you might delay the process if you have a good lawyer, the inevitable consequence is that they will get your land and only pay you what they think it is worth.

[Moonbox]

Do you own the the land that you live on? If so, show me the articles that give you legal ownership of that land. Please cite Canadian jurisprudence since that differs from that of the US.

The French don't need a legal document to tell them they're in charge of France. Similarly Canadians don't need one to know they're in charge of Canada. The reality is that Canada is inhabited mostly with Canadians. We're the people who currently live here. The international community recognizes that we live here and we have jurisdiction within internationally recognized borders. THAT is what matters. The treaties scraps of paper that are spoken of here are irrelevant.

The First Nations were conquered and subjugated in less civilized times -- hundreds of years ago. Such things would not be allowed these days, but no sane court in the world would rule that an ancient scrap of paper projects more right or authority over a piece of land than generations of children, grandchildren and great grandchildren born and raised there.

To think otherwise is only fooling yourself. Feel free to if you must.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Moonbox

[M.Dancer]

The Royal Proclamation 1763 sealed the deal and there has never been a surrender of any of this land since.

Yes...good for all those who live under the protection of the crown

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection,

Whose lands...?

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

[Moonbox]

Six Nations has never surrendered, capitulated or been subjugated by the British or by Canada. Sames goes for most First Nations. While there are treaties they did not submit to the Crown but agreed to share the land for joint purposes. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly upheld the treaties...and mostly in favour of First Nations.

Mhmmm...then why is it that I live in Southern Ontario and don't pay taxes to Six nations?

The native populations in North America were pretty plainly subjugated. You need only look and see who occupies the vast majority of territory to see that. You can sugar-coat that all you want, but the Six Nations had the choice to ally themselves with the Crown or deal with the USA.

The Ontario / Canadian title system is merely a "use permit" which allows us to use to a plows depth. However, we do not "own" land nor do we have "property rights". At any time the government, or a corporation with a special interest, can come and take your house and the land it sits on. While you might delay the process if you have a good lawyer, the inevitable consequence is that they will get your land and only pay you what they think it is worth.

The fact that they have to pay suggests that the property is, for all extents and purposes, owned. You can call it whatever you want.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

The French don't need a legal document to tell them they're in charge of France. Similarly Canadians don't need one to know they're in charge of Canada. The reality is that Canada is inhabited mostly with Canadians. We're the people who currently live here. The international community recognizes that we live here and we have jurisdiction within internationally recognized borders. THAT is what matters. The treaties scraps of paper that are spoken of here are irrelevant.

The First Nations were conquered and subjugated in less civilized times -- hundreds of years ago. Such things would not be allowed these days, but no sane court in the world would rule that an ancient scrap of paper projects more right or authority over a piece of land than generations of children, grandchildren and great grandchildren born and raised there.

To think otherwise is only fooling yourself. Feel free to if you must.

You are out of touch with what is happening today in the courts.