Jump to content

Native chief over 20 days in hunger strike to protest Budget Bill


Eyrie

Recommended Posts

If that is the case then you opted not to provide the context to ensure that this audience was informed.
So where was the context explaining that the changes to rules regarding bands signing deals were optional and designed to reduce red tape imposed by the indian act? where was the context explaining that total funding to reserves has increased since the conservatives formed government? where was the context explaining that the changes to waterways protection simply eliminated overlap between provinces and the feds and that it is now up to the provincial government to set rules?

Your complaints are pretty silly given the number of times that context is completely omitted by the 'rent-a-protester' crowd that endlessly criticizes the government.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No process can fix a system where one of the parties is acting in bad faith. When it comes to native issues I think that many natives have constructed a fantasyland which makes it impossible for them to work constructively with governments to solve immediate problems.

It's not two parties, though, it's two peoples with two sets of leaders. "Many" natives is a meaningless term. We have heard that "many" Canadians are making racist statements - time to cut through all of this and start again.

If you don't think the process should be fixed then offer another alternative.

Edited: No - it's actually several groups - all with different agendas and requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that there was no context. I was simply responding to what you said that Canwest claimed. You provided no link and you provided no context. Maybe Canwest did provide the context to ensure that their audience was informed. If that is the case then you opted not to provide the context to ensure that this audience was informed.

You certainly did say there was no context provided by the Global reporter; you determined none was given so viewers could be "incited": "The comment that they together earn 6 figures without any context is designed to incite, not inform people." Note: not if the comment was made without context... it was meant to incite; simply: it was without context so as to incite.

I said the statement was made on television, so there's no link to give you; and I raised it only because you insinuated Sun media could not be trusted, since it's main purpose is to incite racism and senseless anger; in other words, I demonstrated there are other, less partisan (or, at least less right-wing) media outlets also mentioning Spence's salary in their reports. Of course, your response so far has been to merely paint Global with the same brush with which you coated Sun media and deviate with an inane debate about context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where was the context explaining that the changes to rules regarding bands signing deals were optional and designed to reduce red tape imposed by the indian act? where was the context explaining that total funding to reserves has increased since the conservatives formed government? where was the context explaining that the changes to waterways protection simply eliminated overlap between provinces and the feds and that it is now up to the provincial government to set rules?

Your complaints are pretty silly given the number of times that context is completely omitted by the 'rent-a-protester' crowd that endlessly criticizes the government.

Really? You think I should provide context for the statements of various protesters, and provide context for various things that are not being discussed in this topic at the moment, because I feel that context should be provided for statements that are actually being made in this topic? Brilliant. If you want to discuss those things and add the context then no one is stopping you. Nor would I say that providing said context is silly because there are other claims which are potentially related for which context has not been provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not two parties, though, it's two peoples with two sets of leaders.
Actually, that is the problem: it is not two peoples: it is one government and 600 or so bands with different leaders and different agendas. In some cases, there are disputes within a band that prevent agreement.
If you don't think the process should be fixed then offer another alternative.
There are no alternatives as long as native leadership is fixated on jurisdictional issues that have nothing to do with solving the problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You certainly did say there was no context provided by the Global reporter; you determined none was given so viewers could be "incited": "The comment that they together earn 6 figures without any context is designed to incite, not inform people." Note: not if the comment was made without context... it was meant to incite; simply: it was without context so as to incite.

I said the statement was made on television, so there's no link to give you; and I raised it only because you insinuated Sun media could not be trusted, since it's main purpose is to incite racism and senseless anger; in other words, I demonstrated there are other, less partisan (or, at least less right-wing) media outlets also mentioning Spence's salary in their reports. Of course, your response so far has been to merely paint Global with the same brush with which you coated Sun media and deviate with an inane debate about context.

This is not the same thing at all. I have stated that the Sun is reporting a salary for Spence's partner which is wrong, and they continue to do so knowing that it is incorrect. You made a comparison with Canwest giving a statement that you claim they made. If you were to say that Canwest made a statement that John F. Kennedy was still alive, I would say that their statement is wrong. If you then come back and say that Canwest actually said that "John F. Kennedy was still alive in 1962" and therefore I was wrong to say their statement was wrong, then I would say that is your fault because my response, which you requested, was based on assuming that your claim was accurate.

Your statement was that Canwest made a comparable statement to Sun Media. Now you claim that Canwest provided context for the statement, but at the same time use this example to show that Sun Media is not the only one inciting their viewers. A contradiction.

I wrote "at least, according to what you write." Indicating that my response was based on what you were claiming that Canwest said. Then I wrote "The comment that they together earn 6 figures without any context is designed to incite, not inform people." This does not mean that I am claiming that Canwest used no context, or even made any claim at all, but that I am basing my response to what you wrote. As I didn't watch the f'ing show I can not determine whether they used any context, or even whether they discussed Attawapiskat at all. I can only make the comment that if the comment you claim they made was made without context then it is designed to inflame not inform. If it was made with context, then it is you who decided to remove the context in order to either inflame or create a false equivalency between Sun Media and Canwest- and that is why I wrote "according to what you write."

Edited by Wayward Son
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that is the problem: it is not two peoples: it is one government and 600 or so bands with different leaders and different agendas. In some cases, there are disputes within a band that prevent agreement.

Yep. See my edit.

There are no alternatives as long as native leadership is fixated on jurisdictional issues that have nothing to do with solving the problems.

Think outside the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think outside the box.
Banished in 2000.

http://www.lssu.edu/...rchive/2000.php

Thinking Outside The Box - “Another overused phrase that unimaginative people use when they want to sound creative.”
There are no 'big bang' solutions. Progress will be incremental and incremental progress will not be noticed by the professional protester class so governments have to resign themselves to being unreasonably criticized. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, status quo it is then. Thanks for playing.

I don't think protesting and demanding more money is a serious attempt by native groups to change the status quo, give us more isn't change, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is enough money in the system if it was managed properly. So if they don't want to work to help themselves beyond demanding more why should we respect any of their requests? Personal responsibility, if you refuse to take any you are a failure, if you choose to blame the past in perpetuity you are a failure, other cultures have overcome just as much and worse. Unless you want to say that you are special and therefore can't overcome, I wouldn't say that though, that would be racist. We are all the same, my ancestors suffered centuries of occupation, racism, war, and yet with no apologies, no handouts, they survived. This guilt we feel about native treatment is really preventing us from doing what is needed, for their and our benefit its time to cut the cord, it's our paternalism that is causing these problems. Treat people like children and they will always be children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where this whole thing has gone off the rails, the idea that FNs are somehow outside of Canada.
This is the kind of stuff I am talking about when I say aboriginals are negotiating in bad faith because it makes absolutely no difference to an aboriginal trying to live in shoddy housing on a remote reserve that the PM pretends that their tiny village is a "nation". They need solutions - not symbolic posturing. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think protesting and demanding more money is a serious attempt by native groups to change the status quo, give us more isn't change, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is enough money in the system if it was managed properly.

So you're asking them to see the situation from another perspective ? They don't seem to be doing that. Any change requires compromise on both sides, IMO - what are you willing to change ?

This guilt we feel about native treatment is really preventing us from doing what is needed, for their and our benefit its time to cut the cord, it's our paternalism that is causing these problems. Treat people like children and they will always be children.

Again, it sounds like status quo. The tough love approach just won't fly - you should know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we're not all various groups. That's the real issue here.

I'm not sure what semantic angle you're playing here - but whatever the truth may be of your philosophical approach there are people who identify primarily with two camps - either Canadian or First Nations. Within those groups there are subgroups, subsubgroups and individuals. Some individuals are not happy with the status quo so they're participating in a grass roots protest movement. If you prefer to make no substantive changes to the way things are, then perhaps the protests will go away on their own, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it sounds like status quo. The tough love approach just won't fly - you should know that.

Actually, how do you know? It hasn't been tried. Yes we tried forced assimilation and putting them on reserves - that's not going to fly. But we could use a carrot and stick approach, offer assistance to any native that's willing to leave the reserves, while cutting funding for reserves. And one place we have to be very tough, IMO is this nonsense that dealings between natives and the govt of Canada are dealing between equals. I think the govt toyed with that because it was seen as a cheap sop to the natives, without any real meaning. But it goes to the heart of this country, or the question if it's a country at all, or a patchwork of sovereign "nations" who happen to occupy the space formerly called Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are people who identify primarily with two camps - either Canadian or First Nations.

Whether or not someone who was born and/or lived in Canada all or most of their life identifies themselves as First Nations and First Nations as "not Canadian" doesn't matter; that person is still Canadian; a subject of the Canadian Crown like all the rest of us, which is what smallc is alluding to (I believe). It's under that umbrella that different groups exist, two of which are aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what semantic angle you're playing here - but whatever the truth may be of your philosophical approach there are people who identify primarily with two camps - either Canadian or First Nations.

That's a pretty racist notion. There are only individuals and Canadians. There may be cultural and social groups, but those groups are all made up of equal people, or at least they should be. The laws should reflect that. That's what idle no more should be pushing for. The idea that people are different in the same country because of where their ancestors were born (and they are in the same country no matter if they choose to recognize it or not) is ridiculous. We are all equal people, and the laws should reflect that. To settle for anything else is really unreasonable.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, how do you know? It hasn't been tried.

I don't know. It's all conjecture but I just severely doubt it. This is Canada, and the pushback from liberals as well as protests would not be sustainable, and would eventually impact poll numbers for the Conservatives. The FN would have nothing to lose by protesting forever and waiting out the government. If violence occurred then the government would look even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether someone who was born and/or lived in Canada all or most of their life identifies First Nations as being "not Canadian" doesn't matter; that person is still Canadian. It's under that umbrella that different groups exist, two of which are aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

How can you say it doesn't matter ? Identity matters to most people - just look at the US vs Canada arguments that come from Canadians on here. If it matters politically, then it matters. There's no gain - political or otherwise - in stirring up issues of identity such as this IMO .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty racist notion. There are only individuals and Canadians. There may be cultural and social groups, but those groups are all made up of equal people, or at least they should be.

Ok, well above you said "We're not all various groups". So which is it ?

The laws should reflect that. That's what idle no more should be pushing for. The idea that people are different in the same country because of where their ancestors were born (and they are in the same country no matter if they choose to recognize it or not) is ridiculous. We are all equal people, and the laws should reflect that. To settle for anything else is really unreasonable.

Well, they're not you. They feel that their people have been taken advantage of, so what do you expect ? This is identity politics, so don't expect people to see things the same way, or even logically. And don't forget that word politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...