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

[Michael Hardner]

Because it wouldn't change the facts. I can say I'm Charlemagne all I want; won't make it true.

Are you saying calling yourself Charlemagne is the same as calling yourself Mohawk, for example ?

[Smallc]

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.

You don't seem to be understanding. They are me, that's the point. It's not their people, it's our people.

[g_bambino]

Are you saying calling yourself Charlemagne is the same as calling yourself Mohawk, for example ?

No. It's the same as a Mohawk person in Canada claiming he's not Canadian.

[g_bambino]

It's not their people, it's our people.

Well, yes and no. We are all our people, but you have to admit that the whole is comprised of smaller groups, often overlapping. Newfoundlanders, Inuit, Cree, Franco-Ontarians, Mennonites; each are distinct groups, though they have no discernable boundaries and are all commonly Canadian.

[Michael Hardner]

You don't seem to be understanding. They are me, that's the point. It's not their people, it's our people.

Well, they don't agree with you. I'm not sure what you think this semantic re-imagining will do for the problem anyway - do you think that if you explain this to FN people they will stop protesting ?

[Michael Hardner]

No. It's the same as a Mohawk person in Canada claiming he's not Canadian.

Right. Well, you seem to think I'm arguing whether that is in fact the case. I'm not. I don't care.

My point, which I made to smallc:

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.

[TimG]

I'm not sure what you think this semantic re-imagining will do for the problem anyway - do you think that if you explain this to FN people they will stop protesting ?

They are not going to stop protesting because their expectations have no connection to reality. There is no much the rest of can do about it. Edited January 7, 2013 by TimG

[Smallc]

Well, yes and no. We are all our people, but you have to admit that the whole is comprised of smaller groups, often overlapping. Newfoundlanders, Inuit, Cree, Franco-Ontarians, Mennonites; each are distinct groups, though they have no discernable boundaries and are all commonly Canadian.

But those groups are rather irrelevant under the law, except for one case - aboriginals. I understand the historical reason for the legal difference, but I don't understand it's relevance today, and really can't support it. I have no problem with people having cultural groups. I have a problem with those groups changing their status and opportunity.

Well, they don't agree with you.

There is no they. I'm not sure what you're not getting here. They are Canadians. It doesn't really matter what they think about it.

[Michael Hardner]

They are not going to stop protesting because their expectations have no connection to reality. There is no much the rest of can do about it.

They may end up making more impact on how their own leadership responds then how the government of Canada responds.

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou seem to think I'm arguing whether that is in fact the case.

You may not be, but, in response to smallc, you raised the observation that some do believe First Nations are not Canadian, as though their opinions proved smallc wrong. In fact, they're wrong and it seems obvious that such will have to be addressed before movement can be made towards resolutions. Otherwise, efforts will be wasted on, among other things, the rescuing from the evil Harperbot of a mythical First Nations sovereignty that doesn't exist.

[g_bambino]

But those groups are rather irrelevant under the law, except for one case - aboriginals. I understand the historical reason for the legal difference, but I don't understand it's relevance today, and really can't support it.

Well, Francophones and Catholics have certain special provisions in the law, too. I have little concern over that fact, and less over the constitutional rights of aboriginal people; the treaties are contracts between original and newer inhabitants. (Which is not to say I wholeheartedly support the way the treaty obligations are interpreted or exercised, or that certain arrangements should be free from scrutiny and updating.)

[Canuckistani]

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 .

Tell that to the Indigenous Peoples

[Canuckistani]

Well, yes and no. We are all our people, but you have to admit that the whole is comprised of smaller groups, often overlapping. Newfoundlanders, Inuit, Cree, Franco-Ontarians, Mennonites; each are distinct groups, though they have no discernable boundaries and are all commonly Canadian.

Newfoundland-Canadian, Franco-Ontario-Canadian, Mennonite-Canadian, Inuit-Canadian, Cree-Canadian, Quebecois-Canadian. In fact if the PQ has their way, the Cree "Nation" has said the would secede and stay with Canada.

If the FN"s are sovereign nations, I say we stop foreign aid tomorrow. There are countries that would be much more grateful for it than the FN's.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Smallc]

Well, Francophones and Catholics have certain special provisions in the law, too.

I don't agree with the Catholic provisions, and the rights for Francophones mostly relate to language. I don't agree with differences under the law.

[Smallc]

Newfoundland-Canadian, Franco-Ontario-Canadian, Mennonite-Canadian, Inuit-Canadian, Cree-Canadian, Quebecois-Canadian.

Exactly. We all have the same Crown and country.

[TimG]

I don't agree with the Catholic provisions, and the rights for Francophones mostly relate to language. I don't agree with differences under the law.

Most people recognize the Catholic provisions are a historical relic and only survive because they don't cause that many problems. Catholics do not argue that they are morally entitled to separate schools - they see it as a historical privilege that they would like to keep. That should be how treaties are viewed - except natives seem to think that they treaties are morally justifiable today when they are not. They are historical relics. Edited January 7, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You may not be, but, in response to smallc, you raised the observation that some do believe First Nations are not Canadian, as though their opinions proved smallc wrong.

You're missing it. There's no 'correct' answer to identity.

In fact, they're wrong and it seems obvious that such will have to be addressed before movement can be made towards resolutions.

Addressed how ? You will never convince people to adopt another identity - so why even bring it up.

[Michael Hardner]

Tell that to the Indigenous Peoples

I don't think I need to - they're not the ones here saying that they have incorrect identities, others are saying it. In any case, arguing, enforcing or even discussing identities isn't going to make any difference. And all of this tough love I'm reading amounts to ignoring the protests and keeping the status quo anyway.

[Smallc]

You're missing it. There's no 'correct' answer to identity.

Yeah, actually, there is.

[Smallc]

I don't think I need to - they're not the ones here saying that they have incorrect identities, others are saying it.

Many of them are though, living in the dream castle.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah, actually, there is.

No, it's your concept of yourself. Nobody can change your mind about who you are if you believe it.

Many of them are though, living in the dream castle.

Simpson made some suggestions in his column, though.

Of course, there are some communities that offer the antithesis of dependency. They benefit from participating directly in the exploitation of natural resources near their communities, which should be the driving thrust of all public policy.

These communities have decided collectively to integrate to varying degrees with the majority cultures, to form business arrangements (where possible) in a vital attempt to create own-source revenues that will dilute or end the spirals of dependency.

[TimG]

No, it's your concept of yourself. Nobody can change your mind about who you are if you believe it.

You are making the 'freeman' argument. i.e. the claim that one does believe that one is governed by the laws of a country then one can ignore them. Of course, freemen are delusional and the courts do not take their arguments seriously.

[Michael Hardner]

You are making the 'freeman' argument. i.e. the claim that one does believe that one is governed by the laws of a country then one can ignore them. Of course, freemen are delusional and the courts do not take their arguments seriously.

No I am not making that argument. One ignores the law at one's own peril.

[TimG]

No I am not making that argument. One ignores the law at one's own peril.

Legally natives are Canadian citizens no matter what they would like to believe.

[Michael Hardner]

Legally natives are Canadian citizens no matter what they would like to believe.

Let's just keep agreeing with each other over and over again then.

In the end, there are protests happening and the challenge to Harper is how to respond. He already caved in, so the only question is how much more will he do so ?