Matt Henderson, A Great Teacher!

[GostHacked]

I just tried to put my hip boots on to wade through the excrement of that article.

The FN's were largely wiped out by smallpox and other diseases almost before a shot was fired. About 95% of them. Why are 5% of the people entitled to 100% of the land?

You forgot to include the fact of how they contracted smallpox from the European 'immigrants' who gave them the blankets contaminated with polio. Yeah kill most of them off and then complain that they have no right to the land. I think I see a pattern here.

[Michael Hardner]

You forgot to include the fact of how they contracted smallpox from the European 'immigrants' who gave them the blankets contaminated with polio. Yeah kill most of them off and then complain that they have no right to the land. I think I see a pattern here.

That story is actually contentious. It's not clear whether this event really happened as it has been related.

[jbg]

You forgot to include the fact of how they contracted smallpox from the European 'immigrants' who gave them the blankets contaminated with polio. Yeah kill most of them off and then complain that they have no right to the land. I think I see a pattern here.

That story is actually contentious. It's not clear whether this event really happened as it has been related.

From a well-researched book I read by Charles Mann, 1491 the evidence is that when DeSoto came to Florida around 1539 (or long before colonization of Canada or much of North America) some of his pigs and other animals escaped. Those animals rapidly spread diseases through the Americas (as well as the conquistadors of the Incas and Aztecs). Those epidemics fanned out through the two continents and gave the Spanish and English an already largely depopulated continent. To the extent not stripped of people, they populations were demoralized since leaders as well as average people were felled. The resulting chaos and weakness mad conquest easy. Similar processes occurred in Australia and New Zealand.

However, in Asia and Africa, the people, being joined by land mass to Europe, were largely resistant to European diseases. That is why colonization made much less of an impact in those areas. While European countries nominally "ruled" these areas, native practices and customs largely continued since logistically the Europeans could not defeat a largely intact local population.

While white man certainly did some horrible things such as breaking treaties and maybe, on rare occasions as GH suggests deliberately spreading disease, much of the damage appears to have occurred accidentally.

[GostHacked]

That story is actually contentious. It's not clear whether this event really happened as it has been related.

This goes back to the other point of, is history really being taught in schools. I recall being taught in school that WWII was started with an assassination. But that does not fully explain as to how it came to that breaking point. There is the saying that history is taught by the winners.The winners often leave out important information that would put them in a not so glorified light.

[Guest]

This goes back to the other point of, is history really being taught in schools. I recall being taught in school that WWII was started with an assassination. But that does not fully explain as to how it came to that breaking point. There is the saying that history is taught by the winners.The winners often leave out important information that would put them in a not so glorified light.

WWI, wasn't it?

[jbg]

This goes back to the other point of, is history really being taught in schools. I recall being taught in school that WWII was started with an assassination. But that does not fully explain as to how it came to that breaking point. There is the saying that history is taught by the winners.The winners often leave out important information that would put them in a not so glorified light.

Interesting that you raise that. Below is an excerpt from a course description (link) for a summer course at Brown University's (an Ivy League school in Providence, Rhode Island) designed for High School students aspiring to college education.

On the Wrong Side of History: Recalling America's Losers

• 
  
  Program: Summer Pre-College Courses
  
  
• 
  
  Length: Two Weeks
  
  

Course Description

History is told from the point of view of the winners, but the “losers” leave behind their marks. In this class, students will consider the arguments of Tories and others who opposed the American Revolution; the dimensions and dynamics of the pro-slavery debate in the antebellum North and South; the alternatives proposed for funding early radio and TV; the American pacifist movement in World War II; and a smattering of third parties, failed social movements, and other “outliers” along the roadside of U.S. history. Particularly illuminating in this present “partisan age,” these forgotten histories will illuminate the lively, and occasionally violent, contestations that have characterized U.S. political history.

This course is focused around two of the great problems in the writing of history: one, that reasonable and unreasonable people disagree, and those disagreements have had to be resolved, and two, that received history over-emphasizes the point of view “winners” of past disagreements, reasonable or not. For example, in the American Revolution, the combination of the a feeling of inevitability around American victory (particularly in American history classrooms), the near-total disappearance after the Revolution of domestic Tories, and the lack of inclusion of Tory writing in accounts of the debate, have rendered the anti-revolutionary American perspective obscure. Each class will proceed as a dialogue between warring political ideas.

**********************

Obviously, GH, I am saying you're making a good point.

The winners often leave out important information that would put them in a not so glorified light.

Yes, I quoted this part twice.

With WW I , I did read Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August. She described antebellum Europe as a "nest of crossed swords" or words to that effect. The assassination was the immediate trigger but according to the book, King Edward had, until his untimely death in 1910 been a rare facilitator or clam and sanity and that conflicts dating back to prior to the Congress of Vienna came back to life at that point. So you do have a point.

Edited February 9, 2013 by jbg

[GostHacked]

Interesting that you raise that. Below is an excerpt from a course description (link) for a summer course at Brown University's (an Ivy League school in Providence, Rhode Island) designed for High School students aspiring to college education.

On the Wrong Side of History: Recalling America's Losers

• 
  
  Program: Summer Pre-College Courses
  
  
• 
  
  Length: Two Weeks
  
  

Course Description

History is told from the point of view of the winners, but the “losers” leave behind their marks. In this class, students will consider the arguments of Tories and others who opposed the American Revolution; the dimensions and dynamics of the pro-slavery debate in the antebellum North and South; the alternatives proposed for funding early radio and TV; the American pacifist movement in World War II; and a smattering of third parties, failed social movements, and other “outliers” along the roadside of U.S. history. Particularly illuminating in this present “partisan age,” these forgotten histories will illuminate the lively, and occasionally violent, contestations that have characterized U.S. political history.

This course is focused around two of the great problems in the writing of history: one, that reasonable and unreasonable people disagree, and those disagreements have had to be resolved, and two, that received history over-emphasizes the point of view “winners” of past disagreements, reasonable or not. For example, in the American Revolution, the combination of the a feeling of inevitability around American victory (particularly in American history classrooms), the near-total disappearance after the Revolution of domestic Tories, and the lack of inclusion of Tory writing in accounts of the debate, have rendered the anti-revolutionary American perspective obscure. Each class will proceed as a dialogue between warring political ideas.

**********************

Obviously, GH, I am saying you're making a good point.

Yes, I quoted this part twice.

With WW I , I did read Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August. She described antebellum Europe as a "nest of crossed swords" or words to that effect. The assassination was the immediate trigger but according to the book, King Edward had, until his untimely death in 1910 been a rare facilitator or clam and sanity and that conflicts dating back to prior to the Congress of Vienna came back to life at that point. So you do have a point.

The real kicker is that this practice is still happening today. So you cannot believe the current version either.

[jbg]

The real kicker is that this practice is still happening today. So you cannot believe the current version either.

Then what can you believe? We weren't there when it happened.

[jacee]

Tim, critical thinking is what is needed and you are not showing that you understand that concept. you totally miss the point of the article. that to me is sad but indicitive of the major ignorance of a majority of the population of this country.

Not a majority, socialist.

A minority, perhaps powerful, who have a financial stake in denying Aboriginal and treaty rights to land, resource revenues, etc.

No rational or legal argument matters to them.

They're pre-programmed by greed.

Don't waste your time.

[TimG]

A minority, perhaps powerful, who have a financial stake in denying Aboriginal and treaty rights to land, resource revenues, etc.

You know I am getting really sick of people like you that seek to vilify people you disagree with instead of trying to understand why they believe what they believe. The fact is many people in this country find the idea that any group deserves to have special rights offensive. You can lecture them as much as you want about treaties and legal requirements but that does not change the fact that people think that special rights for natives are morally offensive and should be ended and/or reduced in scope no matter what the law may say on the topic. This moral perspective is no less worthy than your moral assertion that natives are entitled to those rights because 'their ancestors were here first'.

Of course, it is obviously too difficult for you to understand moral perspectives that you disagree with and it is much easier for you to label such people as 'greedy' so you can give yourself an excuse to refuse to consider their views.

Edited February 11, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

You know I am getting really sick of people like you that seek to vilify people you disagree with instead of trying to understand why they believe what they believe. The fact is many people in this country find the idea that any group deserves to have special rights offensive. You can lecture them as much as you want about treaties and legal requirements but that does not change the fact that people think that special rights for natives are morally offensive and should be ended and/or reduced in scope no matter what the law may say on the topic. This moral perspective is no less worthy than your moral assertion that natives are entitled to those rights because 'their ancestors were here first'.

Of course, it is obviously too difficult for you to understand moral perspectives that you disagree with and it is much easier for you to label such people as 'greedy' so you can give yourself an excuse to refuse to consider their views.

Aboriginal and treaty rights exist in Canada.

Love it or leave it.

[TimG]

Aboriginal and treaty rights exist in Canada.

Just because something is legal that does not make it moral. Aboriginal rights are a racist relic from a feudal society that has no place in our multicultural society today.

Love it or leave it.

Freedom of speech is my right. I am free to tell people like you that you are full of yourself and wallowing in your own ignorance if you think opposition to native claims is based on greed. If anything - the greedy people are the aboriginal activists that think they are entitled to an endless stream of cash from people who actually work because they have "special" DNA.

[jacee]

Just because something is legal that does not make it moral. Aboriginal rights are a racist relic from a feudal society that has no place in our multicultural society today.

Freedom of speech is my right. I am free to tell people like you that you are full of yourself and wallowing in your own ignorance if you think opposition to native claims is based on greed. If anything - the greedy people are the aboriginal activists that think they are entitled to an endless stream of cash from people who actually work because they have "special" DNA.

Canada is what it is ...

And what it is, is a country founded on treaties with Indigenous Nations.

As for what is moral or immoral ...

Would you say it is 'moral' to make agreements in bad faith? Ie, with no intent to keep the agreements?

Is it 'moral' to try to destroy people because of their DNA, to avoid honouring the agreements?

Edited February 11, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

And what it is, is a country founded on treaties with Indigenous Nations.

Except those treaties have been constantly re-interpreted to suit the times. The discussion we are having now is now they should be interpreted today. The view that you seem to take is nonsensical and leads to a country that cannot be governed. The courts have taken a much more measured POV which you seem to ignore in your rush to jump on the 'lefty victim of the week' bandwagon.

[jacee]

Except those treaties have been constantly re-interpreted to suit the times. The discussion we are having now is now they should be interpreted today. The view that you seem to take is nonsensical and leads to a country that cannot be governed. The courts have taken a much more measured POV…

I'm fine with what the courts are saying.

Glad you are too.

Guess we agree.

So what's your 'moral' issue?

Eta ... your arguments would have more credibility without the personal attacks.

Edited February 11, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

Eta ... your arguments would have more credibility without the personal attacks.

You are the one who started by saying people you disagree with your extreme interpretations are doing so because of greed.

[westguy]

isn't a hundred years or more of financial support payment enough?

[jacee]

isn't a hundred years or more of financial support payment enough?

No. Doesn't even cover the interest on trust funds owing, in most cases.

What about the financial support for your municipality?

Isn't it "payment enough" by now?

You still sucking tax dollars from the rest of us who don't live there?

Edited February 11, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

You are the one who started by saying people you disagree with your extreme interpretations are doing so because of greed.

That's where the 'license to defame' originates.

My "extreme interpretations" are the Supreme Court rulings.

Isn't that what you said?

[TimG]

My "extreme interpretations" are the Supreme Court rulings.

Actually, your opinions are not supported by the SCC rulings. The SCC rules are much more ambiguous than you claim and where they are unambiguous they directly contradict you (i.e. Delgamuukw makes it clear that there is no blanket veto over development granted to aboriginals). Edited February 11, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Actually, your opinions are not supported by the SCC rulings. The SCC rules are much more ambiguous than you claim and where they are unambiguous they directly contradict you (i.e. Delgamuukw makes it clear that there is no blanket veto over development granted to aboriginals).

What "opinions" of mine are you referring to?

Please cite.

[ironstone]

It takes the words of a great teacher, this one in manitoba to tell the truth about the idle no more opposition. we can't let racists have an open forum to spew their garbage. but i guess it does make them look stupid so maybe its not so bad afterall. for all the teacher bashers out there here is a great article written by someone who truly cares. teachers care.

http://www.winnipegf...-187569391.html

Some teachers do actually care about their students,but too many teachers care only about themselves it seems.Look at the actions of the teachers unions in Ontario.

[ironstone]

history is going by the wayside, thankfully, and it is more important to teach sustainable development in social studies classes. we need to teach real history such as the treaties, and every kid in this country should know how the residential schools have and continue to hurt people all because of imperalists.

How come you guys on the left never use the word "sustainable" when it comes to spending outpacing revenue levels?

[cybercoma]

How come you guys on the left never use the word "sustainable" when it comes to spending outpacing revenue levels?

Actually they do. It's the guys on the right that spend beyond their means by cutting their revenues and not being able to pay for stuff.

[ironstone]

Actually they do. It's the guys on the right that spend beyond their means by cutting their revenues and not being able to pay for stuff.

By cutting their revenues.....you must mean cutting taxes.Spending is never cut is it?