White People Can't Live Here - Six Nations Racism

[jacee]

Why do you make this claim? Another health card is going to arrive in the mail in the next few days (for me).

Good. You deserve one. It's your birthright as a Canadian.

And if you accept the benefits of being Canadian, you also accept the liabilities of the Crown in Canada - existing Aboriginal rights, for example.

.

Edited June 27, 2014 by jacee

[Bonam]

Well he has a point. I mean it SHOULD be clear to any sentient being why citizens of a country are forced to abide by the deals and commitments that nation has made in the past.

Unjust or harmful deals and agreements can and should be challenged, as that is the only way they will ever be modified or overturned. Change doesn't come from sitting around, doing nothing, and saying "the sovereign said so". Citizens in a democracy are not required to quietly acquiesce to all the actions of their governments, but are allowed to criticize and protest them, and in fact this is a key function in a democracy. Nor are citizens forced to abide by deals and agreements unless the government chooses to actively enforce them, which becomes increasingly untenable as the public perceptions of said deals and agreements shift.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Bonam

[dre]

Unjust or harmful deals and agreements can and should be challenged, as that is the only way they will ever be modified or overturned. Change doesn't come from sitting around, doing nothing, and saying "the sovereign said so". Citizens in a democracy are not required to quietly acquiesce to all the actions of their governments, but are allowed to criticize and protest them, and in fact this is a key function in a democracy. Nor are citizens forced to abide by deals and agreements unless the government chooses to actively enforce them, which becomes increasingly untenable as the public perceptions of said deals and agreements shift.

I dont disagree with any of that. But the suggestion that the treaties somehow carry less wait because Canadians alive today didnt personally sign them is as I said... dumb.

And the implementations of those treaties ARE being challenged. Both the government and the natives know they could be better for both sides, and we are working on renegotiating them by partially rolling them back... they get a bunch of their land back, and in return give up a bunch of perks we gave them (tax exempt status, etc).

IMO natives will eventually end up living on large swaths of self governed land that operate in much the same way provinces do and have the same degree of autonomy and the same status and obligations in the Federal system.

[cybercoma]

No I don't. I owe nothing to the sovereign and the sovereign owes nothing to me.

Nope.

No she isn't. She is a person. You are deluded.

I accept laws if they make sense and have value to society. Not due to a bizarre concept that I owe allegiance to someone based on birth.

You can't make agreements of behalf of people that aren't alive yet. That is insane.

I was born and live in Canada. Unlike the sovereign. Why don't you renounce your citizenship and go live in Britain? Better yet, North Korea where they have a much stronger concept of birth right. (Edit: to clarify, I do not think you should go live in Britain or North Korea if you do not want to, I was merely trying to demonstrate how ridiculous I find your suggestion that I should renounce my citizenship)

You're making an absolute fool of yourself here. You obviously have no idea how our government works.

You might want to start here and keep reading to bring yourself up to speed.

The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity and authority for all Canadians. Legislators, ministers, public services and members of the military and police all swear allegiance to The Queen. It is for this reason that all new Canadian citizens swear allegiance to The Queen of Canada. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in The Queen's name.

https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensroleinCanada.aspx

Edited June 27, 2014 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Well he has a point.

She.

[-1=e^ipi]

Well he has a point.

No she doesn't. You just think she does because you are both delusional in the same way. Much like creation scientists think other creation scientists make valid points.

I mean it SHOULD be clear to any sentient being why citizens of a country are forced to abide by the deals and commitments that nation has made in the past.

They are forced because the state wants to impose rule of law. That says nothing about the morality of the laws or if those laws are justified.

North Korea forces it's citizens to say nothing bad about the state, that doesn't mean the law is justified.

And this whole "I didnt sign anything!" argument, and the whole "who is WE" thing are really the dumbest contributions to this thread so far.

Still waiting for a definition of 'we'.

[-1=e^ipi]

Good. You deserve one. It's your birthright as a Canadian.

I do not 'deserve' one, neither does anyone else. The concept of birthright is nonsense.

And if you accept the benefits of being Canadian, you also accept the liabilities of the Crown in Canada - existing Aboriginal rights, for example.

Can you define what you mean by 'accept the benefits of being a Canadian'?

[-1=e^ipi]

You're making an absolute fool of yourself here. You obviously have no idea how our government works.

I understand how our government works. You are confusing understanding of how the government works with agreeing with your bizarre concepts of birthright, legality = morality and institutionalized racism.

[dre]

No she doesn't. You just think she does because you are both delusional in the same way. Much like creation scientists think other creation scientists make valid points.

ROFLMAO... Yeah because pointing out the fact that you dont have a basic understanding of how a nationstate operates is just like creationism! LOL.

They are forced because the state wants to impose rule of law.

Gosh... Ya think?

North Korea forces it's citizens to say nothing bad about the state, that doesn't mean the law is justified.

We arent talking about whether these laws are justified or not. We are talking your hilarious "I didnt sign it!", and "Who is we" distractions.

[-1=e^ipi]

ROFLMAO... Yeah because pointing out the fact that you dont have a basic understanding of how a nationstate operates is just like creationism! LOL.

How do I not understand how a nation-state operates?

We are talking your hilarious "I didnt sign it!", and "Who is we" distractions.

They aren't distractions. You institutionalized racism supporters keep making claims using 'we'. I keep asking you guys to clarify what you mean by 'we' but you refuse.

[dre]

How do I not understand how a nation-state operates?

They aren't distractions. You institutionalized racism supporters keep making claims using 'we'. I keep asking you guys to clarify what you mean by 'we' but you refuse.

If you understood how a nation-state operates you would understand who "WE" is in the context of existing treaties. Its really really simple... And I already did answer it and you ignored that.

And yet again you trott out this stupid claim of "institutionalized racism". We dont have treaties with the natives because of their race, we have treaties with them because they were in a position to negotiate for our right to use nearly a million square kilometers of land. Like I said, we would have the same treaties if that land had been occupied by people that were white... or flourescent green.

[-1=e^ipi]

If you understood how a nation-state operates you would understand who "WE" is in the context of existing treaties. Its really really simple... And I already did answer it and you ignored that.

So you still refuse to define 'WE'? Maybe I should give you a few options... Does it mean:

- White/European Colonists?

- White/European People?

- Canadians in the distant past?

- Canadians, past present and future?

- The people in this thread?

- Something else?

And yet again you trott out this stupid claim of "institutionalized racism". We dont have treaties with the natives because of their race, we have treaties with them because they were in a position to negotiate for our right to use nearly a million square kilometers of land. Like I said, we would have the same treaties if that land had been occupied by people that were white... or flourescent green.

Can you please justify how a group of people gain 'rights' over a million square kilometers of land based on where their ancestors are from in the first place? And is it possible to consistently apply this methodology to other groups of people to determine what lands their ancestors had rights over?

[GeraldR]

I'm a white guy but I can't tolerate the white bread take on this. First, recall that white guys made up the rules and they were so hot on the notion of racial purity that they rewrote them more than a few times. The main purpose of the rules was to create a barrier between First Nations and European people so that: 1) they were more easily prosthelytized (easy pickings for the church - note reserves were even granted to specific denominations), 2) there would be less chance of interbreeding with Europeans i.e. to preserve European racial purity 3) to keep the children of 'country wives' away from European society, 4) to keep 'Indians' from becoming over educated. The rules are based on two basic premises: 1) 'Indians' are an inferior race to whites, 2) women are inferior to men. To be sure the rules have a racist overtone, i.e. white racist, but the racist/misogynist white guys who made them have chosen not to change them (don't expect Harper to do it).

BTW: we whites in Canada made similar arrangements for orientals and blacks. Maybe I'm not surprised that there is no sense of shame.

Edited July 13, 2014 by GeraldR

[Smallc]

Things that were done in the past should not be perpetuated because of your sense of 'shame'.

[bush_cheney2004]

...To be sure the rules have a racist overtone, i.e. white racist, but the racist/misogynist white guys who made them have chosen not to change them (don't expect Harper to do it).

Yes....the native bands have learned this well from the Godly pure folk who ruled and practiced such things for hundreds of years.

[Accountability Now]

The Six Nations claim to not be part of Canada...show me their country on a map. Lets start there.

And your point proven once again with the Iroquois Nations in the world lacrosse championships. Doesn't look like they are a part of Canada here.

Haudenosaunee passports are issued by tribal officials, with many Iroquois using them as their travel documentation as a show of pride in their First Nations heritage and to exert their own sovereignty. However, the passports are not officially recognized by any government.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/iroquois-nationals-return-to-world-field-lacrosse-championships/article19525622/

[AngusThermopyle]

Actually given that only they acknowledge these passports and no one else it would appear that they are indeed a part of Canada. Gotta love it when someone posts something that demolishes their own argument. Nice work.

[Smallc]

Well if it makes them happy...

That's sarcasm btw.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Smallc

[Accountability Now]

Actually given that only they acknowledge these passports and no one else it would appear that they are indeed a part of Canada. Gotta love it when someone posts something that demolishes their own argument. Nice work.

Hey...I agree they are a part of Canada. They don't...which is what SmallC's point was and which this article shows.

[AngusThermopyle]

Oops! Sorry. I read the post quickly while I was burning some disc's and thought you were saying the play passports were proof of them being a separate country. Sorry again for that.

[Accountability Now]

Oops! Sorry. I read the post quickly while I was burning some disc's and thought you were saying the play passports were proof of them being a separate country. Sorry again for that.

No problem. I rememeber back in 2010 when they tried entering the UK with these passports and got rejected. Quite the scene.

[jacee]

Can/US Jay Treaty border crossing rights:

http://www.ptla.org/border-crossing-rights-jay-treaty

As Indigenous people say ...

"We didn't cross your border ... Your border crossed us!"

.

[Accountability Now]

"We didn't cross your border ... Your border crossed us!"

.

Or better yet, as the UK customs agent said "Nice try...now let's see your real passport!"

The Jay treaty is fine in the US and Canada but they still have to prove they are registered Indians before they gain entry.