White People Can't Live Here - Six Nations Racism

[Smallc]

It's Crown property. That's the point I've been making for pages that you've been ignoring....

The treaties are important no question, but they aren't helping aboriginal people at current. They were required for the use of the land btw, not the ownership.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Smallc

[dre]

It's a crazy arrangement that we created in 1763 they benefits no one at current.

It benefits us like crazy. We are currently removing billions of dollars worth of resources from land we aquired in those deals.

[Smallc]

It benefits us like crazy. We are currently removing billions of dollars worth of resources from land we aquired in those deals.

It certainly doesn't benefit aboriginals. We'd be doing that anyway also

[Smallc]

But I'm done with that point now. Like you said, no point in going for pages.

[jacee]

I want no part in what you want to build.

Good.

Most Canadians would agree fully with a society where all have equal status and rights.

Most Canadians believe that we should honour our treaties.

.

[Smallc]

Unless said treaties inconvenience them.

[jacee]

Unless said treaties inconvenience them.

There are those.

It wouldn't be a problem if we had upheld our part of the treaties from the beginning.

Nobody likes surprises ... but that's life!

.

[TimG]

But I dont see the point in going around and around in circles for another 10 pages. Its all moot. No constitutional amendment with the goal of stripping natives of their treaty rights will EVER be passed.

Not this generation which is dominated by the white progressive cult of victim and mobs screaming racism whenever such discussions are started. However, that will change when 30-50 years from now when Canada is run by a non-white, non-European majority. At that time the inherent incompatibility between the ideals of an egalitarian democracy and race based privileges will be much harder to rationalize. When this happens people will remember that the constitution can be changed and the only debate will be on how many rights to strip away. Edited June 24, 2014 by TimG

[dre]

Not this generation which is dominated by the white progressive cult of victim and mobs screaming racism whenever such discussions are started. However, that will change when 30-50 years from now when Canada is run by a non-white, non-European majority. At that time the inherent incompatibility between the ideals of an egalitarian democracy and race based privileges will be much harder to rationalize. When this happens people will remember that the constitution can be changed and the only debate will be on how many rights to strip away.

Again this has nothing to do with race. And I dont see any demographic trend towards people that dont believe the government should honor contracts they sign with other groups.

[Bonam]

Not this generation which is dominated by the white progressive cult of victim and mobs screaming racism whenever such discussions are started. However, that will change when 30-50 years from now when Canada is run by a non-white, non-European majority. At that time the inherent incompatibility between the ideals of an egalitarian democracy and race based privileges will be much harder to rationalize. When this happens people will remember that the constitution can be changed and the only debate will be on how many rights to strip away.

It won't be a matter of stripping rights away but simply expressing that all Canadians are equal under the law, regardless of their race or bloodline.

[Bonam]

Again this has nothing to do with race. And I dont see any demographic trend towards people that dont believe the government should honor contracts they sign with other groups.

You already admitted it has to do with heredity, that is, bloodlines. Whether you recognize people with aboriginal blood as a "race" or not is a matter of semantics only.

[jacee]

One of the major hot spots of confrontations between aboriginals and locals has been in Caledonia in Southern Ontario. An aboriginal group occupied a private development site and have been able to hang on to it for over 8 years as negotiations have been going on. They are also blockading streets on the periphery. The local municipal council has been caught between the province and the federal government, each pointing fingers at each other and nothing has been getting done.

Looks like things are coming to a head again with tempers starting to build and the municipality intending to physically regain some property on the outskirts.

http://www.simcoereformer.ca/2014/06/24/haldimand-plans-to-remove-barrier-at-douglas-creek-estate

It is going to be a long, hot summer down there.

Good grief!

Iif this wasn't so ridiculous and nasty, it would be hilarious!

Surrey St, Caledonia ... doesn't go anywhere except into the reclaimed site - former Douglas Creek Estates, now owned by the Province of Ontario.

http://goo.gl/maps/cGXDN

There is no way the town or county or any of their residents has any need for, or use for that street.

It's a gravel road on provincial land, about 2 small city blocks long.

Must be an election year!

I've got an election slogan for him:

Ken Hewitt ... On the road to nowhere!

Sometimes ya just gotta laugh!

UNbelievable!

.

[jacee]

I dont see what white guilt has to do with it. If I make a deal with a black person to trade his property for my promise of future payments, then I say to him "Im keeping your property but Im going to stop making the payments"... and the court finds I breached my contract... is that "White guilt"?

Even if the natives here happened to be white scandinavians it wouldnt make any difference. Its not about race its about breach of contract.

You make so much sense dre.

Thanks.

.

[dre]

You already admitted it has to do with heredity, that is, bloodlines. Whether you recognize people with aboriginal blood as a "race" or not is a matter of semantics only.

No its not.

Posts like the one Im replying to seem to suggest that this is about the natives themselves or guilt we feel over their plight. Its not... its about a deal we made to aquire millions of acres of realestate. Nobody forced us to sign those treaties.

[TimG]

If I make a deal with a black person to trade his property for my promise of future payments

Sure - but the government is entitled to tax the money the black person makes on the deal and when the person who signed the contract dies taxes are assessed on market value of the asset represented by the contract. If the contract placed in a trust the a deemed disposition occurs every 21 years and taxes must be paid.

In short, no one other than an aboriginal can enter into a contract, make a profit and not have the profits taxed back by the government over the generations. This lack of taxation is what make these race based privileges so onerous and it is frankly dishonest for you to pretend that they are remotely comparable to normal contract between parties.

Finally, if the government enters into a contract it can terminate it at any time and pay compensation that it, alone, deems to be fair. The only time that someone has a recourse to the courts is if the government does not bother to pass a special law indicating that the normal rules don't apply (i.e. there is no constitutional right to property in the charter). The fact that aboriginals alone have "contracts" that require constitutional amendments to repeal is a racist provision in itself.

Edited June 25, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

Sure - but the government is entitled to tax the money the black person makes on the deal and when the person who signed the contract dies taxes are assessed on market value of the asset represented by the contract. If the contract placed in a trust the a deemed disposition occurs every 21 years and taxes must be paid.In short, no one other than an aboriginal can enter into a contract, make a profit and not have the profits taxed back by the government over the generations. This lack of taxation is what make these race based privileges so onerous and it is frankly dishonest for you to pretend that they are remotely comparable to normal contract between parties.Lastly, if the government enters into a contract it can terminate it at any time and pay compensation that it, alone, deems to be fair. The only time that someone has a recourse to the courts is if the government does not bother to pass a special law indicating that the normal rules don't apply (i.e. there is no constitutional right to property in the charter).

Glad the government has better negotiators today. Maybe they should use them to get us out from under such an awful contract .

Edited June 25, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[TimG]

Glad the government has better negotiators today. Maybe they should use them to get us out from under such an awful contract .

Glad to see you concede that aboriginal privileges are not in the public interest. Fortunately, there is a process for correcting these problems. The only thing missing at this point is a willingness to use that process.

[Bob Macadoo]

Glad to see you concede that aboriginal privileges are not in the public interest. Fortunately, there is a process for correcting these problems. The only thing missing at this point is a willingness to use that process.

I'll put the sarcasm quotes up next time.

[Remiel]

There were some interesting thoughts on the importance of history to everyone here today that might be relevant to this discussion here in this article: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/05/slavery-reparations .

People often employ counterfactuals when making judgments about history: would the world have been better off if the Soviet Union had remained intact? If the British Empire had not ruled India? If the atom bomb had not been dropped on Hiroshima? And so forth. Indeed, ever since David Hume, philosophers have treated counterfactuals as a key element of the very concept of causality: "A causes C" means that without A, C would not be true. The notion that African-Americans are indebted to the slave trade because without it they would still be in Africa helps to clarify how one should and shouldn't use such counterfactuals.

There are any number of reasons why the statement makes little sense. For starters, if the slave trade had not existed, rather few of the people we refer to as "African-Americans" would have been born at all. The vast majority of today's African-Americans have some European or Native American ancestry. Even for African-Americans of pure sub-Saharan African ancestry, there is essentially no chance that their ancestors, who may have hailed from places as far apart as Senegal and Angola, would have met and had children in the same pattern if not for the slave trade. More to the point, it would be just as easy to claim that African-Americans are better off being born in America than they would have been in Syria. So what? One could also say "America owes Native Americans nothing, because they are better off being born in America than they would be had they been born in Africa." There is no alternative history that would lead to today's Native Americans being born in Africa, but there is no alternative history that would lead to today's African-Americans being born in Africa either.

But wait; the implications of this counterfactual don't stop just yet. Had the slave trade never existed, the whole course of world history would have been different, and that would undoubtedly have shaken things up enough that none of today's white Americans would have been born either. The chances of any particular couple meeting and having children, and the chances of any particular combination between egg and sperm occurring, are vanishingly small. Even a slight disturbance of the initial conditions a few centuries ago, let alone a massive one such as the absence of the slave trade, would result in a completely different set of people coming into existence. At this point it begins to look like our consideration of the counterfactual is proving too much. Perhaps it is enough to say that all counterfactuals set more than a century ago have no bearing on people who exist now.

After this point in the article he actually goes back and reexamines some of this in light of his other intuitions, but I would actual venture some of those intuitions are just wrong and that this here stands well on its own as an explanation on the importance of history.

[Big Guy]

Good grief!

Iif this wasn't so ridiculous and nasty, it would be hilarious!

Surrey St, Caledonia ... doesn't go anywhere except into the reclaimed site - former Douglas Creek Estates, now owned by the Province of Ontario.

http://goo.gl/maps/cGXDN

There is no way the town or county or any of their residents has any need for, or use for that street.

It's a gravel road on provincial land, about 2 small city blocks long.

Must be an election year!

I've got an election slogan for him:

Ken Hewitt ... On the road to nowhere!

Sometimes ya just gotta laugh!

UNbelievable!

.

I suggest that this is a live representation of the results of the arguments that I have read in this thread. I live in the area. For 8 years, the provincial government has claimed no jurisdiction but has made major moves citing concerns for stability. The OPP has been involved for 8 years often being caught in the middle of potential violence. The federal government has stated that this is a provincial matter. The province claims that this is a treaty problem and the mandate of the federal government.

All of the arguments presented in this thread have been tabled, discussed and nobody is making a decision.

Meanwhile, the community is being torn apart. Baseball, Hockey, Lacrosse and other youth sports leagues that had teams from the local community and the reserve to try to promote a sense of understanding and dialogue have deteriorated with teams defaulting and refusing to engage. The communications and interaction between the locals and the aboriginals is at an all time low with resentment and distrust on both sides.

THIS HAS BEEN IN LIMBO AND NEGOTIATIONS FOR 8 YEARS - 8 YEARS!

Neither the Provincial nor the Federal governments appear to be interested in a solution.

Unfortunately, this latest declaration by the municipality will reignite the problem.

It looks to me like no government officials will get involved until somebody gets killed. That may happen soon.

In fact I predict that a death will be required before any government begins to take this problem seriously.

[TimG]

THIS HAS BEEN IN LIMBO AND NEGOTIATIONS FOR 8 YEARS - 8 YEARS!

Largely because Six Nations is run by a bunch of delusional yahoos that don't have the power to negotiate a reasonable compromise that their own band members would not immediately repudiate.

[-1=e^ipi]

Not this generation which is dominated by the white progressive cult of victim and mobs screaming racism whenever such discussions are started. However, that will change when 30-50 years from now when Canada is run by a non-white, non-European majority. At that time the inherent incompatibility between the ideals of an egalitarian democracy and race based privileges will be much harder to rationalize. When this happens people will remember that the constitution can be changed and the only debate will be on how many rights to strip away.

This is so true. Liberal white-guilt nonsense cannot really work on people who are not white.

Posts like the one Im replying to seem to suggest that this is about the natives themselves or guilt we feel over their plight. Its not... its about a deal we made to aquire millions of acres of realestate.

You state-institutionalized racism apologists keep referring to 'we'.

Guess what? I didn't sign these 'deals', neither did my parents, or my grandparents, or my great grandparents, etc. Who is this 'we'? I often see people use it to refer to European Canadians, but what about everyone else? Where do Chinese Canadians fit into this for example?

[jacee]

Unfortunately, this latest declaration by the municipality will reignite the problem.

It looks to me like no government officials will get involved until somebody gets killed. That may happen soon.

In fact I predict that a death will be required before any government begins to take this problem seriously.

Catastrophizing isn't helpful.

Neither is the Mayor's jacked up election drama.

It's a piece of vacant land with a dead end road going nowhere.

Hardly a life threatening catastrophe.

.

[cybercoma]

After this point in the article he actually goes back and reexamines some of this in light of his other intuitions, but I would actual venture some of those intuitions are just wrong and that this here stands well on its own as an explanation on the importance of history.

Not really. His point is that the chances of people being who they are today is fairly slim. It's a non-argument. The chances of anyone being born at any time exactly as they are is such tiny probability that this argument falls into meaninglessness. He then, insultingly I might add, says slaves were better off born in America, which assumes that an alternate history of Africa would have had the same problems had institutionalized slavery and triangular trade not existed. That's a stretch at best, but really it's pure nationalist racism, which ignores the harsh realities of slavery and the subsequent racist laws, institutions, and social conditions that black people in North America have had to face. Everything looks wonderful when you can turn your head and ignore those things because you come from a class of a people that don't face the problems. But to deny what many black Americans say is their experience with racism is quite simply racist nonsense.

[jacee]

This is so true. Liberal white-guilt nonsense cannot really work on people who are not white.

You state-institutionalized racism apologists keep referring to 'we'.

Guess what? I didn't sign these 'deals', neither did my parents, or my grandparents, or my great grandparents, etc. Who is this 'we'? I often see people use it to refer to European Canadians, but what about everyone else? Where do Chinese Canadians fit into this for example?

You weren't around to sign the Canada Health Act either. You want out of that deal too? Just deposit your health card in the trash and pay for it all by yourself.

It gets a bit tricky getting rid of all of the laws and treaties made before you were born because ... well ... Canada wouldn't exist and you wouldn't be here.

.