White People Can't Live Here - Six Nations Racism

[Smallc]

You don't really understand our system of government do you?

[-1=e^ipi]

Who has that authority?

Only a monarch? By the divine right of kings?

Yet you think an unelected monarch from 250 years ago has the right to create racist laws that perpetuate indefinitely...

[WestCoastRunner]

There is no minority people on earth who have as good a deal as our aboriginals. There is no group identified as a subgroup of any culture or nation than has so many favourable tax exclusions, educational preferences and funding, and other ethnic-specific benefits, on earth. They choose not to benefit from it. In many other places, minority groups with no specific allowances have done far better. Different cultures/values have different results.

My ancestors came here with nothing, we get no special treatment, and we do far better.

Another group I can think of are Philipinos and Indians. Both immigrant groups are successful, and demonstrate social cohesion. This is an environment that ANYONE can thrive in, if they really want to.

You cannot possibly compare your ancestors or Philipinos or Indian immigrants with aboriginals. A great travesty was thrust upon them with the residential schools that forever changed the relationship between Canada and First Nations, and to this day there is still a great mistrust.

Here are a few facts on these residential schools that have traumatized thousands of these children and the implications of the abuse has filtered down generations.

"Residential schools were established with the assumption that aboriginal culture was unable to adapt to a rapidly modernizing society. It was believed that native children could be successful if they assimilated into mainstream Canadian society by adopting Christianity and speaking English or French. Students were discouraged from speaking their first language or practising native traditions. If they were caught, they would experience severe punishment."

"Throughout the years, students lived in substandard conditions and endured physical and emotional abuse. There have also been convictions of sexual abuse. Students at residential schools rarely had opportunities to see examples of normal family life. Most were in school 10 months a year, away from their parents; some stayed all year round. All correspondence from the children was written in English, which many parents couldn't read. Brothers and sisters at the same school rarely saw each other, as all activities were segregated by gender."

[Smallc]

And that was wrong...on the other hand other groups went through terrible things too - the Chinese and Japanese for example.

It's not residential schools holding aboriginals back...it's their separate status.

[WestCoastRunner]

And that was wrong...on the other hand other groups went through terrible things too - the Chinese and Japanese for example.

It's not residential schools holding aboriginals back...it's their separate status.

Residential schools traumatized parents,children and it filtered down through generations. Children were taken from their families and denied their ancestory. They simply did not have the same rights to grow and prosper like other immigrants and it is simply wrong to compare them to these immigrants.

[Smallc]

Similar things to what you're talking about happened to many children in that age.

The boys schools in England for people from the colonies, the Ukrainian immigrants to Canada...the Japanese internment...the Chinese Head Tax...and on and on.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Smallc

[hitops]

You cannot possibly compare your ancestors or Philipinos or Indian immigrants with aboriginals. A great travesty was thrust upon them with the residential schools that forever changed the relationship between Canada and First Nations, and to this day there is still a great mistrust.

Ok have it your way, let's play 'well they got persecuted' game. Nobody was more persecuted than the Jews. Far beyond anything like the residential schools, they were actively hunted multiple times in history, thrown repeatedly off their land and out of various countries. Today they remain the most successful, most prosperous, highest average level of education ethnic group on the planet.

Smallc also noted the Japanese example. To this I would add Germany. Both nations destroyed and conquered within the last 70 years. As you noted....they must be languishing backwaters today right?

Edited June 24, 2014 by hitops

[jacee]

small c

jacee Today, 06:05 PM

Smallc, on 23 Jun 2014 - 4:00 PM, said:

Rights don't simply exist. That's impossible. They have to be granted by someone.

Who has that authority?

Only a monarch? By the divine right of kings?

Your statement is absolutely ridiculous.

small c said:

You really don't understand our system of government do you?

Yet you think an unelected monarch from 250 years ago has the right to create racist laws that perpetuate indefinitely...

I think monarchs and governments don't "give" rights.

We have rights ... limited only by monarchs and governments ... that we collectively subject ourselves to.

And BUSH_CHENEY2004 finally made me laugh ...

. bush_cheney2004, on 23 Jun 2014 - 4:45 PM, said:

Oh sure....native people could only settle the continent with natural rights for thousands of years until Canada came along.

Then they got some fancier rights from the "Crown", and lost their land and culture in the process.

Such a deal.....

:lol: Edited June 24, 2014 by jacee

[Smallc]

Maybe the right to anarchy. That's about it.

[-1=e^ipi]

You cannot possibly compare your ancestors or Philipinos or Indian immigrants with aboriginals. A great travesty was thrust upon them with the residential schools that forever changed the relationship between Canada and First Nations, and to this day there is still a great mistrust.

Here are a few facts on these residential schools that have traumatized thousands of these children and the implications of the abuse has filtered down generations.

"Residential schools were established with the assumption that aboriginal culture was unable to adapt to a rapidly modernizing society. It was believed that native children could be successful if they assimilated into mainstream Canadian society by adopting Christianity and speaking English or French. Students were discouraged from speaking their first language or practising native traditions. If they were caught, they would experience severe punishment."

"Throughout the years, students lived in substandard conditions and endured physical and emotional abuse. There have also been convictions of sexual abuse. Students at residential schools rarely had opportunities to see examples of normal family life. Most were in school 10 months a year, away from their parents; some stayed all year round. All correspondence from the children was written in English, which many parents couldn't read. Brothers and sisters at the same school rarely saw each other, as all activities were segregated by gender."

Look WestCoastRunner. The residential schools were wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. That is basic morality. What happened in the past does not justify the indefinite continuation of racist laws. People should have equal rights regardless of race or ancestry; trying to build a nation on racist laws does not work as we have seen by the failure of the reserve system.

We have rights ... limited only by monarchs and governments ... that we collectively subject ourselves to.

Rights from where? Can I test these 'rights' in a laboratory? How do I know which 'rights' I have?

Edited June 24, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[hitops]

Look WestCoastRunner. The residential schools were wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. That is basic morality. What happened in the past does not justify the indefinite continuation of racist laws. People should have equal rights regardless of race or ancestry; trying to build a nation on racist laws does not work as we have seen by the failure of the reserve system.

Bingo. There's nothing new under the sun. The immediate gratification of free cash now wins out over the long term goal of a self-respecting, contributing people.

[jacee]

Maybe the right to anarchy. That's about it.

The right to singly and collectively, as we choose, manage our own affairs.

.

[Smallc]

That's a nice fantasy world you live in.

[jacee]

That's a nice fantasy world you live in.

Isn't that how we got where we are now?

Don't governments evolve from people collectively managing their common interests and affairs?

They don't "give" us our rights.

That's for damn sure.

Recognize, protect, uphold, affirm maybe ...

but governments can't "give" fundamental human rights.

Freedom of expression and association aren't "given" to you.

.

Edited June 24, 2014 by jacee

[Signals.Cpl]

Freedom of expression and association aren't "given" to you.

.

Sure they are, some government take even what is considered a basic human away from their people while others like those in Canada don't. Ultimately there are no such things as human rights, its human privilege basically some get it and others don't and it is up to individual nations to grant or take away those human rights.

[Remiel]

Yet you think an unelected monarch from 250 years ago has the right to create racist laws that perpetuate indefinitely...

I think I have mentioned before that at the time of the Royal Proclamation the Whigs were in power and quite possibly were the ones to draft it, which makes it kind of an even more bizarre dynamic.

[Remiel]

You cannot possibly compare your ancestors or Philipinos or Indian immigrants with aboriginals. A great travesty was thrust upon them with the residential schools that forever changed the relationship between Canada and First Nations, and to this day there is still a great mistrust.

The thing is though, I do not really hear about the this phenomenon concerning the descendants of Nazi concentration camp survivors. They have emotional baggage too, sure, but it has not crippled them by any means.

[Remiel]

You know, there is one Jewish group that might make for an interesting comparison: Israeli ultra-Orthodox. Not diaspora ultra-Orthodox, because they do not have any sort of special status in other countries. But in Israel the ultra-Orthodox have special provisions for education and such, and doggedly insist that they have some sort of special knowledge or power derived from their lifestyle. Everyone who is not ultra-Orthodox can see that it has worked out so well for them and Israel. Not.

[Rue]

Just to clarify a legal issue on how to interpret the Royal Proclamation When one reads it, its important to remember it is not simply read inwhere you just read the words in reference to the loyalty of 'Indian' people to the crown in isolation.

When one legally interprets a statute, you don't just pull out the words you like and read them separate and apart from the remaining words in the Treaty. in this case the reference to being subject to the crown is conditional on the is crown honouring the Treaty-its a recriprocal recognition.

The Treaty does more than just state Indians are subject to the crown. That same treaty said the Crown in exchange for that loyalty would have to accept a fiduciary responsibility to protect the best interests of aboriginal peoples.

Keep in mind the major purpose of the 1763 Royal Proclamation with King George the 2 was to decide what to do with land the British acquired from France. It in fact prohibited settlers from moving past a line up and down North America past the Appalachian Mountain range.

It in fact set a legal precedent for aboriginals being left alone past the Appalachian line and another legal precedent that if the crown could not act in ways adverse to aboriginals

In fact section 25 of the Charter was placed in the Charter to codify the rights of aboriginals from this proclamation.

The Charter now has codified this proclamation and imposes on the Crown (federal government) to honour its fiduciary responsibility to protect aboriginal rights including land rights.

So that Treaty was in fact a contract between two equals. You don't simply read the consideration one side received without reading what was given back the other way.

It would make no common sense let alone contractual sense to think you could have a treaty where only one side is required to recognize the other. For aboriginals to be loyal to the Crown, the Crown must also be loyal to the aboriginal peoples.

That is the legal assumption. Our laws define aboriginals at an equal level to the federal government not inferior to it and it is precisely for that reason provinces have no jurisdiction in aboriginal rights or affairs and must work through the federal government.

In fact for example, if Quebec wanted to separate, it would be face with the fact the natives of Quebec under several treaties have rights to about 70% of the entire land of Quebec not to mention chunks of land nearby the Island of Montreal and near the Ontario border elsewhere. The aboriginals would have a legal right to separate out of Quebec and remain with Canada or consider the Treaties with Canada permanently broken and have the right to their own state.

This legal ruling was given to Rene Levesque and all his successors who want separatism and interestingly none of them would discuss the matter and kept side stepping it until a former separatist lawyer went to court, and got a clear ruling that if Quebec tried to separate from Canada with a majority vote it would not be binding on aboriginals. Considering Quebec claimed they would share the Canadian army, good luck with having that army put down any uprisings of native peoples,

Look some people feel aboriginals get preferential rights. Sure if you want to ignore history and only look at it from the snap shot of today, maybe. The fact is aboriginals were here before the European colonials, and we chose to recognize them as equals.

To do that it now creates those rights some of you feel unfair.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Rue

[Smallc]

You're misrepresenting the intent. The intent was to secure all of the land for England. Every treaty signed as a result is very clear - aboriginal people are subjects of the Crown.

There was to be payments made, yes, but those payments were in exchange for the use of the land, not for the Crowns control of it.

[Moonbox]

You're misrepresenting the intent. The intent was to secure all of the land for England.

Britain

[bush_cheney2004]

You're misrepresenting the intent. The intent was to secure all of the land for England. Every treaty signed as a result is very clear - aboriginal people are subjects of the Crown.

No, this is false. For Instance, the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and The United States of America (or Jay Treaty as it is commonly known), refutes any such notion:

"It is agreed, that it shall at all times be free to His Majesty's subjects, and to the citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said boundary line, freely to pass and repass, by land or inland navigation into the respective territories and countries of the two parties on the continent of America, (the country within the limits of the Hudson Bay company only excepted)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty

Edited June 24, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[jacee]

Treaties are interpreted in the context of the Constitution and the Royal Proclamation. Treaties do not supercede those documents.

Rue is right that treaties can't just be interpreted literally as there is a larger legal context.

Example: Some treaties attempted to impose elements that weren't in the Proclamation, sometimes by underhanded means:

being "subjects of the Crown" is one, and 'ceding all rights forever' is another, bribing/plying with alcohol signatories who didn't represent the consensus of the community is another.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in such cases, "the honour of the Crown" must be upheld.

Trickery, deceit, bribery, obfuscation, attempting to go beyond the Proclamation, etc ... all of these 'dishonour' the word of the Crown and aren't acceptable to the Supreme Court.

It often isn't difficult to find evidence of such tactics either. 'Indian' Agents were fond of bragging about their deceit and trickery ... in their reports to their superiors, documents that still exist.

.

[Smallc]

The Crown made it very clear in the proclamation even. Under our protection - they thought of aboriginal people as less than human at the time, like children - meant under their control and jurisdiction, just not that of the settlers.

[cybercoma]

Who has that authority?

Only a monarch? By the divine right of kings?

Your statement is absolutely ridiculous.

Ah! ... The divine right of kings again?

... that flows to the monarchs through the church from god?

Simply not true.

.

You understand that Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, right?