Indigenous Rights and Title in Canada

Accountability Now · February 17, 2015

I did what?

Fine lets do this the stupid way. How about you go google up the fricking definitions and show me where apology and repudiate mean the same thing?

Here...let me clarify your inability to understand YOUR previous quotes:

According to your logic the definition for apology is the same as it is for repudiate.

Which definition of repudiate are you claiming that I think is the same as apology. You only gave 3...

eyeball · February 17, 2015

And your point is that apology and repudiate still mean the same thing?

That's still stupid.

eyeball · February 17, 2015

Here...let me clarify your inability to understand YOUR previous quotes:

Which definition of repudiate are you claiming that I think is the same as apology. You only gave 3...

I could apparently give you a hundred and you'd still be, you know...

Accountability Now · February 17, 2015

I could apparently give you a hundred and you'd still be, you know...

Just give me one....or do you see where this is going and are trying to deflect?

eyeball · February 18, 2015

Just look at the uses outlined in the story that got you all confused about what apology means. And notice that the word apology doesn't even appear in the article unlike synonyms to repudiate like repeal, revoke and rescind.

Accountability Now · February 18, 2015

Just look at the uses outlined in the story that got you all confused about what apology means. And notice that the word apology doesn't even appear in the article unlike synonyms to repudiate like repeal, revoke and rescind.

Ok....so let's recap here. Above we were talking about your claim that I was an 'apologist' for the Bulls. From 'apologist' for the Bulls you somehow derailed yourself by stating:

"According to your logic the definition for apology is the same as it is for repudiate."

You then proceeded to give definitions for apology

and repudiate even though we weren't talking about apologies to the indigenous but rather being an apologist for the Bulls.

To clarify this I asked you which definition of the three you provided was the one which you felt I was the same for apology....full well knowing that they weren't the same trying to show you that once again you have jumped to a conclusion that is unwarranted. Hence me saying...you know where this is going.

You went on a little tizzy after that refusing to point out which definition of repudiate provided would match allegedly according to me....again at this time knowing that I never said they were the same.

Now you're pointing back to the original news article to again deflect from your initial mistake that we were talking about your claim of me being an 'apologist for the Bulls' and not an apology from the Church.

So....to clear this up because we all know you need the help with clarity:

1. I am fully aware that the Church was not a pristine organization nor would I apologize for their actions that I now consider to be immoral

2. I am fully aware that apology and repudiate are not the same however typically they are used part and parcel in the reconciliation process. Having said that your idea of repudiate included to move forward after the apology and I simply showed that the church had already repudiated the earlier Bull by presenting the later Bull stating the indigenous were to have the same liberties. The only thing left at this point is symbolic apology.

Again the people in the article choose the word repudiate because it gives them more leverage for crown discussions than an apology. This is all about leverage.

eyeball · February 18, 2015

So....to clear this up because we all know you need the help with clarity:

1. I am fully aware that the Church was not a pristine organization nor would I apologize for their actions that I now consider to be immoral

That's great, thanks for clearing that up. You almost had me fooled there.

2. I am fully aware that apology and repudiate are not the same however typically they are used part and parcel in the reconciliation process.

I'd like to see a cite for your claim that apology and repudiate are typically used part and parcel in that process. After having attended a few treaty discussions over the years I hardly think indigenous people would stand for using figurative idioms instead of clear definitions for just about anything short of an occasional footnote or memo when dealing with forked tongued devils, or angels, depending on your perspective.

Accountability Now · February 18, 2015

That's great, thanks for clearing that up. You almost had me fooled there.

Good. I only had to say it three times.

I'd like to see a cite for your claim that apology and repudiate are typically used part and parcel in that process. After having attended a few treaty discussions over the years I hardly think indigenous people would stand for using figurative idioms instead of clear definitions for just about anything short of an occasional footnote or memo when dealing with forked tongued devils, or angels, depending on your perspective.

From the Handbook of Restorative Justice I offer the following:

For Goffman, apology has several elements - admission of wrongdoing and repudiation of what is bad in oneself; determination not to do wrong in the future; making of amends both symbollically and materially - all of which have something to do with coming to see one's action as something one should not have done.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=U2UQBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=restorative+justice+handbook+apology+repudiate&source=bl&ots=1km5xaDh4R&sig=jj6WZAW2NagjBlJNtrad40xqDqE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hqzkVN_VLMLvoASphILwCA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=restorative%20justice%20handbook%20apology%20repudiate&f=false

So as you can see in the above example, repudiation is a PART of an apology hence its part and parcel. Now just to make sure we're on the same page, the defintion for part and parcel is "PART AND PARCEL means essential portion or element, integral part, a vital part of a larger entity."

So looking at the example with the Bulls, the first Bull stated the atrocity which was then reputiated by the second Bull which repealed the message of the first Bull. If you are going to put so much emphasis on the first bull then I have to ask why not the second? The only thing missing is in fact the formal apology which again is that truly what the First Nations of Canada want OR do they want more?

What is their endgame on this eyeball? If the Vatican actually came out and said we offer an apology and reputdiate that first Bull, would that be it? Would the First Nations then drop it or would they be on the hunt for reparations in the form of sovereignty? I'm sure its the latter.

Interestingly enough, I was reading a blurb on Slavery in the US and how the US government hasn't officially aplogized. Apparently, it came close in 2009 when the Senate approved but the House couldn't quite figure out the exact wording. Apparently the wording had to include that any stated apology would not authorize or support any claim against the US. I think the Church is looking at it the same way since even Pope Benedict expressed 'sorrow' for the Residential Schools but did not offer a formal apology.

jacee · February 18, 2015

Indigenous Peoples of Canada never surrendered sovereignty, so they have no reason to 'hunt for' it.

.

Accountability Now · February 18, 2015

Indigenous Peoples of Canada never surrendered sovereignty, so they have no reason to 'hunt for' it.

.

Come on jacee...now you're just playing silly. You know that part in pretty much every treaty that states "hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion"....that is them surrendering soverignty and you know it.

Of course, you also think that the goverment spent $200 billion on legal fees so I should say what you actually know.

eyeball · February 18, 2015

From the Handbook of Restorative Justice I offer the following:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=U2UQBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=restorative+justice+handbook+apology+repudiate&source=bl&ots=1km5xaDh4R&sig=jj6WZAW2NagjBlJNtrad40xqDqE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hqzkVN_VLMLvoASphILwCA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=restorative%20justice%20handbook%20apology%20repudiate&f=false

I can see that you and the authors of the book you cited share a similar opinion but I'm looking for an official treaty document that clearly states apology and repudiate mean one and the same thing - for the purposes of a reconciliation process and treaty settlement between the Crown and a Canadian First Nation.

Now just to make sure we're on the same page, the defintion for part and parcel is "PART AND PARCEL means essential portion or element, integral part, a vital part of a larger entity."

This is only binding when agreed to by the parties in a formal legal document. That is what you're claiming isn't it?

If you are going to put so much emphasis on the first bull then I have to ask why not the second?

Because the second one was virtually ignored compared to the gusto with which the 1st Bull wasn't.

What is their endgame on this eyeball?

I don't know, what's our endgame on this?

If the Vatican actually came out and said we offer an apology and reputdiate that first Bull, would that be it?

It might if it was framed in a way that the message was for us as much as indigenous people. As I said above it fuelled a completely unwarranted and grotesque sense of moral justification and exceptionalism that came with the stamp of God's approval. A sense that I and I think many others would argue is something we still subscribe too given the aggressive behaviour we're with, part and parcel on the world stage.

Would the First Nations then drop it or would they be on the hunt for reparations in the form of sovereignty? I'm sure its the latter.

So what? Like I said way above we're all still going to be bound by rules and regulations and the ordinary human Canadian on the street, in the bush or on the water will be virtually unaffected. What are you so worried about anyway, are you some sort of extraordinary Canadian that stands to lose half a province or something? As Jacee said these are our treaties too, we have become facts on the ground that are not going away and if push really comes down to some sort of shove...I'm sure indigenous people can add.

Interestingly enough, I was reading a blurb on Slavery in the US and how the US government hasn't officially aplogized. Apparently, it came close in 2009 when the Senate approved but the House couldn't quite figure out the exact wording. Apparently the wording had to include that any stated apology would not authorize or support any claim against the US. I think the Church is looking at it the same way since even Pope Benedict expressed 'sorrow' for the Residential Schools but did not offer a formal apology.

Interesting? It is beyond boringly typical of our politicians and governments to perennially squirm, duck and dodge responsibility in any mealy-mouthed manner, way, shape, or form they can. Definitely a holdover from the attitude of exceptionalism the Church and imparted to our society.

I guess after thinking about this some more the Pope should be the one who repudiates the main Bull of contention and the heads of governments of the countries that arose in the wake of the conquest should be on hand to show we got the message. Like I said I think this message should be directed at us as much as anything. We could stand a good healthy piece of humble pie.

Smallc · February 18, 2015

Come on jacee...now you're just playing silly. You know that part in pretty much every treaty that states "hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion"....that is them surrendering soverignty and you know it.

Of course, you also think that the goverment spent $200 billion on legal fees so I should say what you actually know.

It also states in every treaty that aboriginal people are her Majesties Indians.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Smallc

Accountability Now · February 18, 2015

I can see that you and the authors of the book you cited share a similar opinion but I'm looking for an official treaty document that clearly states apology and repudiate mean one and the same thing - for the purposes of a reconciliation process and treaty settlement between the Crown and a Canadian First Nation.

Wow...I love how you squirm out of these things. I offered you proof from the Handbook for Restorative Justice and now that's not good enough? Now you want something between the Crown and a First Nation. The Bulls weren't about the Crown though....they were about the Vatican. So what good does that do in this example?

This is only binding when agreed to by the parties in a formal legal document. That is what you're claiming isn't it?

No...its just a definiton which I pulled from the internet. Take it or leave it...I don't care

Because the second one was virtually ignored compared to the gusto with which the 1st Bull wasn't.

Again...is the Vatican to blame if certain people listen to one thing and not the other. With that said, who were the people following the Vatican at that time... Catholics? In Canada that would be mostly the French who were Catholic who gave up their conquest of Canada which then gave way for the Royal Proclomation of 1693. Even at that point in history the Royal Proclamation states that the indigenous are not to be harmed....contrary to the first Bull and inline with the second.

I don't know, what's our endgame on this?

Answering questions with questions. How deflecting of you. Don't feel like answering that one?

Our end game is the same as what our pre game move was. To build Canada.....not to build Canada with a bunch of separate nations within Canada. If the First Nations want to be a part of Canada then great if they want to continue their fight to exist as separate nations then the battle will continue.

It might if it was framed in a way that the message was for us as much as indigenous people. As I said above it fuelled a completely unwarranted and grotesque sense of moral justification and exceptionalism that came with the stamp of God's approval. A sense that I and I think many others would argue is something we still subscribe too given the aggressive behaviour we're with, part and parcel on the world stage.

You keep forgetting. Canada is NOT the Vatican. Even our foundations are not entirely based on the Vatican. The current government has already separated itself from the church so what would anything the Vatican does have to do with our government. Additionally....our government has already apologized and paid billions for the Residential schools with more to come. Again...what does the Vatican apology do here? Are they looking for money from the Vatican? Or is it leverage in future discussions?

So what? Like I said way above we're all still going to be bound by rules and regulations and the ordinary human Canadian on the street, in the bush or on the water will be virtually unaffected. What are you so worried about anyway, are you some sort of extraordinary Canadian that stands to lose half a province or something? As Jacee said these are our treaties too, we have become facts on the ground that are not going away and if push really comes down to some sort of shove...I'm sure indigenous people can add.

I believe in Canada....not Canada and a bunch of separate First Nations. I get that you don't give a crap about Canada or its soverignty but some people do. I also care about Quebec leaving or idiots in Alberta who occasionally talk about separating. So anything that affects Canada as a whole affects me. Of course I wouldn't need to explain the importance of soverignty to other places in the world like the Ukraine or the Middle East but since you have never had to worry about it, apparently its no big deal.

When you say indigenous people can add...what do you mean by that? Add to the treaties? Add to society?

Interesting? It is beyond boringly typical of our politicians and governments to perennially squirm, duck and dodge responsibility in any mealy-mouthed manner, way, shape, or form they can. Definitely a holdover from the attitude of exceptionalism the Church and imparted to our society.

It has nothing to do with a hold over from the Church. Rather, it's the letigous frame work of our society that makes it this way. You can't comment or say anything now without there being some sort of ramifciaiton. Its not just our government but other governments of the world that have learned this. As such they drag their feet to ensure they say it exactly the way it needs to be said. If they can't find a way then they just don't say it much to the chagrin of people like yourself.

I guess after thinking about this some more the Pope should be the one who repudiates the main Bull of contention and the heads of governments of the countries that arose in the wake of the conquest should be on hand to show we got the message. Like I said I think this message should be directed at us as much as anything. We could stand a good healthy piece of humble pie.

Again...our governments have already separated themselves from the Church. We can't even say Christmas anymore! And again...our government has apologized for the direct ramifciations they caused. I'm just curious....is there any point where the Indigenous accept responsibily for their future or will it always be looking at edicts from the 1400s?

Accountability Now · February 18, 2015

It also states in every treaty that aboriginal people are her Majesties Indians.

Yup. That's in there too. Subjects to her Majesty but still they have their own soverignty.....right!

eyeball · February 18, 2015

Wow...I love how you squirm out of these things. I offered you proof from the Handbook for Restorative Justice and now that's not good enough? Now you want something between the Crown and a First Nation.

Me squirm, compared to you? Pot meet kettle. You offered an opinion from a handbook on dealing with crime, it's not only not good enough it's completely unrelated.

The Bulls weren't about the Crown though....they were about the Vatican. So what good does that do in this example?

I have no idea. You're the one dragged it in when you said natives had already received their apology/repudiation.

No...its just a definiton which I pulled from the internet. Take it or leave it...I don't care

So this is all just one big effort to squirm around...

Again...is the Vatican to blame if certain people listen to one thing and not the other. With that said, who were the people following the Vatican at that time... Catholics? In Canada that would be mostly the French who were Catholic who gave up their conquest of Canada which then gave way for the Royal Proclomation of 1693. Even at that point in history the Royal Proclamation states that the indigenous are not to be harmed....contrary to the first Bull and inline with the second.

No the Vatican is just one part. The earliest English explorers like Sir Francis Drake for example received licences from their heads of state that effectively authorized the same sort of behaviour the Vatican was granting Spain and Portugal in the New World if not the whole world.

So, how do you explain the continuing rape, pillage and murder that continued despite all the great humanitarian Bulls and Proclamations that said it shouldn't? Oh you don't, you just squirm around it.

Answering questions with questions. How deflecting of you. Don't feel like answering that one?

Our end game is the same as what our pre game move was. To build Canada.....not to build Canada with a bunch of separate nations within Canada. If the First Nations want to be a part of Canada then great if they want to continue their fight to exist as separate nations then the battle will continue.

I have no problem answering it now that you've filled out the context of your question better. By pre game move I'm assuming you must mean we'll apply the justifications we used for grabbing everything in sight to hanging on to it in which case I expect the indigenous game will have no end in sight.

You keep forgetting. Canada is NOT the Vatican. Even our foundations are not entirely based on the Vatican. The current government has already separated itself from the church so what would anything the Vatican does have to do with our government. Additionally....our government has already apologized and paid billions for the Residential schools with more to come. Again...what does the Vatican apology do here? Are they looking for money from the Vatican? Or is it leverage in future discussions?

You mean what does the repudiation do. A Vatican apology, like you say, does nothing.

I believe in Canada....not Canada and a bunch of separate First Nations. I get that you don't give a crap about Canada or its soverignty but some people do. I also care about Quebec leaving or idiots in Alberta who occasionally talk about separating. So anything that affects Canada as a whole affects me. Of course I wouldn't need to explain the importance of soverignty to other places in the world like the Ukraine or the Middle East but since you have never had to worry about it, apparently its no big deal.

I believed in Canada once too, but I didn't really know what it was I was investing my faith in. When I found out I was taken quite aback and now I give a crap about humanity and the planet we live on. Countries mean less and less and Canada is no exception.

I'm quite certain the importance of sovereignty in other places is as misguided and archaic as it is here, and especially in places where sovereignty was established and contained within borders by people who never even lived there.

When you say indigenous people can add...what do you mean by that? Add to the treaties? Add to society?

No, they can see they'd be completely outnumbered in a fight, like the one you said we'll keep fighting to the bitter end.

It has nothing to do with a hold over from the Church. Rather, it's the letigous frame work of our society that makes it this way. You can't comment or say anything now without there being some sort of ramifciaiton. Its not just our government but other governments of the world that have learned this. As such they drag their feet to ensure they say it exactly the way it needs to be said. If they can't find a way then they just don't say it much to the chagrin of people like yourself.

And much to the growing state of dysfunction in the world.

Again...our governments have already separated themselves from the Church. We can't even say Christmas anymore! And again...our government has apologized for the direct ramifciations they caused. I'm just curious....is there any point where the Indigenous accept responsibily for their future or will it always be looking at edicts from the 1400s?

I'd say they're doing just that very thing but without any indication of a change of mindset in the present to effectively start moving forward into the future they may as well just drag their feet too. Meanwhile the real framework of our society, the ordinary Canadians on the street, in the bush and on the water, ll just shrug, roll their eyes and try to get by like they always do...in the face of growing dysfunction and and endless fight.

As I said, I think a skillfully executed repudiation could be framed in such a matter that it might make a lot of this just go away.

jacee · February 18, 2015

Come on jacee...now you're just playing silly. You know that part in pretty much every treaty that states "hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion"....that is them surrendering soverignty and you know it.

No it isn't. Treaties are about land, not sovereignty as Peoples.

And even the land 'surrenders' were full of holes anyway. Ergo, land claims.

.

Edited February 18, 2015 by jacee

Smallc · February 18, 2015

No it isn't. Treaties are about land, not sovereignty as Peoples.

And even the land 'surrenders' were full of holes anyway. Ergo, land claims.

.

And yet there they are, in the documents. Even the courts don't agree with you here.

Accountability Now · February 18, 2015

Me squirm, compared to you? Pot meet kettle. You offered an opinion from a handbook on dealing with crime, it's not only not good enough it's completely unrelated.

LMFAO. The way you make it out, this Bull was one of the greatest CRIMES against humanity. And now this book about CRIME doesn't apply. Nice try bub. You can't have it both ways.

I have no idea. You're the one dragged it in when you said natives had already received their apology/repudiation.

I never dragged it into this point. It was presented in other points. You really have a tough time with this....don't you? In the apology versus repudiation part we were talking about the Vatican repudiating the Bull with the subsequent Bull. In turn I said that this was repuduation which was a large part of the apology. Hence.....part and parcel. Now do you have it?

So this is all just one big effort to squirm around...

What? Are you five years old? I said squirm in my first line response and now all you can do is say it back 7 times. No I'm not but you are!!!!!! You can use that one next time.

PS...I posted the defintion to provide clarity to the conversation, something that you struggle with immensely.

No the Vatican is just one part. The earliest English explorers like Sir Francis Drake for example received licences from their heads of state that effectively authorized the same sort of behaviour the Vatican was granting Spain and Portugal in the New World if not the whole world.

Can you please focus here. We are talking about Canada and First Nations here yet you now bring up Spain and Portugal. As you say, the Vatican is just one part. There were other churches and other influences but no influence was greater than the King which gave the Royal Proclamation. Again....it stated no Indians to be harmed. So the OFFICIAL mandate of the Vatican and the Royal Proclamtion by 1693 both protected native rights. You have two official mandates but you are focused on the one mandate that was already overtaken by the second?

So, how do you explain the continuing rape, pillage and murder that continued despite all the great humanitarian Bulls and Proclamations that said it shouldn't? Oh you don't, you just squirm around it.

Again with the squirm hey. Yikes. I'm rubber and you're glue....

This is quite simply. The Natives were still the enemy. Regardless of the proclamation, the Europeans were still had wars with the natives. Some started by the Europeans and some started by the natives. Here are a list of the ones easily found on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America). When you war with people you generally do things that aren't good. Just look what happens during cease fires.

Because of these wars, the Natives were viewed as the enemy and even though the greater picture (Proclamation and Vatican) wanted them unharmed, it wasn't always possible.

On the same note....why did the Natives rape, pillage and murder the other native tribes. Was that because of the Bull too? You don't seem to answer me on that one.

We have laws in place against murder, assault and rasiscm but yet those things still happen all the time. Who's to blame for that?

I have no problem answering it now that you've filled out the context of your question better. By pre game move I'm assuming you must mean we'll apply the justifications we used for grabbing everything in sight to hanging on to it in which case I expect the indigenous game will have no end in sight.

My context was just fine until you cropped it and tried to answer a question with a question. Here....I'll post it again:

What is their endgame on this eyeball? If the Vatican actually came out and said we offer an apology and reputdiate that first Bull, would that be it? Would the First Nations then drop it or would they be on the hunt for reparations in the form of sovereignty? I'm sure its the latter.

So....the endgame is to get back what was 'taken'. So it is about levarge for soverignty talks. Thanks.

You mean what does the repudiation do. A Vatican apology, like you say, does nothing.

Ok...I'll play your game. What does repudiation from the Vatican look like to you?

I believed in Canada once too, but I didn't really know what it was I was investing my faith in. When I found out I was taken quite aback and now I give a crap about humanity and the planet we live on. Countries mean less and less and Canada is no exception.

Yes...I've noted your earthling crap before. Good luck with that.

By the way, the door out of Canada is always there for you to leave.

I'm quite certain the importance of sovereignty in other places is as misguided and archaic as it is here, and especially in places where sovereignty was established and contained within borders by people who never even lived there.

Good fences make good neighbors. You want a world with no borders? See how long that would last.

No, they can see they'd be completely outnumbered in a fight, like the one you said we'll keep fighting to the bitter end.

This is the most defeatist and victim attitude that I have ever heard. I was actually going to respond with how First Nations people can easily add to Canada in a lot of good ways but why bother....you don't care about solutions...just problems.

I'd say they're doing just that very thing but without any indication of a change of mindset in the present to effectively start moving forward into the future they may as well just drag their feet too. Meanwhile the real framework of our society, the ordinary Canadians on the street, in the bush and on the water, ll just shrug, roll their eyes and try to get by like they always do...in the face of growing dysfunction and and endless fight.

The ordinary Canadians haven't seen an impact yet and if it stays that way then you're right...they'll shrug. However, if some of these claims start hitting closer to home then you will see people start to care. The Idle No More rallies were proof of this. A lot of people didn't take to kindly to the road blocks and other tactics they did. Of course the Theresa Spence thing was interesting too.

As I said, I think a skillfully executed repudiation could be framed in such a matter that it might make a lot of this just go away.

So....lay it out. What does this skillfully excuted repudiation look like?

Accountability Now · February 18, 2015

No it isn't. Treaties are about land, not sovereignty as Peoples.

And even the land 'surrenders' were full of holes anyway. Ergo, land claims.

.

Actually it is. Look at SmallC's comment above about them agreeing to be subjects to the Queen. That my dear is soverignty.

jacee · February 18, 2015

We've been down this road before.

You're both wrong.

.

Smallc · February 18, 2015

We've been down this road before.

You're both wrong.

.

I love the type of proof that you provide.

jacee · February 18, 2015

I love the type of proof that you provide.

Thank you.

And you.

.

Edited February 18, 2015 by jacee

overthere · February 18, 2015

No it isn't. Treaties are about land, not sovereignty as Peoples.

And even the land 'surrenders' were full of holes anyway. Ergo, land claims.

.

so do you think a treaty is required to establish a land claim?

Accountability Now · February 18, 2015

We've been down this road before.

You're both wrong.

.

Yes....we have. However it's pretty obvious that you don't seem to acknowledge truths even if it hits you in the face. The legal fees example is proof of that