jacee Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 I'm still not sure what exactly you're trying to do. Yes, it was a different time. Aboriginals weren't seen as people and everyone was racist. I have to spell it out for you? The whining about "wasting tax dollars" on Indigenous people is still very much with us today, still contributing to their poverty and hunger today. Lessons haven't been learned yet. . Quote
Wilber Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Maybe "judging" history isn't the purpose. Maybe just learning history is, taking lessons and applying them to the present. http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6453258 Maybe it's just a way of checking to see if we've learned the lessons. Anyone who thinks we will just swoon in adoration because John A is John A will be disappointed. But it is a learning opportunity, a teachable moment. Like this: During the famine, Sir John A. bragged that the Indigenous peoples were kept on the "verge of actual starvation" to curb any criticism that he was wasting tax dollars. . It does point to the difference in what can be said to get elected. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Keepitsimple Posted January 17, 2015 Author Report Posted January 17, 2015 I have to spell it out for you? The whining about "wasting tax dollars" on Indigenous people is still very much with us today, still contributing to their poverty and hunger today. Lessons haven't been learned yet. . So you're saying that MacDonald was acting no different than today - yet you're making a big deal about it even though he's been dead for over 100 years. If you want to discuss aboriginal issues, there are plenty of threads to choose from. Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 The whining about "wasting tax dollars" on Indigenous people is still very much with us today, still contributing to their poverty and hunger today. Lessons haven't been learned yet. That's an...interesting misrepresentation of current economic realities (I'm being as kind as I can). Quote
jacee Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 That's an...interesting misrepresentation of current economic realities (I'm being as kind as I can). Well you'll have to be clearer. . Quote
jacee Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 It does point to the difference in what can be said to get elected. True. One probably can't be as clear as 'keeping them on the verge of starvation' to get votes anymore. That's an improvement. . Quote
jacee Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 So you're saying that MacDonald was acting no different than today - yet you're making a big deal about it even though he's been dead for over 100 years.Lesson not yet learned.If you want to discuss aboriginal issues, there are plenty of threads to choose from. John A put the railway thru by dispossessing, brutalizing and starving Indigenous people into submission. Pretty relevant historically, and to today's conditions too. Did they ever get compensated for the use of the land? Lessons to be learned, debts still to be paid. Point to be made: Attempts to glorify John A will expose a fuller picture than some may wish to see, create conversations some may not want to have ... but that's ok too. Quote
Argus Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 During the famine, Sir John A. bragged that the Indigenous peoples were kept on the "verge of actual starvation" to curb any criticism that he was wasting tax dollars. . That's not a quote. That's somebody saying he said something. Macdonald worked to give native men the vote against the opposition of the Liberal leader at the time who considered indians to be less than human, and deserving of nothing whatsoever, including honoring treaties. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Well you'll have to be clearer. . What I'm saying is that your interpretation of events today is flawed, just as is your interpretation of events in the past. Whether or not that is deliberate is impossible for me to determine. Quote
jbg Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Again, the fact that someone isn't Canadian does not limit their involvement in this discussion. In these forums we are discussing Palestine, Israel, United States, Japan. Are you any/all of these things? No?Thanks. And my comment was to underline the importance of the railroad. Perhaps West Coast Runner would have preferred that Canada not get the railroad so he/she could complain about U.S. imperialism. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 I too thought you were Canadian, based on misquoting Lincoln. Americans are usually better than Canadians at having a good grasp of their own history.There's no doubt that Lincoln believe, for at least most of his life, that blacks could not live with whites. After some of their fighting heroics there is some evidence that his views were shifting. John Wilkes Booth ensured that we'd never know. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jacee Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) What I'm saying is that your interpretation of events today is flawed, just as is your interpretation of events in the past. Whether or not that is deliberate is impossible for me to determine.That's not clearer.How 'bout a little satire ... -canada-remembers-diverse-group-of-english-anglo-saxon-caucasian-and-scottish-men-who-founded-the-nation OTTAWA - In celebration of Canadian heritage, the nation honours the progressive, multiculturalism of the fathers of confederation who ranged from fair-skinned Englishmen to the pasty-white Brits. ... Parliament erupted with applause when Harper mentioned the struggles our forefathers faced from such boat-rockers as First Nations people and womens rights activists. At press time, the Prime Minister encouraged all those in attendance to observe a moment of silence to remember those who endured the Irish Invasion. Edited January 18, 2015 by jacee Quote
Argus Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 That's not clearer. How 'bout a little satire ... OTTAWA - In celebration of Canadian heritage, the nation honours the progressive, multiculturalism of the fathers of confederation who ranged from fair-skinned Englishmen to the pasty-white Brits. You Lefties are really quite mortified that Canada was mostly a white country for much of its history, aren't you? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 You Lefties are really quite mortified that Canada was mostly a white country for much of its history, aren't you? "Canada" is an invention of white people, and white through its history. But there's nothing about Canada that says we need to care about such things. If we really cared about history or culture than government wouldn't have to spend money to support it. Everybody who cares about singing "O Canada" at a hockey game, or whether Tim Hortons thrives or is deservedly obliterated by Starbucks should be forced by a Mountie to attend a Judith Thompson or Tomson Highway play. Who "we" were: http://www65.statcan.gc.ca/acyb07/acyb07_0002-eng.htm Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
jacee Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) "Canada" is an invention of white people, and white through its history. 'Canada' adopted its name from 'Kanata', the Indigenous territory, the people we entered into treaties with that gave us the right to live here. What a regressive concept, reverting to the racist concept of Canada, when we are now embracing the reality that Canada has always had three founding peoples: Indigenous, French, British, and three corresponding legal foundations. Our foundation in Indigenous treaty law is now at the forefront of our path to the future. Our future depends on respecting and negotiating our progress through all three tradtions. Canada wasn't an "invention" of white people. What an obnoxious and counterproductive thing to say. . Edited January 18, 2015 by jacee Quote
Argus Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) 'Canada' adopted its name from 'Kanata', the Indigenous territory, the people we entered into treaties with that gave us the right to live here. Force of arms was what gave us the right to live here, which was not any different from every other ethnic and cultural group on the planet at the time, including the natives, who fought each other quite viciously for territory. What a regressive concept, reverting to the racist concept of Canada, when we are now embracing the reality that Canada has always had three founding peoples: Indigenous, French, British, and three corresponding legal foundations. Phhht, to call the natives a founding people is a hell of a stretch. Canada as a nation was a creation of the English and French, who by then were shoving natives onto reservations. Do you think the natives at the time rejoiced in the founding of the new nation or contributed anything much to it? Canada wasn't an "invention" of white people. Not the land, perhaps, but the nation definitely was. Edited January 18, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Keepitsimple Posted January 18, 2015 Author Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) 'Canada' adopted its name from 'Kanata', the Indigenous territory, the people we entered into treaties with that gave us the right to live here. What a regressive concept, reverting to the racist concept of Canada, when we are now embracing the reality that Canada has always had three founding peoples: Indigenous, French, British, and three corresponding legal foundations. Our foundation in Indigenous treaty law is now at the forefront of our path to the future. Our future depends on respecting and negotiating our progress through all three tradtions. Canada wasn't an "invention" of white people. What an obnoxious and counterproductive thing to say. . Jacee - it's obvious that you are of First Nations heritage and emotionally attached to First Nations issues. There are plenty of threads to voice your displeasure but I'll state this "White Man's" opinion on the state of First Nations today. There's a history of questionable actions and outright wrongs that First Nations people have endured since the White Man landed here centuries ago. But First Nations today have taken victimhood to unconscionable levels - at the expense of their own people. Over six hundred "bands" that cannot come together and act as a true people. Until they do - until they can speak as one voice - for the betterment of ALL their people - and not for the enrichment of the few....little real progress can be made. There is no good reason why some bands can live on reservations that are productive while others live in squalor in the middle of nowhere. Democracy does not live within those hundreds of bands - many of them totally dysfunctional. Until First Nations embrace accountability, property rights, women's rights. education and the acceptance that the old ways just don't work for the Attawaspikats of Canada, First Nations people will continue to be marginalized - by their own leadership. Harsh facts. Sad but true. Edited January 18, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 'Canada' adopted its name from 'Kanata', the Indigenous territory, the people we entered into treaties with that gave us the right to live here. That word came from a single tribe. I believe that Canada came from brutal war and peace between founding people. What is the First Nations tradition for telling stories about wars, I wonder... Canada wasn't an "invention" of white people. What an obnoxious and counterproductive thing to say. . If you look for offensive intent, you will always find it. There was no country called Canada before the wars between the English, French and Indians. You can either say that First Nations people were equal partners in founding Canada, or not. I say they weren't so Canada is not their invention but have it your way. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
jacee Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Jacee - it's obvious that you are of First Nations heritageNo.and emotionally attached to First Nations issues.We are all legally attached. There are plenty of threads to voice your displeasureThis thread is most appropriate.but I'll state this "White Man's" opinion on the state of First Nations today. There's a history of questionable actions and outright wrongs that First Nations people have endured since the White Man landed here centuries ago. But First Nations today have taken victimhood to unconscionable levels - at the expense of their own people.And you speak for them? Over six hundred "bands" that cannot come together and act as a true people. Until they do - until they can speak as one voice - for the betterment of ALL their people - and not for the enrichment of the few....little real progress can be made. There is no good reason why some bands can live on reservations that are productive while others live in squalor in the middle of nowhere. Democracy does not live within those hundreds of bands - many of them totally dysfunctional. Until First Nations embrace accountability, property rights, women's rights. education and the acceptance that the old ways just don't work for the Attawaspikats of Canada, First Nations people will continue to be marginalized - by their own leadership. Harsh facts. Sad but true. The legal reality is that Canada's progress now depends entirely on negotiating partnerships with Indigenous Nations - treaty holders. All land not legally obtained by Canada (and there isn't much that was. Underhanded deals don't stand.) is still subject to Aboriginal Title. Tables have turned. . Quote
drummindiver Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 No. We are all legally attached. This thread is most appropriate. And you speak for them? The legal reality is that Canada's progress now depends entirely on negotiating partnerships with Indigenous Nations - treaty holders. All land not legally obtained by Canada (and there isn't much that was. Underhanded deals don't stand.) is still subject to Aboriginal Title. Tables have turned. . I am sick of being held hostage by events that happened a hundred years ago. In excess of 9 billion dollars a year are thrown at natives. 900 grand a year for the chief of a tribe with 16 members. Are you kidding me? Harper doesn't get that. Nobody gets that. And then the disruption of ppl trying to make a living, breaking the law with impunity. I'm absolutely sick of it, and sick of ppl defending it. If I broke the law I go to jail, but the, how do I put this nicely, blind here believe natives are above the law. Incredible. One law-one ppl Anything else is discrimination. Distinct societies are a joke, especially when I'm helping to foot the bill. btw, what's up with the native claim of "we don't own the land-it belongs to Mother Earth". Quote
Smallc Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Unfortunately, to a certain extent (though not to the extent she thinks), Jacee is right. The Constitution separates us because of decisions made a long time ago. We do have to respect that supreme law....not that I think that we should be working to preserve this separation. I'd rather we eliminate it. Quote
Argus Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Unfortunately, to a certain extent (though not to the extent she thinks), Jacee is right. The Constitution separates us because of decisions made a long time ago. We do have to respect that supreme law....not that I think that we should be working to preserve this separation. I'd rather we eliminate it. We have to obey it, perhaps, but I don't respect it. Like you, I think we should be working to eliminate the separation. That's especially so given the 'way of life' that so many Lefties and native leaders are striving to preserve went out of fashion a century ago and is absolutely not economically sustainable in any way, shape or form. Reservations are miserable pits of poverty, alcoholism, violence and drug abuse because no one has anything to do but fight and fornicate. The only people who profit are the chiefs and their families making fat pay cheques, and all those bureaucrats in the government who 'look after' natives. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Yes, perhaps obey would be a better word. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 18, 2015 Author Report Posted January 18, 2015 Unfortunately, to a certain extent (though not to the extent she thinks), Jacee is right. The Constitution separates us because of decisions made a long time ago. We do have to respect that supreme law....not that I think that we should be working to preserve this separation. I'd rather we eliminate it. In many respects on-reserve First Nations are imposing Apartheid on themselves.....to be separate, to live separate from other Canadians. Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 In many respects on-reserve First Nations are imposing Apartheid on themselves.....to be separate, to live separate from other Canadians. Most definitely. And their leadership pushes for more and more separation. In 2014, there should be no first nations leadership separate from the rest of us, but...here we are. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.