jacee Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 I am sick of being held hostage by events that happened a hundred years ago. Oh well. That's the deal we made. Love it or leave it, I guess. One law-one pplYes. The Constitution Act, the supreme law of Canada.especially when I'm helping to foot the bill.".Not really. you just don't understand your country very well.what-if-natives-stop-subsidizing-canada/ . Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 I am sick of being held hostage by events that happened a hundred years ago. Also following up... some ideas of time we've discussed on the board... Whether democracy and FPTP is 'old and outdated' Islam's history back to the 7th century or so whether slavery still has impacts to the current day ...and this... about events a hundred years ago Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Keepitsimple Posted January 19, 2015 Author Report Posted January 19, 2015 Oh well. That's the deal we made. Love it or leave it, I guess. Yes. The Constitution Act, the supreme law of Canada. Not really. you just don't understand your country very well. what-if-natives-stop-subsidizing-canada/ . For someone who claims not be of First Nations heritage, you certainly are emotionally flippant about giving away most of your country to 600 disparate bands scattered across Canada - based on dubious "agreements" that were made 150 years ago - in a different time and context. Do you really think that the "spirit" of these agreements was to do that? Quote Back to Basics
TimG Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) what-if-natives-stop-subsidizing-canada/The premise is false. The only reason natives have any rights at all is because of the British/Canadian legal system (i.e. there is no deity that confers rights on "special" people - rights only exist because there is a legal system to define, interpret and enforce them). More importantly, rights only exist as long as the people that control the legal system choose to keep them. This means that natives need the good will of the Canadian voting public. Without that good will they have nothing because the Canadian voting public can take away any right natives believe they have by changing the constitution. Edited January 19, 2015 by TimG Quote
jacee Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 That word came from a single tribe.It's an Iroquoian word, a language common to many Indigenous Nations. (We don't use the word "tribe".)There was no country called Canada before the wars between the English, French and Indians.We didn't have "wars" against Indigenous Nations, Michael.We made peace treaties with them, to allow us to live on their land in peace. 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. I guess it depends how limited your view of Canada is. Legally, they clearly are since there wouldn't be a Canada without the treaties. . . Quote
jacee Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) For someone who claims not be of First Nations heritage, you certainly are emotionally flippant about giving away most of your country to 600 disparate bands scattered across Canada - based on dubious "agreements" that were made 150 years ago - in a different time and context. Do you really think that the "spirit" of these agreements was to do that?What!? You're suggesting the agreements weren't made honourably?They were made in the name of the Crown, and the Supreme Court has been clear that the honour of the Crown must be upheld. No wiggle room there. Yes it's appropriate that Indigenous Nations benefit from the land. I realize this thread is about Sir John A. Mention of his aggression against Indigenous Peoples was appropriate, but moving on now ... . Edited January 19, 2015 by jacee Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 19, 2015 Author Report Posted January 19, 2015 What!? You're suggesting the agreements weren't made honourably? They were made in the name of the Crown, and the Supreme Court has been clear that the honour of the Crown must be upheld. No wiggle room there. Yes it's appropriate that Indigenous Nations benefit from the land. I realize this thread is about Sir John A. Mention of his aggression against Indigenous Peoples was appropriate, but moving on now ... . Excellent idea.... Quote Back to Basics
Michael Hardner Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 It's an Iroquoian word, a language common to many Indigenous Nations. (We don't use the word "tribe".) We didn't have "wars" against Indigenous Nations, Michael. We made peace treaties with them, to allow us to live on their land in peace. I guess it depends how limited your view of Canada is. Legally, they clearly are since there wouldn't be a Canada without the treaties. Right, but ... still a European construct. I thought there were wars, like the French & Indian wars. I think the treaties have been challenged and a new agreement is needed. I don't hear a lot of happiness with how the arrangement was set up and I don't think that First Nations people were treated as equals. Anyway, you characterized my view of Canada as racist but I don't really understand why. If you want to say that First Nations people were treated fairly and as equal partners then it would make sense for you to see 'Canada' as a fair and equal partnership. My understanding is that it's not seen that way but I'm not sure why that would be characterized as racist. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
TimG Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 Anyway, you characterized my view of Canada as racist but I don't really understand why.It should be obvious: you disagree with her opinions therefore you are racist. It is really nothing more complicated than that. I suspect she is confused why you cannot see that you are obviously a racist and is not able to articulate an argument supporting her claim which is more substantial than "you disagree with me". Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 It should be obvious: you disagree with her opinions therefore you are racist. It's not really necessary to jump in on this one, especially in the way that you have done here. Let's see what Jacee says. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jacee Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Right, but ... still a European construct. I thought there were wars, like the French & Indian wars.That was the Brits vs the French.There were Indigenous allies on both sides. We never fought wars against Indigenous Nations. I think the treaties have been challenged and a new agreement is needed.Challenged how? when? where?The treaties have been upheld in our courts. I don't hear a lot of happiness with how the arrangement was set up and I don't think that First Nations people were treated as equals.The treaties are accepted by Indigenous peoples and they are the law of the land.Love it or leave it. Anyway, you characterized my view of Canada as racist but I don't really understand why. If you want to say that First Nations people were treated fairly and as equal partners then it would make sense for you to see 'Canada' as a fair and equal partnership. My understanding is that it's not seen that way but I'm not sure why that would be characterized as racist. Rather counterproductive to be blowing the "white" horn at this stage. The country was 'founded' by men might not be a constructive thing to say either. The country was founded in treaties to obtain legal use of lands. While there may have been unfairness in negotiating, the treaties are upheld by Indigenous Nations. I think you're referring to white men's failure to uphold and attempts to circumvent the treaties, not the treaties themselves. Here's the link to Sir John A : The case in support of Sir John A.'s legacy would argue he pushed for the negotiation of treaties with First Nations people in what is now Western Canada as a necessary first step in his plan to unite the country coast to coast. This contrasts with the United States's approach to dealing with First Nations via military force with treaties being signed only after military defeat. In Canada, in part due to Sir John A., treaties prevented wars. And yes in some cases he starved them into signing the treaties. . Edited January 19, 2015 by jacee Quote
TimG Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) The treaties are accepted by Indigenous peoples and they are the law of the land. Love it or leave it. Or change it. All constitutions can be changed. The only difference between constitutions and regular law is there must be a clear social consensus before the constitutions can be changed in democratic countries. For now there is no social consensus when it comes to changing the rights of natives largely because the majority of people living in cities think it does not affect them. So natives can push the limits of the constitution as it is currently written. But if something changes and the majority of city dwelling Canadians feel they are being harmed by the constitution as written, it can and will be changed over the objections of the native lobby. Edited January 19, 2015 by TimG Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 I think you're referring to white men's failure to uphold and attempts to circumvent the treaties, not the treaties themselves. Okay. Well, do you think that Canada was founded as a fair partnership then ? It sounds like you do. I don't feel that it was and that's why I made my statement. You can disagree with my point of view, and call it racist too I guess but it seems strange to me. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jacee Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Okay. Well, do you think that Canada was founded as a fair partnership then ? It sounds like you do. I don't feel that it was and that's why I made my statement. You can disagree with my point of view, and call it racist too I guess but it seems strange to me. I wasn't calling you racist. I know you're not. Just don't see the point of playing that (sounds like bragging) 'founded by white men' card. The treaties were not always negotiated fairly, but nonetheless have been respected by Indigenous Nations and yes, they were an integral part of the founding of Canada: It was then and much of it still is their land. . Edited January 19, 2015 by jacee Quote
drummindiver Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 It's an Iroquoian word, a language common to many Indigenous Nations. (We don't use the word "tribe".) "We don't use the word tribe". Who's we? Not that it matters an iota, but thought you weren't native. Quote
drummindiver Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 It's not really necessary to jump in on this one, especially in the way that you have done here. Let's see what Jacee says. Uh, why not? Is this your and Jacee's private conversation? Do you two need some alone time? Quote
drummindiver Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 I wasn't calling you racist. I know you're not. Just don't see the point of playing that (sounds like bragging) 'founded by white men' card. The treaties were not always negotiated fairly, but nonetheless have been respected by Indigenous Nations and yes, they were an integral part of the founding of Canada: It was then and much of it still is their land. . "Treaties were not always negotiated fairly." Says who? You? What do you classify as fair? Do natives own all of Canada? If so, why? Because they pitched a teepee and did some hunting? If not, why not? If they own the land, we should all pick up and head back to where our ancestors came from. How do you own the land where you live? If a native (your family member) came in and said that it was their land, would you just give it to them? No? Why should the other ppl then have to? Why should we pay 9 fn billion dollars a year in tax dollars to Natives? Quote
Argus Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 It's an Iroquoian word, a language common to many Indigenous Nations. (We don't use the word "tribe".) Who is this 'we', white girl? I'm not going to refer to a tribe with a few hundred members as a nation. That's just silly. 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
Argus Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 That was the Brits vs the French. There were Indigenous allies on both sides. We never fought wars against Indigenous Nations. There were more than a few battles, though, esp out in BC. 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 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 Just don't see the point of playing that (sounds like bragging) 'founded by white men' card. I can see now that it sounds like bragging but if you aren't sure ask for clarification. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 Uh, why not? Uh, because it wasn't helping ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
drummindiver Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 Oh well. That's the deal we made. Love it or leave it, I guess. Yes. The Constitution Act, the supreme law of Canada. Not really. you just don't understand your country very well. what-if-natives-stop-subsidizing-Canada/ . Are you being deliberately obtuse or ignorantly disingenous? http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/11/theresa-spence-controversial-chief-of-attawapiskat-first-nation-earned-82000-tax-free-in-2013/ Am I supposed to take an ed-op piece from "Comrade" Dru Oja Jay as being a guiding light to my misunderstanding of Canada? A board member wannabe at Rabble.ca, where they extort the virtues of Black bloc tactics, and no protester left behind (ie fight the police). Again, are you serious? Natives are making out like bandits in Canada, from casinos to smoke shops to a percentage of billions of dollars of mining rights. http://www.nlc.org.au/articles/info/the-mining-industry-and-the-nlc/ Quote
drummindiver Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) deleted Edited January 19, 2015 by drummindiver Quote
drummindiver Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) deleted Edited January 19, 2015 by drummindiver Quote
drummindiver Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) deleted Edited January 19, 2015 by drummindiver 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.