On Guard for Thee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 You make a good point. If the media simply ignored the word it would not matter that it was in the report. The problem is the media gives credence to this blatant exercise in propaganda. Oh it matters that it is in the report. Harper wont accept it due to the legal ramifications, in the same fashion as he will only accept the UN declaration as an aspirational document. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 The PM is right in taking his time to read everything and hopefully have a answer. If anyone has been paying attention the last 10 yrs would know that. And he has to be very careful about the language he uses as a leader. He has done more them any other PM when it comes to this, and he will do more. He may be good at reading, answers, not so much. Quote
PIK Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 And lets not forget the native kids that did not have problems and it was the best thing that happened to them. Something needs to be done, I understand that, but if it just going to be black mail, then screw them. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 It doesn't sound to me that it goes far enough. "How about Canada must invest significant resources towards new solutions that First Nations will design to edify their communities" Define 'significant resources'. We already pay billions to natives every year. And none of it has improved their lives. The objective ought to be to get the natives off the reserves, for the reserves are simply never going to be areas where people can live and work and support themselves. 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 June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 I think you have glazed over the issue again. Going to school was indeed required. Being beaten for speaking your native tongue or abused by some child molesting Catholic priest was not. True. On the other hand, those sorts of things happened to white kids too. The fact schools, particularly boarding or residential schools, could be miserable hellholes back then is not unique to the ones natives attended. 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 June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 I think this is highly instructive of what is going on, not only in this thread, but also in both Canadian and American societies at large, especially as it relates to honestly, or more realistically, dishonestly, addressing our own war crimes, our own terrorism, our own hypocrisy, our own ... . Isn't it against forum rules to post the same topic of conversation in different topics at the same time? This person has already started a different topic using this cite. 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 June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 Your own ancestors weren't subjected to a Canadian government policy of genocide. Nobody's was. 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 June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) All the FN want is the same treatment for their kids as we have for ours.....an education, so they can go out and get jobs and create jobs and then all us non-FN can quit complaining about the money going to them! IF the Accord had gone forwarded that former PM Martin wanted, both, the FN and the rest of Canada would have been further ahead with dealing with this situation. If the accord had gone forward that Harper's government negotiated with the first nations there'd be a big improvement too. Unfortunately, it fell victim to grandstanding and politics among the natives. The big issue here is that the government has insisted all that new money will come with some reforms, like creating native run school boards to spend it. The chiefs want to control the money themselves and want no strings attached. They will not negotiate with Harper over this because the Liberals and NDP have promised that if elected they will simply give them the money with no oversight or strings. Edited June 4, 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
Argus Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 Somebody on here was claiming the term cultural genocide was not entertained by the UN. I was just setting them straight. Their definition clearly fits this scenario. No, it clearly doesn't. 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 June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 Nobody's was. Yeah, any argument that starts with that premise can be disregarded at this point, I think. Quote
Argus Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 So what do you suggest ? The biggest obstacle to change are the native chiefs. They like things as they are. They have tons of money and power on their reserves and virtually no oversight. That is what has to change. 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
Big Guy Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 This reconciliation and finances involved may be a difficult pill for Canadians to swallow. The majority of Canadians are immigrants, first, second or third generation. Most immigrated after WW1, WWll and other conflicts around the world. These were/are people who lost their land, relatives and assets at "home" and came to Canada to start a new future and have worked hard to create this new future. None of these immigrants expect to be compensated for their loses at "home" or some reconciliation with those who invaded them and trashed their past. Now they are being asked to apologize to the aboriginals for something that happened many, many years ago and pay them (compensation) for what was done to them. The aboriginals lost the war. Too bad. It is unfortunate but why should the people of today pay for something that was not done by them? What makes the aboriginals more qualified for compensation than any other group which lost their lands and relatives during a war? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 Equalizing funding. The funding for schools in Canada comes from local ratepayers who elected local school boards to spend it. The problem with the reserves if the money doesn't come from locals, and the Chiefs get to decide where and how it's spent. What the conservatives proposed was the creation of native school boards with the power to spend education funds. The chiefs oppose this as an affront to their own near absolute power on reserves. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 True. On the other hand, those sorts of things happened to white kids too. The fact schools, particularly boarding or residential schools, could be miserable hellholes back then is not unique to the ones natives attended. Id like to see your links that confirm any of that. When I look at old pictures from the various residential schools, the only white faces I see are on the nuns and the priests. Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 What do you think of the Principles of Reconciliation? Here's my thoughts: 1The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors of Canadian society. Canada has already endorsed this declaration but as noted it is non-legally binding and it will stay that way. As such having this as a point is somewhat moot. 2 First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, as the original peoples of this country and as self-determining peoples, have Treaty, constitutional, and human rights that must be recognized and respected. As always, this comes down to the treaties which I have said before and will say again are the one thing screwing over aboriginal people. When you read the treaties they are written objectively to provide only certain things which in turn excludes them from everything else. All other items natives wish to garner from treaties have been won by interpretation in the courts. As such if the treaties remain then the litigious nature of dealing with treaties will continue and will get us no where. The other side of the coin is that if Canada really started holding the treaties to the word of the law then certain treaties state that natives are not allowed to have alcohol or block roads. So if these happen in any form then there would be repercussions. With treaties comes the Indian Act which is the most racist act we have but is also sought after by the aboriginals simply because it gives them their aboriginal rights. The treaties put a limit on what funding the federal government is supposed to provide. As long as the treaties are in place, this funding will be kept at the minimum level listed in the treaties. 3 Reconciliation is a process of healing of relationships that requires public truth sharing, apology, and commemoration that acknowledge and redress past harms. Already been done. Apology from Harper and the TRC was performed to accomplish this. What more is needed? Topics covered in schools? Sure. I agree with that. 4 Reconciliation requires constructive action on addressing the ongoing legacies of colonialism that have had destructive impacts on Aboriginal peoples education, cultures and languages, health, child welfare, the administration of justice, and economic opportunities and prosperity. What are the constructive actions and what are the ongoing legacies of colonialism. Do they again point back to the treaties? If so its a just going to circle back to the same issue. 5 Reconciliation must create a more equitable and inclusive society by closing the gaps in social, health, and economic outcomes that exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. Again...can't happen as long as treaties are in place. You can't have your treaty and then expect to be treated like regular Canadians. Its an either or thing. Reconciliation needs a fresh face where the approach is making First Nations equal by treating them the same as other Canadians. To bring them up to this standard, there would be a serious cash input in exchange for a buy out and transition phase. Additionally there would be clauses put into place to ensure that history would be taught on the plight of the aboriginal people through education, museums and such. Such history would include their rise out of poverty and joining the rest of Canadian society. 6 All Canadians, as Treaty peoples, share responsibility for establishing and maintaining mutually respectful relationships. Again...with the treaties. I thought this was about Residential Schools. Remember, the treaties got them into this mess as they desired to have British education. 7 The perspectives and understandings of Aboriginal Elders and Traditional Knowledge Keepers of the ethics, concepts, and practices of reconciliation are vital to long-term reconciliation. Fully agree with this one. 8 Supporting Aboriginal peoples cultural revitalization and integrating Indigenous knowledge systems, oral histories, laws, protocols, and connections to the land into the reconciliation process are essential. That can work on their land (ie reserves) but Canadian law will always be above such laws. This seems like a vague statement that doesn't really accomplish much other than trying to say that the Indigenous way will be preserved. With that said, do Indigenous people not use written history now? Or what about European knowledge systems? Its far past the point to say that their systems are still practical in today's society. 9 Reconciliation requires political will, joint leadership, trust building, accountability, and transparency, as well as a substantial investment of resources. I really like the accountability and transparency part. I have no problem investing a substantial investment if the funds are going to the right places. However we have seen cases where funds have been sent and were either spend inappropriately or have remained in the hands of the chief or chiefs family. Ultimately I have no problem with native self government as long as the transparency is in place and the understanding that funding is a limited event. You can't keep coming back to the well if you've dried it up. 10 Reconciliation requires sustained public education and dialogue, including youth engagement, about the history and legacy of residential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal rights, as well as the historical and contemporary contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canadian society. Education of past events is warranted. However, the education of treaty rights is a two way street in that we can't accept a romanticized version of how the treaties were made and what they actually intended to offer. If Canada is to accept the negativity of history then the First Nations will have to accept that they had no choice but to sign the treaties and they were on the short end of the stick when doing so. It should also be addressed showing what the true intent of the treaties from the British side as well meaning that one day natives would join and be part of Canada....not this continued apartheid state. Ultimately, I see this as being just more of the same. Respect our treaty rights, more money and a lot of vague statements. Unfortunately by the way this is going, we probably will get over the TRC and move on just like we did with Idle No More. Until there is a real solution that is dramatically different from the way it is being approached now, we will continue to have aboriginal issues. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 No, it clearly doesn't. It clearly does, if you would bother to read it. Quote
Argus Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Id like to see your links that confirm any of that. When I look at old pictures from the various residential schools, the only white faces I see are on the nuns and the priests. I didn't say whites attended these particular residential schools, although one of the cites TimG posted the other day said I believe, that 12% of students were white. I was referring to the many other boarding schools and orphanges which had the same sorts of activities taking place, not just here but throughout the "empire". I posted such an example of Prince Charles' boarding school which, I'm sure, you didn't bother to read. Edited June 4, 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
On Guard for Thee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 I didn't say whites attended these particular residential schools, although one of the cites TimG posted the other day said I believe, that 12% of students were white. I was referring to the many other boarding schools and orphanges which had the same sorts of activities taking place, not just here but throughout the "empire". I posted such an example of Prince Charles' boarding school which, I'm sure, you didn't bother to read. Well it is those particular schools that this report refers to. The ones that took people from their families, often against their will, in order to take the Indian out of the child. I doubt Prince Charles had to put up with a lot of that. Quote
Argus Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 Well it is those particular schools that this report refers to. The ones that took people from their families, often against their will, in order to take the Indian out of the child. I doubt Prince Charles had to put up with a lot of that. In some ways he did. He was an Englishman in a Scottish school. And some kids were taken from their families by force because it was the law that kids attend school - something the Chiefs had demanded, by the way. 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 June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/british-pm-apologizes-to-home-children-1.916446 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 In some ways he did. He was an Englishman in a Scottish school. And some kids were taken from their families by force because it was the law that kids attend school - something the Chiefs had demanded, by the way. So now you are going to try and conflate Gordonstoun with a Canadian residential school, one can only roll ones eyes. Quote
jacee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Something needs to be done, I understand that, You know, I think we actually all agree on that! Amazing. I think it's really appropriate that this is an election year. The parties will each lay out their platform on this, and we can choose. I'm looking for a whole lot less federal micromanaging control, more local autonomy along with equal funding and access to public services - water, education, health, child welfare, housing etc. And address First Nations proposals for revision of the 'Indian' Act. The UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples could be a useful 'aspirational' model for that. The Constitution Act, Treaties and SCC case law ... all need to be incorporated. . Edited June 4, 2015 by jacee Quote
Remiel Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 I am not going to read through all billionty pages to determine whether the point I want to make from a discussion eight pages ago has already been brought up. The problem with genocide is that despite the fact that its conception was closely tied to its legal institution the way people use the word has become rather more specific and limited, mostly I think on account of its etymological resemblance to an entire class of words that we all ready understand as meaning one thing only. And in the long run usage is king in language. If you look at the progressive position on emerging "dialects" of English like Ebonix, which embraces how language diverges sometimes and that this should be acceptable at some level, it seems passing strange for the same people to turn around and insist that the meaning of genocide is the legal meaning of genocide and every should adapt their vocabulary to that. The same goes with the word "racism" to an extent, though it is, I think, rather less charged even than genocide. And for the most part, the way people use genocide is to mean to attempt to kill off large numbers or proportions of people of an identifiable group or otherwise limit their ability to propagate. I have a hard time thinking that anyone would object to forced sterilization of a group being called genocidal. It is all this other stuff that mucks up the word. And, though it is perhaps a natural impulse, people on the side of the agrieved insist on labelling everything in the maximalist way, whereas those who are being accused of something nefarious insist that it should be minimalist, one which hews much more closely I think to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" . Quote
poochy Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 I guess the same people who deny climate change is occurring would likely be the same ones denying cultural genocide did occur. Regardless of the evidence or the language. I guess that is an incredibly stupid and utterly irrelevant statement, but hey with opinions like that we don't have to think very hard about why extremist opinions are so easy to discredit. Quote
jacee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 Here's my thoughts:AN:I don't disagree with everything you've said but ... there's a real clinker in there and I'm just going to address that. It reveals where you're coming from in the rest of it, and why I won't wade through the rest of it: Your entire premise is wrong, treasonous even. AN: It should also be addressed showing what the true intent of the treaties from the British side as well meaning that one day natives would join and be part of Canada.... "true intent"? Where did you find that in the treaties? The SCC ruled long ago that no matter what the ill or misguided intent of the Queen's agents might have been or may appear to have been ... it must be assumed that the Crown acted with honourable intent: the Honour of the Crown must be upheld by the courts. Besmirching the Queen's honourable name ... well ... could be treason, eh? I can see how your unfortunate misperception on that issue would lead you to all kinds of erroneous thoughts. I wouldn't want to repeat them here. CSIS might be watching, you know? And the police ... well ... their first Oath of Duty is loyalty to the Queen! Gotta watch what you say! There may be secret detentions involved ...! . Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.