Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[Accountability Now]

Your entire premise is wrong, treasonous even.

Besmirching the Queen's honourable name ... well ... could be treason, eh?

Wow...quite the drama....even for you jacee. Of course what I said was common knowledge to anyone with logic. Here....from a website titled First Peoples of Canada:

http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_treaties/fp_treaties_two_views.html

The British and Canadian governments saw treaties as a way to legalize the ceding of Indian lands to clear the way for European settlement, mining, and railways. Treaties were intended to extinguish all First Nations claims and rights to their land forever, except in those lands set apart as Reserves of land for the bands to live on.

In return, the government would make a one-time payment to the bands, plus a specified annual sum.

As well, treaties had terms dealing with hunting and fishing rights, as well as education and health care. Treaties were also intended to offer the Indians some protection from the consequences of new settlement, and some assistance in adapting to new ways of living as the old ways became less feasible.

Treaties were also expected to be the first step towards assimilation.

Government expected First Nations people to give up their culture, including their customs, their language, their religious beliefs, their ceremonies, and everything else that differentiated them from Canadians of British origin.

Wait....what's that.....a First Nations website acknowledges that the British intent was to extinguish the rights of First Nations and was the first step of assimilation into Canadian society.

Perhaps jacee you have the blinders on yet again. Maybe you should continue to read the points I made instead of stirring in your own ignorance. My point was that if the First Nations want us to acknowledge their side of the treaties then they need to acknowledge the Canadian side. This website gets it....why can't you? Not to mention, there should be some unbiased and realistic conversation acknowledging the situation leading up to the treaties. You can try to put whatever spin you want on in but the natives in that day knew it was a matter of time before they would be exterminated either by a pressing British army or the Americans. I would even be honest enough to say that the British knew it would be very difficult to fend off the Americans (after already losing to them in the American Revolution) and having to deal with a French faction in Quebec as well. The first treaties were signed out of desparation and included little in reward. As the treaties started getting signed out west the natives realized they had more negotiating power and upped the ante. In either event they realized that treaties were inevitable. The ultimate reality is that the British didn't enter into the treaties as equal partners.

Now....you were saying something dramatic.....perhaps you would like to switch to logic?

[PIK]

My Irish ancestors came in the 1790s, and look at how the Irish were treated and are they whining. No they are not. But when one of the recommendations is full funding for the CBC, that it is now becoming a joke.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Of course you totally missed the context here, but what else is new.

[jacee]

Wow...quite the drama....even for you jacee. Of course what I said was common knowledge to anyone with logic.

Here....from a website titled First Peoples of Canada:

http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_treaties/fp_treaties_two_views.html

Wait....what's that.....a First Nations website acknowledges that the British intent was to extinguish the rights of First Nations and was the first step of assimilation into Canadian ...

My point was that if the First Nations want us to acknowledge their side of the treaties then they need to acknowledge the Canadian side.

The Canadian side is what the law says ... and the SCC says it must be assumed that the Crown acted honourably.

The ultimate reality is that the British didn't enter into the treaties as equal partners.

Whoa!

Are you being treasonous again?

Of course the Crown honours it's word!

We are not amused.

And btw ... did you forget this?

Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.

Stephen Harper

I just heard it again today on QP, a Conservative MP reiterating that "forced assimilation was wrong".

So you're not talking "logic" ... and you're out of luck too, AN.

.

Edited June 4, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

My Irish ancestors came in the 1790s, and look at how the Irish were treated and are they whining. No they are not.

1846 ... potato famine.

And we still only whisper about the fact that the British drove us out to give our commonly held land away to their land barons, and half of us died on the trip over.

But when one of the recommendations is full funding for the CBC, that it is now becoming a joke.

You do understand that the CBC is a critical information link to the rest of the country for remote communities?

That's why it's in there.

.

Edited June 4, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

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.

That was war.

There were reparations and compensation.

Now they are being asked to apologize to the aboriginals for something that happened many, many years ago

Not many at all. The last federally funded residential school closed in 1996.

and pay them (compensation) for what was done to them. The aboriginals lost the war.

There was no war.

Too bad. It is unfortunate but why should the people of today pay for something that was not done by them?

Because all Canadians continue to benefit from the Aboriginal land and lives that were taken.

What makes the aboriginals more qualified for compensation than any other group which lost their lands and relatives during a war?

There was no war.

.

[Argus]

So now you are going to try and conflate Gordonstoun with a Canadian residential school, one can only roll ones eyes.

Why? What happened at a 'canadian residential school' which didn't happen at Gordonstoun?

[jacee]

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 agree that genocide is often commonly thought to be associated only with mass murder.

Perhaps that is why the TRC attached the word "cultural" to it, for common understanding.

Attempting to destroy a culture doesn't sound so bad.

.

[Accountability Now]

The Canadian side is what the law says ... and the SCC says it must be assumed that the Crown acted honourably.

They did act honorably. They took what they saw as savages and tried to assimilate them to be like them in order to have a chance in the future world.

Are you being treasonous again?

Of course the Crown honours it's word!

We are not amused.

Drama...again? Even after I showed you logic that showed this. Tsk....tsk...

By the way....who is 'we' when you say 'we are not amused'. You've made it clear there are two sides...the Crown and Aboriginals (ie nation to nation). I know which side I'm on and quite sure you're not there.

Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.

Stephen Harper

As always jacee...easily confused. You need to focus on the wording....specifically on the 'this policy of assimilation". He is not saying 'assimilation' was wrong rather 'this policy of assimilation' was wrong. Meaning....forced assimilation. Many Canadians past and current are assimilating into our society in a very successful and enjoyable manner. Assimilation is not wrong....forced assimilation is. As per my previous quote, the intent of the Crown was for assimilation which ultimately turned into forced assimilation. The intent was good and in a new world order, the aboriginals are going to have to accept that.

So please try your best to understand the terms before being so dramatic.

I just heard it again today on QP, a Conservative MP reiterating that "forced assimilation was wrong".

And there it is again....'forced assimilation'. Do you know what that means by now?

... and the SCC says

I do love how you think that everything that the SCC says is gold. Let me ask you this....what do you think of the upcoming SCC ruling on Metis being given full Indian standing to Metis? We know the Federal Court already ruled in favor.

[On Guard for Thee]

Why? What happened at a 'canadian residential school' which didn't happen at Gordonstoun?

Thats comical but Ill humor you, how often do you think Charles ws beaten for speaking English...

[On Guard for Thee]

They did act honorably. They took what they saw as savages and tried to assimilate them to be like them in order to have a chance in the future world.

Drama...again? Even after I showed you logic that showed this. Tsk....tsk...

By the way....who is 'we' when you say 'we are not amused'. You've made it clear there are two sides...the Crown and Aboriginals (ie nation to nation). I know which side I'm on and quite sure you're not there.

As always jacee...easily confused. You need to focus on the wording....specifically on the 'this policy of assimilation". He is not saying 'assimilation' was wrong rather 'this policy of assimilation' was wrong. Meaning....forced assimilation. Many Canadians past and current are assimilating into our society in a very successful and enjoyable manner. Assimilation is not wrong....forced assimilation is. As per my previous quote, the intent of the Crown was for assimilation which ultimately turned into forced assimilation. The intent was good and in a new world order, the aboriginals are going to have to accept that.

So please try your best to understand the terms before being so dramatic.

And there it is again....'forced assimilation'. Do you know what that means by now?

I do love how you think that everything that the SCC says is gold. Let me ask you this....what do you think of the upcoming SCC ruling on Metis being given full Indian standing to Metis? We know the Federal Court already ruled in favor.

Apparently Harper does understand what forced assimilation means and had the good sense to apologize for it.

[jacee]

By the way....who is 'we' when you say 'we are not amused'. You've made it clear there are two sides...the Crown and Aboriginals (ie nation to nation). I know which side I'm on and quite sure you're not there.

You're not doing a very good job of upholding the Honour of the Crown.

You need to focus on the wording....specifically on the 'this policy of assimilation". He is not saying 'assimilation' was wrong rather 'this policy of assimilation' was wrong. Meaning....forced assimilation.

Unh ... ya ... so ... ?

Are you accusing Harper of some kind of doublespeak/forked tongue/he doesn't really mean it?!

The intent was good and in a new world order, the aboriginals are going to have to accept that.

Hunh?!

o.m.g. ...

.

Edited June 4, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

Thats comical but Ill humor you, how often do you think Charles ws beaten for speaking English...

That is comical seeing as it misses the point completely.

[Scott Mayers]

RE: jacee and Accountability Now discussion:

I would have to question whether force (of culture or against it) is essentially a bad thing in certain times and places. The way the language is worded, we speak today of how the European-Canadians set up a plan to simply destroy the Native culture(s). However, the "European" culture had more time to evolve in a way that made the differences between the cultures impossible to coexist.

Imagine, if you will, a day when while you are setting in for the evening at home watching a movie when a stranger or two walks in your door non-nonchalant, sits down right beside you, and begins to help themselves to your popcorn. This is the type of extreme cultural difference that existed between North American natives and the Old-world immigrants of Europe.

[Accountability Now]

Unh ... ya ... so ... ?

Are you accusing Harper of some kind of doublespeak/forked tongue/he doesn't really mean it?!

Nope. He is referencing the forced assimilation in his apology. As such I am accusing you or quite easily pointing out that you are confused yet again by taking this statement out of context. Forced assimilation is not the same as assimilation....no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Hunh?!

o.m.g. ....

Do you not view a new world order in the way things are done? Do you not envision or desire for drastic change to happen? Is that not what this TRC thing was all about? If not....then why did they do this? Just to return to the same ol'?

Since you chose to gloss over my one question, I thought I would ask again...

I do love how you think that everything that the SCC says is gold. Let me ask you this....what do you think of the upcoming SCC ruling on Metis being given full Indian standing to Metis? We know the Federal Court already ruled in favor.

I'm quite curious on your take with this.

[Accountability Now]

RE: jacee and Accountability Now discussion:

I would have to question whether force (of culture or against it) is essentially a bad thing in certain times and places.

Scott....the problem with this entire scenario is that the difference in what we used to think was good/bad versus what we now believe is good/bad. We continue to look back at those times with our modern moral compass and say those guys were evil. However, that was the time and place they lived. Their idea of force was somewhat normal. They literally just finished fighting wars with these people. Now they were trying to educate them? I'm sure they thought forcing them was a good thing as it was the proper means to the end.

[Argus]

Thats comical but Ill humor you, how often do you think Charles ws beaten for speaking English...

From all accounts he was beaten a lot. Not sure of the various reasons. Being locked in a cage naked under a cold shower doesn't sound too pleasant either.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Ok - how would you try to effect a change there ?

I'm asking open-mindedly, even though I admit that I'm dubious about your approach. I feel the idea of 'corrupt chiefs' may be mostly a cultural meme in mainstream Canada (as I discovered during our Attiwapiskat thread) however I also feel that governments everywhere are disconnected from the people they serve so I am curious...

[TimG]

I feel the idea of 'corrupt chiefs' may be mostly a cultural meme in mainstream Canada (as I discovered during our Attiwapiskat thread) however I also feel that governments everywhere are disconnected from the people they serve so I am curious...

There are 600 bands in Canada. Some of them are doing quite well. Others - not so good. We never hear about the well managed bands - only the problem ones because that is the way media works. The biggest trouble is the problems at the poorly managed bands are largely a result of incompetent local leadership but the few people who point out the obvious are branded as racists. Ironically, the bands that are doing well want these trouble spots to persist because they allow them to exploit "white guilt" and collect more for themselves than they would otherwise. IOW, no one involved in the system on the native side has an incentive to change it even if they are not personally corrupt.

[PIK]

And the word genocide can only be used for what happen before the Europeans arrived, because that is what was going on between the Indian bands.

[jacee]

Scott....the problem with this entire scenario is that the difference in what we used to think was good/bad versus what we now believe is good/bad. We continue to look back at those times with our modern moral compass and say those guys were evil. However, that was the time and place they lived. Their idea of force was somewhat normal. They literally just finished fighting wars with these people. Now they were trying to educate them? I'm sure they thought forcing them was a good thing as it was the proper means to the end.

We didn't fight any wars against Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

We made peace treaties with them.

Then we tried to destroy them as Indigenous Peoples so we wouldn't have to honour the treaties ... so we could just take over their land and benefit from the resources it provided, without compensation to them.

We made practicing their culture, religion and traditional governance illegal.

We made accessing our courts for land claims illegal.

We removed their children by force, denied them the practice of their culture (under threat of severe punishment), and indoctrinated them in our culture.

The government was informed repeatedly in the early 1900's that the schools were death traps for the children, disease, malnourishment and death were rampant. Isolation of children with TB was strongly recommended, in compliance with Canadian Public Health Law. The author of the reports was fired as medical examiner. The Feds stopped collecting information about deaths of children. The death rates increased.

The 'Indian' Residential Schools operated under Federal oversight for a hundred years, phasing out in the 1970's and '80's, the last one closing in 1996.

Canada signed the UN Convention on Genocide in 1952, but didn't implement any domestic law on genocide (as required) until 2000, four years after the last federal IRS closed and without the clause pertaining to forcible removal of children.

Canadians cannot pretend that our governments didn't know what they were doing. They knew ... as recently as 2000 they knew it was genocide.

And all Canadians continue to benefit from the wealth of resources from traditional Indigenous territories on which our economy is based.

.

Edited June 5, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

We also didn't commit genocide.

[cybercoma]

Stop arguing about the god damn word genocide and start recognizing the victims' stories. This idiotic pedantry completely misses the point of what exactly happened to these people. Genocide or not an atrocity occurred and that much should be recognized.

[jacee]

We also didn't commit genocide.

attempted "cultural" genocide

.

Edited June 5, 2015 by jacee

[Canada_First]

attempted "cultural" genocide

.

I don't see how wanting to include the Native people into the modern ways of our society as being a bad thing or "cultural genocide"? Is it your position that any assimilation is "cultural genocide"?