cybercoma Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 It didn't stem from modern society, where our rights were codified in 1982. It stemmed from a time when agreements were made in order to take land from people already living here. Those are obligations our society took upon itself and now you want to renege on those agreements. Quote
TimG Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) It didn't stem from modern society, where our rights were codified in 1982. It stemmed from a time when agreements were made in order to take land from people already living here. Those are obligations our society took upon itself and now you want to renege on those agreements.The people who were living here are long dead. The idea that people that have some genetic connection to long dead people are entitled to special rights is racist to the core. No Canadian living today owes anything to people who only different from them because of DNA. The fact that the current legal framework is racist is not a justification for the racism. It is morally wrong no matter what was promised in the past. Edited June 9, 2015 by TimG Quote
GostHacked Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Nonsense. Democracy is built in the principal that everyone has equal rights. There is nothing more vile than people who argue that people should have different rights depending on what DNA they have because their ancestors were treated badly. If there are claims for lost property they should be addressed under the rules that apply to everyone else: fee simple title. Anything else is racist BS that has no place in a modern democracy. Thing is that the land was taken from them, before democracy took place. How do you explain that? Quote
GostHacked Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 The people who were living here are long dead. The idea that people that have some genetic connection to long dead people are entitled to special rights is racist to the core. No Canadian living today owes anything to people who only different from them because of DNA. The fact that the current legal framework is racist is not a justification for the racism. It is morally wrong no matter what was promised in the past. Interesting, but when we talk about that concept in terms of a certain Jewish state in the Middle East that rhetoric gets turned on it's head. But that is the only time I will mention that in this thread to show the hypocritical approach some posters have when applying their ideologies. Quote
TimG Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Thing is that the land was taken from them, before democracy took place. How do you explain that?They weren't born so it is impossible for any land to be taken from "them". The fallacy that you have bought into is that Canadians living today should be divided into groups based on who their ancestors are. Quote
TimG Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Interesting, but when we talk about that concept in terms of a certain Jewish state in the Middle East that rhetoric gets turned on it's head. But that is the only time I will mention that in this thread to show the hypocritical approach some posters have when applying their ideologies.Israel is a good example of how selective people are when it comes to historical claims. In this case, the Arabs were the colonizers who displaced the Jewish population centuries ago. This is why I think the past is irrelevant and we need governance structures that are fair to people living today no matter what injustices may have occurred in the past. Edited June 9, 2015 by TimG Quote
GostHacked Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Israel is a good example of how selective people are when it comes to historical claims. In this case, the Arabs were the colonizers who displaced the Jewish population centuries ago. This is why I think the past is irrelevant and we need governance structures that are fair to people living today no matter what injustices may have occurred in the past. The past is irrelevant by those who don't want to learn it. Or else we risk repeating it over and over and over again. And we are repeating it over and over again. Quote
TimG Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) The past is irrelevant by those who don't want to learn it. Or else we risk repeating it over and over and over again. And we are repeating it over and over again.Meaningless platitudes. I never said we should forget about the past. I only said that a democratic society needs to treat all citizens as equals and creating different classes of citizens based on real or perceived injustices done to their ancestors is wrong. Edited June 9, 2015 by TimG Quote
PIK Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 We have to be equal to be treated equal ,but the natives has special rights, that the rest do not. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 These are changes that cannot be imposed on them, and would not be palatable to them. I think we Canadians should shut up about what we think they 'should' do. We've caused far too much damage that way already. . What damage? What was the average lifespan of the natives in the 1600s vs today? What sort of housing did they live in? Good heating back then? Great education system? Roads? Medical treatment? 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 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Yes you're right they are. And people live where they choose. As long as they don't ask me to pay for it. 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 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 I want them to be the same as everyone else.....have you ever read 1984... Sounds like you want to keep them as quaint figures from the past like cigar store indians. 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 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 You think "human considerations ... fairness and doing what's right" means you telling other people how and where to live their lives? . If I'm paying for the food they eat, the clothes they wear, and the houses they live in, I get to tell them to do anything I want. 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 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 So if I kill your grand parents and take an estate that would have been yours, then my children should just get to keep it while you live in squallor? Our justice system should not be concerned with the return of your families property? Really? Odd sense of justice you have there... Every country on the planet had wars of conquest where one side took the property of the other side. Are we to go back through all of history and try to reverse all the old wrongs? The natives warred on each other two, and slaughtered each other without mercy. One of the big issues facing treaty negotiations and the like is multiple bands claiming the same territory based on who owned it at which point in history. Trying to sort through it all is an exercise in utter futility. 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 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 500 years ... and they are still here ... with their Aboriginal rights. . Living in rural slums, drinking themselves to death while their kids sniff glue and beat, murder and rape each other. 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 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 What you are describing as "natural change" is one nation or people dominating another and taking all of their stuff. Its certainly true it has happened since the dawn of time. But most nations and people have agreed that its not the right way for property to change hands, so what you call "natural change" is now considered to be "theft and subjugation". We operate on a different set of legal principles now, and peoples that have been the victim of this "natural change" are having considerable success around the world seeking justice for these past wrongs. Really? Give a few examples of people who were compensated for wars and conquests which took place centuries in the past. The only thing which has happened that I'm aware of is bleeding heart liberals going "awwww, look at the quaint natives" and tossing a few coins their way to assuage the guilt they feel over the fact their ancestors kicked the natives' ancestors asses. 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 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Oh buddy, I don't even know where to begin to respond to that. (Conquered, but in a nice way) for instance, leaves me to just shake my head. Have a nice sleep. I guess conquered in a nice way is like, not slaughtering them and eating them the way the Mohawks allegedly did to their enemies. 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 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Thing is that the land was taken from them, before democracy took place. How do you explain that? Who says they owned it? 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
jacee Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 They weren't born so it is impossible for any land to be taken from "them". The fallacy that you have bought into is that Canadians living today should be divided into groups based on who their ancestors are. Everybody has the right to inherit property from ancestors. . Quote
PIK Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 They were nothing but savages when the euros showed up, genocide was a common occurrence. So if they ended up with all the land , would the 1st nations become 6 or 10 nations and then start fighting again? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
TimG Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Everybody has the right to inherit property from ancestors. . If a non-aboriginal inherits property it has fee simple title and is subject to taxation and can be expropriated for public works. I would have no complaints if this was simply a question of compensation for lost property. It is racist concept of aboriginal title that is the problem. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Who says they owned it? The federal government. Its called Aboriginal Title. Quote
dre Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Every country on the planet had wars of conquest where one side took the property of the other side. Are we to go back through all of history and try to reverse all the old wrongs? Well, these things are driven by the damaged parties themselves and by the legal obligations that governments have to them. Some damaged parties will be made whole, or partially whole... others wont. And as the events get further and further into the past its less and less likely that these grievances will be addressed. Are peoples who were enslaved and subjugated in ancient Egypt going to be able to seek redress in todays courts? No... but various aborigional cultures around the world, or victims of slavery etc, that can show that these historical events damaged their situation TODAY are likely to achieve varying degrees of success. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 The people who were living here are long dead.Right. You only benefit from the things that happen during your lifetime. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 9, 2015 Report Posted June 9, 2015 Meaningless platitudes. I never said we should forget about the past. I only said that a democratic society needs to treat all citizens as equals and creating different classes of citizens based on real or perceived injustices done to their ancestors is wrong.Fine for you to say when you're already treated as an equal and have had the benefit of generations of advantages and privileges to support you. 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.