Rethinking Canada ...

[dre]

Legally ...

Canada is Aboriginal land.

A string of over 200 wins in our courts continue, including an Aboriginal Title.

All land is subject to the process of consultation and accommodation of Aboriginal rights.

Also legally, the Government of Canada and various church entities 'settled out of court' in a class action suit brought by survivors of Canada's 'Indian' Residential Schools.

We are about to receive the full report of the UN monitored Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

We have these legal realities to deal with as Canadians, and some rethinking to do.

Since the fur trade, colonization has served the greed of the wealthy.

Indigenous Peoples were decimated, their children stolen, indoctrinated, died in thousands, buried in forgotten graves.

Settlers were cheap labour.

Resources were stripped.

Water, air, and land polluted.

Rethinking Canada ... within our current legal realities.

Do we really have anything to offer to this land?

Do we allow the 'lairds of industry' to just continue wreaking havoc ... in our name?

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION:

All who died at residential schools should be named, bodies located

How many thousands of deaths will we accept

and still call it 'cultural' genocide?

.

White folks and industry aren't going anywhere, and natives benefit from economic activity just like everyone else. A quick visit to the local indian reserves here, and I see lots of active logging, land leased to a logging company for a dry land sort, over-fishing, poaching, selling food fish quotas to white folks, Walmart, superstore, shell station, etc. Trash all over the place.

Once they get a taste of industry they like it every bit as much as we do. So what do ANY of us have to offer this land?

And we aren't "accepting deaths". If I saw or knew anything about a native being killed I would intervene or call the cops. My family lived in South Africa when this happened and my parents were not even born.

[dre]

I agree. The very basis of the Canadian state is flawed as it is based on birth right, nationalism and collectivism as opposed to individualism.

Everything humans do has flaws. But there's not many places Id rather live than here so we must have done some things right.

[Scott Mayers]

Everything humans do has flaws. But there's not many places Id rather live than here so we must have done some things right.

That's one vote.

This only reflects your own circumstances as being of relative comfort in it. I question our politics because it always acts exclusive in some way regardless as it favors special Nationalists (as I defined above) with arrogant dismissal of those they ignore.

I also believe the Natives were and are treated bad in contrast to many. But I don't believe our present Constitution adds value to solving such problems as it is specifically just begging that we all use the same discriminating tactics that turns people against each other rather than unites. The individual needs to be recognized as the most significant minority, not the assigned groups based on genetic inherent ideas.

[The_Squid]

'Our', 'we'. This is the thinking of collectivists. People are individuals.

ummm.... I put Canada in brackets... as in "our country".

I never told anyone where to stay nor did I sign any agreement.

No one alive today did.

And no British monarch from hundreds of years ago ever had the right to create racist laws that exist until today in the first place.

You'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.

You guys have a moral system comparable to original sin, or North Korea's 3 generations of punishment from crime.

I have no idea what you're going on about.

Everyone should be equal under the law, no exceptions.

First Nations have rights that other Canadians don't have. THat's not going to change. Learn to deal with it.

[-1=e^ipi]

You'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.

The basis of Canada as well as all of the treaties depends on the legitimacy of the British monarch to make that laws. I don't agree the British monarch had the right to make such laws.

First Nations have rights that other Canadians don't have.

So you admit you support institutionalized racism.

And technically I'm like one thousandth native on my grandmothers side or something.

[Scott Mayers]

No one alive today did.

No, but some of those original ancestors are in power today due to the wealth based upon it AND if you dismiss this, then should you also not dismiss the fact that not even today's Natives 'own' their misfortune and so cannot hold anyone accountable either?

First Nations have rights that other Canadians don't have. THat's not going to change. Learn to deal with it.

Wow! Now imagine a Nazi saying this to the Jews in Germany!

[The_Squid]

The basis of Canada as well as all of the treaties depends on the legitimacy of the British monarch to make that laws. I don't agree the British monarch had the right to make such laws.

lol

You can disagree with it all you want. The gov't of Canada made the laws and they are completely legitimate.

So you admit you support institutionalized racism.

It was a simple statement of fact. I didn't "admit" to supporting anything.

And technically I'm like one thousandth native on my grandmothers side or something.

Irrelevent.

[-1=e^ipi]

You can disagree with it all you want. The gov't of Canada made the laws and they are completely legitimate.

Power resides where people believe it resides.

In the USA south 200 years ago, many people made slavery laws that were 'completely legitimate'.

The French monarchy made laws that were 'completely legitimate'. Where are they now?

[The_Squid]

No, but some of those original ancestors are in power today due to the wealth based upon it AND if you dismiss this, then should you also not dismiss the fact that not even today's Natives 'own' their misfortune and so cannot hold anyone accountable either?

original ancestors? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Wow! Now imagine a Nazi saying this to the Jews in Germany!

Godwin's Law is hereby invoked!! Maybe the dumbest analogy I've ever read....

It was a simple statement of fact... Let's take fishing rights as an example.... from the government's website:

After conservation needs are met, First Nations FSC rights and treaty obligations to First Nations have first priority in allocation decisions.

[The_Squid]

Power resides where people believe it resides.

In the USA south 200 years ago, many people made slavery laws that were 'completely legitimate'.

The French monarchy made laws that were 'completely legitimate'. Where are they now?

Completely irrelevent to present day Canada. I'm surprised you didn't invoke Nazis as well.

[jacee]

White folks and industry aren't going anywhere, and natives benefit from economic activity just like everyone else. A quick visit to the local indian reserves here, and I see lots of active logging, land leased to a logging company for a dry land sort, over-fishing, poaching, selling food fish quotas to white folks, Walmart, superstore, shell station, etc. Trash all over the place.

Once they get a taste of industry they like it every bit as much as we do. So what do ANY of us have to offer this land?

Sustainable industry.

And we aren't "accepting deaths". If I saw or knew anything about a native being killed I would intervene or call the cops. My family lived in South Africa when this happened and my parents were not even born.

I was referring to the very high rates of children dying in the residential schools, until the 1950's when the Convention on Genocide was signed. They are still searching records and looking for abandoned burial sites of thousands of children who died from federal neglect, intentional underfunding, and church brutality.

.

Edited December 18, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

That's one vote.

This only reflects your own circumstances as being of relative comfort in it. I question our politics because it always acts exclusive in some way regardless as it favors special Nationalists (as I defined above) with arrogant dismissal of those they ignore.

I also believe the Natives were and are treated bad in contrast to many. But I don't believe our present Constitution adds value to solving such problems as it is specifically just begging that we all use the same discriminating tactics that turns people against each other rather than unites. The individual needs to be recognized as the most significant minority, not the assigned groups based on genetic inherent ideas.

Our present Constitution reflects the fact that Indigenous Peoples are not subjects of the Crown as we are: They are allies of the Crown with whom we have treaties that allow us to live here.

That's a legal reality of Canada, a fact Canadians must reconcile themselves to.

[jacee]

"Canada is Indian land!"

"To the people across this great land, I say to you, that the values of fairness and tolerance which Canada exports to the world, are a lie when it comes to our people," Bellegarde said. "Canada will no longer develop pipelines, no longer develop transmission lines, or any infrastructure, on our lands as business as usual.

"That is not on."

He pledged opposition to any project that deprives First Nations a share of the profits.

"We will no longer accept poverty and hopelessness while resource companies and governments grow fat off our lands and territories and resources," he said.

"If our lands and resources are to be developed, it will be done only with our fair share of the royalties, with our ownership of the resources and jobs for our people. It will be done on our terms and our timeline."

His final remarks drew one of the loudest responses from the crowd.

"Canada is Indian land," he said. "This is my truth and this is the truth of our peoples."

There is a new energy in Indigenous communities today, a young energy not beaten down by residential school brutality, a strong birth rate, educated young people connected to traditional elders, reviving traditions and morale ... and winning land and rights and title claims in our courts.

We can rethink what we're doing now ... or wait for it to happen to us.

.

Edited December 18, 2015 by jacee

[Topaz]

My view is ALL Canadians can make this work if we quit the THEM vs US attitude and start building homes that will last by using building materials being for very cold areas for one thing.

[-1=e^ipi]

My view is ALL Canadians can make this work if we quit the THEM vs US attitude

But the THEM vs US attitude allows many people to obtain large sums of money, from politicians to lawyers.

[Scott Mayers]

original ancestors? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I think you're playing a duck. [As in, a dumb decoy, if you can't get this either.]

"Canadian" official ancestors who created the very laws in our government along with the "Treaties" and laws placing Natives into Reserves.

Godwin's Law is hereby invoked!! Maybe the dumbest analogy I've ever read....

I had to look this one up. It's one of those 'laws' created likely by the very idiots who are justly accused of being the arrogant Nationalists they are. I accuse you definitely of being a "Nationalist" if you yourself invoke accepting legitimacy to divisions of people based on genetic, racial, or cultural heritage. The comparison to Germany is justified here, with inclusion of what you are saying to -i=e^ipi by asserting "legitimacy" when the very system of who legalizes refers the government in power no matter how good or evil they may be. By simply standing by some legal position isn't sufficient to justify what is or is not alright. If it is the case, then it is just as simple to (POOF!) create any arbitrary law that makes you a criminal "legally", throw you in prison, and toss away the key.

What those of us complaining against our present system requires questioning the system as is in order to CHANGE what we disapprove of. Otherwise, what's the use in ever questioning ANY present system. Do you propose that whatever system is in place should be conserved period? And if so, then let's return to a period prior to another arbitrary time before the British got here. Should we all not go back to Europe now because our ancestors may have come from there? And like -i pointed out, we could all probably go back to Africa too. Should we all have some intrinsic right to everywhere some ancestor lived?

I could even go further and say that by our evolution, each of us had been everywhere on this Earth. And so regardless of what you prefer to favor as "legal" is no different than FORCE itself.

You ARE a Nationalist. And if you favor a Socialism only for a set of specific peoples based on any contingent history, you are a "National Socialist" by the intentional understanding of the German party of WWII. I am thus using it appropriately here as opposed to some mere unrelated accusation.

It was a simple statement of fact... Let's take fishing rights as an example.... from the government's website:

This doesn't follow either. Again, merely pointing out formal legality is about our present status external to the political philosophy in question here. Our system is flawed because it has "legalized" certain things against the demos (the people) as individuals. It favors select Imperially designated and authoritative supremacy of specific genetic groups of people based on nothing but COMMAND and FORCE without negotiating of the people.

Also at question is laws as such that act in PERPETUITY. How or why we have a Constitution that Conserves for all future times these racially divisive ideas is just another proof of our policies as Nationalistic in a similar kind to Germany. If you want a more modern example, the State of Israel is now one. Does it make you feel better to be compared to the past heritage of the victims instead who have now embraced the same National Socialist ideology? Either way, if you stick to our present condition of supporting Multiculturalism, to me it is clearly Nationalist and NOT of the kind to favor the whole, as in the U.S., by contrast.

Multiculturalism is legal here. If this is all you have to reaffirm, than you're not adding anything other than a kudos for it.

[Scott Mayers]

Our present Constitution reflects the fact that Indigenous Peoples are not subjects of the Crown as we are: They are allies of the Crown with whom we have treaties that allow us to live here.

That's a legal reality of Canada, a fact Canadians must reconcile themselves to.

I don't accept. And its not like my freedom to speak on it makes the legal system actually change unless it appeals to others. Are we simply supposed to shut up where we disagree just in case others might follow the concern and decide to vote for those who might change the system?

To even speak of the Indigenous people is off to me. We are all of this Earth and my own thinking relates more to the traditional Indigenous ancestors than their own progeny today. At least with respect to the idea of 'ownership', the ancestral Indigenous were still either nomadic or semi-nomadic here in Canada. They didn't claim any 'right' to land permanently and why they were overcome by the Old World people who had already gone through this transition from tribal transient life to settled civilization. If you want to give the Indigenous the rights of the ancestors of here and be sincere to culture etc, than we'd have to abandon declared ownership of lands altogether. "Ownership" was based on 'routes' and temporary places.

Regardless, all past assertions to hold up Treaties as perpetual contracts are not sound. You may believe that if you 'own' a piece of property that you SHOULD have a right to impose a legal sanction to assure that ALL future peoples of this nation MUST assure that a member of your personal family has supreme authority over it. Right? But "ownership" is more of a temporary privilege. Otherwise, the Queen can technically declare all of us as being "owned" by her if she so wished to assert it. That is, if you accept the contracts made in the ancient past regardless of its 'fairness', you'd also have to accept that given our Monarchy that even legitimized those past laws, you have to accept the right of 'our' Queen to also be allowed to kick us ALL off the land.

[jacee]

'Not accepting' doesn't change the legal reality.

[Scott Mayers]

'Not accepting' doesn't change the legal reality.

My point here is that we are HERE to discuss our disagreements with the present system, regardless of whether it is or is not 'legal'. If we had no concern to discuss something unless it was already legal, what's the point of this site other than to potentially give kudos to the system? So, back to your own preference here to the status quo in law, should it change tomorrow where we might have a law that says all women and Aboriginals should be interned in camps to be executed, would you throw up your hands and say, "Oh, I guess since it is 'legal' now, I shall just shut up and accept my fate!"?

[Scott Mayers]

Jacee,

Note too that I take issue with the Residential School claims because they are generic charges without accountability. I already question the fact that churches were even given the power to run these. It is like the government subcontracting to private industries to which besides this being questioned for a social service, we have to ask why the particular religious institutes themselves who ran them are not held fully accountable. But to the charges, the accusation of abuse lacks substance if they are not pointing out who particularly are the abusers and have them charged in a court of law where we presume one innocent until proven guilty. This is perverse thinking itself. Our governments merely accepting the charges on hearsay is another example of convenient protection by the very relatives who are actually responsible to the cause but only agree to settling to prevent the potential losses personally of their own officially protected group as they had deemed Constitutional and to spread the loss to the population en mass instead.

I think I'd hold off on any judgement without a fair trial, not merely anecdotal stories of abuses. It is also extremely suspect that the whole of all the residential schools along with all the various religious groups and teachers have all acted conspiratorially to abuse. I notice we seem to have a present environment here in Canada that embraces FORMAL charges of abuses by people that are being publicly asserted without initially enabling the court process to decide first. For instance, last December seemed to be a month of multiple charges of male abuses by women through the media which bypassed the process of awaiting one to have a right to trial before the accusations had taken trial by the masses. Ironically, we do not even allow the media to record the court cases to which would potentially reverse any media accusations made against someone where they may be found innocent, which doubly biases anyone accused of something to be condemned by mere anecdotal claims of abuse.

[jacee]

I suggest you read the report and some court cases.

[Scott Mayers]

I suggest you read the report and some court cases.

How does a story on ISIS here relate? Maybe you mixed up which thread you're in?

On issue, already the way this (the Residential schools & Aboriginal issues) has been presented is sufficient to assure it is highly dubious. No argument has ever been put forth in our media thus far to demonstrate any validity other than what is known as "hearsay". Anecdotal evidence is the type of 'evidence' that pseudo-science uses and I'm completely appalled at why others have not come forward to say so. I'm guessing that those in position to do it here fear it too much to bother risking their careers. Good think I don't have such a risk!

[jacee]

Another act of genocide.

After the Convention on Genocide was signed (1952), death rates of children in the residential schools fell. However other methods of reducing the population of Indigenous people were used, including

Sterilization of Indigenous women

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/thunder-bay/sterilization-of-indigenous-women-an-act-of-genocide-new-book-says-1.3205816

Truth ... before Reconciliation.

.

[Scott Mayers]

Another act of genocide.

After the Convention on Genocide was signed (1952), death rates of children in the residential schools fell. However other methods of reducing the population of Indigenous people were used, including

Sterilization of Indigenous women

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/thunder-bay/sterilization-of-indigenous-women-an-act-of-genocide-new-book-says-1.3205816

Truth ... before Reconciliation.

.

Your right...but it is NOT simply just targeting Aboriginal women if you want to learn the real truth.

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/national/women-pressured-to-have-tubal-ligations

This is the problem. You may think that the target is "Aboriginal Women" when in fact, the discrimination is related to "Poverty" as a more appropriate classification. And it is this which is pissing people off. By merely picking out the preferential majority or plurality as being "Aboriginal", you are acting no different than those supposed majority you opposingly target as "White" and (most often) "Male". Thus you are actually using the very same populous means to justice to which you accuse the next largest identified majority to which you blame.

And who suffers? Everyone, because

(1) it feigns without overtly declaring, that women who are Aboriginal deserve more attention than non-Aboriginal women under the same situations and abuse. It demeans those women who really do have the same issues by trivializing and even implying this doesn't happen to them, simply because they may be an even more minor minority of those represented by the impoverished classes.

(2) It targets an ultimate 'understood' enemy of the race/ethnicity of your perceived majority in a simmering hatred just beneath the surface (at present, "Caucasian North European" and "male")

(3) Fosters both a discrimination upon those minorities who remind you of 'those' majorities that happen to be of the same race/ethnicity (stereotyping) and creates a justified feedback mechanism by those on them in frustration as they are the ones who get penalized. Again, the White Male who actually aren't those wealthy privileged white male majorities.

(4) You save those 'white privileged males' as they openly support you as if they weren't the particular males who caused the problem when they actually at least have to be more likely the ones! How many white welfare males moonlight as secret doctors or officials in power who abuse?

(5) You aid the rest of society everywhere to both recognize the ones standing up complaining AND again withdraw attention away from the ones who put the maltreated people there.

(6) Thus people lose faith in the system and DO begin to think on more racial/ethnic lines even where they hadn't before [ironically like the link you sent before this on the survivor of ISIS hostage who mentioned that while he was abused by ISIS and not supporting them, the real cause was the Syrian leadership who should be targeted. (Maybe it's because he was a he with lighter skin?) The innocents who become merely considered sacrifices in war on some assumed 'greater picture' doesn't jibe with you: those innocents are thinking Nelly Furtado's words in "Powerless" in now the same light as 'we' might against those "terrorists" we hate so much even where they didn't before. Cool huh?!

I could go on but the point should be made here. The cycle of abuse stops first when we recognize the problems by appropriately defining the logical class associations to be prioritized rather than the emotionally driven ones that are based on inherent kinships. The reason why more Aboriginals suffer is simply because they are the majority racial class of the logical class of impoverished people. You can't fix what you don't or can't acknowledge as the real problem. POVERTY is the class that people should be standing up to defend, not RACE X who represent the most! If you're powerless as a Native, then the next minority below you is even more powerless. "So say what you want." But why should they sacrifice their lives for you as you argue ONLY for yourself instead. If its a dog-eat-dog world, how does segregating further contribute?

[Scott Mayers]

If you are listening to a "Sad Song" by Elton John at present because he relates to you,

you are certainly NOT listening to a "Sad Song" by We The Kings, nor "Whiskey Lullaby" by Brad Paisley and Alison Krauss, nor "Tears in Heaven" by Eric Clapton, nor "Dancing on My Own" by Robyn, nor "Nothing Compares 2U" by Sinead O Connor, nor "Ain't No Way" by Aretha Franklin, nor....

...

...

...

...

...

nor "Crying" by Roy Orbison, etc ad infinitude.

So do you nominate to censor and ban Elton John's sad songs because the majority too may happen to be listening to it and aren't to all those others they could be listening to instead? And what would you say to the idea of also taking the ones who most don't favor, like perhaps Gospel music, because it only appeals to the Christian enthusiastic who happen to be a large plurality of a minority class, and demand that they be only played on the radio and sold in stores in exchange for most if not all the others above? Would you think the lovers of Elton John's music might simply 'understand' and accept?

My guess? The very banning of Elton John would enhance and intrigue people more because of it and they'd seek it out with more fervor and even more dissent, new people who draw attention to the same distaste against Gospel music and worse, find more hatred where none may have existed before in these!

Edited December 19, 2015 by Scott Mayers