Rethinking Canada ...

[jacee]

So what? Someone who sold Apply stock at $20 probably feels swindled today. Such feelings does not make the sale invalid.

It's often about what was agreed upon but never paid.

.

[Guest]

So your concern is that you don't like the Band governments that Canada created and imposed to replace traditional Indigenous governance ...?

I'm confused ...

.

I think he just doesn't like giving them money for which they don't have to account.

Seems reasonable...

Edited December 17, 2015 by bcsapper

[jacee]

You mean the band governments that vehemently opposed to any reform that means they, like every other level of government, are responsible for funding services by taxing the people who they provide the services to?

Increasingly not our business how they raise additional funds. Sometimes it's via profitable Band owned businesses.

None of that changes our treaty obligations to fund services. That's our original agreement ... for the right to live on their land.

.

[Big Guy]

I am sceptical about the request for an apology from the Pope.

An apology means accepting that something bad was done and the apologizer accepts fault or offence. This opens the door for financial reparations. MORE MONEY!

Not sure the Pope is prepared to open that door unless he is very careful about the wording of an "apology".

The more I look at the aboriginal arguments the more it appears to me it is coming down to "give us more money because IT is your fault".

On the residential schools issue, I think it was an attempt by good people to do good things for these "godless savages" which is the way most of civilized society was looking at aboriginals at the time. That may be distasteful but that was the reality of the thinking at the time.

To jayee - Who (or what group) can be considered as speaking for the aboriginal community?

[The_Squid]

An apology means accepting that something bad was done and the apologizer accepts fault or offence.

So when the church sets up schools where natives are sexually abused, assaulted regularly, go missing or die in their hands, do you not think that something bad was done?

[TimG]

None of that changes our treaty obligations to fund services. That's our original agreement ... for the right to live on their land.

Actually no. I am not aware of a treaty that promises to provide government services free of charge. When the treaties were signed natives were expected to look after themselves. The idea that they are entitled to free services is a modern fiction created by activists. Edited December 17, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

The more I look at the aboriginal arguments the more it appears to me it is coming down to "give us more money because IT is your fault".

I think the money is something Ottawa dangles in lieu of giving what they really don't want to part with and which natives really want which is power.

Why the vast majority of us should give a fig about that is beyond me. They can't tax what we don't have. We're taxed for our money not our power.

Edited December 17, 2015 by eyeball

[jacee]

I am sceptical about the request for an apology from the Pope.

An apology means accepting that something bad was done and the apologizer accepts fault or offence. This opens the door for financial reparations. MORE MONEY!

Not sure the Pope is prepared to open that door unless he is very careful about the wording of an "apology".

The more I look at the aboriginal arguments the more it appears to me it is coming down to "give us more money because IT is your fault".

On the residential schools issue, I think it was an attempt by good people to do good things for these "godless savages" which is the way most of civilized society was looking at aboriginals at the time. That may be distasteful but that was the reality of the thinking at the time.

To jayee - Who (or what group) can be considered as speaking for the aboriginal community?

I really don't care about the Pope.

The churches scammed the Residential School settlement process too: The funds they submitted were returned to them for 'healing' ... and spent only on their own congregations. What a scam.

More money is a necessity of course, since health, education and other services for Indigenous people and communities are underfunded compared to the rest of us, and those are treaty obligations.

The consequences of genocide are damaged communities, families and cultures.

The damage we see today was caused by our genocide.

IT is our fault.

It is our responsibility to ensure that basic services are equitable and that Aboriginal rights are respected, in development of land.

Historically and still, revenues that should have gone to Indigenous accounts went into our accounts instead.

When does the theft of Indigenous monies stop?

.

[Big Guy]

So when the church sets up schools where natives are sexually abused, assaulted regularly, go missing or die in their hands, do you not think that something bad was done?

I believe the intent was to set up schools where young natives would learn the language and culture of the English and have profitable lives in assimilating with the growing English speaking population. I do not think the schools were set up to sexually abuse, regularly assault (although all school age kids were "assaulted" as a behavioural modification technique), or go missing or die. That became a by-product of those put into position of power.

At about the same time, Dr. Barnardo shipped about 100,000 British children (orphaned, abandoned or destitute) from Britain into Canada to work as domestics or farmhands or for adoption. Some were sexually assaulted, some were beaten and many disappeared or died at the hands of their sponsors. The idea was good at the time and many flourished to be parents and grandparents of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Children and their welfare was looked at quite differently at the time.

I am not an apologist for residential schools because I do not know enough about them but I wonder how many aboriginal children survived because of the care they received at these schools. I believe that to consider the concept of these schools as some dark, white mans diabolical attempt to wipe out Canadian aboriginals would be an error.

[Big Guy]

I really don't care about the Pope.

...

Historically and still, revenues that should have gone to Indigenous accounts went into our accounts instead.

When does the theft of Indigenous monies stop?

.

So who does the Canadian government negotiate with who represents the views and wants of all aboriginals?

[jacee]

Actually no. I am not aware of a treaty that promises to provide government services free of charge. When the treaties were signed natives were expected to look after themselves. The idea that they are entitled to free services is a modern fiction created by activists.

We never honored our treaty obligations.

We stole their land.

We stole their revenues.

We stole thir children.

We built our society with their money.

Equalizing health, education and social services is an obligation and a necessity.

.

[jacee]

I am not an apologist for residential schools

Yes you are.

I believe that to consider the concept of these schools as some dark, white mans diabolical attempt to wipe out Canadian aboriginals would be an error.

It is the truth.

Our governments never intended to fulfill our treaty obligations. They intended to get rid of them by getting rid of Indigenous societies.

.

Edited December 17, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

So who does the Canadian government negotiate with who represents the views and wants of all aboriginals?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/truth-and-reconciliation-head-calls-for-action-as-final-report-released/article27762924/

I am therefore announcing that we will work with leaders of First Nations, the Métis nation, Inuit, provinces and territories, parties to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and other key partners to design a national engagement strategy for developing and implementing a national reconciliation framework, including a formal response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions calls to action.

[overthere]

I get the message that there is gross mismanagement with the $8 billion + going through aborigional affairs. I also get the message that money is required for infrastructure and education.

I trust that the $millions that is saved on managing properly will be enough to repair the infrastructure and education so the total cost will remain the same.

There needs to be a wholesale change of attitude on both sides of this.

And support for what that means to citizens. One way we can all help is to acknowledge that there is a joint responsibility to fix a grotesque, longstanding stain on our countries heart and soul. And by citizens I mean all of us, not just white or red or black or yellow.

[eyeball]

When the treaties were signed natives were expected to look after themselves.

That's just not true. The instructions that governments in England gave to their explorers and agents made it quite clear they were looking after native interests. Despite and even in spite of the brutal first contacts between native people and Europeans, ethics morality and their importance in the rule of law were taking greater hold throughout Europe. There was however slight, an awareness of the responsibility of governments to protect indigenous people from depredations by their colonists and Governors assigned by their superiors were instructed to ensure that didn't happen.

[Michael Hardner]

There needs to be a wholesale change of attitude on both sides of this.

And support for what that means to citizens. One way we can all help is to acknowledge that there is a joint responsibility to fix a grotesque, longstanding stain on our countries heart and soul. And by citizens I mean all of us, not just white or red or black or yellow.

Honestly, I think people just need to pay more attention to this as a start.

There have been inquiries and commissions but in the end there's not much done.

Attawapiskat prompted the last substantive thread on here where I remember a lot of discussion:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22176-where-did-all-the-money-go-to-attawapiskat/

[TimG]

There was however slight, an awareness of the responsibility of governments to protect indigenous people from depredations by their colonists and Governors assigned by their superiors were instructed to ensure that didn't happen.

That does not mean the "colonists" promised to provide food, water, shelter and healthcare for free to native groups. The expectation always was that the natives would take care of themselves.

[eyeball]

That does not mean the "colonists" promised to provide food, water, shelter and healthcare for free to native groups. The expectation always was that the natives would take care of themselves.

The expectation was that native people would retain the means, the land, resources and jurisdiction necessary to do so. The scraps we left them were insufficient.

[TimG]

The expectation was that native people would retain the means, the land, resources and jurisdiction necessary to do so. The scraps we left them were insufficient.

They have access to the Canadian economy which provides more than enough to allow non-natives to look after themselves. If they are not able to then that is hardly the fault of the government.

[eyeball]

As I said above it's access to jurisdiction that's missing. What we're failing to provide is entirely the fault of the government.

[overthere]

I believe the intent was to set up schools where young natives would learn the language and culture of the English and have profitable lives in assimilating with the growing English speaking population.

It is difficult to imagine how you would get this notion.

The purpose of religious indoctrination is to assert institutional control of young minds and bind them to their faith by 'saving their heathen from themselves'. It is a proven way to get and keep people pliant and obedient. The Catholic Church has been doing it very well for 2000+ years. The Anglicans(who are very nearly Catholic too of course) fought it out with the Catholics across Canada.

Resdidential schools were far more successful for the churches than any other method after all they had what were essentially prison camps conditions with no escape. They also had missionaries everywhere at the same time, but they were much less successful, not least because they could not imprison and torture adults nearly as easily as at the schools.

[Scott Mayers]

Eastern Canadian interests by those who benefited in reserving people like cattle, like Liberal-Party Supporters' family relatives, for instance, require the Constitutional policies they initiated of Multiculturalism in order to prevent them from the liability that their own particular gains were earned on from the past. By at least appearing favorable to Aboriginal concerns under the same restricted banner of select Ontario/Quebec ancestral benefactors, they do three things:

(1) Appear apologetic to those they've had more intimate fault at creating from their ancestors while still desiring to maintain their biases privately;

(2) Foster the Aboriginals to conspire like one in a gang may be initiated to incriminate themselves in order to assure compliance and instigate internal conflict to keep them both loyal to the established group and make them equally responsible should they later try to back out. Our Liberals desired this the strongest since they represent the 'conservatives' of the general Catholic and Anglican philosophies embedded in their beliefs in authoritative god-heads. At least, to our Canadian original Upper-Lower states in the Far East of present Canada, their loyalties to dictatorial monarchs conforms to the ideal of class divisions based on ethnic and racial supremacy granted to them through their own interpreted beliefs. This is why the favor both 'liberal' economics (their wealth) and 'liberal' social policy to some extend, as this is a functional aspect of the bureaucratically-driven governance through Church authorities.

(3) Disperse the debts of their particular liabilities to the masses by sacrificing those who appear at equal cause to pay for it. Thus the poor non-Catholic, non-Christian, non-Aboriginal, members in society who lack protections take on the burden imposed by all those groups in kind. Multiculturalism is intentionally a smoke screen to feign diversity and love of cultures when in fact they want to both conserve differences but in a way that legitimizes their own right to discriminate in law.

These are the three main factors as I see it. I believe that ALL nationalistic pride and protections do this, including divisions on sex. And I also believe that we are all vulnerable to reflectively doing this.

The Conservatives favor the Mono-cultural Christian ethic of full Protestant religions since they act independent of religious authorities and bureaucracy AND, for the most part, they interpret even the Christian as equally 'sinful' as any other human being. This is why they favor liberal economics BUT are more conservative in social-law restrictions. Though not traditionally a 'white vs other' religion, they see original Christianity as naturally inclusive of all people. They favor fundamental believers, including other non-Christian ones that believe in the same freedom to assert ownership rights as the Earthly life whether fair or not, is "fixed" in their certain belief in a God who'll repair any injustices, including ones they may have caused. Thus they are more compassionate to those who are wealthier by default.

The social democrats, (towards Communism), such as our NDP, are socially liberal, but economically conservative. While this may by default favor the poor in contrast to the wealth that Conservatives or Liberals hold, the nature of our Western society relies on requires money to support these parties at a minimal. As such, they resort to favor those majority pluralities who fund them more and belong to the Nationalities, cultural, ethnic, and religious groups, not individuals, in those less economically viable.

Either way, Canada is doomed by our present Constitution simply because Nationalism, Culture, Ethnicity, and Religion are equally favored by the groups over the individual regardless. As such, divisions based on inherent wealth/poverty AND culture/ethnicity will prevail over the democratic individuals of society not fitting in these particular favored interests.

Unless we attend to defeat what is summed up as Nationalisms, we cannot have a chance to ever make Canada a viable and successful democracy. While many think the U.S. is somehow worse, it's First Amendment is a type of Constitutional element we need to remove PARTICULAR cultural/religious/ethnic forms that lead to discrimination of one form or another no matter what. And the same National fervor is also the factor(s) in even the American government. But at least, their First Amendment is the ideal first step to defeating Nationalism. It just needs to be better worded and enforced to prevent any one nationalistic group from prevailing.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Big Guy]

I think we are doing OK and I like the way Canada is governed.

[-1=e^ipi]

We (Canada) put them there and told them that's where they are to stay and Canada will look after their needs.

That's our original agreement ...

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

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

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

Everyone should be equal under the law, no exceptions.

[-1=e^ipi]

Either way, Canada is doomed by our present Constitution simply because Nationalism, Culture, Ethnicity, and Religion are equally favored by the groups over the individual regardless. As such, divisions based on inherent wealth/poverty AND culture/ethnicity will prevail over the democratic individuals of society not fitting in these particular favored interests.

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.