The White Man's Fear

bush_cheney2004 · January 5, 2016

Ill go first.

I am Spartacus. Dave Spartacus.

No...I am Spartacus !

January 5, 2016

If you consider these anonymous boards as a game that people play to pretend to be somebody or use the access to satisfy some need to insult people then I would understand your point. It becomes a silly waste of time and allows the social misfits to get their kicks by aggravating people but not having to suffer the consequences.

Perhaps you are correct but then do not take yourself or other posts here seriously.

I am trying not to.

I regard this place as a distraction. It's fun to come on here and argue, same as it would be down the pub. I have family members I argue with on the same issues, making the same points, and though they disagree with some points I make, they don't express their disagreement with insults. They make a contrary point, and then I am free to disagree with them. One thing about face to face, there is very little argument by Google, or argument by invention (as in, inventing what the other person meant even though it is obviously not what they meant) Both happen a lot on here.

I take all valid arguments seriously, but I don't lose any sleep over them.

I never insult people, except by return post. (I might say "rubbish" if a post is outrageous, but I don't consider that an insult)

Smallc · January 5, 2016

But what do we do when the rules themselves are slanted in our favour.?

You say everyone can live as they wish in Canada. Would you support Ojibwe businesses off-reserve following the example of the English and posting ads, practicing medicine, and holding strata meetings only in their own language if they wish?.

Why would I have a problem with that? Bum in favour of multiculturalism.

Smallc · January 5, 2016

But the question then is who is 'we.' We say we want indigenous peoples to live under the same laws we do, forgetting that the laws themselves are heavily slanted in our favour.

We are Canadians...as are they. Is ould certainly hope Canadian law is slanted in favour of Canadians.

Smallc · January 5, 2016

Indigenous Quebecers are subject to Bill 101 off-reserve.

Most of us aren't that backwards.

Indigenous Canadians are subject to the Official Languages Act off-reserve, which can affect their access to Federal employment.

Aboriginal Canadians receive preferential treatment for federal employment, and as a minority group always will.

eyeball · January 6, 2016

What is the timeline for having to accept guilt after the fact?

The second you know it. In our case we knew almost 1800 years before the fact that it was wrong. And we did it anyways.

We're even more guilty now for still pretending we didn't know that.

Smoke · January 6, 2016

The second you know it. In our case we knew almost 1800 years before the fact that it was wrong. And we did it anyways.

We're even more guilty now for still pretending we didn't know that.

Again, who is this "we" that I keep hearing about?

Bonam · January 6, 2016

Again, who is this "we" that I keep hearing about?

Good question.

eyeball · January 6, 2016

Again, who is this "we" that I keep hearing about?

The governments and corporations we own and elect. We're responsible for their actions.

Machjo · January 7, 2016

The governments and corporations we own and elect. We're responsible for their actions.

The corporations? As for the Indian Act and the residential school system, it was a mostly Anglo-French government and the Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, and Presbiterian Churches.

As for the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Gradual Civilization Act, that was a mostly Anglo-French Federal Government.

As for most other laws, it was the Federal or Provincial Governments.

Where do corporation's fit into this? In fact, the Hudson's Bay Company hired many indigenous Canadians!

Machjo · January 7, 2016

In fact, if we read the history books, English, French, and Indigenous Canadians working in the fur trade generally developed close friendships with one another.

eyeball · January 7, 2016

The corporations? As for the Indian Act and the residential school system, it was a mostly Anglo-French government and the Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, and Presbiterian Churches.

As for the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Gradual Civilization Act, that was a mostly Anglo-French Federal Government.

As for most other laws, it was the Federal or Provincial Governments.

Where do corporation's fit into this? In fact, the Hudson's Bay Company hired many indigenous Canadians!

This thread is about a lot more than just accounting for how indigenous people were mistreated by power and greed.

People putting "we" in quotation marks in threads on White Man's Guilt underscores that. Uncle Dosanjh also chose to discuss refugees and immigrants in the context of the Nat Post article that was cited. The Nat Post also expanded the scope of this discussion far beyond indigenous peoples in the article's opening paragraph when it wrote the following.

It brought home to the Americans that their reach in the world wasn’t always benevolent; sometimes it was born out of their economic dominance of the world and exploitation of the resources and peoples of the world.

It's bloody well obvious what "we" means in terms of how our beloved corporations and governments make us guilty for the crimes they've committed, past and present.

Machjo · January 7, 2016

The corporation's can exploit people only to the degree that the laws allow them to. For that, the responsibility falls in the Government's lap.

The Government, not corporations, decides education, immigration, and other such policies. Corporation's are circumscribed within those policies that the Government decides.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Machjo

eyeball · January 7, 2016

The corporation's can exploit people only to the degree that the laws allow them to. For that, the responsibility falls in the Government's lap.

The Government, not corporations, decides education, immigration, and other such policies. Corporation's are circumscribed within those policies that the Government decides.

We elect our governments and we buy our corporations.

We are as responsible for their actions or inactions as we are our own.

January 7, 2016

We elect our governments and we buy our corporations.

We are as responsible for their actions or inactions as we are our own.

So even though JT's a complete wet, and I didn't vote for him, I'm still responsible for him?

How nauseating...

eyeball · January 7, 2016

I'm talking more about a bigger collective cultural responsibility.

Irresponsibility in the context of Trudeau would be to pretend he's a care-bear when he's clearly a war-pig.

January 7, 2016

Maybe not all is lost then...

bush_cheney2004 · January 7, 2016

Irresponsibility in the context of Trudeau would be to pretend he's a care-bear when he's clearly a war-pig.

Or he could be a care-pig.

GostHacked · January 7, 2016

So even though JT's a complete wet, and I didn't vote for him, I'm still responsible for him?

How nauseating...

Yes indeed you are. He is the leader now and you have to deal with it, if you like it or not. He represents us on the world stage. Instead of throwing my vote away by voting Green, I should have bucked up , shut up and put my chips behind Trudeau.

You will have in your head that he does not represent you or you are not responsible for him being elected, but we all share that responsibility. We get the government we vote in. We have not educated ourselves to the point to say 'hmm this may not be a good candidate'. But we don't elect a PM, we elect a party.

He is nothing more than a front man puppet for other interests that most likely are counter to our Canadian values, if we have any.

Machjo · January 7, 2016

We definitely have Canadian values, possibly the first among them being Anglo-French nationalism,followed by money, followed by human rights.

GostHacked · January 7, 2016

We definitely have Canadian values, possibly the first among them being Anglo-French nationalism,followed by money, followed by human rights.

Interesting the money comes before human rights. That does not seem quite right.

jacee · January 7, 2016

The native issue will NEVER be solved by progressives. The only way it's ever going to find a solution is for a hard nosed conservative, someone like Mike Harris, to bull his way through all the screaming and screeching which any significant change to the existing system will bring and make drastic changes to the Indian Act.

Mike Harris thought he could bully his way through it, caused the death of a young man and was discredited by the Ipperwash Inquiry for it, despite the fact that three prime witnesses died suspiciously before they could testify.

He's no role model.

Something like abolishing the reserves, selling the land and giving the money to natives, or building them all houses in towns and cities where they can find work.

Using aggression and force?

You do understand that's genocide?

You do understand that we'd then have a civil war?

It is always important to consider both the intended and the unintended consequences of one's actions.

Otherwise, it's just stupidity.

Progressives still swoon at the cigar store Indian, and want to keep natives on reserves as quaint museum pieces.

Malarky.

Non-progressives like you and Mike Harris fail to comprehend that brute force accomplishes the opposite of what you intended.

.

Hal 9000 · January 7, 2016

Keeping First Nations on rural or isolated reserves is in itself genocide. Not a quick genocide, but it's clearly contributing to killing off of their population.

Big Guy · January 7, 2016

Have just re-read the OP and reference. Conclusion - The voice of priviledge adopting the voice of victimology to be taken seriously.

TimG · January 7, 2016

Have just re-read the OP and reference. Conclusion - The voice of priviledge adopting the voice of victimology to be taken seriously.

I don't think you read it very well. The article is a complaint about how ad-hom attacks on non-politically correct views have become the norm in political debate and this has made it impossible for rational discussions of the issues. It is a call to end the totalitarianism of the left before it completely destroys our society.

Of course, the argument went right over the heads of most lefty posters here who immediately responded with more of the ad-hom attacks designed to prevent people from expressing opposition to their totalitarian world views.

Edited January 7, 2016 by TimG