The White Man's Fear

[Smoke]

It has nothing to do with feeling guilty, but rather to do with not perpetuating past wrongs.

We continue to perpetuate injustice to this day.

Who exactly is this "we" that is continuing to perpetuate injustice to this day?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Smoke

[Smoke]

Of course this doesn't work for the Chiefs as this would mean losing out on precious government revenue that they get to rape from their people.

You forgot to mention that it doesn't work for the truckload of lawyers that have been milking this file for decades either.

[Big Guy]

It's not an insult, it's just a way of stating that you repeat yourself over and over by insulting posters with whom you disagree, but to whom you cannot come up with a rebuttal.

The only reason you don't "trade" insults is you have nothing to trade. You use the same insults all the time and WE all have lots of them now.

Thank for your evaluation of my postings. I notice that you have now appointed yourself spokesperson for the "we" group. Congratulations on your self appointment.

I have been trying to think of an insulting response but it appears I have nothing to trade.

As to you evaluation, I shall certainly take it under consideration in the spirit, intent and wisdom in which it was given.

[Accountability Now]

You forgot to mention that it doesn't work for the truckload of lawyers that have been milking this file for decades either.

Good point. The Canadian government alone spent over a $100M on legal services for Aboriginal Affairs. That's quite a few houses.

[overthere]

I don't see any substantive difference between the occasional incompetence, theft and corruption of First Nations governance and the long history of same in white governments.

OK, that is not accurate. The white governments are better at it, the dollar amounts are much higher, and they are btter at it since they've had so much more practice.

But wait, we have to hold FN governance to higher standards because they have brown skin.

[Smallc]

I don't see any substantive difference between the occasional incompetence, theft and corruption of First Nations governance

It would be fine if it were occasional. What's occasional is the opposite.

[Guest]

I don't see any substantive difference between the occasional incompetence, theft and corruption of First Nations governance and the long history of same in white governments.

OK, that is not accurate. The white governments are better at it, the dollar amounts are much higher, and they are btter at it since they've had so much more practice.

But wait, we have to hold FN governance to higher standards because they have brown skin.

You get to vote your "white" government out if you think they are wasting your tax dollars.

[Smallc]

So you'll let the dirty Indians keep those hilarious hats with feathers as long as they live where and how they are told?

Thanks man.

They can live where they want, with the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else.

[Machjo]

So if I understand, we should force the Ojibwe into our 'capitalist' cities, but if ever they decide to hold strata council meetings in Ojibwe, the government should immediately intervene by imposing English on those meetings, reminding them that they are not equal to the English before the law, and that the capitalist free market does not apply to the English whose language the law, taxes, and public schools must promote. It applies only to Ojibwe after its speakers have learnt English, paid their taxes to promote English, and budgeted for interpreters to cater to the English.

And then when the Ojibwe ask for funding to develop their language, we should tell those lazy Indians that while they must learn English and dupport the English, they must support their language on their own too.

And if they obtain lower grades in English class because they are learning it as a second or foreign language, then they'll just have to study harder while the English rejoice in their hard-earned monolingualism on the beach.

We should make sure that they understand that they will never have legal equality, that the law will always be on the side of the English.

[Machjo]

They can live where they want, with the same benefits and responsibilities as everyone else.

Would that include holding strata council meetings, posting advertisements, and practicing medicine in their language like we do in ours, or will 'they' be expected to live under 'our' laws?

Judging from the commotion in BC, I doubt it.

[Smallc]

So if I understand, we should force the Ojibwe into our 'capitalist' cities, but if ever they decide to hold strata council meetings in Ojibwe, the government should immediately intervene by imposing English on those meetings, reminding them that they are not equal to the English before the law, and that the capitalist free market does not apply to the English whose language the law, taxes, and public schools must promote. It applies only to Ojibwe after its speakers have learnt English, paid their taxes to promote English, and budgeted for interpreters to cater to the English.

Apparently, you don't understand. Everyone can live as they wish in Canada. They should all have to play by the same rules.

[Guest]

Would that include holding strata council meetings, posting advertisements, and practicing medicine in their language like we do in ours, or will 'they' be expected to live under 'our' laws?

Judging from the commotion in BC, I doubt it.

Isn't everyone in Canada expected to live under our laws?

[Smallc]

Would that include holding strata council meetings, posting advertisements, and practicing medicine in their language like we do in ours, or will 'they' be expected to live under 'our' laws?

'Our laws' allow people to speak whatever language they want. In two territories aboriginal languages even have official status.

[Machjo]

Apparently, you don't understand. Everyone can live as they wish in Canada. They should all have to play by the same rules.

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?

Judging by the reaction to the Chinese community in BC, I get the impression that most English Canadians do not want regulatory legal non-distinction, but rather rules and laws that distinguish in their favour.

[Argus]

I would and have published my views under my real name - or had the publisher choose to print my views in the letter section of a variety of media under my real name. There is no post that I have made that I would be ashamed to add my real name to.

Okay then. What is your name?

I do not insult others.

Only every day.

[Argus]

Who exactly is this "we" that is continuing to perpetuate injustice to this day?

Presumably everyone other than progressives wracked with guilt.

[Machjo]

'Our laws' allow people to speak whatever language they want. In two territories aboriginal languages even have official status.

Isn't everyone in Canada expected to live under our laws?

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.

Most indigenous Canadians want to abandon the Indian Act in Principle, but defend it in practice as a counterbalance to various laws (including parts of the Indian Act itself) that hurt them since parts of the Indian Act protect them.

[Machjo]

'Our laws' allow people to speak whatever language they want. In two territories aboriginal languages even have official status.

Most Ojibwe do not live in those territories.

Indigenous Quebecers are subject to Bill 101 off-reserve. Indigenous Canadians are subject to the Official Languages Act off-reserve, which can affect their access to Federal employment.

Burnaby is presently testing the truth of your assertion too. We'll see how that turns out.

[Big Guy]

Okay then. What is your name?

Only every day.

If the criteria to continue posting on this board was to give your name and have it verified by the Admin that I would gladly. I have nothing to be ashamed for. How about you? Would you come out of the dark and take responsibility for your posted views?

[Argus]

If the criteria to continue posting on this board was to give your name and have it verified by the Admin that I would gladly. I have nothing to be ashamed for. How about you? Would you come out of the dark and take responsibility for your posted views?

I have no issue with people knowing my views. No one who knows me is in any doubt on where I stand on all the issues I discuss here.

But for someone who repeatedly sneers at people for posting insults under an anon id you sure seem reluctant to come out and identify yourself.

[Guest]

I recently joined Facebook. I don't even use my real name on there. There are too many crooks out there.

How exactly would using one's real name on here force them to take responsibility for their views? Instead of calling them names, should someone go and "get them"?

If not, then the end result is the same. One just gets argued with, or insulted if there is no argument.

Edited January 5, 2016 by bcsapper

[Argus]

I recently joined Facebook. I don't even use my real name on there. There are too many crooks out there.

How exactly would using one's real name on here force them to take responsibility for their views? Instead of calling them names, should someone go and "get them"?

If not, then the end result is the same. One just gets argued with, or insulted if there is no argument.

Oh I agree. But he keeps talking about it so I thought I'd invite him to unveil. Not surprised he declined.

[Big Guy]

I have no issue with people knowing my views. No one who knows me is in any doubt on where I stand on all the issues I discuss here.

But for someone who repeatedly sneers at people for posting insults under an anon id you sure seem reluctant to come out and identify yourself.

In real life you take responsibility for your views. Here your made up avatar is your buffer from real life. I suggest that your views on Islam and your anti-Muslim views would isolate you in your neighborhood - that is why you could not connect your posted views with your real identity.

I will state again, if the criteria to continue posting on this board was to give your full real name and verified by the admin I would comply. I do not think that you would because of the distasteful things you post about minorities. If/when that becomes a reality here then I will certainly support it.

Many posters express tasteless views only when they know that none of their friends, family or co-workers will know about them. That is an obvious lack of courage or conviction.

This dialogue is going nowhere. I have said my piece. I have no white mans fear.

I will leave you to finish if you so wish.

[Big Guy]

I recently joined Facebook. I don't even use my real name on there. There are too many crooks out there.

How exactly would using one's real name on here force them to take responsibility for their views? Instead of calling them names, should someone go and "get them"?

If not, then the end result is the same. One just gets argued with, or insulted if there is no argument.

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.

[overthere]

Ill go first.

I am Spartacus. Dave Spartacus.