Jason Kenney - Unite the right in Alberta

[?Impact]

Rumours are flying around that Jason Kenney will be leaving Ottawa to head a unite the right campaign in Alberta. We have already heard a reaction from the Wildrose party, who welcome anyone but clearly say that Brian Jean is the party leader and will remain so. It appears the Wildrose believe they are in the drivers seat thanks to first past the post system. While they gained a lot in the last election, and ended up with twice the seats as the PCs, they actually had a smaller percentage of the popular vote (ie. they were locally concentrated, just like when the Bloc Québécois was official opposition in Ottawa during the 90's).

Will Jason make this move? Will he accept a "significant role", or is he going for the gold?

[Topaz]

I thought Harper would go for it...maybe he wants the Mayor's job.

[Guest]

Just reading the reaction to Jason Kenney's tweet about Aboriginal Day. Some people sure have a lot to say about nothing.

[waldo]

Just reading the reaction to Jason Kenney's tweet about Aboriginal Day. Some people sure have a lot to say about nothing.

oh my! Referring to 'First Nation' peoples as the first "settlers" ... how... colonial of him.

.

[Guest]

oh my! Referring to 'First Nation' peoples as the first "settlers" ... how... colonial of him.

.

They were. Unless they sprouted?

[Big Guy]

Jason is an exceptional and intelligent politician. He sees the federal leadership as a 6 year holding pattern in opposition and the West is more to his liking. I think he will go and "try" to eventually unite the right in Alberta. He better be careful. Any unification would result in a leadership convention and look what happened to MacKay.

[The_Squid]

They were. Unless they sprouted?

I've never heard anyone refer to indigenous people as "settlers". The common usage of the term is certainly different than how Kenney was using it. Was he making some sort of political statement?

[Accountability Now]

I've never heard anyone refer to indigenous people as "settlers".

But they were.

At the beginning of the Ice Age, 100,000 years ago, virtually the entire northern part of the North American continent was covered with ice. But by the time the Europeans began colonization—episodically from the 10th century and more systematically by the 16th—the continent was already inhabited. The exact date of the arrival of indigenous peoples in Canada is unknown, but archaeological discoveries have revealed that eastern Canada has been inhabited for nearly 12,000 years, while other parts of the continent, like the Yukon, that were not affected by glaciation were first inhabited over 30,000 years ago. However, ice covered most of Canada up to 10,000 years before our time, which is why it is generally agreed that native peoples did not occupy Canada until that period.

https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=origins_native_peoples

[The_Squid]

But they were.

https://slmc.uottawa.ca/?q=origins_native_peoples

Humans came from Africa, so settled everywhere outside of Africa... I suppose there are "settlers" everywhere if you go far enough back in time.

What I said was that indigenous people are not commonly referred to as "settlers"... as in common use of the English language. If you know of a different use for the term "settler" that refers to indigenous people, please provide a cite.

[Accountability Now]

What I said was that indigenous people are not commonly referred to as "settlers"... as in common use of the English language.

That's only because the term 'settler' is a relative term. Relative in the sense that it is usually preceded by the group that is settling. (ie white settler, Jewish settler. The fact that it is not used with the indigenous is because our history does not cover their settlement patterns however history largely covers the Canadian/US settlement.

With that said, nothing Kenney said was factually incorrect. The only reason its caused a stir was because many believe the indigenous were always here which would be factually incorrect.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

Will Jason make this move? Will he accept a "significant role", or is he going for the gold?

Its hard to imagine him doing this after Prentice tried to ride in here and save the day only to be trampled on. Popular vote in the last election would suggest that united right would win the day but still there's that reminiscent smell of having some smug PC politician at the helm which may tip the scales again.

I think that's why Brian Jean is getting the attention as of late. He doesn't offer that same pompous appearance especially during the Fort Mac fire where he lost his house and was camping in the region. If a united right happens under Jean then they will walk away with it. If Kenney comes in then there is still a decent chance they fall to the NDP.

[waldo]

I've never heard anyone refer to indigenous people as "settlers". The common usage of the term is certainly different than how Kenney was using it. Was he making some sort of political statement?

all this attempt to give Kenney cover! The first migrators! The first occupiers!... uhhh... the first "settlers"! Why bother; Kenney appears to have bigger fish to fry and will make himself inconsequential on the national stage - Jason Kenney - the first "settler of the Alberta right"!

.

[Guest]

He only needs cover from the very extreme outliers of the outrage industry who wake up every morning, ram a broomstick up their butts and then look for a reason for the pain.

It was a very slow outrage day, that day.

Edited June 24, 2016 by bcsapper

[waldo]

He only needs cover from the very extreme outliers of the outrage industry who wake up every morning, ram a broonstick up their butts and then look for a reason for the pain.

It was a very slow outrage day, that day.

I guess if you consider mainstream media outlets and First Nation peoples... outliers! I trust Kenney will acknowledge his coverTroops... with a tweet!

.

[Guest]

I guess if you consider mainstream media outlets and First Nation peoples... outliers! I trust Kenney will acknowledge his coverTroops... with a tweet!

.

Dammit. I don't suppose you'd change that n to an m would you?

[Accountability Now]

It was a very slow outrage day, that day.

Yes...it must be since no one appears confident to actually challenge the factual validity of what he said.

[PIK]

Topaz, harper never crossed my mind ,but quite the idea. I wonder if he would even think of it. If it did trudeau might want to quit meeting the premiers. lol

[waldo]

Topaz, harper never crossed my mind ,but quite the idea. I wonder if he would even think of it. If it did trudeau might want to quit meeting the premiers. lol

when the NDP won in Alberta, Harper was on a mission - Stephen Harper had plan to unite Alberta’s right as Conservative Party. After Trudeau sent Harper packing... while still "finding his way", there was a lot of serious "scuttlebutt" that Harper would take a run at directly "settling the Alberta right"... on through to a run as Alberta Premier. Apparently, he found a better offer instead! Stay tuned for just what that might be...

.

[The_Squid]

The only reason its caused a stir was because many believe the indigenous were always here which would be factually incorrect.

Who? Anyone who thinks this is ignoring a lot of scientific evidence.

Yes...it must be since no one appears confident to actually challenge the factual validity of what he said.

The fact is that the term "settlers" isn't generally used in the way Kenney used it. He probably did it for political purposes... appeal to "the base" and all that.

[Guest]

Okay, okay, let's lose the word "settled". Sheesh!

Lets just say they came across the ice bridge, liked what they saw and decided to put down roots, raise a family and stick around for a while.

Edited June 24, 2016 by bcsapper

[The_Squid]

Okay, okay, let's lose the word "settled". Sheesh!

Lets just say they came across the ice bridge, liked what they saw and decided to put down roots, raise a family and stick around for a while.

The term "settlers" is an unusual one in this context. No one is advocating for the banning of any words.

[Accountability Now]

Who? Anyone who thinks this is ignoring a lot of scientific evidence.

Read a number of the comments on various articles. Many people disclaiming the fact the fact that the First Nations actually were settlers at one point.

The fact is that the term "settlers" isn't generally used in the way Kenney used it. He probably did it for political purposes... appeal to "the base" and all that.

Could be. But again what is wrong with saying it if it is factually correct? Does it bother First Nations to accept the fact they too were settlers at one point?

[The_Squid]

Read a number of the comments on various articles. Many people disclaiming the fact the fact that the First Nations actually were settlers at one point.

"Comments on various articles"... so you're making an argument based on some internet trolls in comment sections. lol

Could be. But again what is wrong with saying it if it is factually correct? Does it bother First Nations to accept the fact they too were settlers at one point?

What is wrong with it? Well, it can cause confusion and controversy. Words have particular meanings and when you use them in ways that they aren't normally used, this can cause some questions.

I don't know who it bothers... are there First Nations who don't accept that there was human migration from Asia who were their ancestors? Probably quite a few... not much different than religious people who claim some magical creator put people on the planet.

[Accountability Now]

"Comments on various articles"... so you're making an argument based on some internet trolls in comment sections. lol

I'm not making an argument. I'm stating a fact. A fact that you have always agreed with. A fact that is causing a mild issue because people don't believe that fact.

Look at the article itself....http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/jason-kenney-tweets-first-nations-settled-1.3647656

The so called uproar is simply because the people that are offended don't believe in the fact that the First Nations were settlers at one time:

-Oh puleeze. Calling Indigenous Ppls settlers? Yeah right, 20,000 year old settlers. Canada is how old?

-ummmm. I don't think that the indigenous people were the first settlers, probably here before the that happened.

-Now that's a colonial attitude if ever I've seen one. #alwaysbeenhere

-What profound unease with losing settler colonial privilege looks like: @jkenney trolls Indigenous people. #cdnpoli

https://

twitter.com/jkenney/status

The reality is that this wasn't an article condemning Kenney, it was an article discussing how these internet trolls were attacking him. So YES....calling out these internet trolls is part of the conversation because they are the reason for the conversation. Very simple.

What is wrong with it? Well, it can cause confusion and controversy. Words have particular meanings and when you use them in ways that they aren't normally used, this can cause some questions.

And so we are supposed to succumb to ignorance because these few internet trolls don't understand and are 'confused' about the actual history?

Edited June 24, 2016 by Accountability Now

[The_Squid]

And so we are supposed to succumb to ignorance because these few internet trolls don't understand and are 'confused' about the actual history?

I see mostly questions/confusion as to why the term "settlers" was used. I'm not so sure there is a ground-swell of support for the idea that indigenous people spontaneously sprouted in N. America...