Guest Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 (edited) Sure. They settled, we colonised. Of course, colonisers settle too, so... I guess, because they were the first, they didn't have to colonise, so they just settled. Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out. Edited June 27, 2016 by bcsapper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 I guess, because they were the first... And there's the rub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 And there's the rub. I don't think so. No one's ever questioned that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 Surely you can see that this is a dog whistle. If aboriginal peoples "settled" this land, then their "settlement" is just the same as European settlement colonization. I think you're reading more into it than it says. Also, Europeans did settle this land, leaving the colonization aspect aside. Current indigenous lingo actual refers to us as settlers still - something I completely reject today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 And there's the rub. What happened to the earthling thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 (edited) What happened to the earthling thing? Have you ever tried to rub an Earthling? Best get consent first. Edited June 27, 2016 by bcsapper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 That was settled a long time ago. Anyway, what Kenney said is absolutely correct. Aboriginal people were the first to settle this land. There's nothing controversial about it. Ever heard of the Kennewick Man? A thousand year old skeleton remains found in Kennewick, Washington, and appears to be the bones of a Caucasian background. If so, this puts the Kennewick man being in North America long before the Native Indians arrived. Personally, I believe that North American Indians of today are related to Asians as their DNA and facial features are and look the same. Just my opinion from what I can see and have read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 Ever heard of the Kennewick Man? A thousand year old skeleton remains found in Kennewick, Washington, and appears to be the bones of a Caucasian background. If so, this puts the Kennewick man being in North America long before the Native Indians arrived. That would be false, as aboriginal people were in this area as early as 23,000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 What happened to the earthling thing?It's still there. People seem to think that they're going to be disenfranchised or lose their opportunity to native people due to court cases or treaties. Take non-native fishermen for example. DFO has made it very clear that native people will be given priority access to fish. That is as more native fishermen become involved with fishing non-native fishermen will be forced to step aside. Eventually, according to theory, only native fishermen will be allowed to fish. Taken to an extreme noon native will eventually be reduced to poverty and deprivation. The only solution for non natives will be to agitate for their rights and they'll have to be based on something, like universal human rights.It's unlikely non natives will be starving to death any time soon but like I said in theory non natives could be displaced over time. I sense the same irrational fear of being displaced amongst Canada's First Colonists due to new immigrants which is why I suggest people start clearing the decks, declare themselves Earthlings and shed the identity (white/Caucasian) they imagine is being held against them. They never will though because it's too collectivist. They'll insist everyone is the same while clinging to their own distinctiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 I think you're reading more into it than it says. Also, Europeans did settle this land, leaving the colonization aspect aside. Current indigenous lingo actual refers to us as settlers still - something I completely reject today.Current indigenous lingo is rightfully political. In many cases they did not give up the land but reached deals with the colonizers. The colonizers took this to mean they could settle the land. When aboriginal peoples call those of us with European ancestry settlers, what they mean is colonizers. They're conflating the two but definitely mean, "we were here before you and never gave up our lands." The vast majority of time the land use agreements were around sharing and working together. Politicians and aristocrats of the day took it to mean they were giving them the land. Clergy and missionaries didn't give a crap about any of that and wanted to help these savages find God and become civilized, giving no regard to the indigenous peopes' well-established political and religious systems already in place. The militaries of the French and English used tribes as pawns against each other in order to secure territory. One thing remains, the First Nations from almost all accounts never intended to give their land over. They didn't conceptualize land ownership as Europeans did. They colonizers took advantage of this with legalese, knowing full well that these people regarded the land religiously and as a universal resource not something to be owned by anyone. So settlers is the term because European notions of land ownership was completely foreign to indigenous populations at first contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 They colonizers took advantage of this with legalese... The colonizers are now crying and wanting to rip up the treaties signed many generations ago, saying they no longer apply in the modern world. Comedy gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Jason Kenney... not the Uniter; rather, the Leaver! Congratulations to the British people on choosing hope over fear by embracing a confident, sovereign future, open to the world! #Brexit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 The colonizers are now crying and wanting to rip up the treaties signed many generations ago, saying they no longer apply in the modern world. Comedy gold. Some definitely say that but not me. I just want the treaties to be followed the way they were agreed to and not by some bleeding, hearts. If you read the treaties they are fairly objective but yet that doesn't seem to matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Some definitely say that but not me. I just want the treaties to be followed the way they were agreed to and not by some bleeding, hearts. If you read the treaties they are fairly objective but yet that doesn't seem to matter. Are you claiming that the treaties are not being followed "the way they were agreed to"? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Jason Kenney... not the Uniter; rather, the Leaver! Congratulations to the British people on choosing hope over fear by embracing a confident, sovereign future, open to the world! #Brexit I love this response: "@jkenney "open to the world" *except immigrants, they're not welcome here, they have to go back to where we're bombing" :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 Are you claiming that the treaties are not being followed "the way they were agreed to"? . That is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 That is correct. That you'll have to prove ... in another thread. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 That you'll have to prove ... in another thread. . I have proven it to you in many past threads so why would I follow your deluded lead to another one where you ultimately end up calling people white supremacists for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 I have proven it to you in many past threads so why would I follow your deluded lead to another one where you ultimately end up calling people white supremacists for no reason.?Well, ya ... why lose again in another thread. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 Folks, This thread is locked because it is a mess. Try again. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts