Are aboriginals "immigrants"?

[jacee]

You two are welcome to any opinion you like, but it doesn't change the facts of law:

Canada accepted responsibility for treaties at Confederation, perhaps not intending to honour them but the Supreme Court ruled that we must.

 

[Accountability Now]

2 hours ago, jacee said:

Canada accepted responsibility for treaties at Confederation, perhaps not intending to honour them but the Supreme Court ruled that we must.

 

I have zero problems with accepting that treaties are made and we should honor them but to the intent of the written text that was signed by both parties. Not by some made up, pretend oral version that has become the new course of action. 

The intent of the Canadian government has always been to honor the treaties by those texts no matter how much you rant about it. Again...by the text!

Our society is now poised to reward the loser. We don't give out first place medals but rather participation medals for all. Elementary schools won't give out poor grades or sometimes grades at all for fear of hurting kids feelings. There is less accountability out there and our society as a whole is suffering. This is no different in the case with the natives as they did lose the battle for these lands. They took home the consolation prize of being stuck on reserves with little rights whereas the Canada took home the gold being given the land and rights without a fight. It was the only option for the natives other than certain death. You know this and any denial of this fact would be pure delusion. The beauty of course is that any native can become a winner in this situation at any time as they too are Canadians and benefit from what this country offers. They just have to buy in which many natives have and succeeded. However some choose to play the victim role and live the victim life with us enabling them by rewarding the loser.  Unfortunately this will continue because we enable it to happen. 

 

 

[jacee]

19 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

I have zero problems with accepting that treaties are made and we should honor them but to the intent of the written text that was signed by both parties. Not by some made up, pretend oral version that has become the new course of action. 

The intent of the Canadian government has always been to honor the treaties by those texts no matter how much you rant about it. Again...by the text!

Our society is now poised to reward the loser. We don't give out first place medals but rather participation medals for all. Elementary schools won't give out poor grades or sometimes grades at all for fear of hurting kids feelings. There is less accountability out there and our society as a whole is suffering. This is no different in the case with the natives as they did lose the battle for these lands. They took home the consolation prize of being stuck on reserves with little rights whereas the Canada took home the gold being given the land and rights without a fight. It was the only option for the natives other than certain death. You know this and any denial of this fact would be pure delusion. The beauty of course is that any native can become a winner in this situation at any time as they too are Canadians and benefit from what this country offers. They just have to buy in which many natives have and succeeded. However some choose to play the victim role and live the victim life with us enabling them by rewarding the loser.  Unfortunately this will continue because we enable it to happen. 

 

 

Treaties are interpreted by the courts in the same way as any contract: According to the 'meeting of the minds' of the parties.

Sometimes there are letters between parties, etc, that the court uses to clarify.

And the courts do interpret treaties in the modern context. Thus, Aboriginal 'hunting, fishing' rights are interpreted as the right to sustain themselves from their traditional land, and may now include receiving revenues from activity on that land - mining, building, etc.

"The intent of the Canadian government has always been to honor the treaties ..." by the law. The government doesn't determine how that's done. Nor do you or other random Canadians. The courts decide that.

I don't really care if you agree. I didn't make the laws.

Inform yourself about treaty interpretation. 

The rest of your post is just opinion and bafflegab.

[Accountability Now]

20 minutes ago, jacee said:

Inform yourself about treaty interpretation. 

It's hilarious that you actually think these 'interpretations' are done fairly and without bias. The natives struck a raw deal to save their lives but as I said our society is now built to reward the loser. 

What do you think would happen if these exact same circumstances existed in a civil dispute? If you and I had a written contract and my intent was exactly as what was written....do you think the judge would care if had a different understanding?? Nope! But in this case we can't be the bad guy and actually do what both sides agreed to. It actually reminds me of how I had to treat my nephew....when he was 3 that is!

 

[jacee]

12 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

It's hilarious that you actually think these 'interpretations' are done fairly and without bias. The natives struck a raw deal to save their lives but as I said our society is now built to reward the loser. 

What do you think would happen if these exact same circumstances existed in a civil dispute? If you and I had a written contract and my intent was exactly as what was written....do you think the judge would care if had a different understanding?? Nope! But in this case we can't be the bad guy and actually do what both sides agreed to. It actually reminds me of how I had to treat my nephew....when he was 3 that is!

 

That's a load of speculation and vague nonsense.

Perhaps you could give a specific example of a court interpretation of a treaty that you disagree with?

[Accountability Now]

2 hours ago, jacee said:

Perhaps you could give a specific example of a court interpretation of a treaty that you disagree with?

I've been down this path many times with you on various other threads and it all ends up the same. I show you the loose interpretation and your only response is "we'll let the courts decide" 

Not interested in showing you something that you have zero interest or capability to understand

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

I've been down this path many times with you on various other threads and it all ends up the same. I show you the loose interpretation and your only response is "we'll let the courts decide" 

Not interested in showing you something that you have zero interest or capability to understand

I understand the court rulings on Aboriginal rights pretty well.

I am just curious why you think there's something wrong with some or all of them.

The courts always provide a detailed rationale for their judgements, so you can find out how treaties are interpreted and why, if you choose to.

If you don't provide any evidence, support or even examples for your claims then you can't expect your concerns to be taken too seriously.

 

[-TSS-]

I thought it was common knowledge that the Vikings discovered North-America long before Columbus did. For some perhaps very understandable reason the Vikings decided that it was not their preferential choice and headed back home.

[jacee]

2 hours ago, -TSS- said:

I thought it was common knowledge that the Vikings discovered North-America long before Columbus did. For some perhaps very understandable reason the Vikings decided that it was not their preferential choice and headed back home.

Yes we know they were here, although "discovered" is the wrong word since there were many people already living here.

Are you sure they left? 

[taxme]

On 6/19/2017 at 7:35 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Uproar after the Governor General of Canada recently called Canadian aboriginals "immigrants". He later apologized & said he misspoke.

Full story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/governor-general-immigrants-social-media-outrage-1.4167384

Canadian aboriginals originally migrated to the continent around 15,000 years ago from Asia it's estimated.  Whatever the year they came, are indigenous peoples also immigrants?

Indeed they are. 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

Indeed they are. 

Thanks for weighing in with your decidedly wrong opinion, taxme.

Now we know for sure they aren't.

[taxme]

10 hours ago, jacee said:

Thanks for weighing in with your decidedly wrong opinion, taxme.

Now we know for sure they aren't.

We are always told by the liberals that we are all immigrants. I guess that includes Indians also, right? 

[jacee]

4 hours ago, taxme said:

We are always told by the liberals that we are all immigrants. I guess that includes Indians also, right? 

Wrong.

[Wilber]

We aren't all immigrants, just different points in history. The first Europeans were also migrants as there was no Country to immigrate  to. 

[taxme]

On 7/11/2017 at 4:36 AM, jacee said:

Wrong.

Right. 

[taxme]

On 7/11/2017 at 11:55 AM, Wilber said:

We aren't all immigrants, just different points in history. The first Europeans were also migrants as there was no Country to immigrate  to. 

By all appearances, the Indians of North America no doubt were immigrants to NA in the past. Just looking at their facial features will tell you that. Try looking a little closer at their faces, it's all there. 

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, taxme said:

By all appearances, the Indians of North America no doubt were immigrants to NA in the past. Just looking at their facial features will tell you that. Try looking a little closer at their faces, it's all there. 

Wilber just gave you a clue as to the difference between an immigrant and a migrant and you wander off into "facial features"  Ho hum.

[taxme]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

Wilber just gave you a clue as to the difference between an immigrant and a migrant and you wander off into "facial features"  Ho hum.

Go to CNN. Big talk on there about nothing again over what Trump Jr. was suppose to have done that just may bring down the Trump administration, again.  

[taxme]

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

Wilber just gave you a clue as to the difference between an immigrant and a migrant and you wander off into "facial features"  Ho hum.

Ya so what? I threw that in there. Two bad if that did not meet with your useless approval. 

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

Go to CNN. Big talk on there about nothing again over what Trump Jr. was suppose to have done that just may bring down the Trump administration, again.  

Oh, you're actually paying attention to some real news for a change! Good for you. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Strictly speaking, a few small human populations of East Africa, probably related to the San people of Southern Africa with similar 'click' languages, have stayed where they have always been and the rest of us are blow-ins. The thing is that our First Nations were literally that; before this great migration there were no humans in the Americas. IMO the GG meant no disrespect at all by using this term and too much has been made of it. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[jacee]

On 2017-7-14 at 10:29 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Strictly speaking, a few small human populations of East Africa, probably related to the San people of Southern Africa with similar 'click' languages, have stayed where they have always been and the rest of us are blow-ins. The thing is that our First Nations were literally that; before this great migration there were no humans in the Americas. IMO the GG meant no disrespect at all by using this term and too much has been made of it. 

Just enough that it won't happen again.

He's due to be replaced anyway.

[-TSS-]

If there is anything to be learned from history it is that there is no such thing as anyone's "own lands". Stronger cultures will always crush under their feet the weaker ones which can do nothing but either adapt or disappear.

However, strong cultures may not be strong forever and they may themselves end up being replaced. The same thing again; adapt or die!

[The_Squid]

On 7/27/2017 at 1:39 AM, -TSS- said:

If there is anything to be learned from history it is that there is no such thing as anyone's "own lands". Stronger cultures will always crush under their feet the weaker ones which can do nothing but either adapt or disappear.

However, strong cultures may not be strong forever and they may themselves end up being replaced. The same thing again; adapt or die!

Then you better learn to speak Russian...

[-TSS-]

2 hours ago, The_Squid said:

Then you better learn to speak Russian...

Arabic more likely.