Are aboriginals "immigrants"?

[The_Squid]

Natives are not immigrants, just like British people are not immigrants to Britain.  

It makes no sense to call them immigrants by any current usage of the word.    The only ones who call them immigrants are the rednecks and bigots who want to downplay their status in Canada. 

[The_Squid]

2 hours ago, PIK said:

People get pissed off, they will show it by their voting. Harper was right about transparency and accountability on the reservations, and trudeau saying we don't want to know what you do with the money ,is going to come back and haunt him. Somer day the regular native is also going to have a say and then the chiefs better run.

Most "whiteys" don't actually agree with your bigoted notions of what society should be like. 

[hot enough]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yes I can.

im·mi·grant

noun

a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

What "foreign country" did aboriginals come to live in?

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's Governor General says "aboriginals" are immigrants, and the viceregal can't be wrong as the queen's representative.

The imperial - colonial force is strong in this one.

[The_Squid]

The viceregal already admitted he was wrong....

[Wilber]

Migrants, certainly. Immigrants, debatable. Did all aboriginals arrive here equally or did some supersede others? The latter, I think. 

[hot enough]

15 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

The viceregal already admitted he was wrong....

Facts mean nothing to Bush_Cheney. 

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Migrants, certainly. Immigrants, debatable.

You and bcsapper ought to get together and help each other check dictionary entries. 

[Wilber]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You and bcsapper ought to get together and help each other check dictionary entries. 

Someone should.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Someone should.

Someone should what, help you two read them?

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Someone should what, help you two read them?

Someone should learn the difference between migration and immigration.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, hot enough said:

im·mi·grant

noun

a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

What "foreign country" did aboriginals come to live in?

Well I don't know what they called it, obviously.  I bet it was really foreign to them though.  Grizzlies!  Moose!  Ice Hockey! 

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well I don't know what they called it, obviously.  I bet it was really foreign to them though.  Grizzlies!  Moose!  Ice Hockey! 

You think your corny sense of humor can always save you. You were wrong. Be a man, sapper.

[bush_cheney2004]

Only in twisted multi-cult Canada could "indigenous aboriginals" get labeled as "immigrants" by a viceregal appointed by a queen living across the ocean in the UK.

...can't make this comical stuff up.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You think your corny sense of humor can always save you. You were wrong. Be a man, sapper.

Why do you think I need saving?  From whom?  You?

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Why do you think I need saving?  From whom?  You?

You were wrong and you simply can't man up. You need saving from yourself.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You were wrong and you simply can't man up. You need saving from yourself.

Wrong about what?  Exactly?

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎19 at 11:24 PM, bcsapper said:

Sure. The only difference between them and me is the amount of time we've been here. 

Well not quite. You both are the result of migration so both from migrants. Where you differ is in legal status. The migrants after the original migrants called immigrants come about because of not natural apolitical migration but as the result of various legal systems that defined your status once you stepped on the soil of North America.

Migrants had no legal system to contend with. The special status natives isn't simply based on they were first in as much as the King of England wanted to enter into an alliance with them-the King fo England believed he owned the land, natives didn't have a concept of land ownership. So the King's legal system redefined natives and gave them rights under the Magna Carta act. Then subsequent British governments violated  the agreements entered into by that and many other Kings and governents, and voial today we have natives whose political identity is a collective one based on a connection to a collective of people whose rights were defined by the British and they simply seek those agreements honoured.  Our governments forgot to share so to speak.

So in one sense we are all migrants but in another sense the law defines the rules of migrants and defines them now as refugees, immigrants.

They named a plant after we Jews because of our migration. The Wandering Jew Plant. Yer guys don't get a plant. We also have a fish named after us which is an ugly fish.

You guys have I guess a pesky stinging bee named after you.  But a lot of your guys have places named after them. You odn't see too many Hyman Shapiro Avenjues. Well maybe in Miami. So it all evens out in history.

[Wilber]

On 2017-06-19 at 9:47 PM, Benz said:

They were colonists and they colonised Virgin lands... (by Virgin, I mean no other humans were occupying the territory. So they were not immigrants. Immigrants are people who come in a country already occupied by inhabitants.

I doubt that is true of the current aboriginals. When it comes to the people that currently occupy this country, there is no question that they and their ancestors were here first but If humans have been here for 15,000 years, it is very unlikely that the present aboriginals were the first to settle here. In other parts of the continent there is plenty of evidence of aboriginal cultures that have come and gone over the millennia. Why. we don't know, just as we are still trying to figure out the meaning of prehistoric structures like Stonehenge.

 

[The_Squid]

30 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I doubt that is true of the current aboriginals. When it comes to the people that currently occupy this country, there is no question that they and their ancestors were here first but If humans have been here for 15,000 years, it is very unlikely that the present aboriginals were the first to settle here. In other parts of the continent there is plenty of evidence of aboriginal cultures that have come and gone over the millennia. Why. we don't know, just as we are still trying to figure out the meaning of prehistoric structures like Stonehenge.

 

This is semantics...   whether it's 15,000 or 5,000...   calling them "immigrants" is nonsensical.

 ...traced a direct DNA link between the 5,500-year-old remains of an aboriginal woman found on a British Columbia island, a second set of ancient female bones from a nearby 2,500-year-old site and — most stunningly — a living Tsimshian woman from the Metlakatla First Nation, located close to both of the prehistoric burials along B.C.’s North Coast near the city of Prince Rupert.

 

 

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

 

 ...traced a direct DNA link between the 5,500-year-old remains of an aboriginal woman found on a British Columbia island, a second set of ancient female bones from a nearby 2,500-year-old site and — most stunningly — a living Tsimshian woman from the Metlakatla First Nation, located close to both of the prehistoric burials along B.C.’s North Coast near the city of Prince Rupert.

 

 

Wow!  How cool is that!?!

[Wilber]

17 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

This is semantics...   whether it's 15,000 or 5,000...   calling them "immigrants" is nonsensical.

 ...traced a direct DNA link between the 5,500-year-old remains of an aboriginal woman found on a British Columbia island, a second set of ancient female bones from a nearby 2,500-year-old site and — most stunningly — a living Tsimshian woman from the Metlakatla First Nation, located close to both of the prehistoric burials along B.C.’s North Coast near the city of Prince Rupert.

 

 

That is cool but it really proves nothing when it comes to who was actually there first. It just shows a genetic link to a society that existed there 5,500 years ago. 

[Wilber]

I don't see aboriginals as immigrants either but conventional wisdom locates the origin of our species as central Africa so that would make all humans migrants in some degree.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

I don't see aboriginals as immigrants either but conventional wisdom locates the origin of our species as central Africa so that would make all humans migrants in some degree.

Yes, but they are very determined to defend their belief they have more rights than anyone else to this land because they got here first. They're special, you see.

Interestingly, the Left, which agrees wholeheartedly with this, will also be infuriated if you claim that someone born and raised in Canada coming from half a dozen generations born and raised here should be considered to have more rights to the place than an immigrant who arrived a couple of years ago.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Argus

[capricorn]

Henceforth, we are to refer to aboriginals as indigenous people. BTW, today June 21 was previously known as National Aboriginal Day; Our illustrious PM has renamed this day National Indigenous Peoples Day. The old US embassy across from the Parliament Buildings on Wellington street has been offered to our indigenous peoples for a cultural centre**. The Langevin Block will be renamed shortly, given the association of Langevin with the residential school system. Details here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/national-aboriginal-day-ottawa-langevin-1.4171253

As far as the OP is concerned, the Vice-Regal screwed up, has apologized and will be replaced this fall. I say let's move on. Don't we have bigger fish to fry?

**Why the hell has the old US embassy building on Wellington street been kept unoccupied for 20 years after our government purchased it from the US in 1997? What a waste of prime real estate. Sheesh.