Native complaints about Canada's 150th

[Wilber]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

 The only reasonable future the natives have is to assimilate into the mainstream. Else they'll be stuck out in reserves getting drunk, doing drugs, and wasting their lives. 

That's true unless they can turn their reserves in to going commercial concerns that provide jobs and a good living for their people. There are quite a few very successful bands in this country. Some of them because they were additionally blessed by geography but all of them because they had a vision for the future and have managed it well.

People need more than just money being handed to them, they also need a reason to exist and if they can't find or make that reason where they are, they will have to go somewhere  they can. This is true of all people, not just natives. 

[jbg]

17 hours ago, herples said:

The report found no evidence of embezzlement just bad book keeping in a community that is practically falling apart. 

17 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Yeah, every band office just has "bad bookkeeping".  Fine, but just for a laugh, where do you think the money went?

Well in the case of Attiwapiskat the money was sagely invested in a Zamboni for the rink. If they developed a hockey team the likes of repeated Stanley Cup winners the Toronto Mapleleafs, people would flock to the shores of the Hudson Bay at least during the finals. By that time the weather up there is rather nice. The band could really prosper big times </sarcasm>

 

[jacee]

15 hours ago, Goddess said:

It can be done.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/clarence-louie-feature/article18913980/

Once the government gets around to settling outstanding land claims.

[jacee]

9 hours ago, jbg said:

Well in the case of Attiwapiskat the money was sagely invested in a Zamboni for the rink. If they developed a hockey team the likes of repeated Stanley Cup winners the Toronto Mapleleafs, people would flock to the shores of the Hudson Bay at least during the finals. By that time the weather up there is rather nice. The band could really prosper big times </sarcasm>

 

Seems pretty important to me, for the youth.

[jacee]

16 hours ago, bcsapper said:

They are certainly responsible in part.  How large a part I don't know, but choosing to live somewhere with no prospects for a successful economy makes them responsible.  Failing to account for the money they are given makes them responsible.  Failing to use that money for the betterment of all the members of the band makes them responsible.

At some point the notion that Natives can live fulfilling lives in holes like Davis Inlet or Attawapiskat in the 21st Century has to be seen to be a pie in the sky liberal fantasy.  Liberals are also responsible, of course.  Probably as much as the FN themselves.

There is no reason for any culture to survive.  Canada's goal should now be to move all FN off reserves and have them join the rest of society.  They can form part of the multicultural mosaic, and maintain their culture the same way I do, or an Ethiopian in Edmonton does, or a Japanese person in Steveston does.

 

Ah ... Back to forcible removal. 

And slandering all FN.

And advocating destruction of cultures.

We already tried the genocide route.

That's how we got here.

You're a couple hundred years behind.

[jacee]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

You are ignoring my point. Calling it 'injecting money' is just another way of saying 'more welfare'. These reserves, many of them, will never, and can never be economically self-sustaining. The residents should be moved to a location where there are jobs available.

You cannot forcibly move people.

[taxme]

11 hours ago, Wilber said:

That's true unless they can turn their reserves in to going commercial concerns that provide jobs and a good living for their people. There are quite a few very successful bands in this country. Some of them because they were additionally blessed by geography but all of them because they had a vision for the future and have managed it well.

People need more than just money being handed to them, they also need a reason to exist and if they can't find or make that reason where they are, they will have to go somewhere  they can. This is true of all people, not just natives. 

Most of the Indian tribes pretty much run all of the casinos in America, and they are doing just fine. Maybe the Indians here in Canada should do the same? Just saying. 

[taxme]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

You are ignoring my point. Calling it 'injecting money' is just another way of saying 'more welfare'. These reserves, many of them, will never, and can never be economically self-sustaining. The residents should be moved to a location where there are jobs available.

Those Indians on the reserves are going to have a rough time trying to find a job off the reserves these days when they will have to compete with the more than two million already unemployed Canadians looking for work. And they will have to also get in line with the tens of thousands of those 25,000 new so-called refugees that may just take some of those jobs away from them before they have a chance to apply for some of those jobs. I won't throw in the other 300,000 legal immigrants that are allowed into Canada every year. They want jobs too. If this keeps up there will be more people unemployed than are working. But that is how our politicians do things. They always enjoy creating a mess. 

[jacee]

17 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Jacce....just to be clear. You commented about a bunch of grumpy white guys complaining, so I asked if being Metis counts....as in its ok that I complain because I'm Metis. Are you saying its ok for a Metis person to complain but not a white person even though they have the same argument?

And is the TRC some new ruling body? Does the UN recognize this cultural genocide? Does any other legal jurisdiction recognize it?

You should stop at this point and ask yourself why you are quoting the UN definition for genocide when the UN has never come close to calling it a genocide. 

Your loosey goosey interpretation is what fails you. By this definition, any war would fit into the category of genocide. Did any natives ever kill white people. Oh...that would be genocide as per part (a).  Did any native ever cause any serious bodily harm to white person. That would be genocide.  

There are reasons that people who aren't just google lawyers like yourself actually make these decisions and interpretations as to what is and isn't genocide. So again....you saying something happened doesn't make it so. 

 

Do you think it hasn't been asked yet? Or discussed? And what have they said up to this point? NOTHING because it wasn't genocide. Even the TRC steered away from calling it that and carefully chose 'cultural genocide' as that was as close as they could possibly get. 

So please....contact the international courts and let me know how that works for you.

They can protest all they want. My point is that when the point of their protest is to emphasize how rotten Canada is and how they want to distance themselves from us then they should not be surprised when we actually do distance ourselves from them. 

 

You don't see the word 'genocide' in "cultural genocide"? 

 

[Accountability Now]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

You don't see the word 'genocide' in "cultural genocide"? 

 

I also see the word 'cult' in there which would explain your misplaced admiration for this topic.

Having said that, letters make up words and words make up phrases which can and do ultimately mean different things. That's how the English language works, Cultural genocide is not genocide. So stop using them interchangeably as you are intentionally misleading and sensationalizing your point. 

 

 

 

[Boges]

People like member jacee are completely diluting the word genocide to the point where it will no longer have the proper definition. 

Sort of like how phobia doesn't mean phobia anymore because of homophobia and islamophobia. 

Cultural Genocide doesn't even mean anything. Genocide, by definition is the systematic killing of a large group of people. Trying to kill people's culture is NOT genocide. 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Boges

[Goddess]

There's about 1.5 million FN people in Canada.

If genocide was the goal, we have failed miserably.

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

I also see the word 'cult' in there which would explain your misplaced admiration for this topic.

Having said that, letters make up words and words make up phrases which can and do ultimately mean different things. That's how the English language works, Cultural genocide is not genocide. So stop using them interchangeably as you are intentionally misleading and sensationalizing your point. 

 

 

 

Cultural is an adjective describing a type of genocide.

 

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

Cultural is an adjective describing a type of genocide.

There are no types of Genocide. Genocide is the killing of a large group of people. Stop trying to make it something it's not.

It makes people think of the Holocaust when referring to Canada's treatment of FNs, which is an offensive case of hyperbole at the very best. 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Boges

[jacee]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

There's about 1.5 million FN people in Canada.

If genocide was the goal, we have failed miserably.

That's disgusting.

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, jacee said:

That's disgusting.

You're the one calling it a genocide.

genocide

 

1.  the deliberate and systematic extermination of anational, racial, political, or cultural group.

 

[Goddess]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/audit-identifies-2-1m-in-unexplained-payments-to-alexander-first-nation-former-chief-and-staff-1.3774805

 

Quote

 

Loretta Burnstick, the band's former interim chief financial officer, said she helped launch the investigation after noticing questionable financial activity.

 

"It was obvious to many members in the community for years," said Burnstick. "We did not have the physical proof until this forensic investigation took place to prove it was happening." 

 

Between 2013 to 2015, the document says Herbert Arcand received $405,119 in unexplained payments, in addition to his "expected salary" of $186,666.

 

As part of the unexplained amount, a band credit card in his name was used to take out a total of $91,156 at casinos and book an all inclusive-vacation for two relatives at a five-star Jamaican resort then paid off by Alexander First Nation, auditors say.

 

Quote

 

According to the document, Alphonse Arcand received $637,920 in unexplained payments, in addition to his expected salary of $280,000. He collected two sums authorized by himself, including $16,462 for "extra duties" plus salary advances of $11,500, yet to be paid back, according to the auditors.

 

Auditors also say the band made payments to Alphonse Arcand's personal credit card in 2013 totalling $349,878.

 

The report cites a variety of examples of inflated salaries, bonuses and expenses amongst the group.

 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, jacee said:

Ah ... Back to forcible removal. 

And slandering all FN.

And advocating destruction of cultures.

We already tried the genocide route.

That's how we got here.

You're a couple hundred years behind.

No, I'm right now.  I'd like to see them stop being tortured and join the rest of us. You're a few hundred years ago.   You want them to dance and wear feathers on their heads.

How is it slandering all FN, exactly, when one insists on accountability for the money provided?  Let's face it, so do a lot of FN.  The ones who don't see any.

Cultures come and go.  No big deal.  Mine's disappearing. I'm not worried about it.

[Accountability Now]

33 minutes ago, jacee said:

Cultural is an adjective describing a type of genocide.

 

And where again does the UN recognize 'cultural genocide'?

[jacee]

41 minutes ago, Boges said:

There are no types of Genocide. Genocide is the killing of a large group of people. Stop trying to make it something it's not.

It makes people think of the Holocaust when referring to Canada's treatment of FNs, which is an offensive case of hyperbole at the very best. 

Yes there are types of genocidal strategies. 

Genocide does not mean just killing people: It means attempting to destroy them as a group, so they no longer exist as a group, but are absorbed into the dominant population. 

UN definition:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx

"Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Canada tried to destroy Indigenous peoples 'as such', in a variety of ways, to take full control of the land and its wealth of resources.

That is genocide.

[jacee]

29 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You're the one calling it a genocide.

genocide

1.  the deliberate and systematic extermination of anational, racial, political, or cultural group.

 

See my post above fof link to the UN Convention on genocide, the definition used in international law.

It's about destroying peoples as an identifiable group.

[jacee]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, I'm right now.  I'd like to see them stop being tortured and join the rest of us. You're a few hundred years ago.   You want them to dance and wear feathers on their heads.

How is it slandering all FN, exactly, when one insists on accountability for the money provided?  Let's face it, so do a lot of FN.  The ones who don't see any.

Cultures come and go.  No big deal.  Mine's disappearing. I'm not worried about it.

If you want an accounting of how they use their money, check any FN website.

Doing anything to them against their wishes, without their consent, is just not going to happen.

When you say "join the rest of us", do you mean give up their traditional territories and their Aboriginal and treaty rights?

That's not happening.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

See my post above fof link to the UN Convention on genocide, the definition used in international law.

It's about destroying peoples as an identifiable group.

Nothing about assimilation.  So the UN is onside then.

[Boges]

8 minutes ago, jacee said:

Yes there are types of genocidal strategies. 

Genocide does not mean just killing people: It means attempting to destroy them as a group, so they no longer exist as a group, but are absorbed into the dominant population. 

UN definition:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx

"Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Canada tried to destroy Indigenous peoples 'as such', in a variety of ways, to take full control of the land and its wealth of resources.

That is genocide.

Not buying it. Let's call all these other things genocide, which is english for killing groups of people. So people associate these other unrelated things with serious historic events like the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide. 

That's the left's strategy, change the English language to fit their political motive. It's done with Israel and Apartheid as well. 

[Accountability Now]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

Not buying it. Let's call all these other things genocide, which is english for killing groups of people. So people associate these other unrelated things with serious historic events like the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide. 

That's the left's strategy, change the English language to fit their political motive. It's done with Israel and Apartheid as well. 

That's what I was saying. If this definition is used as loosely as they want then it would be just as easy to say the Natives committed genocide on the Brits and/or French. After all they did (a) kill members of those groups and (b) cause serious bodily harm....maybe even more.