Is the term "settler" appropriate?

[turningrite]

I've noticed an increasing tendency in mainstream media to adopt the term "settler" in reference both to multi-generational (i.e. Caucasian or white) Canadians as well as to mainstream Canadian society (i.e. "settler society" or "settler culture"). Politicians and ex-politicians, too, have fallen into this odious negative identity trap. I consider the overly broad use of this term to be offensive and in some circumstances derogatory. If it's objectionable to refer to members of visible minorities as "immigrants," particularly when they're second generation or multi-generational, why on earth is it acceptable to characterize white Canadians, whose ancestors in some cases may have arrived in the country over the past few generations, as settlers? Isn't this a form of racial categorization and oversimplification? In many cases, it seems to me to amount to reductionist hypocrisy.

[eyeball]

Personally I don't know of anything that makes people cling tighter to their identify than rising above it all and simply referring to yourself as an Earthling.

Clear the decks.

Edited June 26, 2018 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

How many people within a group need to be offended by a term before it becomes discredited ?   I think "immigrants" is a bad example of objectionable terms as it is a real label for a certain type of person.  Maybe "Indian" is a better example.  As such, if descendants of original settlers start complaining, we have a timeline of 150 years and counting to rectify it.  Or maybe we can just create in-person and online groups to take us through these questions.

 

 

Pursuant to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act^[8] the term "Indian" remains in the department's legal name, although the term "Indigenous" is used in its applied title under the Federal Identity Program.^[9][10]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_and_Northern_Affairs_Canada#History}

 

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

How many people within a group need to be offended by a term before it becomes discredited ?   I think "immigrants" is a bad example of objectionable terms as it is a real label for a certain type of person.  Maybe "Indian" is a better example.  As such, if descendants of original settlers start complaining, we have a timeline of 150 years and counting to rectify it.  Or maybe we can just create in-person and online groups to take us through these questions.

 

In one sense, I agree with you. My mother, after all, was an immigrant who moved here from the U.S. (if that counts). My point is that we're told to avoid using overly broad labels. Canadian-born descendants of visible minority immigrants bristle at being asked where they're from. These days, the designation "immigrant" is often portrayed as negatively distinguishing members of mainly visible minority groups from white Canadians and we're told instead to use more neutral and presumably virtuous terms like "New Canadian." The term "settler," which appears to emerge from Indigenous identity politics and is rooted in a reductionist historical context with little modern applicability, generates an impression that mainstream/Caucasian/European/white Canadians are somehow not legitimately here or when used by non-Indigenous people are only apologetically so. I didn't pay much attention to the term (more SJW ideology, I figured) until I read a column by a journalist who wrote a plodding article about why visible minority immigrants and their offspring (like her and/or her ancestors, apparently) must be exempted from the settler designation. But why, then, aren't the descendants of 19th century Irish immigrants, who were victims of British colonialism and in today's terms would be considered refugees, also exempted? Race? If members of visible minority communities consider the term a slur with which they don't want their own identities conflated, isn't there a problem with the term itself? 

Edited June 26, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

1) My point is that we're told... ... we're told instead to use more neutral and presumably virtuous terms...

2) I didn't pay much attention to the term (more SJW ideology, I figured) until

3) isn't there a problem with the term itself? 

1) Who is telling you these things ?

2) You didn't pay attention ?  You seem to have some ideas about it so you paid enough attention.

3) I don't know.  Do you agree with the idea of common morality, etiquette and protocol ?  You seem to. 

 

The only thing I have to say is that I can't abide by intentional rudeness and ignorance.  If you expect politeness and consideration then you have to provide it also.  I can accept people being angry or resentful but take a breath before you take that to another person.   People who react with contempt and ugliness in response to a request to be polite aren't clever to me and don't deserve consideration as they make the process more difficult.

[Bonam]

Sounds like a dumb term to me. Just more meaningless SJ mumbo-jumbo to try to make white people feel bad about themselves. See the definition below, doesn't sound like it's applicable to anyone living in populated areas of Canada today. Maybe people moving to the Yukon/NW territories/Nunavut?

Quote

 

set·tler

ˈsed(ə)lər,ˈsetlər/

noun

 

1. a person who settles in an area, typically one with no or few previous inhabitants

 

1.  

    

Edited June 26, 2018 by Bonam

[Argus]

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

I've noticed an increasing tendency in mainstream media to adopt the term "settler" in reference both to multi-generational (i.e. Caucasian or white) Canadians as well as to mainstream Canadian society 

Where have you noticed that? The only people I see using it are the most brainless of progressive morons.

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, Bonam said:

 SJ mumbo-jumbo to try to make white people feel bad about themselves. 

It really seems impossible for people to criticize language without impugning motives.  I think it would be a more effective approach to say "I don't want to be called this term", since that sentences reflects a reflexive use of the principles used against harmful language.  

"Do you like it if people call YOU a settler ?"

Many will answer 'I don't care !" thereby falling into the trap.

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It really seems impossible for people to criticize language without impugning motives. 

No, it's very possible to discuss and criticize language without impugning motives. But when the motives are so damn obvious, why bother? 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Bonam said:

No, it's very possible to discuss and criticize language without impugning motives. But when the motives are so damn obvious, why bother? 

Did you see what you did there ?  Is that 'white privilege' ? 

[turningrite]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Many will answer 'I don't care !" thereby falling into the trap.

Actually, I think the trap rests in accepting the terminology. It generally accompanies other historical assumptions and ideological baggage, including loaded language like "cultural genocide" as if the ideology is accepted fact. I don't consider myself a settler. I was born here. My ancestors, French, Irish and Portuguese, had little or nothing to do with the establishment of British colonial governance on the territory that is now Canada. If visible minority immigrants and their descendants seek exemption from the concept, including on grounds that they are/were victims of British colonialism, why can't I claim the benefit of such apparently redeeming history?

Edited June 26, 2018 by turningrite

[Bonam]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

Actually, I think the trap rests in accepting the terminology. It generally accompanies other historical assumptions and ideological baggage, including loaded language like "cultural genocide" as if the ideology is accepted fact. I don't consider myself a settler. I was born here. My ancestors, French, Irish and Portuguese, had little or nothing to do with the establishment of British colonial governance on the territory that is now Canada. If visible minority immigrants and their descendants seek exemption from the concept, including on grounds that they are/were victims of British colonialism, why can't I claim the benefit of such apparently redeeming history?

It's all irrelevant. Whether one's ancestor was British, Irish, Russian, or Chinese, whether one's ancestor was a colonist or a refugee, bears no relevance to the moral worth, responsibilities, or obligations of the current generation. People are people. They are individuals. And they (obviously) had no influence on events that happened before their lifetime and thus bear no responsibility for them. Period. Any ideology that seeks to fault people for the sins of their ancestors is inherently flawed. 

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1) Actually, I think the trap rests in accepting the terminology. It generally accompanies other historical assumptions and ideological baggage, including loaded language like "cultural genocide" as if the ideology is accepted fact. I don't consider myself a settler.  

2) My ancestors, French, Irish and Portuguese, had little or nothing to do with the establishment of British colonial governance on the territory that is now Canada. If visible minority immigrants and their descendants seek exemption from the concept, including on grounds that they are/were victims of British colonialism, why can't I claim such apparently redeeming history?

1) Well the last sentence is probably the best if you want to simply get people to not use the term without making a loooong discussion out of it.

2) I don't know the arguments that these people use but I don't see why anybody would get an exemption.   The purpose of the term is likely to contribute to a new moralistic framework and it sounds like you are ready for a fight on that count so go to it.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Where have you noticed that? The only people I see using it are the most brainless of progressive morons.

Okay, except some the practitioners of this ideology are in fact quite respected, mainstream (dare I say) and even in some cases considered brainy. I've heard Bob Rae reference the "settler" ideology, which he appears to wholeheartedly accept, and in the 2015 Globe and Mail article he even described Canada in its current form as a "settler country.". It is increasingly entering the language of the elites. I started this topic this morning after reading a Toronto Star article where an individual was described as being of mixed "settler" and Indigenous background. Even where the subject in the article self-identified as such, why not just say they're of partially Indigenous ancestry? Maybe this person's ancestors were at least partially of Anglo-Saxon, English-speaking stock, and therefore apparently actual (i.e. undisputed) settlers. But who cares? Is ethno-racial identity now so important in this country that we must identify ourselves according to whether our ancestors were victimizers or victimized? Has our society really become this rigidly tribalized? 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/well-get-the-truth-on-first-nations-but-reconciliation-remains-elusive/article24744416/

Edited June 26, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

It's all irrelevant. Whether one's ancestor was British, Irish, Russian, or Chinese, whether one's ancestor was a colonist or a refugee, bears no relevance to the moral worth, responsibilities, or obligations of the current generation. 

But SJWs and a lot of native activists don't accept that.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Okay, except some the practitioners of this ideology are in fact quite respected, mainstream (dare I say) and even in some cases considered brainy. I've heard Bob Rae reference the "settler" ideology, 

Rae is a mushy headed far left progressive. Naturally he'd reference such a thing. But he is far from mainstream. The NDP might well embrace renaming anyone white as a settler, but they aren't mainstream either.

[turningrite]

Just now, Argus said:

Rae is a mushy headed far left progressive. Naturally he'd reference such a thing. But he is far from mainstream. The NDP might well embrace renaming anyone white as a settler, but they aren't mainstream either.

I'd be fascinated to hear Trudeau's view on this. My guess is that he concurs with "settler" sentiment and ideology.

[bush_cheney2004]

The battle has been enjoined, and divisive labels are part of the game.  

I would also point out that the term "visible minority" is part of the language and identity conflict.  Who gets to decide such terms and labels ?

I will also confess to calling Canadian cities and towns on unceded "aboriginal" (another fun label) territory "settlements" in the context of Israeli/Palestinian discourse and comparisons.   The ideology battles have evolved to the point weaponizing language itself.

 

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Bonam said:

Any ideology that seeks to fault people for the sins of their ancestors is inherently flawed. 

That's why it's nation to nation not generation to generation. Don't take it so personally.

Edited June 27, 2018 by eyeball

[turningrite]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The battle has been enjoined, and divisive labels are part of the game.  

I would also point out that the term "visible minority" is part of the language and identity conflict.  Who gets to decide such terms and labels ?

I will also confess to calling Canadian cities and towns on unceded "aboriginal" (another fun label) territory "settlements" in the context of Israeli/Palestinian discourse and comparisons.   The ideology battles have evolved to the point weaponizing language itself.

 

We often seem to disagree on various matters but where this post is concerned I mainly concur with your position(s). I think language has been weaponized and that some of the tone in the debate over Indigenous rights and interests has bizarrely taken on elements common to the settlements dispute in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I also find the logic of the "unceded" argument to be quite specious as it is contradictory to the Canadian constitution, which asserts Crown sovereignty over all previously Indigenous-held lands in Canada. This is a consequence of the inclusion in the constitution of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is also the legal basis of Indigenous treaty and land claims. I tend to support pursuit of these claims on grounds of their constitutional validity, particularly as governments in Canada have not always fulfilled their obligations under the1763 arrangement or in many cases even acted in good faith with regard to Indigenous rights and interests.

Indigenous activists can't have it both ways, though, by claiming rights under the constitution while ignoring aspects of the constitution that are inconvenient to them. The emotional and often racialist rhetoric that's emerged to undermine the legitimacy and validity of mainstream Canadians and their society is alarming. Conrad Black has described aspects of the activist Indigenous ideology as amounting to "native blood libels" against the majority population (see link to article, below) although I wouldn't go that far. I do, however, agree with him that "mindless deference" particularly on the part of Canadian leaders to the emerging activist Indigenous ideology is deeply problematic.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-our-society-is-under-attack-from-vilifying-john-a-to-antifa

Edited June 27, 2018 by turningrite

[turningrite]

10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I would also point out that the term "visible minority" is part of the language and identity conflict.  Who gets to decide such terms and labels ?

I want to comment separately on this matter because I entirely agree with you. It's absolutely bizarre that in Canada, in particular, some people can apparently self-determine "visible minority" status, which kind of defeats the purpose of the exercise, if you ask me. Under U.S. census classifications, immigrants from mainly Arabic Middle Eastern countries are considered to be "white" or Caucasian rather than vis-min. In Canada, however, people from the same region seem able to pick their identity and to obtain privileges on the basis of what in many cases seem to amount more to difference in religious affiliation than race. Based on generic racial categorizations, people of Middle Eastern descent are clearly of Caucasoid origin, as are those of European descent. I have known and worked with several Middle Eastern Christians over the years, mainly of Lebanese background. As far as I'm aware, they all considered themselves to be white or Caucasian and not explicitly to be members of a visible minority. But more recent migrants from the same part of the world often seem to be categorized as vis-min, which makes little sense. A Globe and Mail piece raised this issue a few years ago, but it appears to be politically incorrect to actually address the contradiction.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/visible-minority-a-misleading-concept-that-ought-to-be-retired/article12445364/

[H10]

On 6/26/2018 at 10:22 AM, turningrite said:

I've noticed an increasing tendency in mainstream media to adopt the term "settler" in reference both to multi-generational (i.e. Caucasian or white) Canadians as well as to mainstream Canadian society (i.e. "settler society" or "settler culture"). Politicians and ex-politicians, too, have fallen into this odious negative identity trap. I consider the overly broad use of this term to be offensive and in some circumstances derogatory. If it's objectionable to refer to members of visible minorities as "immigrants," particularly when they're second generation or multi-generational, why on earth is it acceptable to characterize white Canadians, whose ancestors in some cases may have arrived in the country over the past few generations, as settlers? Isn't this a form of racial categorization and oversimplification? In many cases, it seems to me to amount to reductionist hypocrisy.

White people called themselves settlers for the longest of time.  What, now they don't want to call themselves that anymore because people are holding the settlers accountable for stealing indian land and enslaving african people?

[taxme]

On 6/26/2018 at 7:22 AM, turningrite said:

I've noticed an increasing tendency in mainstream media to adopt the term "settler" in reference both to multi-generational (i.e. Caucasian or white) Canadians as well as to mainstream Canadian society (i.e. "settler society" or "settler culture"). Politicians and ex-politicians, too, have fallen into this odious negative identity trap. I consider the overly broad use of this term to be offensive and in some circumstances derogatory. If it's objectionable to refer to members of visible minorities as "immigrants," particularly when they're second generation or multi-generational, why on earth is it acceptable to characterize white Canadians, whose ancestors in some cases may have arrived in the country over the past few generations, as settlers? Isn't this a form of racial categorization and oversimplification? In many cases, it seems to me to amount to reductionist hypocrisy.

It's just more racism being dumped on white people again by the Canadian left wing liberal corporate media who appear to have a hatred for white people. Our politically correct puppet on a string politicians all dance to the same leftist tune of anti-white and pro multicultural left wing liberal music. Our politicians have not fallen into any trap. They know full well what they are doing. Other than maybe a few Canadian politicians the majority of them are not worth the time of day. They appear to despise Canada just by their actions. None have them have shown to me that they love Canada. All I see and get from them is disloyalty to Canada. My opinion of course. 

[taxme]

45 minutes ago, H10 said:

White people called themselves settlers for the longest of time.  What, now they don't want to call themselves that anymore because people are holding the settlers accountable for stealing indian land and enslaving african people?

The word settlers was a word used at the time when Canada was being settled. White people do not use that word today because they are not settlers anymore. I am white and I was born here so I am not a settler. I am Canadian born and I am not an immigrant. An immigrant is someone who immigrates to another country. I did not. I guess that I am safe to call myself a native Indian also now. 

Where would North America be today if it were not for those white "settlers" who came to NA and settled and did something with the place. Do you honestly believe that today the native Indian population want to go back to the old Indian ways and days before the white man/woman came along? I doubt that very much. They have it a lot better because of old whitey today and they dam well know it too. 

Black slavery still goes on in some Arab and African countries today.  And all of those past slave owners were black and Arab and were all too willing to abduct and black people and sell them off to the highest bidder. So, don't make it sound like black slavery was a white man's creation. Yes, it was wrong for white people to get involved in the slavery business but it was the white man who eventually stopped the slave trade into America and eventually give the blacks their freedom. But do you see thousands of blacks leaving America for an African country today? Nope, because they know that they have it better living in a white country rather than if they lived in an African country. This constant bashing and trying to constantly remind white people by people like you needs to stop. The slave days are over. Accept and live with it. To continue on with this racism towards white people is as far as I am concerned promoting hatred and maybe even violence towards white people. Give it up.  

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, H10 said:

White people called themselves settlers for the longest of time.  What, now they don't want to call themselves that anymore because people are holding the settlers accountable for stealing indian land and enslaving african people?

White people in North America may in some cases describe their ancestors who moved here centuries ago as settlers, particularly if those ancestors farmed upon arriving. The most common designation for descendants who arrived over the past century and even for many who arrived well before that is "immigrant." My mother arrived in Canada in the early 1950s as a landed immigrant and never referred to herself as a settler. Beyond referring to ancestors who arrived long ago, the term is seldom if ever used by contemporary Canadians to describe themselves - except perhaps by left "progressives" who'd rather defer to Indigenous sensibilities and ideology. Rather, when applied to contemporary Canadians, it's an arbitrarily assigned and quasi-racial designation that often appears intended to denigrate the legitimacy of the Canadian majority and the society it has established. Further, "Indian" land wasn't technically "stolen" because there was no legal structure in place at the time to recognize or enforce ownership rights. Interestingly, many Indigenous activists today assert that they don't even recognize the concept of property rights. In the absence of a legally regulated property regime, the British asserted sovereignty over once Indigenous-occupied lands. It may not have been fair, but history has seldom been fair. Tribal groups throughout history have in every part of the world and among all races simply displaced other tribal groups. And people have been enslaved throughout history by people of many races. History isn't a simple binary contrast between bad Europeans and victimized others. Perhaps you might read up on these things.

Edited June 27, 2018 by turningrite