What evidence is there to support Canada being 'systemically racist'?

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It wasn’t all someone’s.  Get real. 

I am being real.  Even back then the government's of the day knew it was wrong to just wander into a land inhabited by someone else and assume ownership over it.  I know you don't like it and you want to wish it away but them's the facts Jack.

We're on unceded land in possession of stolen property.  You can whatabout your way around it in here until the cows come home but you'll get nowhere with that in court.

[Zeitgeist]

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I am being real.  Even back then the government's of the day knew it was wrong to just wander into a land inhabited by someone else and assume ownership over it.  I know you don't like it and you want to wish it away but them's the facts Jack.

We're on unceded land in possession of stolen property.  You can whatabout your way around it in here until the cows come home but you'll get nowhere with that in court.

Who is owed what?  You haven’t got a clue.  Unceded by whom?  Which descendants?  Bring forward a claim if you think you can substantiate one and let the courts decide.  Otherwise quit the extortion from people who have nothing to do with your “colonialism” and “systemic racism.”  

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Who is owed what?

2. You haven’t got a clue.

3  Unceded by whom?  3.5 Which descendants?

4. Bring forward a claim if you think you can substantiate one and let the courts decide.

Otherwise quit the extortion from people who have nothing to do with your “colonialism” and “systemic racism.”  

1. Everyone is owed the same due respect and process.

2. Have you ever been to a treaty negotiation or sat in the process?

3. Unceded by the people who occupied the land. 3. Their descendants.

4. Or bring a position to the negotiating table. Otherwise it's back to court.

I'm pretty sure you have a clue but you just don't care and prefer our government bully is way to your satisfaction. Get in line.

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by eyeball

[Zeitgeist]

42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. Everyone is owed the same due respect and process.

2. Have you ever been to a treaty negotiation or sat in the process?

3. Unceded by the people who occupied the land. 3. Their descendants.

4. Or bring a position to the negotiating table. Otherwise it's back to court.

I'm pretty sure you have a clue but you just don't care and prefer our government bully is way to your satisfaction. Get in line.

 

Not into bullying or extortion.  All Canadians should be subject to the same federal laws, taxes, etc., or no one should be.  This business of special privileges based on race or ethnicity is bad, sows dependence, division, and the idea that some races/ethnicities are more capable than others.  Well our generation didn’t create the Indian Act and most Canadians want rid of it…

We’ve had these conversations.  Time to move on.  

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

This business of special privileges based on race or ethnicity is bad, sows dependence, division, and the idea that some races/ethnicities are more capable than others.

In the case of first Nations their 'privilege' (minus all the dispossession and abuse etc etc.) is based on their status of having been here first.

The special status you like to lay claim to when it comes to whining about all the other settlers following you.

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

In the case of first Nations their 'privilege' (minus all the dispossession and abuse etc etc.) is based on their status of having been here first.

The special status you like to lay claim to when it comes to whining about all the other settlers following you.

Wrong.  I’m quite pro-immigration where important values are shared and positive, but that’s pure colonialism.  You don’t understand that yet.  Your activism is your colonialism.  It’s okay.  God loves all his children.  Lol.  

[Dougie93]

9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Wrong.  I’m quite pro-immigration where important values are shared and positive, but that’s pure colonialism.  You don’t understand that yet.  Your activism is your colonialism.  It’s okay.  God loves all his children.  Lol.  

the status of "being here first" has no particular legitimacy unto itself

that is simply invoking occupation

occupation inherently relies upon force

which is entirely subject to others coming to take up occupation by the same force

[I am Groot]

On 10/29/2022 at 12:50 AM, eyeball said:

Not when, where. Here in North America.  They contributed a continent.

They didn't own it. Any more than the bears or birds.

On 10/29/2022 at 12:50 AM, eyeball said:

It's actually a result of inaction on the part of our ancestors.  In the case of BC at least, the King of England made it perfectly clear that settlers and the officials dispatched to govern BC were to secure treaties ceding indigenous title to the Crown.  That didn't happen throughout almost all of BC and so here we are to day having to negotiate treaties now complicated by the mistaken belief settlers had that they could do pretty much anything they wanted.

Why would the natives have any sort of legal claim to land in a place that had no laws nor written language?

On 10/29/2022 at 12:50 AM, eyeball said:

You're perfectly correct to note that everyone has to be from somewhere. By the very same token the powers that be a way back in the day knew they couldn't just waltz on in someone else's 'somewhere' without due process to make it legal.

Why? Every other nation on Earth did it. Certainly the natives didn't bother to extract some sort of legal agreement from each other when they attacked and took land.

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Who is owed what?  You haven’t got a clue.  Unceded by whom?  Which descendants?  Bring forward a claim if you think you can substantiate one and let the courts decide. 

Oh you poor sweet summer child.

Never ask the courts to decide anything. Especially if it involves natives.

Edited October 30, 2022 by I am Groot

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Wrong. 

even now, international law requires occupation to be backed up with force

for example, Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage

America rejects this, claims that beyond the 12 mile limit; it is international waters

if America then sails its ships through the Northwest Passage, and Canada doesn't stop them ?

that alone overthrows Canada's claims of sovereignty

if you can't defend it with force, then you don't have sovereignty over it

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

the status of "being here first" has no particular legitimacy unto itself

that is simply invoking occupation

occupation inherently relies upon force

which is entirely subject to others coming to take up occupation by the same force

In the end it’s an attempt to give extra privileges by ethnicity or gene pool.  I understand that we inherited the Indian Act mess, but it’s concerning that the discussion is about whether to add more special privileges.  Really it should be about setting up self-funding and self-determining conditions that wean Indigenous off state dependence, but the non-Indigenous voice won’t count for much in this at the political level under Trudeau, so we’re in a holding pattern of propping it up with annual funding and hearing how it’s not enough.  I expect to hear this until I die.  I accept that we pay the freight on this because of the colonial narrative, but if there are attempts to reinforce it further and up the funding, taxpayers should have say in that. Voters can certainly have their say.

The challenge is speaking up about it without being ridiculed and canceled, even though I bet most Canadians are very upset by how Canada has been painted under Trudeau.  The other problem is that the media has played up the colonial oppressor narrative too, so many Canadians instinctively and experientially know the anti-Canada narrative is unfair, but no one wants to stand out or appear insensitive. Again, some people’s hardships are given greater weight than others in our current world of identity politics that the Liberals promote.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

In the end it’s an attempt to give extra privileges by ethnicity or gene pool.  I understand that we inherited the Indian Act mess, but it’s concerning that the discussion is about whether to add more special privileges.  Really it should be about setting up self-funding and and self-determining conditions that wean Indigenous off state dependence, but the non-Indigenous voice won’t count for much in this, so we’re in a holding pattern of propping it up with annual funding and hearing how it’s not enough.  I expect to hear this until I die.  I accept that we pay the freight on this because of the colonial narrative, but if there are attempts to reinforce it further and up the funding, taxpayers should have say in that.  

well of course at this point, it has been subordinated to the entirely race based Woke Social Justice religion

the "Indigenous" are the Woke designated victim class, Canada is the Woke designated "oppressor"

[Dougie93]

19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The challenge is speaking up about it without being ridiculed and canceled, even though I bet most Canadians are very upset by how Canada has been painted under Trudeau.  The other problem is that the media has played up the colonial oppressor narrative too, so many Canadians instinctively and experientially know the anti-Canada narrative is unfair, but no one wants to stand out or appear insensitive. Again, some people’s hardships are given greater weight than others in our current world of identity politics that the Liberals promote.

it's not even that I don't acknowledge the history of colonialism & associated oppression

it's just that this race based Woke Social Justice approach is not helping, it's just throwing gasoline on the fire

and the supposed help for the natives never arrives

the government never actually follows through with any results,

because governance in Canada is now totally dysfunctional

Canada can't repair the situation for the natives, anymore than Canada can repair the military

everything the government touches turns to corruption & absurd ineptitude

Edited October 30, 2022 by Dougie93

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

They didn't own it. Any more than the bears or birds.

Why would the natives have any sort of legal claim to land in a place that had no laws nor written language?

They wouldn't but when colonists brought them here things changed - now we've been hoisted by our own petards. 

Quote

Why? Every other nation on Earth did it. Certainly the natives didn't bother to extract some sort of legal agreement from each other when they attacked and took land.

We're new, Canada is amongst the first to do things differently is all. We're evolving into a sentient species away from being a bunch of stupid races.  It's a step forward and now it's time to weather the two-steps back.  As I've said it'll take generations but it's going to happen nonetheless.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

They wouldn't but when colonists brought them here things changed - now we've been hoisted by our own petards. 

We're new, Canada is amongst the first to do things differently is all. We're evolving into a sentient species away from being a bunch of stupid races.  It's a step forward and now it's time to weather the two-steps back.  As I've said it'll take generations but it's going to happen nonetheless.

but right now things are going backwards

we've gone back to dividing the nation by way of people's immutable racial characteristics

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Wrong.  I’m quite pro-immigration where important values are shared and positive, but that’s pure colonialism.  You don’t understand that yet.  Your activism is your colonialism.  It’s okay.  God loves all his children.  Lol.  

I understand, it's an economic self-interest but with lots social impurities.  The vestiges of race are still preventing you from making the jump to the next level - species, new colonizers to Earth.  It's okay, I'm pretty sure God is frowning in consternation too.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but right now things are going backwards

we've gone back to dividing the nation by way of people's immutable racial characteristics

It should only go backwards so far though, the only way to prevent the third step forward from becoming established will be the path to oblivion you imagine is happening.  Even then I think after a long interregnum the idea and promise it holds for a better future will persist.

I have to be hopeful, I have grandkids.

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I have to be hopeful, I have grandkids.

indeed, Canada is not going to disappear into a black hole

I do however foresee an extended period of crisis & conflict

because we are going backwards into a racial holy war scenario

a new religion based on inciting racial conflict,  is the state of Canada and the rest of the Anglosphere too

Edited October 30, 2022 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

case in point

any nefarious sociopath in Canada now,

knows that they can gain power simply by false accusations of "Racism ! Racism ! Racism !"

even down at the level of school trustees, it's literally everywhere

because the institutions in Canada will cave into it in a total panic, to the point of utter absurdity

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-the-hamilton-school-board-trustee-who-was-victimized-by-one-womans-woke-quest

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I understand, it's an economic self-interest but with lots social impurities.  The vestiges of race are still preventing you from making the jump to the next level - species, new colonizers to Earth.  It's okay, I'm pretty sure God is frowning in consternation too.

You’re assuming most people think in terms of species. That might happen under threat of alien invasion or control, and I agree that we have far more in common than what separates us, but you’re ignoring the massive movement against colour blindness and the notion that we can’t understand anyone outside our tribe because our lived experiences are different.  To pretend otherwise under this insane new tribalism is considered cultural appropriation.  All you can do is check your privilege, understand that you don’t understand, and give up your property to the officially designated victims, who are classed as such by race or ethnicity without regard to their individual abilities, achievements, or inherited wealth.  It’s simply a new form of discrimination based on the idea that equal rights is not true equality because some people should get more to level the playing field based on race or ethnicity.

That’s why now we have EDI point systems that put group identity above merit.  The overriding message is that individual merit is less important than the state’s attempt at equity through social engineering.  People now refer to less competent people who get jobs because of these state schemes as “equity hires”.   People know they won’t be fired so they are simply trotted out as symbolic tokens of a company’s progressiveness.  That’s the very big downside of wokism and the equity movement that literally dominates HR departments of all governments, corporations, and large businesses.  It’s actually very damaging to talented BIPOC who don’t need favouritism to move up in organizations. Lose your meritocracy and you wreck your civilization.  The Chinese and Russians understand this better than we do.

I know there’s a need for atonement in the US for slavery.  Canada has the residential school chapter. It doesn’t mean that we should create new forms of injustice to right the wrongs of people who lived long ago whose context we can’t even understand.

Again, if someone alive today was mistreated or has a legitimate case to make for a land claim, they should have their day in court. They are having it.

We can improve representation without discounting merit, but adding points to someone’s hireability based on superficial traits like skin colour will only sow division and damage society.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I know there’s a need for atonement in the US for slavery. 

that atonement was paid in blood

360,223 Republicans killed, to include Lincoln himself,  from Bull Run to Ford's Theatre

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I know there’s a need for atonement in the US for slavery.  Canada has the residential school chapter. It doesn’t mean that we should create new forms of injustice to right the wrongs of people who lived long ago whose context we can’t even understand.

You're right we shouldn't.  As for who or what determines what long ago means I think in the case of human beings it means within the living memory of 2 - 3 generations.  As for our institutions long ago means within the memories of their legal process and records.  Much longer than human lifespans in other words.      

Don't forget where I've pointed out we're one of the first countries on Earth to attempt basing a future on addressing past wrongs. I'm not assuming we'll get it right the first time and certainly not with politicians of all stripes forever jockeying their way to the best position from which to take lead of the issue. Of course, they're simply following, without really knowing what they're following and tripping over their own self-interest along the way.

This attempt is like a pinball bouncing it's way thru a maze of bumpers composed of ideology, religion, legalities, politics, media, moral entrepreneurs of many stripes and on it goes.  That's why this'll take generations.

[TreeBeard]

On 10/30/2022 at 8:01 AM, Dougie93 said:

if you can't defend it with force, then you don't have sovereignty over it

You’re making that up.  International law is not “might makes right”.  

[Dougie93]

8 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You’re making that up.  International law is not “might makes right”.  

in order to claim sovereignty over a territory, your armed forces must be able to defend & secure said territory

if your armed forces are not capable of doing that, then that territory is ungoverned for all intents & purposes

at which point, other nation's are within their rights to move in to secure that territory for their own protection

to wit, you cannot invoke UN Article 51 Right to Self Defense over territories which you are not able to defend

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

in order to claim sovereignty over a territory, your armed forces must be able to defend & secure said territory

If what you're saying is true there'd have been no basis or reason for the SCC to rule that 1st Nations do have the legal right to claim sovereignty over their territories.