When will we ever see an Heritage Day for white British/Europeans.

[Nefarious Banana]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

  And then there's the Irish and indentured servitude.

Irish?   a horde of drunken Leprechauns drinking the foul swill they named after themselves . . . . staggering around hurling rotten potatoes at each other, and yelling gibberish at earth, sky, and each other.  When rarely sober, the day's spent on hands and knees looking for 4 leafed clover in the stinging nettle patch.  Sub-human?  You bet!   

[Dougie93]

7 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

I'm Metis, and every day is good for me.  Skin thickness trumps skin colour . . . . every time!

Louis Riel, Father of Manitoba

the first to fight against tyranny in Canada

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Irish?   a horde of drunken Leprechauns drinking the foul swill they named after themselves . . . . staggering around hurling rotten potatoes at each other, and yelling gibberish at earth, sky, and each other.  When rarely sober, the day's spent on hands and knees looking for 4 leafed clover in the stinging nettle patch.  Sub-human?  You bet!   

Well, there's no need to make them sound more respectable than they were, but sure. 

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Residential schools were required by the first nations and optional for them, so they chose to use them.

Sorry - like most racism, yours doesn't stand up to the facts.

They were not. There were amendments to the Indian Act in 1894 and 1920, both made them mandatory.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

for what purpose were they intended ? were they intended to be concentration camps, our final solution to Native Americans, or were they intended for education.

They were invented to erase native culture like a lot of other things in the Act.

[Aristides]

Quote

The Act also made it illegal for First Nations peoples to practice religious ceremonies and various cultural gatherings. In 1884, the potlatch was banned, and in 1895, “any Indian festival, dance or other ceremony,” which would include powwows and the sun dance, were also banned. Another amendment in 1914 outlawed dancing off-reserve, and in 1925, dancing is outlawed entirely.

In 1927, the Act made it illegal for First Nations peoples and communities to solicit funds for the pursuit of a land claim. Subsequent amendments required First Nations children to attend industrial or residential schools(1894 and 1920). The dark legacy of residential schools in Canada has affected Indigenous communities across the country and intergenerationally.

 

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Irish?   a horde of drunken Leprechauns drinking the foul swill they named after themselves . . . . staggering around hurling rotten potatoes at each other, and yelling gibberish at earth, sky, and each other.  When rarely sober, the day's spent on hands and knees looking for 4 leafed clover in the stinging nettle patch.  Sub-human?  You bet!   

that's the Romanist Fenians perhaps

but we Ulster Scots are not to be trifled with

we can hold our whisky

while we close with & destroy the enemies of the British Crown

we did after all conquer you Metis ; without even breaking a sweat

you stood no chance against we Orangemen

Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, America

we conquered it all

then we conquered Europe and made them our subjects too

Hiroshima & Nagasaki was just a sideshow

United Kingdom United States of America Agreement

we literally rule the world

Edited May 3, 2023 by Dougie93

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

They were not. There were amendments to the Indian Act in 1894 and 1920, both made them mandatory.

No, there were not.

1894's amendments just said you had to go to school somewhere. With basically no enforcement. You did not have to go to a residential school at all. NOT manditory.

Btw - the law was changed so that EVERYONES kids had to go to school. A lot of other immigrants also complained about it but it wasn't just first nations who had to deal with that.

it wasn't till 1920 that res schools became manditory.

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

 we Ulster Scots are not to be trifled with . . . 

Ulster Scot = Irish ?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act

Nobody gives a shit. Seriously.  In the scheme of people done wrong in the world's history that is absoutely nothing. The gays had it worse.

And that crap has long since been corrected. I doubt there's more than a few people alive that remember a time when those laws were still in effect.

If THAT is what you think 'whitey' has to be embarassed about - then we really have nothing at all.

Frankly we screwed the japanese over far worse - if we want to feel bad about something that would be it. But again - it's not like there were only white people in Canada.

Meanwhile we achieved a tonne if insanely positive things, and built a great nation that we can be very proud of. It wasn't perfect and perhaps never will be but we can be proud of how far we've come and excited about how far we can take it yet.

But none of that really has much to do with 'whiteness'.  And we already have a canada day.

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Ulster Scot = Irish ?

the Province of Ulster is Northern Ireland

conquered by the Lowland Scots for William Prince of Orange

Ulster Scot : Northern Irish Orangeman

in America we are called the Scots-Irish

Edited May 3, 2023 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

They were invented to erase native culture like a lot of other things in the Act.

I don't agree with what they did, it could have been handled much differently, but it is hard to relate what they did with the times and what they thought was right... where do you think Indigenous people would be today in regards to education, economically, 

[Nefarious Banana]

From another website:

The St. Edward's Cross that has been part of the Royal Coat of Arms since 1957 will be replaced by a design created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the body responsible for granting coats of arms in this country.

Critics are calling it the 'Trudeau Crown' . . . 

[Dougie93]

19 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

From another website:

The St. Edward's Cross that has been part of the Royal Coat of Arms since 1957 will be replaced by a design created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the body responsible for granting coats of arms in this country.

Critics are calling it the 'Trudeau Crown' . . . 

bloody Post National State

I'll just have to fall back upon my own coat of arms

Clan Ralston of Ayrshire

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

the body responsible for granting coats of arms in this country.

How does that even come up often enough that we need a "body" to handle it?!?!

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh - and while i've already shot down your argument here entirely it's worth noting this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_ancient_Roman_history

The romans had names for people with different colour skin. So they definitely without a doubt divided people into various skin colours in their minds. Which means they recognized their skin colour as being one group and other skin colours other groups. They didn't consider those other people necessarily inferior, but they did group them that way.

Dummy you didn’t dismantle anything you’re just another uninformed know-nothing making things up as you go.
 

Dude your own link disproves tour claim  Just read things through to the end for a change will ya?  Here you go from your OWN link which states exactly what I’ve be saying 

 

 

“Skin tones did not carry any social implications, and no social identity, either imposed or assumed, was associated with skin color. Although the color black was associated with ill-omens in the ancient Roman religion, racism as understood today developed only after the classical period: 

"The ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism; black skin color was not a sign of inferiority. Greeks and Romans did not establish color as an obstacle to integration in society. An ancient society was one that for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man."

Edited May 4, 2023 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

50 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

From another website:

The St. Edward's Cross that has been part of the Royal Coat of Arms since 1957 will be replaced by a design created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the body responsible for granting coats of arms in this country.

Critics are calling it the 'Trudeau Crown' . . . 

Oh no it’s just like when we ditched the Union Jack for the Maple Leaf!!!  Damn Liberals are at it again!

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

I don't agree with what they did, it could have been handled much differently, but it is hard to relate what they did with the times and what they thought was right... where do you think Indigenous people would be today in regards to education, economically, 

Could they be any worse off than currently?  Very little useful education was done at many those schools, it was religious instruction, agricultural labour, etc. 

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Wait...that's simply not true.

The Spanish have been celebrating the ousting of Muslim rule for centuries.

Huh?  What does that have to do with this discussion of “black” and “white” races? You know “muslim” and “black” aren’t the same thing right?

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Black History Month is nothing more than just another tool to divide and conquer.

They are already conquered and still defines their lived experience which is why they have Black History Month  

 

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Human history is chalk full of racial conflicts and abuses.

Yes and people don’t just get over it the next day. The rule of thumb is that it takes a minimum of 4 generations at best for people to accept those as “historical” abuses…in other words once nobody alive has personally known a living abuse survivors has passed. Overt and deliberate state persecution of blacks and indigenous people comes right up to the modern era, and then there’s the unintended or systemic states persecution by neglect like when the state turns a blind eye to individual racist police officers or allows indigenous communities to suffer under boil water  advisories for decades while a “white” town would not be allowed to go a week without a state of emergency being declared to fix it. 

[BeaverFever]

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Dummy you didn’t dismantle anything you’re just another uninformed know-nothing making things up as you go.
 

Dude your own link disproves tour claim  Just read things through to the end for a change will ya?  Here you go from your OWN link which states exactly what I’ve be saying 

 

 

“Skin tones did not carry any social implications, and no social identity, either imposed or assumed, was associated with skin color. Although the color black was associated with ill-omens in the ancient Roman religion, racism as understood today developed only after the classical period: 

"The ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism; black skin color was not a sign of inferiority. Greeks and Romans did not establish color as an obstacle to integration in society. An ancient society was one that for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man."

For your further edification, with added emphasis mine

Race is a categorization of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given society.^[1]The term came into common usage during the 16th century, when it was used to refer to groups of various kinds, including those characterized by close kinship relations.^[2] By the 17th century, the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits, and then later to national affiliations. Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.^[3][4] Race is a categorization of humansbased on shared physical or social qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given society.^[1]The term came into common usage during the 16th century, when it was used to refer to groups of various kinds, including those characterized by close kinship relations.^[2] By the 17th century, the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits, and then later to national affiliations. Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.^[3][4] While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.^[1][5][6]The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.

 

…The establishment of racial boundaries often involves the subjugation of groups defined as racially inferior, as in the one-drop rule used in the 19th-century United States to exclude those with any amount of African ancestry from the dominant racial grouping, defined as "white".^[1] 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#:~:text=Modern science regards race as,inherent physical or biological meaning.

 

It goes on at some length You should get yourself and education 

[cougar]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

How is that a 'white' thing? The first nations are every bit as guilty, and frankly so is every other skin colour living in canada.

Swing and misses on all counts.  Sounds just a tad racist to be honest. 

 

Management and leadership need to take responsibility. 

Racist?   There are many shades of grey.  I am probably racist but not to the point of using the gas chambers.....unless those "minorities" don't stop multiplying like rabbits.

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Very little useful education was done at many those schools, it was religious instruction, agricultural labour, etc. 

Would you share your knowledge of what was taught at those schools?  Were you a pupil there ?

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Would you share your knowledge of what was taught at those schools?  Were you a pupil there ?

Ummm….It’s been widely reported, haven’t you heard? You don’t have to be a holocaust survivor to know what happened during the holocaust. 

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Huh?  What does that have to do with this discussion of “black” and “white” races? You know “muslim” and “black” aren’t the same thing right?

They are already conquered and still defines their lived experience which is why they have Black History Month  

 

Yes and people don’t just get over it the next day. The rule of thumb is that it takes a minimum of 4 generations at best for people to accept those as “historical” abuses…in other words once nobody alive has personally known a living abuse survivors has passed. Overt and deliberate state persecution of blacks and indigenous people comes right up to the modern era, and then there’s the unintended or systemic states persecution by neglect like when the state turns a blind eye to individual racist police officers or allows indigenous communities to suffer under boil water  advisories for decades while a “white” town would not be allowed to go a week without a state of emergency being declared to fix it. 

Sigh...

 

Seek professional help Beave.

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Dummy you didn’t dismantle anything you’re just another uninformed know-nothing making things up as you go.

Don't be angry just because i'm smarter than you If you take that attitude you'll be angry at most of the world.

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Dude your own link disproves tour claim  Just read things through to the end for a change will ya?  Here you go from your OWN link which states exactly what I’ve be saying 

No, it doesn't. you're just a dolt as we'll see.

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

“Skin tones did not carry any social implications, and no social identity, either imposed or assumed, was associated with skin color. Although the color black was associated with ill-omens in the ancient Roman religion, racism as understood today developed only after the classical period: 

"The ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism; black skin color was not a sign of inferiority. Greeks and Romans did not establish color as an obstacle to integration in society. An ancient society was one that for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man."

Yeah. But the issue was NOT "are they racist".  The issue was 'did they mentally assign people to groups based on race or skin colour".

And yes they did. As it clearly shows.

The fact that they did not hold those groups to be lesser people IS IN NO WAY RELEVANT.

The problem is that as a brain washed leftie  you think  that any one who DARES notice some people are a different colour then they're being racist.  And that's simply not true. So the romans would have  Said "Oh, those people are black, they're a different group than us whites or those brown ones over there", but they did NOT think lesser of them. THat's what racism REALLY means.

So your whole claim that romans would not have classified or distinguished people by skin color or racial group is wrong. They did.

Maybe next time try COMPREHENDING what you read.