Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

When did it become wrong to even question natives?


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Lord Selkirk was indeed from Scotland.  Selkirk is in MB, where one can find Selkirk's fort and trading post, but the settlers spread downriver to St. Andrews, where that arm of my wife's family is buried.  Under the rules of the Anglican Church of Canada, only three things qualify one as "Canadian" nationality - your paternal decendance being from a United Empire Loyalist, Red River Settler (Selkirk's lot) or being aboriginal.  Obviously, the Church of England did not seem to be aware of the Jay Treaty.

Can't pretend it came up much in the Church in Wales either!  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

An interesting story in the Post today in that it encapsulates all that most of us despise about so-called progressives. A Quebec environmental bureaucrat wrote a letter to his federal counterpar

Around 2015. That's when the latest wave of increased... "sensitivity"... started. That's when everyone started to be worried about "cultural appropriation", "microaggressions", "being an ally", "inte

Jordan Petersen is one of those people who are pushing back. The leftist social justice warrior progressive liberals despise this guy because Petersen makes them all look stupid. They deserve to be no

3 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Yeah, and they kind of glossed over all of those French Catholics who came here before the slimey lymies.

Send 'm all home?   Question is whether 'home' will take 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 7:23 AM, Penderyn said:

How did you get there?   God give it you, did He?  Theft is theft is theft is theft is theft.

You DO know that prior to the arrival of Europeans, tribes all over North America were battling each other. Of particular note in the Ontario/Quebec area were the Hurons and Iroquois - each trying to wipe each other out and broaden their territory. That's why they so easily went to opposite sides of the French/British conflict. The Indian Wars had three outcomes for the defeated - assimilation, slavery, or death - perhaps with a bit of torture thrown in. The image of indiginous Kumbaya prior to "colonialism" is mostly a fairy tale. They stole from each other.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

You DO know that prior to the arrival of Europeans, tribes all over North America were battling each other. Of particular note in the Ontario/Quebec area were the Hurons and Iroquois - each trying to wipe each other out and broaden their territory. That's why they so easily went to opposite sides of the French/British conflict. The Indian Wars had three outcomes for the defeated - assimilation, slavery, or death - perhaps with a bit of torture thrown in. The image of indiginous Kumbaya prior to "colonialism" is mostly a fairy tale. They stole from each other.

Quiet, people do not want to hear that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

You DO know that prior to the arrival of Europeans, tribes all over North America were battling each other. Of particular note in the Ontario/Quebec area were the Hurons and Iroquois - each trying to wipe each other out and broaden their territory. That's why they so easily went to opposite sides of the French/British conflict. The Indian Wars had three outcomes for the defeated - assimilation, slavery, or death - perhaps with a bit of torture thrown in. The image of indiginous Kumbaya prior to "colonialism" is mostly a fairy tale. They stole from each other.

They did, some of them, what people did everywhere.   What's this got to do with current racism?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Penderyn said:

They did, some of them, what people did everywhere.   What's this got to do with current racism?

First off, you used the term "racism" - not me. As the original topic mentioned - it seems that any negativity introduced into an indiginous conversation is often shouted down as "racism". Many Canadians are simply frustrated with a system - both government and aboriginal - that allows poverty and hopelessness to perpetuate within too many of the 600-plus indiginous "nations". This current Liberal government has revised and legitimized the term "colonialism. That has been grasped by the Indiginous Industry to make it seem like if the White Man never came, all would be well. As I indicated with pre-colonial warring tribes - that's just a fairy tale. Indiginous "leaders" often use the term White Man - sounds rather racist to me. I doubt there are many Canadians with outright racist attitudes towards Indiginous people - but a lot are fed up with the self-imposed apartheid of too many reservations that have allowed their own people to descend into the poverty and hopelessness that is so evident. Years ago, I had hope that the Assembly of First Nations would work for the betterment of those 600-plus nations - drawing up a blueprint that would, over time - possibly even decades - amalgamate and regionalize  indiginous communities and bring them into the 20th, if not the 21st century. Imagine the political force of a million engaged Indiginous people. Education, jobs and property rights. Create hope for the next generation. It takes time - but it's barely even started. Not racism. Frustration.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As in many other matters these days, it is the so-called 'entitled' few who are clamoring, and getting, all the attention.  Meanwhile, on many reserves across Canada, lives are being lived.  Business is being done.  The kids are being educated.  Parents are providing for their families.  Too bad it isn't their voices we hear on the news or read about in the newspapers.  I am quite sure they would have a lot to say about the yammering minority. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mowich said:

As in many other matters these days, it is the so-called 'entitled' few who are clamoring, and getting, all the attention.  Meanwhile, on many reserves across Canada, lives are being lived.  Business is being done.  The kids are being educated.  Parents are providing for their families.  Too bad it isn't their voices we hear on the news or read about in the newspapers.  I am quite sure they would have a lot to say about the yammering minority. 

Modern treaties are one of the biggest economic drivers where I live.  Too bad that doesn't make the news , maybe it would inspire people in other regions to negotiate or renegotiate more comprehensive treaties where they live.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Modern treaties are one of the biggest economic drivers where I live.  Too bad that doesn't make the news , maybe it would inspire people in other regions to negotiate or renegotiate more comprehensive treaties where they live.

I agree that treaties most definitely need to be negotiated, eyeball.  That said, here in BC one of the roadblocks is the fact that there are some bands whose claims overlap that of others and they are unable or unwilling to come to terms.  The government can do nothing but stand by and hope that reason and compromise will eventually win the day.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mowich said:

I agree that treaties most definitely need to be negotiated, eyeball.  That said, here in BC one of the roadblocks is the fact that there are some bands whose claims overlap that of others and they are unable or unwilling to come to terms.  The government can do nothing but stand by and hope that reason and compromise will eventually win the day.  

Oh well, like people, its every region for itself. The longer people in other regions can't get their acts together the more the people in mine can make the most of their opportunities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mowich said:

I agree that treaties most definitely need to be negotiated, eyeball.  That said, here in BC one of the roadblocks is the fact that there are some bands whose claims overlap that of others and they are unable or unwilling to come to terms.  The government can do nothing but stand by and hope that reason and compromise will eventually win the day.  

That's what happens when you have over 600 "nations".

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

That's what happens when you have over 600 "nations".

Let's face facts. These are not 'nations'. A series of liberal politicians have, over the years, flattered and indulged native chiefs in an incredibly paternalistic fashion while doing virtually nothing to address the situation Canada and they find themselves in. The reserve system is a relic of the past kept alive by liberals who swoon with delight at every ethnic culture while deriding our own, and who like to think of natives as some sort of quaint living museum pieces there to entertain them. Any serious effort to deal with the growing problem runs up against the impossibility of negotiating with 600 'nations' run by people who, let's face it, are quite comfortable the way things are. It's human nature to not want to change things which will diminish your own power and wealth, and these chiefs have both on their little fiefdoms. They rule what are, in effect, tiny, rural towns of no economic significance, but often draw salaries greater than big city mayors, premiers or even the prime minister. Paying them off keeps things quiet so politicians can kick the can down the road until after the next election. No one wants to actually deal with things now because doing so will be very messy, very time consuming, and won't show any significant improvement over the course of a single election cycle. In other words, it's a vote loser. It also will involve a lot of outraged accusations of racism on behalf of the institutions and people who profit from keeping things more or less the way they are now. Much better to do nothing, tide things over, and get through the current election cycle - and then the next current election cycle, and then, hey, it's someone else's problem.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites

A little harsh (maybe) but pretty well true. Any rational look at the issue of utter hopelessness on many of these reserves cries out for trashing the entire system. Even successful ones amount to self-imposed apartheid, devoid of Trudeau's ballyhooed "gender equality". 600-plus "nations"? Where is the leadership with vision - capable of laying out a blueprint for what an empowered indiginous population might look like in 25 or 50 years if not sooner - without the 18th century reservation system? Without such leadership, all the money, hand-wringing and Liberal self-loathing will do nothing to end the cycle of poverty and hopelessness.

You're right Argus - we need the political courage to DEMAND such a vision. To DEMAND a roadmap of where and how these particular Canadians can help themselves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

You're right Argus - we need the political courage to DEMAND such a vision. To DEMAND a roadmap of where and how these particular Canadians can help themselves. 

Um Mulroney, that great liberal politician, laid out that road-map when he referred to nation to nation negotiations, or are we to now believe that Canada is no more a nation than the Tla-o-quiaht?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Um Mulroney, that great liberal politician, laid out that road-map when he referred to nation to nation negotiations, or are we to now believe that Canada is no more a nation than the Tla-o-quiaht?

More than 30 years ago, that may have had some merit - at least to TRY. It hasn't worked and won't work until those 600 plus nations get some accountable leadership with the vision and determination to drag indiginous  people into the 20th century, if not the 21st. There was no such leadership 30 years ago and there is certainly none today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

More than 30 years ago, that may have had some merit - at least to TRY. It hasn't worked and won't work until those 600 plus nations get some accountable leadership with the vision and determination to drag indiginous  people into the 20th century, if not the 21st. There was no such leadership 30 years ago and there is certainly none today.

I like this guy:  Clarence Louie

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

We need to clone him 600 times and send him out to all the "nations".

Google some of the articles written about him - he's an interesting character.

Edited by Goddess
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

More than 30 years ago, that may have had some merit - at least to TRY. It hasn't worked and won't work until those 600 plus nations get some accountable leadership with the vision and determination to drag indiginous  people into the 20th century, if not the 21st.

Well as I pointed out its worked great where I live and where treaty settlements are the just about the biggest economic driver in the region.

Quote

There was no such leadership 30 years ago and there is certainly none today.

The chiefs I know who started negotiating a treaty for their people 30 years ago give me cause to differ. I would argue the fact these chiefs regarded their jurisdictions as nations is what's most responsible for the treaties they successfully negotiated.

Please note I also used the term renegotiate - that is to say in the context of older treaties with nations elsewhere throughout Canada.  I would encourage these to pursue modern treaties that mirror those that were negotiated in my region.  Until then I suspect Canadians will be questioning natives and making a bigger mess of things while doing so indefinitely.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Well as I pointed out its worked great where I live and where treaty settlements are the just about the biggest economic driver in the region.

The chiefs I know who started negotiating a treaty for their people 30 years ago give me cause to differ. I would argue the fact these chiefs regarded their jurisdictions as nations is what's most responsible for the treaties they successfully negotiated.

Please note I also used the term renegotiate - that is to say in the context of older treaties with nations elsewhere throughout Canada.  I would encourage these to pursue modern treaties that mirror those that were negotiated in my region.  Until then I suspect Canadians will be questioning natives and making a bigger mess of things while doing so indefinitely.    

Transferring that success to the hundreds of other "nations" would be laudable but I wouldn't hold my breath.....and it still does not address the self-imposed apartheid, gender inequity and property rights - among others that arise when racist attitudes towards the White Man are prevalent, if not encouraged. It's time they laid a roadmap to fully participate in Canadian society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Goddess said:

I like this guy:  Clarence Louie

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

We need to clone him 600 times and send him out to all the "nations".

Google some of the articles written about him - he's an interesting character.

Thank you. I had heard the name but not his great accomplishments. That's what vision and leadership can do. Funny how the media are either too lazy or too politically correct to raise this guy up as a success story - and help to build a foundation of encouragement for others to do something similar.

Actually, it's not funny at all.

Edited by Centerpiece
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Transferring that success to the hundreds of other "nations" would be laudable but I wouldn't hold my breath....

Keep in mind, the First Nations that are negotiating these treaties are only able to legally do this because there were never any treaties in these area. Almost all of Canada (outside of BC) has treaties in place which will most likely never be touched unless its to remove them and have these First Nations people join the rest of Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Keep in mind, the First Nations that are negotiating these treaties are only able to legally do this because there were never any treaties in these area. Almost all of Canada (outside of BC) has treaties in place which will most likely never be touched unless its to remove them and have these First Nations people join the rest of Canada.

Which is the LAST thing their chiefs want since they'd lose their power and big pay cheques.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 9:37 AM, Argus said:

An interesting story in the Post today in that it encapsulates all that most of us despise about so-called progressives.

A Quebec environmental bureaucrat wrote a letter to his federal counterpart on upcoming legislation. 

The letter, sent last month from a Quebec environment official to one of his federal counterparts, does not seem all that inflammatory. The Quebec official notes that proposed federal legislation requiring that traditional Indigenous knowledge be taken into account when assessing environmental impacts permits a “very broad” definition of such knowledge. And, he adds, the bill should be clearer about how traditional knowledge is to be weighed against scientific data when deciding whether a project should proceed.

How could anyone be upset about this? Clearly it's simply warning that science, and not the undefined term 'indigenous knowledge' should guide environmental assessment. Yet two cabinet ministers had to apologize amid the 'outrage' over the disrespect to natives. I think this just goes to show how lost to reality progressives are in their fanaticism at appeasing and pandering to every single minority identity group. You can't question the 'wisdom' of indigenous people, despite the fact they had zero knowledge of science and were basically a bunch of tribal hunters restricted to small geographic areas. Even suggesting we should promote science instead an endanger your career as the hysterical progressives start calling you names.

And yes, of course, the progressives have already started crying racism. It's what they do, after all.

 

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-deputy-minister-gets-pushback-after-questioning-place-of-indigenous-traditional-knowledge#comments-area

Minorities are pretty much running Canada today, not the majority. Between the Indians, the animal lovers and the environ"mental" movements are pretty much against any kind of progress. They are out to destroy the free market place, liberty, and destroy industrial progress. They want to clearly send us back to the stone age. These groups need to be ignored and shut down. Most of those groups are made up of old seniors or young adult fools who have no clue as to how a country operates in order to make life simple and convenient for all of us, even them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, taxme said:

Minorities are pretty much running Canada today, not the majority. Between the Indians, the animal lovers and the environ"mental" movements are pretty much against any kind of progress. 

They call it "the tyranny of the minority". Very apt for much of what we see in Canada today......and it's shameful that our media let them get away with it. In all seriousness, an example is Global Warming/Climate Change. Any informed, rational person understands that there is an underlying skepticism to the alarmist cries that 100% of the warming of the last century is caused by humans. We know that computer models have grossly over-estimated warming. We know that North America had the longest "drought" of hurricanes ever - lasting 12 years until the last one in Texas whose name eludes me. We know that as recently as 1920 and in some places later than that,  there were little or no temperature records in most of the world outside the UK and North America, not to mention accuracy - yet we somehow know the Global temperature dating back before 1900. As I posted previously, there have been NO heat records set in any one state since 1994 - and most were set in the 30's. Does any of this give pause to the proposal that perhaps humans are NOT 100% responsible?Are we really that arrogant that we think we are more powerful than Mother Nature. All this and much, much more - without even getting into the politics and self-serving culture of the UN/IPCC and the characters that infest its partners - yet the media refuses to create a narrative that fosters a true dialogue. Call the skeptics a minority if you will - but the media - in this case - will not permit the "tyranny of the minority". Elitism - Father knows best.....at its worst.

Edited by Centerpiece
Accuracy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...