Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
bush_cheney2004

Canada's Impossible Acknowledgements

Recommended Posts

Fascinating description of a political and cultural practice that is spreading by its own social inertia in Canada, without official sanction.

Quote

Every morning, at the start of the school day in Toronto, my children hear the following inelegant little paragraph read aloud, just before the singing of “O Canada”:

I would like to acknowledge that this school is situated upon traditional territories. The territories include the Wendat, Anishinabek Nation, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations, and the Métis Nation. The treaty that was signed for this particular parcel of land is collectively referred to as the Toronto Purchase and applies to lands east of Brown’s Line to Woodbine Avenue and north towards Newmarket. I also recognize the enduring presence of Aboriginal peoples on this land.

I hear the same little speech, or a version of it, at gala events—literary prizes, political fund-raisers, that sort of thing—when whichever government representative happens to be there reads some kind of acknowledgment before his or her introductory remarks. But you know a phenomenon has really arrived in Canada when it involves hockey. Both the Winnipeg Jets and the Edmonton Oilers began acknowledging traditional lands in their announcements before all home games last season. Acknowledgment is beginning to emerge as a kind of accidental pledge of allegiance for Canada—a statement made before any undertaking with a national purpose.

 

Is this more of a lefty, progressive movement to spur more "reconciliation" ?    Perhaps....

 

Quote

First Nations in Canada have practiced territorial acknowledgments for generations. The Western trend toward the purification of speech is simply catching up. A major constituency of the progressive left, particularly in academia, operates on the assumption that to speak is to produce either violence or safety; they have set themselves busily to work out ever more elaborate refinements to the new etiquette. Purifying language, to the new left, is purifying ourselves. The idea behind the Canadian acknowledgment is that if we repeat the truth often enough, publicly enough, to children who are young enough, it will lead us to reconciliation. I might even agree, if not for Muskrat Falls.

 

And of course, the usual comparison to the United States is made, if only because it is routinely expected in a piece about Canada:

 

Quote

At least the acknowledgment has shifted the question of the indigenous crisis, from “What is wrong with them?” to “What is wrong with us?” This isn’t nothing. In the United States, the Pledge of Allegiance points all Americans to a mutual expression of loyalty. Instead of unity of purpose, instead of a shared future, the acknowledgment of traditional lands points Canadians to a fractured origin. But there is a terrible beauty in the acknowledgment, too, a beauty and a terror that transcends Canada, that transcends politics, even.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/canadas-impossible-acknowledgment

 

So what's the deal ?   Is the "acknowledgement" virus spreading like wildfire on a Canadian prairie, or is this just more guilt ridden trigger events for a few progressives who struggle with the realities of history and occupied territories ?

Are the "settlers" on traditional lands even allowed to sing O' Canada anymore without the acknowledgement?

Fascinating.....

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've heard of this but I'm not surprised at all by it. Canada has now entered a time where we're expected to perpetually acknowledge and apologise for a great many things, over and over again. It's a kind of conditioning that I believe is intended to pave the way for a new kind of control of the masses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So what's the deal ?   Is the "acknowledgement" virus spreading like wildfire on a Canadian prairie, or is this just more guilt ridden trigger events for a few progressives who struggle with the realities of history and occupied territories ?

Are the "settlers" on traditional lands even allowed to sing O' Canada anymore without the acknowledgement?

Fascinating.....

I think the "acknowledgement" movement is an example of governments and civil society employing a 'low hanging fruit' approach to reconciliation. It costs nothing and supposedly sets a good example for the youngsters. My bigger concerns rest in the realities that the approach is anti-historical and 'contra proferentem' in many respects. History can't simply be reversed. Further, the legal basis of the relationship between Canada and its indigenous populations was set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which explicitly remains in the Canadian constitution. The Proclamation effectively asserts Crown sovereignty over indigenous lands and in return grants aboriginals limited rights and privileges. There's little doubt that Canada's end of the bargain hasn't always been well met but this doesn't negate the essential impacts of a deal that although unilaterally imposed more than two centuries ago by the British Crown explicitly remains the law of the land. The problem with the recent approach to reconciliation is that it muddies these waters and in so doing generates unrealistic expectations. The gulf between those expectations and harsh realities is a recipe for further conflict.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Turningrite, except to add that the real purpose of Cultural Marxism is simply to acheive and maintain power for the Cultural Marxists, the academic and media elites who run the country from Toronto, asymmetrically.

This is all just indoctrinating the children into Eskimo Communism so they will fund the CBClite nanny socialist welfare gulag in the future.

Why delete the British Crown and associated central narrative?

To create a power vacuum.

To what ends?

To fill that vacuum and appoint themselves as a new model royalty, pretenders to the throne.

The Liberals are a planting aristocracy, their plantation simply farms tax dollars instead of cotton,

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, turningrite said:

... Further, the legal basis of the relationship between Canada and its indigenous populations was set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which explicitly remains in the Canadian constitution. The Proclamation effectively asserts Crown sovereignty over indigenous lands and in return grants aboriginals limited rights and privileges. There's little doubt that Canada's end of the bargain hasn't always been well met but this doesn't negate the essential impacts of a deal that although unilaterally imposed more than two centuries ago by the British Crown explicitly remains the law of the land. The problem with the recent approach to reconciliation is that it muddies these waters and in so doing generates unrealistic expectations. The gulf between those expectations and harsh realities is a recipe for further conflict.

 

But there are some Canadians who no longer recognize Crown sovereignty, purposely refusing to use those words or legal concepts, especially in areas like British Columbia, where terms like "unceded territory" have taken a strong foothold.   This has been bolstered by Supreme Court decisions establishing First Nation's title to land, not the Crown.

Land claim disputes aside, this social aspect to reconciliation appears to assuage feelings of guilt while also patronizing "aboriginals" and undermining the Canadian identity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

This is all just indoctrinating the children into Eskimo Communism so they will fund the CBClite nanny socialist welfare gulag in the future.

Why delete the British Crown and associated central narrative?

 

To what extent are historical and legal Crown concepts still included in primary and secondary education curriculum ?   Or has that been gutted too in order to conform to "progressive" perspectives and morality with regards to reconciliation ?  

The few instances of Crown recognition that I still see in common Canadian media usage today is for "Crown Corporation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

To what extent are historical and legal Crown concepts still included in primary and secondary education curriculum ?   Or has that been gutted too in order to conform to "progressive" perspectives and morality with regards to reconciliation ?  

The few instances of Crown recognition that I still see in common Canadian media usage today is for "Crown Corporation".

In terms of the central narrative, 1648 > 1688 > 1759 > 1763 > 1776 > 1789 > 1812 > 1866

That is completely submerged into an ocean of Eskimo Communist Cultural Marxist Social History canards.

Whatever Canadians are taught about their history in school, the cause and effect how why and what for is a mystery to them.

It's like trying to learn about America without starting at Bunker Hill, rather just skipping straight to civil rights and feminism of the 1960's without any further ado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

...Whatever Canadians are taught about their history in school, the cause and effect how why and what for is a mystery to them.

It's like trying to learn about America without starting at Bunker Hill, rather just skipping straight to civil rights and feminism of the 1960's without any further ado.

 

OK...so this aspect is stranger still, because the acknowledgement movement purposely and explicitly serves to focus on a very narrow part of Canadian history without such context.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK...so this aspect is stranger still, because the acknowledgement movement purposely and explicitly serves to focus on a very narrow part of Canadian history without such context.

 

Indeed, but that's everything, that's the whole shebang.  

Here's what happened;  the Liberals wanted to tamp down the Pequistes, so to appease them they erased Canadian British History in 1965. 

This created a vacuum.

The Cultural Marxists filled that vacuum with Eskimo Communism to their own ends, which was to establish themselves as academic aristocracy running a vote buying plantation to fund it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Indeed, but that's everything, that's the whole shebang.  

Here's what happened;  the Liberals wanted to tamp down the Pequistes, so to appease them they erased Canadian British History in 1965. 

This created a vacuum.

The Cultural Marxists filled that vacuum with Eskimo Communism to their own ends, which was to establish themselves as academic aristocracy running a vote buying plantation to fund it.

 

Pretty accurate comment, Doug.

This was the latest in parts of BC not Vancouver/Victoria.

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

...and apologizing for it, of course.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why Confederation is a failed state.  There is no national interest.  In order to fabricate one, they have to erase the central narrative of history.  This is fundamentally corrupt.

This corruption permeates every aspect of government in Canada, like the Kremlin does in Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This by the way, is exactly what the Nazis did, the Swastika, Horst Wessel, the Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy theory masquerading as a government.

Same mechanism, just in the name of an Eskimo Communist post scarcity utopia rather a post scarcity utopia just for Germans,

The Nazis were in fact targeting the exact same person; Elizabeth Windsor at Buckingham Palace, heir to the throne of VRI

The Nazis targeted Her Majesty for the exact same reason, her Empire barred their way, and they coveted for themselves.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Pretty accurate comment, Doug.

This was the latest in parts of BC not Vancouver/Victoria.

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

...and apologizing for it, of course.

 

 

Wow....what a great adventure !    Hidden from view, of course.

We still throw people in the river in New York...with cement boots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Wow....what a great adventure !    Hidden from view, of course.

We still throw people in the river in New York...with cement boots.

 

BC history is pretty colourful. Black Governors, Hangin' Judges, Gold Rushes, Massacres, River Boats...all the fun stuff.

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

(WW1 brought that 'age' to an end.)

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

This is why Confederation is a failed state.  There is no national interest.  In order to fabricate one, they have to erase the central narrative of history.  This is fundamentally corrupt.

 

More specifically, it undermines the very foundation of sovereignty and Confederation, with various constitution acts being relegated to scholars and legal wonks.   Popular cultural media dare not touch this topic for fear of offense and more conflict, but one could argue it is exactly what is needed for a proper understanding and "cleansing". 

So there will be more acknowledgement, more smudging ceremonies, more apologies, more statue removals, etc., and far less historical context.

When will "reconciliation" be complete ?    Never.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

BC history is pretty colourful. Black Governors, Hangin' Judges, Gold Rushes, Massacres, River Boats...all the fun stuff.

 

Sure seems that way....the Trump family fortune started as a brothel in BC if memory serves me right.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-trump-family-fortune/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sure seems that way....the Trump family fortune started as a brothel in BC if memory serves me right.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-trump-family-fortune/

 

Dotted around BC are places like this one...Malibu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malibu,_British_Columbia

Basically American enclaves. An older friend of mine who worked as a surveyor back 'in the day (1950s) ran out of smokes while out in the bush...as did the rest of the group. They approached one of these mega lodges knowing there was ciggies & booze...perhaps for sale. Not so...they were met by guards with guns who firmly suggested they turn around and leave...they did.

:lol:

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But there are some Canadians who no longer recognize Crown sovereignty, purposely refusing to use those words or legal concepts, especially in areas like British Columbia, where terms like "unceded territory" have taken a strong foothold.   This has been bolstered by Supreme Court decisions establishing First Nation's title to land, not the Crown.

Land claim disputes aside, this social aspect to reconciliation appears to assuage feelings of guilt while also patronizing "aboriginals" and undermining the Canadian identity.

 

That's not entirely accurate. The Proclamation of 1763 effectively grants aboriginals the right to negotiate land claims on Crown territories. The SCC has in fact followed the constitutional model fairly rigorously in this regard. It's stopped short, however, of recognizing any right to an indigenous veto, particularly regarding resource projects that cross lands claimed or legally recognized as indigenous territories, thus affirming the overriding principle of Crown sovereignty. The recent indigenous blockade in B.C. was broadly backed by a cross-section of indigenous activists across Canada who seek to utilize the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Trudeau government too hastily signed, to override the SCC's somewhat restrictive delineation of the meaning of indigenous title and replace it with the broader "consent" model included in UN Declaration.

The federal government needs to simply state that the Canadian constitution is the relevant document governing the evolving relationship between Canada and its indigenous populations. The lack of clarity will not serve any useful purpose. Meanwhile, symbolic gestures like acknowledging historical title, while perhaps quaint, seem to serve little useful purpose other than to advance an ideological perspective that isn't entirely accurate and could dangerously raise expectations among indigenous populations. We got a taste of this in the response to the Colton Boushie / Gerald Stanley case in Saskatchewan, where some indigenous representatives outright stated that they don't recognize the validity of Canadian law. If that's the starting point, actual reconciliation is an impossible goal.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The land acknowledgements are definitely in implementation stage right now in the public sector and so the private sector will follow, usually institutions like the banks.  The problem many critics have with such practices is that they are disingenuous.  The indigenous have not been managing these lands, such as the ones in the Toronto Purchase.  We turn to city councillors and municipal services to get issues addressed, not elders.  We pay taxes for services rendered on land that was bargained away to Upper Canada two centuries ago.  Whether or not that was a good deal for the indigenous at the time is hard to say because the context was completely different from today.  The land seemed unlimited, there were fewer settlements, and the Haudenasaunee and other groups didn’t much care about property.  

So now we rewrite history to pretend that the local indigenous who most of us have never met have been taking care of us all along.  I think it’s admirable to seek reconciliation over matters like the residential schools, but I agree that the “solution” to the many problems on reserves and among indigenous peoples will remain elusive as long as they are reliant on non-indigenous people for services, housing, etc.  There’s no tax base to draw from except the non-indigenous one, and there are limits to how much taxpayers are willing to turn over.  

Ironically, it’s the Crown (provinces and feds) who are the protectors of indigenous rights.  The Indian Act is bad news, but no one can agree on a replacement. Also, while indigenous peoples don’t pay land taxes on reserves and are therefore somewhat beholden to non-indigenous support, it’s controversial for non-indigenous people to discuss funding and related issues with regard to indigenous people.  If you proposed changing the reserve system as a non indigenous person, you’re on shaky ground. Same goes for supporting the status quo.  

The most successful reserves are the ones that provide employment and exploit their own resources, human and natural.  That’s why the pipeline discussion should be reframed.  It’s about the economy, stupid. 

One more thing.  Some people, both indigenous and non-indigenous, will complain about elected chiefs making decisions over hereditary ones.  They might say that elected chiefs were foisted upon them, but this is where I get off the boat with rewriting history and pretending we’re all white devils.  Canada is a democracy.  Would any group want to be represented by a hereditary leader who may have zero qualifications or leadership talent?  What if he or she is completely corrupt?  Bands could certainly elect their hereditary chiefs if they wanted to. We need to stop pretending that indigenous people have some special access to the Creator and Truth over anyone else.  We are all human. 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, turningrite said:

That's not entirely accurate. The Proclamation of 1763 effectively grants aboriginals the right to negotiate land claims on Crown territories. The SCC has in fact followed the constitutional model fairly rigorously in this regard. It's stopped short, however, of recognizing any right to an indigenous veto, particularly regarding resource projects that cross lands claimed or legally recognized as indigenous territories, thus affirming the overriding principle of Crown sovereignty. The recent indigenous blockade in B.C. was broadly backed by a cross-section of indigenous activists across Canada who seek to utilize the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Trudeau government too hastily signed, to override the SCC's somewhat restrictive delineation of the meaning of indigenous title and replace it with the broader "consent" model included in UN Declaration.

 

 

Adopting the UN declaration creates yet another challenge to Crown sovereignty and dilution of federal/provincial control.   I was referring specifically to the 2014 SCC ruling in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, wherein actual "aboriginal" land title was established.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc44/2014scc44.html

 

Quote

The federal government needs to simply state that the Canadian constitution is the relevant document governing the evolving relationship between Canada and its indigenous populations. The lack of clarity will not serve any useful purpose. Meanwhile, symbolic gestures like acknowledging historical title, while perhaps quaint, seem to serve little useful purpose other than to advance an ideological perspective that isn't entirely accurate and could dangerously raise expectations among indigenous populations. We got a taste of this in the response to the Colton Boushie / Gerald Stanley case in Saskatchewan, where some indigenous representatives outright stated that they don't recognize the validity of Canadian law. If that's the starting point, actual reconciliation is an impossible goal.

 

Well, that's the long term question to be answered....what does "reconciliation" really look like in the end, beyond feel good exercises in guilt cleansing.    There are practical matters to be resolved for both land and resources.   First Nations are wise to insist that negotiations and authority must include the reigning sovereign, if only for additional leverage.   Looking to the UN only makes matters worse.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Adopting the UN declaration creates yet another challenge to Crown sovereignty and dilution of federal/provincial control.   I was referring specifically to the 2014 SCC ruling in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, wherein actual "aboriginal" land title was established.

Well, that's the long term question to be answered....what does "reconciliation" really look like in the end, beyond feel good exercises in guilt cleansing.    There are practical matters to be resolved for both land and resources.   First Nations are wise to insist that negotiations and authority must include the reigning sovereign, if only for additional leverage.   Looking to the UN only makes matters worse.  

The Supreme Court has followed a fairly standard model on land claims issues, including in areas of the country not previously covered by treaties (i.e. arguably "unceded" lands). Its more interesting and important decisions have been those that have defined the boundaries of indigenous claims and title, including its 2017 decision in the Ktunaxa v. British Columbia decision where the court rejected the concept of a spiritual claim to lands in B.C. on which a new ski resort development was proposed. More importantly, the SCC in 2017 rejected the existence of a broader indigenous veto relating to resource projects in its Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines decision. Broadly speaking, the court held that indigenous title and interests have to be balanced against the broader public interest. I've read that in the post-colonial countries once governed by Great Britain, including Canada, the U.S. and Australia, the notion of indigenous title is generally interpreted in the context of common law limitations, whereby the Crown (or Federal government in the U.S.) retains sovereignty while granting limited autonomy to legal title holders. Anybody who has ever owned property in Canada understands that title doesn't confer actual sovereignty.

The UN Declaration is certainly problematic in that Canada's decision to adopt it likely serves to generate new expectations among First Nations in Canada that the restrictions imposed under Canadian law can somehow be bypassed or overruled. In particular, the "consent" provision relating to development that's included among the UN Declaration's provisions appears to be conflict with existing Canadian constitutional jurisprudence. I believe that neither the U.S. nor Australia has signed the Declaration, both no doubt aware of its potentially problematic implications, as was the Harper government. As usual, though, the virtue-signalling Trudeau government on Canada's behalf blithely adopted the Declaration, presumably without fully considering its implications.

 

 

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 4:55 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

So what's the deal ?   Is the "acknowledgement" virus spreading like wildfire on a Canadian prairie, or is this just more guilt ridden trigger events for a few progressives who struggle with the realities of history and occupied territories ?

No, its just an irritant we use to get under the skin of righties.  Looks like it works too.

Quote

First Nations in Canada have practiced territorial acknowledgments for generations.

I doubt the savages running places like the US and Russia have much use for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm when I was in school in Vancouver in the 90s, there was no O Canada, no pledges, no statements of any sort that were made on a daily basis. Maybe once every few months there would be a school-wide assembly where O Canada was sung. Students only had to stand and take off their hats, singing along was not required.

Frankly if any school is forcing any songs or statements on a daily basis, that's not only government forced indoctrination but a mind-numbing waste of time. I don't care what the statement says. While this kind of crap might fly in Toronto, I don't think it would fly in Vancouver, where most of the population is sensible Asians that immigrated to Canada specifically to escape this kind of bs in their homelands. White guilt social justice types are already becoming a minority in BC by virtue of immigration, thankfully. 

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Hmm when I was in school in Vancouver in the 90s, there was no O Canada, no pledges, no statements of any sort that were made on a daily basis. Maybe once every few months there would be a school-wide assembly where O Canada was sung. Students only had to stand and take off their hats, singing along was not required.

Frankly if any school is forcing any songs or statements on a daily basis, that's not only government forced indoctrination but a mind-numbing waste of time. I don't care what the statement says. While this kind of crap might fly in Toronto, I don't think it would fly in Vancouver, where most of the population is sensible Asians that immigrated to Canada specifically to escape this kind of bs in their homelands. White guilt social justice types are already becoming a minority in BC by virtue of immigration, thankfully. 

It's all fascism anyways, the flag pledge impulse is imported from America, but it's not actually consistent with American doctrine which is autonomy from and extreme skepticism of a unified federal state.

Thomas Jefferson never wrote no pledge of allegiance, Francis Bellamy did, and he was a nobody, it was just a gimmick which became a pathology.

Originally, American kids actually did the Roman/Nazi salute while they recited the pledge,

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 5:08 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

BC history is pretty colourful. Black Governors, Hangin' Judges, Gold Rushes, Massacres, River Boats...all the fun stuff.

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

(WW1 brought that 'age' to an end.)

It's colorful because there were few treaties. 

We pay for it now.

Every non-white person in BC/Canada is a 'victim' . . .

'Trudeau tears' don't help . . .

Share this post


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.


×
×
  • Create New...