CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1145
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 4:34 pm
 


A year ago, before Canada was turned upside down by the coronavirus, many Canadians’ attention was held by the angry blockades and protests Indigenous people across the country held against the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline on the traditional territories of the Wetsu’wet’en Nation in B.C. A common theme in those protests was that pipelines shouldn’t be built on ‘stolen land’.

I’ve heard the notion that Canada ‘s stolen land’ more and more these days. So what are the notion’s bigger implications? What does it mean for people who aren’t Indigenous but live in Canada, and their lives and identities as Canadians?

What does it mean for all the all the times I’ve bonded with friends and loved ones, ranging from family gatherings to cultural experiences? What about larger expressions of Canadian culture, ranging from the music of the Tragically Hip, The Red Green Show, the paintings of the Group of Seven, the Log Driver’s Waltz or the literature of Margaret Atwood? What about all the other ways we’ve impacted the world, ranging from the money Terry Fox runs raise for cancer research, to our helping to free Europe from fascism in World War II, to inventions such as the Canadarm and insulin?

Are all those things morally tainted because the lands they happened on are supposedly not mine to call home, or because marginalized people were oppressed while they happened?
Do we have a right to take pride in our history and heritage on these lands, and to call them our home?

The thing is that for me, and probably a lot of other non-Native Canadians, these lands are the only ones I feel I can call home. I’m of mixed English, Irish, Scottish and German ancestry, but the UK, Ireland and Germany mean about as much to me as China, Angola or Uruguay. I don’t feel I can claim the histories and heritages of my ‘ancestral’ countries, whether it be the Battle of Bannockburn, the works of William Shakespeare, Riverdance, the Glorious Revolution, Germany’s unifications, or anything else. More and more black and brown people live in those countries now, and they have more of a right and claim to those histories and heritages than I do.

If Canada’s not my nation, then what is my nation?

I’m all for providing restitution to Indigenous nations, but what becomes of *my* nation? How does it impact my sense of who I am?

Rationally, I realize that even many of the critics who say these things might say my fears are overblown or that I’m attacking a strawman. That said, it’s something that’s constantly on my mind. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of other non-Native people jump to the same conclusion. While the blockades were happening, Jonathan Kay wrote about how some Canadian elites now seem to be attacking the idea of feeling any sort of positive Canadian identity. I also noticed the dangers of this during the controversy over the statues of historical figures.

Unfortunately, when cultural or political entities are criticized, there’s a tendency these days for people who support these things to get defensive about them. There’s a sense that the criticism implies that the entity’s supporters are somehow morally judged for being associated with it.

I’m definitely not immune to that.

So what do we do about it?

Well, we could start by listening to what Indigenous people have been saying for a century and more about ‘sharing’ the land. From the original Treaty negotiations to books like The Unjust Society and The Fourth World in the ’60s and ’70s to the more recent Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the ’90s and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission today, they’ve all talked about ensuring Indigenous people have the land bases and governance rights to make decisions about their own lives.

They might differ on the details, but they’ve had a core message that Indigenous people have a unique place in Canada, with their own unique legal and economic traditions. They never consented to be confined to tiny reserves or to have their lives micromanaged by unaccountable bureaucrats.

So how did it happen?

The 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools described how Europeans claimed the right to rule other lands through the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’. The doctrine claimed that those lands were ‘terra nullius’ and belonged to whichever country could claim them. Britain and France used the doctrine to justify governing the lands they settled that became Canada, and to justify ‘civilizing’ Indigenous people by forcibly controlling their lives through things like the residential schools and the band council system. The results, such as the alcoholism, violence and dysfunction in many Indigenous communities today, are obvious.

Unfortunately, the Doctrine of Discovery doesn’t cut it as a basis for European settlement. The TRC’s report noted that many of the world’s most prominent Christian churches have repudiated it. Multiple court cases have also confirmed that it didn’t abolish the Indigenous land rights that still exist in Canada, enshrined in Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act.

The Secwepemc activist and thinker Arthur Manuel wrote about how rejecting the Doctrine of Discovery and following the spirit of the Treaties would benefit Canada. It would move the country towards a much more solid foundation based on human rights law rather than the racist Doctrine. The Indigenous territories that would result would still be part of Canada.

Canada itself would still be Canada.

Obviously, we’d have to figure out a lot of details in recognizing Indigenous and Treaty rights. Issues like resolving conflicts between Indigenous and settler jurisdictions on things like criminal justice, and Indigenous representation in the federal government. But there are lots of ideas out there, ideas rooted in our history that might help us get to a better place.

The cultural and economic benefits of such a change would be obvious to Indigenous people. They’d also benefit settler Canadians too by resolving the issue of ‘stolen land’. As Canadians, we often talk about supporting justice and human rights, and accepting difference. This is a great opportunity to live up to our rhetoric.

It would also be something we could truly take pride in as a country.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 39683
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:12 pm
 


Great article! R=UP


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21829
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:36 pm
 


Well said.

I find the term 'settler' pejorative, as First Nations members often use it as a racial slur (just as racists call First Nations peoples many different offensive names), or at least one of contempt for non-Indigenous people born and raised in this country.

This might sound like some sort of 'All Lives Matter' BS, but I don't think it is. I don't feel like I'm guilty of something that happened 50 or more years before my grandparents came to this country.

Having said that, I do agree we need to find adequate restitution for what happened, just like although I had nothing to do with the internment of Japanese-Canadians in World War 2, I agree that they deserved an apology and compensation for the pain they suffered.

Obviously First Nations suffered far worse than Japanese-Canadians, so restitution needs to be substantially larger, and I think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission came up with a lot of fair steps for Canada (and Canadians) to do to make things right, inasmuch as they can be made right.

I honestly do not know if there is any sort of adequate compensation for the horrors of the residential schools, nevermind all the other horrible shit early Canadians did to the First Nations peoples - but we do have to try.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1145
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:04 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
Well said.

I find the term 'settler' pejorative, as First Nations members often use it as a racial slur (just as racists call First Nations peoples many different offensive names), or at least one of contempt for non-Indigenous people born and raised in this country.

This might sound like some sort of 'All Lives Matter' BS, but I don't think it is. I don't feel like I'm guilty of something that happened 50 or more years before my grandparents came to this country.

Having said that, I do agree we need to find adequate restitution for what happened, just like although I had nothing to do with the internment of Japanese-Canadians in World War 2, I agree that they deserved an apology and compensation for the pain they suffered.

Obviously First Nations suffered far worse than Japanese-Canadians, so restitution needs to be substantially larger, and I think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission came up with a lot of fair steps for Canada (and Canadians) to do to make things right, inasmuch as they can be made right.

I honestly do not know if there is any sort of adequate compensation for the horrors of the residential schools, nevermind all the other horrible shit early Canadians did to the First Nations peoples - but we do have to try.


At least one Indigenous writer I've read actually used 'settler' as a term because she noted how angry white people got when they were called white. So it's not intended as a pejorative, although unfortunately it's been used that way by some assholes.

I actually asked the writer about that on her blog, and she implied that being a "settler" is not a permanent thing. Even if our grandparents came here long after most of Canada was settled, the argument goes that we've still benefited from the displacement and discrimination non-Natives inflicted on Indigenous people. That's where the restitution comes in-and shedding any hangups about being a 'settler' in the process.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30776
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:22 pm
 


Starting with insults is kind of the wrong way to kick off talks to make things better. IMO using "settlers" and "stolen land" is exactly 100% equivalent to if the white guys walked into the room and began spewing out things like "chug" or "wagonburner".

If I was PM and the Native side did that to me I'd walk out of the room on them and not return, and then go out of my way to put their entire file of issues under a D-grade of priorities for my entire term in office. Don't scream racist or murderer at me and still expect me, or at those whose taxes are supporting your entire goddamn lifestyle & existence, to show respect to you. It simply doesn't fucking work that way. The woke who think that insults like this are not just tolerable but that white people are now under an obligation to accept a status as some kind of perpetual evil villain can take their entire guilt-trip routine and shove it.

This is the PC and SJW and limousine-liberal shit that ends up getting actual fascists and neo-Nazis elected to office in retaliation. Knock it the fuck off already. :evil:


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Calgary Flames


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2973
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:13 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
Starting with insults is kind of the wrong way to kick off talks to make things better. IMO using "settlers" and "stolen land" is exactly 100% equivalent to if the white guys walked into the room and began spewing out things like "chug" or "wagonburner".

If I was PM and the Native side did that to me I'd walk out of the room on them and not return, and then go out of my way to put their entire file of issues under a D-grade of priorities for my entire term in office. Don't scream racist or murderer at me and still expect me, or at those whose taxes are supporting your entire goddamn lifestyle & existence, to show respect to you. It simply doesn't fucking work that way. The woke who think that insults like this are not just tolerable but that white people are now under an obligation to accept a status as some kind of perpetual evil villain can take their entire guilt-trip routine and shove it.

This is the PC and SJW and limousine-liberal shit that ends up getting actual fascists and neo-Nazis elected to office in retaliation. Knock it the fuck off already. :evil:


R=UP

Exactly.

Do we need to do better to get along with the First Nations? Yes, of course. But, it's
a two-way street. Most of us don't have a problem with them whatsoever, but they increasingly make it hard to sympathize with them or see their side of the argument when they keep setting up blockades, call us 'settlers', and blame 'whitey' and everyone else for a lot of the problems they create on their own.

Responsibility must be taken by BOTH sides. We either work together, or we don't. Just as we have corrupt politicians, they have corrupt Chiefs that use their own people as pawns, all in the name of 'fairness' and 'justice' and whatnot. Giving them heaps of money all the time that ends up misused more often than not was never a good idea, nor is it any kind of solution.

If anything, we need to close the reserves and stop treating them like lepers. Let them integrate with the rest of us while still maintaining their history and heritage. There is more than enough Canada to go around for everyone. I used to have a friend that was Cree who lived off-reserve with his family. He was ashamed of his own people for always seeking handouts from the Canadian government, and giving his people a bad name.

He, his older brother, and the rest of his family worked hard to integrate and become a functioning part of society. They had good jobs, saved enough for a small house, and felt good about contributing to Canada as a whole. He also taught me about the Cree a bit, and was happy to exchange knowledge.

If both sides could stop making excuses and try to accept each other, we might actually move forward on this.

-J.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9860
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:21 am
 


I agree with both arguments here. I've long felt the IA was more of a detriment, and a way to keep the First Nations people down.

Honour the treaties, allow them the land they rightfully deserve but at the same time, kill the IA and allow these new territories to the same level of funding with the same level of oversight every other community has in Canada.

Free money does not benefit anyone.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12105
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:28 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
Starting with insults is kind of the wrong way to kick off talks to make things better. IMO using "settlers" and "stolen land" is exactly 100% equivalent to if the white guys walked into the room and began spewing out things like "chug" or "wagonburner".

If I was PM and the Native side did that to me I'd walk out of the room on them and not return, and then go out of my way to put their entire file of issues under a D-grade of priorities for my entire term in office. Don't scream racist or murderer at me and still expect me, or at those whose taxes are supporting your entire goddamn lifestyle & existence, to show respect to you. It simply doesn't fucking work that way. The woke who think that insults like this are not just tolerable but that white people are now under an obligation to accept a status as some kind of perpetual evil villain can take their entire guilt-trip routine and shove it.

This is the PC and SJW and limousine-liberal shit that ends up getting actual fascists and neo-Nazis elected to office in retaliation. Knock it the fuck off already. :evil:


Exactly.

When we moved to our current location the people we made friends with first were First Nations, great people. I learned quickly that all they wanted from us (or anyone) was respect.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 39683
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:41 am
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:
I learned quickly that all they wanted from us (or anyone) was respect.


Really? I find that strange coming from you.

random-insanity-f16/political-meme-thread-t116998-5505.html#p2382221


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12105
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:30 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
I learned quickly that all they wanted from us (or anyone) was respect.


Really? I find that strange coming from you.

random-insanity-f16/political-meme-thread-t116998-5505.html#p2382221


Yes really. Those two are just using First Nations peoples identities for political gain.

I'm surprised you did not see that.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 39683
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:38 am
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
I learned quickly that all they wanted from us (or anyone) was respect.


Really? I find that strange coming from you.

random-insanity-f16/political-meme-thread-t116998-5505.html#p2382221


Yes really. Those two are just using First Nations peoples identities for political gain.

I'm surprised you did not see that.


Once again, you have your facts wrong. Elizabeth Warren said there was a rumour in her family that one grandparent was First Nations. Her DNA test proved that. Under Canadas' Indian Act:

$1:
Eligibility is based on descent in one's family. A person may be eligible for status if at least one paren is, was or was entitled to be registered as 6(1). A person is also eligible if two parents are registered as 6(2). These are references to subsections 6(1)and 6(2)of the Indian Act.


https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/ ... -FINAL.pdf

So under Canadian Law, Elizabeth could be granted Status as an Indian. Not that she ever claimed that was the case.

Kamala Harris' mother is from India, so total fail there.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12105
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:48 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Once again, you have your facts wrong. Elizabeth Warren said there was a rumour in her family that one grandparent was First Nations. Her DNA test proved that. Under Canadas' Indian Act:

$1:
Eligibility is based on descent in one's family. A person may be eligible for status if at least one paren is, was or was entitled to be registered as 6(1). A person is also eligible if two parents are registered as 6(2). These are references to subsections 6(1)and 6(2)of the Indian Act.


https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/ ... -FINAL.pdf

So under Canadian Law, Elizabeth could be granted Status as an Indian. Not that she ever claimed that was the case.

Kamala Harris' mother is from India, so total fail there.


No. Maybe not so much Harris but Warren tried to exercise her claim for political gain.

I also stick by my statement about respect despite you're vain attempt to twist the meaning.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 39683
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 10:06 am
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Once again, you have your facts wrong. Elizabeth Warren said there was a rumour in her family that one grandparent was First Nations. Her DNA test proved that. Under Canadas' Indian Act:

$1:
Eligibility is based on descent in one's family. A person may be eligible for status if at least one paren is, was or was entitled to be registered as 6(1). A person is also eligible if two parents are registered as 6(2). These are references to subsections 6(1)and 6(2)of the Indian Act.


https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/ ... -FINAL.pdf

So under Canadian Law, Elizabeth could be granted Status as an Indian. Not that she ever claimed that was the case.

Kamala Harris' mother is from India, so total fail there.


No. Maybe not so much Harris but Warren tried to exercise her claim for political gain.

I also stick by my statement about respect despite you're vain attempt to twist the meaning.


I make no attempt to change any meanings. Warren had the right to claim native heritage, as her DNA test showed. Not using it for political advantage, considering how slimy politicians are, would have been a mistake. But it doesn't take away from the fact she proved her claim with evidence. Should Senator Murray Sinclair ignore his native heritage, because it might be construed as for political gain?

But you cannot be showing respect for First Nations if you disparage people for claiming that heritage. That's ignoring your constant disparaging of women in general, of course. (don't even pretend 'Spread Eagle' wasn't exactly that)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12105
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 10:49 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I make no attempt to change any meanings. Warren had the right to claim native heritage, as her DNA test showed. Not using it for political advantage, considering how slimy politicians are, would have been a mistake. But it doesn't take away from the fact she proved her claim with evidence. Should Senator Murray Sinclair ignore his native heritage, because it might be construed as for political gain?

But you cannot be showing respect for First Nations if you disparage people for claiming that heritage. That's ignoring your constant disparaging of women in general, of course. (don't even pretend 'Spread Eagle' wasn't exactly that)


What you abysmally fail to see is doing something for political gain is not showing respect. Also we are talking about respect for First Nations irrespective of their gender.
Using a meme in to disparage my comments is a weak argument and yes it's an attempt to change the meaning so quit the trolling.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 39683
PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:07 am
 


PluggyRug PluggyRug:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I make no attempt to change any meanings. Warren had the right to claim native heritage, as her DNA test showed. Not using it for political advantage, considering how slimy politicians are, would have been a mistake. But it doesn't take away from the fact she proved her claim with evidence. Should Senator Murray Sinclair ignore his native heritage, because it might be construed as for political gain?

But you cannot be showing respect for First Nations if you disparage people for claiming that heritage. That's ignoring your constant disparaging of women in general, of course. (don't even pretend 'Spread Eagle' wasn't exactly that)


What you abysmally fail to see is doing something for political gain is not showing respect. Also we are talking about respect for First Nations irrespective of their gender.
Using a meme in to disparage my comments is a weak argument and yes it's an attempt to change the meaning so quit the trolling.


No, there is no such thing. People can use their gender, upbringing, skin colour, parents, sexual orientation; just about anything for political gain that they want. So long as it is true. That is the only time that disrespect is shown, when they use a false tie to a group to further their political rise. Like the married pro-family Preacher who really likes to diddle the pool boy.

And you were the one posting the meme. Did you think that no one would challenge it? Calling me a troll for holding you to account for your own actions is just trying to deflect from reality. Perhaps you really do try to live by those sentiments of showing respect to First Nations people, but how do you think they would feel if you showed them that meme?

That is the ultimate test of actions here in the interwebz - would you do it in person?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.