[JaredMilne]

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Do you feel obligated?

I feel that it's the right thing to do because of the past and present issues we're facing in Canada, it's the right thing to do to live up to our Constitution and the values we say we stand for in Canada, and to do right by Canada itself.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I wholly agree that some terrible things were done to First Nations, and I see that these things are still being done to them. And sometimes they do it to themselves too. How many stories did we get from Shep who lived on a Northern reserve and saw the self destruction for himself? Perhaps this is a result of the historical wrongs done to them, or the ongoing ones.

But we also need to agree that *I* didn't do this. Odds are, no one else here did. But calling us 'settlers' pigeon holes us all in to the same category as those people.

Why do we have to label anyone? I know what Canada did in it's past. That doesn't mean I have to be labelled as such any more than every German needs the 'Nazi' label. I knew a German WWII soldier at our local Legion, and nobody treated him as a 'Nazi' because they knew he only thought he was properly serving his country at the time, but he grew wiser over time. If we had called him 'Nazi' he would have hardened and left us and would not have become such a good Comrade. That is not the way to change hearts and minds.

Like I previously quoted, 'settler' isn't necessarily a derogatory term. Rather, it could be a way to position how we all relate to one another. If there's one thing just about every Native person I've ever spoken to or whose words I've read has in common, is that telling them to shed the label of Cree, Metis, Inuit, etc. is not an option for them. Many of them are quite willing to also see themselves as Canadians, but that isn't the only part of their identity. As to what term could be applicable to the rest of us, I'd prefer something that actually says what we are, than just what we aren't.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Not to be an asshole, but Canada also has the historical right of Conquest as well. It's an ugly truth. We have this land because we killed and subjugated the people who lived here. And they also warred against the other people who lived here, and took their land by right of conquest. It was the way things were done. But we've evolved since then.

What conquest, exactly? The closest I can think of would be the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701, but that was more of a ceasefire between the French and the Iroquois, but the latter were still handling their own affairs for more than a century afterward. That might be the Riel Resistances of 1870 and 1885, but in the former case the Metis were trying to negotiate entry into Confederation on their own terms and in the latter the Metis and the First Nations alike were pushed to the breaking point by broken federal promises, crooked speculators and starvation. Notably, the likes of Riel, Big Bear and Poundmaker were scapegoated and expected to bear all the blame for it, even when the latter tried to prevent the violence.

[Thanos]

I accept the obligation to help the Natives as much as possible. I think most non-Native Canadians do. We might not have committed the atrocity of the residential schools but that doesn't wipe out our obligation to repair the damage as much as we can. I have a contention though against the idea that we aren't doing anything to help. That's not true, and hasn't been for a very long time. Federal, provincial, and municipal programs are readily available for Natives everywhere in this country. And those programs will most likely exist into perpetuity, long after anyone who was in a residential school has passed away. Saying otherwise is nonsense. And saying that IMO is just another slur to be used against non-Native Canadians. This need to label in order to provoke guilt has to stop. It's non-productive. It solves nothing. And it only generates ill-feelings and intransigence among those who have nothing to feel guilty about at all.

1) I can accept being called a non-Native or non-Indigenous Canadian. That is factually true in terms of genetic origin, so I have no problem with it. Ditch "settler" or "colonist" altogether and then we can talk freely and work towards a genuinely and lasting solution.
2) I also accept a responsibility to help. I do not though accept guilt on the part of my ancestors or for the ancestors of any other white Canadian. It's a non-starter. I will do no walk of shame for someone else's sins. The "woke" pushing these kinds of ludicrous demands will have to go away disappointed because things like that will simply not happen. The PM can debase himself in front of the cameras all he wants if that's what turns him on or serves his agenda. I won't be doing it along with him though.

[CharlesAnthony]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Do you feel obligated?

I feel that it's the right thing to do because of the past and present issues we're facing in Canada, it's the right thing to do to live up to our Constitution and the values we say we stand for in Canada, and to do right by Canada itself.

Ok. You feel obligated and you have faith in the stories written by victors of past wars.

What EXACTLY do you think you and your fellow Canadians should do today?

Forgive me but saying "recognizing both Native rights and our own rights as non-Natives, settlers, whatever" is not much. If I was a native, I would be itching for a hell of a lot more than that.

Are you open to the possibility that surviving natives hold leverage to demand more than what you and your fellow Canadians are willing to give up??

[DrCaleb]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

Like I previously quoted, 'settler' isn't necessarily a derogatory term. Rather, it could be a way to position how we all relate to one another. If there's one thing just about every Native person I've ever spoken to or whose words I've read has in common, is that telling them to shed the label of Cree, Metis, Inuit, etc. is not an option for them. Many of them are quite willing to also see themselves as Canadians, but that isn't the only part of their identity. As to what term could be applicable to the rest of us, I'd prefer something that actually says what we are, than just what we aren't.

Thanos Thanos:

1) I can accept being called a non-Native or non-Indigenous Canadian. That is factually true in terms of genetic origin, so I have no problem with it. Ditch "settler" or "colonist" altogether and then we can talk freely and work towards a genuinely and lasting solution.

"Settler" may not be meant as derogatory by one person, and may be meant as that by someone else. So is "Whitey" or "Colonizer". To me, "settler" seeks to label me as something I am not. Natives may see themselves as Cree or Innashinabe, or simply "In Treaty 6 Territory". That is part of their culture and part of who they are. I wouldn't deny them that.

For me, I am not just a Celt or Rus or Anglo or Roman or any of the myriad tribes that are part of my ancestry. I'm sure some of my ancestors did terrible things to the ancestors of my other ancestors. But I don't dwell there. Like Thanos, I am happy just to be called 'Canadian', and I am happy if First Nations also call them selves, even in part, Canadian as well. And I'm fine if they don't. I get it.

But what we all need to do is put the past behind us and work for a better future.

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

What conquest, exactly? The closest I can think of would be the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701, but that was more of a ceasefire between the French and the Iroquois, but the latter were still handling their own affairs for more than a century afterward. That might be the Riel Resistances of 1870 and 1885, but in the former case the Metis were trying to negotiate entry into Confederation on their own terms and in the latter the Metis and the First Nations alike were pushed to the breaking point by broken federal promises, crooked speculators and starvation. Notably, the likes of Riel, Big Bear and Poundmaker were scapegoated and expected to bear all the blame for it, even when the latter tried to prevent the violence.

I mean in the general sense of conquest. Europeans flooded the continent in numbers that the First Nations were unable to counter. We rounded them up, forced them to sign away their land in trade for promises we have barely kept, or kept not at all. They are a conquered people. I'm not judging here, but in many ways they still are. Having read "Guns, Germs and Steel" I know they never stood a chance as our thousands of years of warring against each other molded our technology and tactics far beyond their stone age experiences.

They are subject still to the same reserve system they were forced under back then, and it is still having affects on their culture. And the racism inherent in that system is even more apparent. What we all need to do is heal that wound, and move forward together.

Lableling me 'settler' does not accomplish that.

[herbie]

The cuisine of some of my ancestors was derived from the offal my other ancestors tossed over Hadrian's Wall. Mom used to hate when I'd say that!
My in-laws called me the Eye-tye and told my ex I was at least half-white.
Have a skinny ginger granddaughter that looks like Mini-Florence and the Machine, and three more with status.
Best friends are best described as actual Alberta rednecks both born in Quebec, the fully native couple from different tribes across the street and two couples who live her because their parents were actual "settlers" who farmed here.
Told my cousins that I missed their Mom because I had to get used to mangiacake spaghetti and they both nodded, their wives were Croatian and 3rd gen Anglo-Canadian....
It's N America. Get used to it.

[JaredMilne]

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Forgive me but saying "recognizing both Native rights and our own rights as non-Natives, settlers, whatever" is not much. If I was a native, I would be itching for a hell of a lot more than that.

Are you open to the possibility that surviving natives hold leverage to demand more than what you and your fellow Canadians are willing to give up??

And yet, from all my experiences, that's exactly what most Native people actually want. Whether Harold Cardinal was writing it 50 years ago in The Unjust Society, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 25 years ago, or Arthur Manuel writing in The Reconciliation Manifesto less than 5 years ago. It's always been the same-recognition of Native rights and their ability to govern themselves as communities, often while still participating in the Canadian framework.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"Settler" may not be meant as derogatory by one person, and may be meant as that by someone else. So is "Whitey" or "Colonizer". To me, "settler" seeks to label me as something I am not. Natives may see themselves as Cree or Innashinabe, or simply "In Treaty 6 Territory". That is part of their culture and part of who they are. I wouldn't deny them that.

For me, I am not just a Celt or Rus or Anglo or Roman or any of the myriad tribes that are part of my ancestry. I'm sure some of my ancestors did terrible things to the ancestors of my other ancestors. But I don't dwell there. Like Thanos, I am happy just to be called 'Canadian', and I am happy if First Nations also call them selves, even in part, Canadian as well. And I'm fine if they don't. I get it.

But what we all need to do is put the past behind us and work for a better future.

I mean in the general sense of conquest. Europeans flooded the continent in numbers that the First Nations were unable to counter. We rounded them up, forced them to sign away their land in trade for promises we have barely kept, or kept not at all. They are a conquered people. I'm not judging here, but in many ways they still are. Having read "Guns, Germs and Steel" I know they never stood a chance as our thousands of years of warring against each other molded our technology and tactics far beyond their stone age experiences.

They are subject still to the same reserve system they were forced under back then, and it is still having affects on their culture. And the racism inherent in that system is even more apparent. What we all need to do is heal that wound, and move forward together.

Lableling me 'settler' does not accomplish that.

We can agree to disagree on the term 'settler', but I think that you, Thanos and I actually have more common ground than we might realize. Recognizing Native peoples' rights is that exact way of putting the past behind us and working for that better future.

But the onus for change isn't just on the Natives, either. It also involves our recognizing their rights in certain fields of governance like education and civil law, an expanded land base, things like that. But as Arthur Manuel has said, those land masses would still be part of Canada, and Canada would still be Canada when all is said and done...and we'd be based much more strongly on a recognition of mutual rights than on the 'doctrine of discovery' I've written about elsewhere.

I still have my questions about a lot of the details, but I do know that we have a good framework for starting a discussion that's long, long overdue. And like you said, not every Native person will consider themselves Canadian, but many others will.

And they can become as hockey-crazy as the rest of us-after the Oilers' recent 8-3 pasting of the Flames, when the Indigenous Ethan Bear pummeled Matthew Tkachuk, one of my Native friends shared the mocking comments Native Oiler fans were making on Facebook how the fight was 'Bear Vs. Turtle' and commented that Bear gave Tkachuk so many rights he qualified for his own status card.

[FieryVulpine]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

And yet, from all my experiences, that's exactly what most Native people actually want. Whether Harold Cardinal was writing it 50 years ago in The Unjust Society, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 25 years ago, or Arthur Manuel writing in The Reconciliation Manifesto less than 5 years ago. It's always been the same-recognition of Native rights and their ability to govern themselves as communities, often while still participating in the Canadian framework.

One burning question remains in my mind: what style of governance do indigenous people want? There exists a radical fringe that declare band councils illegitimate because it was imposes by a government that they see as illegitimate, and these are the kind of people that use "settler" as a racist slur against non-natives. (And please understand that I am not painting all natives with that brush.) I recently got into a heated argument on Twitter with an non-indigenous ally of the hereditary chiefs who couldn't even the answer the question of whether these chiefs have the consent of governed. My impression is that they do not because their authority is self-proclaimed and--in the case of the protests against the Coastal Link pipeline--much of their support comes from outside the community and is predominantly caucasian. I would still like to hear your take.

On a personal note, I thought I would share an uncomfortable encounter with a Blackfoot gentleman while waiting for the bus here in Calgary. He was inebriated and his demeanor fluctuated from friendly to outright hostile and back again so I took great care to be respectful. He showed much anger towards whites and claimed that his people "gave" us a country. Additionally he was surprised that I knew who the Blackfoot were and what Treaty 7 was. It left me a bit rattled because that I don't want to generalize, but these are the experiences that stick with you and it wasn't the first.

[herbie]

So you're opinions of native issues is based on the opinions & actions of a pisstank?
You just broadcast yourself by seeing him as a native and not a wino. That guy's opinions aren't worth shit. No more than a crackhead living behind a dumpster.

[JaredMilne]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

One burning question remains in my mind: what style of governance do indigenous people want? There exists a radical fringe that declare band councils illegitimate because it was imposes by a government that they see as illegitimate, and these are the kind of people that use "settler" as a racist slur against non-natives. (And please understand that I am not painting all natives with that brush.) I recently got into a heated argument on Twitter with an non-indigenous ally of the hereditary chiefs who couldn't even the answer the question of whether these chiefs have the consent of governed. My impression is that they do not because their authority is self-proclaimed and--in the case of the protests against the Coastal Link pipeline--much of their support comes from outside the community and is predominantly caucasian. I would still like to hear your take.

On a personal note, I thought I would share an uncomfortable encounter with a Blackfoot gentleman while waiting for the bus here in Calgary. He was inebriated and his demeanor fluctuated from friendly to outright hostile and back again so I took great care to be respectful. He showed much anger towards whites and claimed that his people "gave" us a country. Additionally he was surprised that I knew who the Blackfoot were and what Treaty 7 was. It left me a bit rattled because that I don't want to generalize, but these are the experiences that stick with you and it wasn't the first.

When it comes to governance styles, that would probably be up to each Indigenous nation in question. The issue with band councils is that they were unilaterally imposed by Ottawa, which gives them a real legitimacy problem for some Native people. They're also overstretched and can have Indigenous Affairs bureaucrats overrule their decisions and place them under third-party management. Recognizing the Natives' rights to figure out these things for themselves would probably be more productive over the long run.

As for the guy you met while waiting for the bus, there's assholes in every community. In Edmonton, I had a lady hug me when she asked for some money and I gave it to her. So it might go both ways.

[FieryVulpine]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

When it comes to governance styles, that would probably be up to each Indigenous nation in question. The issue with band councils is that they were unilaterally imposed by Ottawa, which gives them a real legitimacy problem for some Native people. They're also overstretched and can have Indigenous Affairs bureaucrats overrule their decisions and place them under third-party management. Recognizing the Natives' rights to figure out these things for themselves would probably be more productive over the long run.

As for the guy you met while waiting for the bus, there's assholes in every community. In Edmonton, I had a lady hug me when she asked for some money and I gave it to her. So it might go both ways.

For what it's worth, I wasn't angry with him. Just a saddened that he held so much anger because our government has failed them too many times. However, as you suggest, the paternalistic way the government treats them is doing more harm than good.

[CharlesAnthony]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Forgive me but saying "recognizing both Native rights and our own rights as non-Natives, settlers, whatever" is not much. If I was a native, I would be itching for a hell of a lot more than that.

Are you open to the possibility that surviving natives hold leverage to demand more than what you and your fellow Canadians are willing to give up??

And yet, from all my experiences, that's exactly what most Native people actually want.

I am not convinced that is what most natives want but I would encourage you to be more precise with your expectations of people.

What are native rights according to "most Native people" and yourself?
What do you want non-natives to do differently?

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

Whether Harold Cardinal was writing it 50 years ago in The Unjust Society, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 25 years ago, or Arthur Manuel writing in The Reconciliation Manifesto less than 5 years ago. It's always been the same-recognition of Native rights and their ability to govern themselves as communities, often while still participating in the Canadian framework.

How is that different from the status quo?

[N_Fiddledog]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

I've been a bit hesitant to ask this question, but I figure I might as well try.

In the past on this forum, respondents have been really hostile to the term 'settler Canadians'. My question, though, is what term should be applied to non-Native Canadians to distinguish them from Indigenous people? We are, for the most part, descended from people who settled in what's now Canada, so why is it not an appropriate term?

If we're not 'settlers', then what are we?

First, the people who want to yield the term "settler" like a weapon need to define what they mean by it. Who can use it and who specifically it applies to. Because apparently there are new rules.

[bjolly]

I'm Indigenous and heard many far worst 'descriptions'. A discussion with my sons, nephews and nieces - we decided 'neighbors' is best but then ... we do run into racists and they come in varying 'levels' of extremism - worst is the murderer- but we settled on 'neighbors'.