Idle No More protests target bridges, roads across Canada

[gwill]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Typically the people who say 'ignore history and get rid of the treaties' are the people who sparked the need to have Treaty protection, consultation, consent and compensation enshrined in the Constitution in the first place.

I read an article at one point that said there is hundreds of billions in outstanding liabilities related to first nations issues that continues to go higher every year.

If we are asking what sort or price it would take to get out of every treaty i think it would be massive. I'd say many trillions.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If we are asking what sort or price it would take to get out of every treaty i think it would be massive. I'd say many trillions.

Price is no object, Buster seems more than willing to pay our share because he cares about desegregation that much.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What if fn enforced the treaties that typically cover vast majorities of our large cities across canada? What will that cost the canadian economy if all of a sudden it becomes owned by a first nations band.

Your looking at things from one minor financial angle when it goes much deeper. The treaties are crucial. Look at the blood tribe that won a massive law suit recently that stated their reserve would have covered most of southern alberta.

Theres a lot of unsolved land claims that can be settled by enforcing the treaty or finding a reasonable compromise.

The FN people believe that their best path forward is consensual racial segregation, rent seeking, and being wards of the Canadian taxpayer. Many whiteys in Canada believe that this is also beneficial. A better path forward for FN people would be one of equality with other Canadians - to stop being infantilized by the current structure. The land that FN people "own" according to the treaty is also serving as an anchor to keep them from prospering. It keeps them as second class citizens, segregated based on their skin color and genetics. Dismantling the current treaty system would cost them land ownership insofar as the treaty describes it, but it would liberate them from a segregationist system.

Justifying segregation in exchange for some land is not a moral position. Neither Canada nor the FN people should continue to be involved in such an immoral system.

In many ways you are not "taking away their lands", you are de-segregating them. Telling people that they should be happy to be a segregated people in exchange for owning the lands on which they are segregated is something Canada would consider preposterous if it was another country. Convincing the FN that the upside to be desegregated is that they need to give up the treaty lands at a reasonable cost (whatever that may be), should be our mission.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Price is no object, Buster seems more than willing to pay our share because he cares about desegregation that much.

The term racist has been trivialized in society of late. But your position merits the label.

[gwill]

You think tearing up a treaty that most of canada finds no value in or in many cases canada doesnt honor, somehow makes first nations equal to everyone else?

I'd guess that's a hard sell to most first nations who seem to have veto rights over most industries.

And just to clarify first nations cant own the land they live on in a reserve that's not how it works.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You think tearing up a treaty that most of canada finds no value in or in many cases canada doesnt honor, somehow makes first nations equal to everyone else?

I'd guess that's a hard sell to most first nations who seem to have veto rights over most industries.

And just to clarify first nations cant own the land they live on in a reserve that's not how it works.

It's only a hard sell because they have been taught, along with most Canadians, that being segregated somehow has a better outcome for them.

[ercchry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What if fn enforced the treaties that typically cover vast majorities of our large cities across canada? What will that cost the canadian economy if all of a sudden it becomes owned by a first nations band.

Your looking at things from one minor financial angle when it goes much deeper. The treaties are crucial. Look at the blood tribe that won a massive law suit recently that stated their reserve would have covered most of southern alberta.

Theres a lot of unsolved land claims that can be settled by enforcing the treaty or finding a reasonable compromise.

Wtf? How would FN enforce anything? That would be like a 3rd world challenging the USA or Russia. Power wins every time. If Canada wanted to stop supporting FNs they would simply... stop. People would cry, media would have a great time then like everything else it would fade over time and be like every single country ever. The dominant occupying nation rules.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wtf? How would FN enforce anything? That would be like a 3rd world challenging the USA or Russia. Power wins every time. If Canada wanted to stop supporting FNs they would simply... stop. People would cry, media would have a great time then like everything else it would fade over time and be like every single country ever. The dominant occupying nation rules.

Well yes, Canada could simply withdraw from the treaties - but I think that would cause so many vaginas to go apeshit in Canada it's not politically (or constitutionally) practical. But with appropriate political will Canada could certainly exert enough pressure on the current system of segregation to make it untenable for the FN.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The FN people believe that their best path forward is consensual racial segregation, rent seeking, and being wards of the Canadian taxpayer. Many whiteys in Canada believe that this is also beneficial. A better path forward for FN people would be one of equality with other Canadians - to stop being infantilized by the current structure. The land that FN people "own" according to the treaty is also serving as an anchor to keep them from prospering. It keeps them as second class citizens, segregated based on their skin color and genetics. Dismantling the current treaty system would cost them land ownership insofar as the treaty describes it, but it would liberate them from a segregationist system.

Justifying segregation in exchange for some land is not a moral position. Neither Canada nor the FN people should continue to be involved in such an immoral system.

In many ways you are not "taking away their lands", you are de-segregating them. Telling people that they should be happy to be a segregated people in exchange for owning the lands on which they are segregated is something Canada would consider preposterous if it was another country. Convincing the FN that the upside to be desegregated is that they need to give up the treaty lands at a reasonable cost (whatever that may be), should be our mission.

- - - Updated - - -



The term racist has been trivialized in society of late. But your position merits the label.

Nothing says "I'm not racist" like a white man telling a bunch of First Nations people that they are second class citizens and they need to give up their land "at a reasonable cost" so they can finally be equal like us, rather than the immoral group they are.

'Come be like us and things will be better' is basically the same sales pitch as the Residential schools.

And the same sales pitch as the Gradual Civilization Act.

Third time's the charm? Hopefully those "second-class citizens" see a good opportunity when it's presented to them because this time will be different!

Also just glosses by the things that matter most: the consent and compensation portion. Your strive to get consent is at best ignorant and misguided (because they're just rehashes of the same racist arguments used throughout the colonial period and beyond, which FN people for some reason don't seem to be all that responsive to anymore), and for a guy as obsessed with money as you are, still really don't get the scope of compensation required. A "reasonable cost?" Apparently desegregation is only as priceless as we deem 'reasonable.' Surely you meant "whatever the cost."

Also glosses over the fact you aren't actually offering anything new. The ability to 'be equal like us' and live desegregated is currently an option for all FN people. Doesn't even involve them giving up land and Constitutional protections that come with them. So why don't you take your moral crusade on the road and help some people see the light and stop segregating themselves?

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wtf? How would FN enforce anything? That would be like a 3rd world challenging the USA or Russia. Power wins every time. If Canada wanted to stop supporting FNs they would simply... stop. People would cry, media would have a great time then like everything else it would fade over time and be like every single country ever. The dominant occupying nation rules.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well yes, Canada could simply withdraw from the treaties - but I think that would cause so many vaginas to go apeshit in Canada it's not politically (or constitutionally) practical. But with appropriate political will Canada could certainly exert enough pressure on the current system of segregation to make it untenable for the FN.

Are you guys serious?

Canada can't simply withdraw from the treaties, as that's what is protected by the Constitution.

What have you even been arguing for if you don't know this? It's literally the most important part of the issue at hand. You've got to convince and pay off people to make a Constitutional amendment to do any of this.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nothing says "I'm not racist" like a white man telling a bunch of First Nations people that they are second class citizens and they need to give up their land "at a reasonable cost" so they can finally be equal like us, rather than the immoral group they are.

'Come be like us and things will be better' is basically the same sales pitch as the Residential schools.

And the same sales pitch as the Gradual Civilization Act.

Third time's the charm? Hopefully those "second-class citizens" see a good opportunity when it's presented to them because this time will be different!

Also just glosses by the things that matter most: the consent and compensation portion. Your strive to get consent is at best ignorant and misguided (because they're just rehashes of the same racist arguments used throughout the colonial period and beyond, which FN people for some reason don't seem to be all that responsive to anymore), and for a guy as obsessed with money as you are, still really don't get the scope of compensation required. A "reasonable cost?" Apparently desegregation is only as priceless as we deem 'reasonable.' Surely you meant "whatever the cost."

Also glosses over the fact you aren't actually offering anything new. The ability to 'be equal like us' and live desegregated is currently an option for all FN people. Doesn't even involve them giving up land and Constitutional protections that come with them. So why don't you take your moral crusade on the road and help some people see the light and stop segregating themselves?

Telling a group of people who are divided based on race that they would be better off not being divided by race is the opposite of racism.

Telling people that they should segregate themselves by race in order to get thrown some scraps off the table of the majority is racist.

Your type of racism is particularly egregious because it comes with some sort of compensation which is designed to assuage your guilt. This is, incidentally, a hallmark of most segregationists like yourself - it generally comes with some statement equivalent to: "they are better off being segregated. They prefer it that way."

But if you're fine being a segregationist and enforcing policies based on your genetic make-up, then you do you. Maybe you can start a discussion on the merits of a revamped One Drop rule.

[gwill]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nothing says "I'm not racist" like a white man telling a bunch of First Nations people that they are second class citizens and they need to give up their land "at a reasonable cost" so they can finally be equal like us, rather than the immoral group they are.

'Come be like us and things will be better' is basically the same sales pitch as the Residential schools.

And the same sales pitch as the Gradual Civilization Act.

Third time's the charm? Hopefully those "second-class citizens" see a good opportunity when it's presented to them because this time will be different!

Also just glosses by the things that matter most: the consent and compensation portion. Your strive to get consent is at best ignorant and misguided (because they're just rehashes of the same racist arguments used throughout the colonial period and beyond, which FN people for some reason don't seem to be all that responsive to anymore), and for a guy as obsessed with money as you are, still really don't get the scope of compensation required. A "reasonable cost?" Apparently desegregation is only as priceless as we deem 'reasonable.' Surely you meant "whatever the cost."

Also glosses over the fact you aren't actually offering anything new. The ability to 'be equal like us' and live desegregated is currently an option for all FN people. Doesn't even involve them giving up land and Constitutional protections that come with them. So why don't you take your moral crusade on the road and help some people see the light and stop segregating themselves?

LOL. You hit it spot on. Buster the snake oil salesman.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are you guys serious?

Canada can't simply withdraw from the treaties, as that's what is protected by the Constitution.

What have you even been arguing for if you don't know this? It's literally the most important part of the issue at hand. You've got to convince and pay off people to make a Constitutional amendment to do any of this.

I said so in my post. Read, and then hit the "quote" button.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Telling a group of people who are divided based on race that they would be better off not being divided by race is the opposite of racism.

But that's not what you're actually telling them.

You're telling them they're second class citizens and they should be more like you. A first class citizen.

You don't see it because you don't care about their history and have certainly never listened to any of their positions on the topic, which have been addressed. You're just a white man telling people you consider living as second-class citizens what they should do. Give up their self-governance and they'll be taken care of by the people who divided them by race in the first place.

Telling people that they should segregate themselves by race in order to get thrown some scraps off the table of the majority is racist.

Given the socio-economic conditions facing the average FN person, how would this change?

Your type of racism is particularly egregious because it comes with some sort of compensation which is designed to assuage your guilt.

You think expecting to pay money in exchange for land is racist?

This is, incidentally, a hallmark of most segregationists like yourself - it generally comes with some statement equivalent to: "they are better off being segregated. They prefer it that way."

Or, you know, we want them to give up something and they're entitled to compensation if they agree to it.

But if you're fine being a segregationist and enforcing policies based on your genetic make-up, then you do you. Maybe you can start a discussion on the merits of a revamped One Drop rule.

I'll be a default segregationist until I hear a dollar amount we are able to pay to end it.

Ball's in your court there. Still waiting on that priceless number (or is a reasonable number, can't remember) we can use to kick off negotiations. White people will finally save these people from the situation we've put them in!

[Antonito]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Telling a group of people who are divided based on race that they would be better off not being divided by race is the opposite of racism.

Odd that you left out the part of requiring that they take a massive potential loss in order to benefit yourself. Do you often tell respected peers that they should take giant haircuts on negotiated deals in order to feel better about themselves based on your personal beliefs?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Telling people that they should segregate themselves by race in order to get thrown some scraps off the table of the majority is racist.

Who's telling them? I assume you mean the negotiators for the Canadian government? Yes that is a common complaint by FN people that the bad faith negotiation process over the centuries is likely rooted in racism, thank you for clarifying

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your type of racism is particularly egregious because it comes with some sort of compensation which is designed to assuage your guilt. This is, incidentally, a hallmark of most segregationists like yourself - it generally comes with some statement equivalent to: "they are better off being segregated. They prefer it that way."

But if you're fine being a segregationist and enforcing policies based on your genetic make-up, then you do you. Maybe you can start a discussion on the merits of a revamped One Drop rule.

Which segregationists would you say are comparable?

[Buster]

Internet Rule: the first person to multiquote probably has the weaker argument.

I assume you both provided some brilliant insight, but multi-quoting posts offends my sense of aesthetics and I don't read them.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I said so in my post. Read, and then hit the "quote" button.

You think that it's Constitutionally impractical because 'vaginas will go apeshit' and not the fact that it's simply in violation of the Constitution? Not a single vagina could go apeshit (in fact a bunch of big dicks could go rock hard at the thought of the government unilaterally backing out of contracts) and it wouldn't change the "impracticality" of the situation.

[dirtsniffer]

I have no idea about any of this. What are the finacial requirements to first nations? I hear this stuff about drinking water, but is it in the constitution? What about social services, policing, housing? What are the financial commitments? Are we meeting them? Exceeding them?

[ercchry]

It’s funny cause freedom of travel is a constitutional right as well

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You think that it's Constitutionally impractical because 'vaginas will go apeshit' and not the fact that it's simply in violation of the Constitution? Not a single vagina could go apeshit (in fact a bunch of big dicks could go rock hard at the thought of the government unilaterally backing out of contracts) and it wouldn't change the "impracticality" of the situation.

Well, changing the constitution is possible with sufficient political capital and public support. However, most Canadians seem to agree with you and prefer the status quo, a combination of racial-segregation plus guilt-abatement. My moral compass is not so easily rationalized - I guess you are lucky.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My moral compass is not so easily rationalized - I guess you are lucky.

they need to give up the treaty lands at a reasonable cost (whatever that may be)

Such a sad thing to see. We all have these moments of rationalization. I remember when you were an idealist who was willing to pay any price. But it always seems to come down to money, doesn't it? Is there a more rational word when it comes to money than "reasonable?"