Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Ivrnet

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-19-2017, 02:23 PM   #1
Zarley
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Zarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default Governor-General Apologizes for Referring to Indigenous People as Immigrants

It's very interesting to see David Johnston criticized for stating a fact:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Globe and Mail
Gov. Gen. David Johnston apologized publicly Monday for referring to Indigenous Peoples as immigrants as he bestowed honours on 29 people — including the frontman of the Tragically Hip — for their efforts in furthering indigenous causes.

Johnston told the investiture ceremony he misspoke when he said during a CBC Radio interview aired Saturday that the roots of Canadian immigration extend all the way back to include indigenous people.

The comments, aired on CBC’s politics program “The House,’ touched off a flurry of criticism on social media, where some listeners complained that Johnston’s remarks reflected a deep-seated colonial mentality.

“Let me apologize for not expressing myself correctly on this matter recently,” Johnston told Monday’s gathering, which followed an apologetic tweet of his own earlier in the day.

“Indigenous Peoples are the original peoples of this land.”
Link to Story

While there's no denying that First Nations are the original peoples of this land, that doesn't preclude them from having migrated here from Asia, a theory which is well supported by DNA evidence. Why is saying this considered taboo?

Last edited by Zarley; 06-19-2017 at 02:35 PM.
Zarley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 02:26 PM   #2
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

As an immigrant I am offended by this.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 02:30 PM   #3
northcrunk
First Line Centre
 
northcrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

So stupid. Everyone outside of the great rift valley could be called immigrants.
northcrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 02:35 PM   #4
ResAlien
Lifetime In Suspension
 
ResAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

If you have to dig back to almost the dawn of humanity to get to the "they're immigrants too!" argument you might be reaching a little far don't you think?
ResAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 02:43 PM   #5
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kingston
Exp:
Default

They have been in North America for at least 15,000 years. They are not immigrants since at the time, most if not all humans, were nomads. Nation states did not exist and neither did the concept of an immigrant.

Look at Europe as an example. A lot of the ethnic groups that settled in the areas where their corresponding nation states exist today, only 1,500 years ago when the Romans collapsed. But we certainly don't refer to them as immigrants.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 02:59 PM   #6
mikephoen
First Line Centre
 
mikephoen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

Things will get better for humanity when it stops becoming so necessary to make sure everyone has their proper labels attached to them at all times.
mikephoen is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to mikephoen For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:01 PM   #7
Zarley
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Zarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
They have been in North America for at least 15,000 years. They are not immigrants since at the time, most if not all humans, were nomads. Nation states did not exist and neither did the concept of an immigrant.

Look at Europe as an example. A lot of the ethnic groups that settled in the areas where their corresponding nation states exist today, only 1,500 years ago when the Romans collapsed. But we certainly don't refer to them as immigrants.
Fair enough, but at what point does a group of people cease to be categorized as migrants? Would you still consider Quebecois descendants of the early settles of New France immigrants? They've been here for over 400 years.

In context, the Gov. General's point is fairly innocuous in that all Canadians can trace their history to migration - it's a common thread that unites people (of course you could say this about nearly any place in the world). I'm just having trouble understanding why anyone would take offence to a banal symbolic statement.
Zarley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 03:19 PM   #8
OMG!WTF!
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley View Post
Fair enough, but at what point does a group of people cease to be categorized as migrants? Would you still consider Quebecois descendants of the early settles of New France immigrants? They've been here for over 400 years.

In context, the Gov. General's point is fairly innocuous in that all Canadians can trace their history to migration - it's a common thread that unites people (of course you could say this about nearly any place in the world). I'm just having trouble understanding why anyone would take offence to a banal symbolic statement.
I think if you're the first ones there or the longest surviving people in a place you're not immigrants. Makes sense to me so I'm going with it.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:25 PM   #9
peter12
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Either way, it doesn't really matter. The term, immigration, only makes sense when there are established political boundaries. I tend to think that terming indigenous people under a single umbrella as original peoples is fair, but kind of stretches any real notion of shared identity or settlement.

Safe to say, that they exist as an enormously heterogenous population of people that were indispensable to the creation of Canada.

Last edited by peter12; 06-19-2017 at 03:37 PM.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:26 PM   #10
MelBridgeman
Franchise Player
 
MelBridgeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

kid gloves....

can't wait for the day no one is offended!
__________________
Quote:
During filming at a residence of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, rowdy residents disturbed filming by hanging USSR flags in the residence windows, reporting the shoot to the fire marshal, yelling distracting taunts at the actors, and even stealing Kurt Russell's chair.

Last edited by MelBridgeman; 06-19-2017 at 03:37 PM.
MelBridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 03:44 PM   #11
iggy_oi
Powerplay Quarterback
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley View Post
I'm just having trouble understanding why anyone would take offence to a banal symbolic statement.
It's most likely because the people offended by it had their homeland taken away from them by immigrants, and after everything they've gone through since aren't too receptive to the notion of being called immigrants as well since it somewhat implies that their land was never truly their's to begin with.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:50 PM   #12
peter12
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
It's most likely because the people offended by it had their homeland taken away from them by immigrants, and after everything they've gone through since aren't too receptive to the notion of being called immigrants as well since it somewhat implies that their land was never truly their's to begin with.
That's actually not how it worked at all. Before European contact, there was no national identity or homeland at all. The concepts didn't exist.

Before contact, indigenous peoples continuously fought over territory, and pressed advantages whenever and wherever they could.

I am of the strongest opinion that First Nations people deserve fair treatment and justice, but idealizing them as innocent babes until they were victimized through contact with Europeans is incredibly racist.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:53 PM   #13
David Struch
Scoring Winger
 
David Struch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Exp:
Default ‘North Americans’ believed to be at least 100,000 years older than thought

Evidence found of giant animal being butchered in California 1,300 centuries ago

https://www.ft.com/content/5748cd52-...8-168383da43b7
David Struch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 03:59 PM   #14
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Indigenous people didn't sprout out of the ground and live in harmony with nature and their neighbours. They hunted many large mammals to extinction, waged war and drove one another off prime resources, and enslaved neighbours when they had the opportunity. They were just as acquisitive, short-sighted, and predatory as the rest of humanity.

We need to grow up and stop regarding history like a Hollywood movie.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 03:59 PM   #15
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien View Post
If you have to dig back to almost the dawn of humanity to get to the "they're immigrants too!" argument you might be reaching a little far don't you think?
Perfectly reasonable in my opinion, transgressions against land and people know no statute of limitations.

^ 1000% Sarcastic.
__________________

-Killer Sig Courtesy of ATR
Socialist Hegemony of Albertan Territory - Flag courtesy of awildermode

- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2017, 04:14 PM   #16
Delgar
First Line Centre
 
Delgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Either way, it doesn't really matter. The term, immigration, only makes sense when there are established political boundaries. I tend to think that terming indigenous people under a single umbrella as original peoples is fair, but kind of stretches any real notion of shared identity or settlement.

Safe to say, that they exist as an enormously heterogenous population of people that were indispensable to the creation of Canada.
There were also those 11 or so treaties signed by Canada which treated various tribes as distinct sovereign entities. Thats a huge issue that is not against but adds to the good point you make here. The SCC is holding Canada to those treaties, although they seem to be hurting each party to them in the long term.
Delgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 04:18 PM   #17
peter12
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar View Post
There were also those 11 or so treaties signed by Canada which treated various tribes as distinct sovereign entities. Thats a huge issue that is not against but adds to the good point you make here. The SCC is holding Canada to those treaties, although they seem to be hurting each party to them in the long term.
And the indigenous partners - particularly Treaty 7 - were only able to coalesce the various geographically and cultural disparate tribes together into an effective bargaining unit through the use of force.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 04:36 PM   #18
iggy_oi
Powerplay Quarterback
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
That's actually not how it worked at all. Before European contact, there was no national identity or homeland at all. The concepts didn't exist.

Before contact, indigenous peoples continuously fought over territory, and pressed advantages whenever and wherever they could.

I am of the strongest opinion that First Nations people deserve fair treatment and justice, but idealizing them as innocent babes until they were victimized through contact with Europeans is incredibly racist.
I'm not sure how you are making any connection to racism in my post. It wouldn't have mattered who took the land. If tribe A would have taken land away from tribe B, the members of tribe B probably wouldn't like being referred to as members of tribe A. Some white Canadians don't like being mistakenly labelled Americans, and vice versa, so if someone called a Canadian an American they might offend them, where others might not be offended. What is the issue with apologizing to someone who felt offended?
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 04:37 PM   #19
peter12
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
I'm not sure how you are making any connection to racism in my post. It wouldn't have mattered who took the land. If tribe A would have taken land away from tribe B, the members of tribe B probably wouldn't like being referred to as members of tribe A. Some white Canadians don't like being mistakenly labelled Americans, and vice versa, so if someone called a Canadian an American they might offend them, where others might not be offended. What is the issue with apologizing to someone who felt offended?
What are you talking about? The issue here is about calling someone a native (in the literal sense, please) and an immigrant.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 04:38 PM   #20
AltaGuy
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
 
AltaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At the pub...
Exp:
Default

I kinda get the anger at this one. "Sean McIrishguy" and "Gaston le Frenchdude" whose forebears immigrated in the 1800s or whatever are just never called immigrants. White people in North America often just aren't, even when they fit the definition of an immigrant to a tee.
AltaGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:01 PM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016