Ongoing Residential Schools Tragedy Discussion

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Sliver

wait, wut?

haha omg reading that back it sounds mean. I didn't mean it to sound like that at all.

What I meant is that I've noticed a lot of people call you names like troll and other things and you never respond in kind with name calling. You're always gracious about it and don't insult them back.

To be clear, I don't think you're a pathetic weirdo. I think other people are way too afraid of those with different viewpoints and resort to insults to make themselves feel less insecure. And I feel like you've been targeted by those people from time to time but you've never stooped to their level. Which is admirable. That's all I was trying to say.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

if people want to make an argument for segregation, I guess I'll listen. I won't agree with them, but I'll listen.

Indigenous people are allowed to live wherever they want in Canada. Are you wanting to move to a reserve? Is that where you’re going with this?

Your position of forcing people to move where you think is best is one that has failed pretty spectacularly in the past.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Or maybe make the Canadian senate a First Nations only body with senators elected from the different tribes across this country. Allow them to strike down any of the white man's laws that wouldn't benefit their nations.

Do you have any idea how racist this is?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Indigenous people are allowed to live wherever they want in Canada. Are you wanting to move to a reserve? Is that where you’re going with this?

Your position of forcing people to move where you think is best is one that failed pretty spectacularly in the past.

Incentivizing people to live on a reserve or make claims based on their genetics/race is segregation.

I'm saying that the path forward is to eliminate barriers between the people living within the borders of Canada. My reasoning for this is that these barriers are no longer beneficial, regardless of why they were setup in the past. Barriers (or their close cousins incentives), based on race are segregationist. Ergo, any argument for the status quo, even if that argument involves treaties, is also segregationist.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Incentivizing people to live on a reserve or make claims based on their genetics/race is segregation.

I'm saying that the path forward is to eliminate barriers between the people living within the borders of Canada. My reasoning for this is that these barriers are no longer beneficial, regardless of why they were setup in the past. Barriers (or their close cousins incentives), based on race are segregationist. Ergo, any argument for the status quo, even if that argument involves treaties, is also segregationist.

Why do you get to decide for indigenous people what does and doesn’t work for them?

Is your position essentially that incentivizing segregation is bad but incentivizing assimilation is ok?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Incentivizing people to live on a reserve or make claims based on their genetics/race is segregation.

I'm saying that the path forward is to eliminate barriers between the people living within the borders of Canada. My reasoning for this is that these barriers are no longer beneficial, regardless of why they were setup in the past. Barriers (or their close cousins incentives), based on race are segregationist. Ergo, any argument for the status quo, even if that argument involves treaties, is also segregationist.

Congrats, you now hold the trophy for dumbest opinion on this topic I've ever seen on this board. And I mean ever. Not in this thread. Ever. We're talking years worth of conversations here.

Please head directly into the middle of the sun to collect your prize.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why do you get to decide for indigenous people what does and doesn’t work for them?

Is your position essentially that incentivizing segregation is bad but incentivizing assimilation is ok?

Whether I like it or not, I'm participating in a segregationist policy. Incentivizing people to continue to be part of that segregationist system is not a morally defensible position to me. Maybe it is morally defensible to you. It is to many Canadians.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

haha omg reading that back it sounds mean. I didn't mean it to sound like that at all.

What I meant is that I've noticed a lot of people call you names like troll and other things and you never respond in kind with name calling. You're always gracious about it and don't insult them back.

To be clear, I don't think you're a pathetic weirdo. I think other people are way too afraid of those with different viewpoints and resort to insults to make themselves feel less insecure. And I feel like you've been targeted by those people from time to time but you've never stooped to their level. Which is admirable. That's all I was trying to say.

haha all good. I wasn't insulted.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Whether I like it or not, I'm participating in a segregationist policy. Incentivizing people to continue to be part of that segregationist system is not a morally defensible position to me. Maybe it is morally defensible to you. It is to many Canadians.

I’m not advocating for segregation at all. Do you always twist facts to distract from your clearly pro-assimilation position when people point it out?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m not advocating for segregation at all. Do you always twist facts to distract from your clearly pro-assimilation position when people point it out?

Sure you are. People just don't like it being called that for obvious reasons.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Incentivizing people to live on a reserve or make claims based on their genetics/race is segregation.

I'm saying that the path forward is to eliminate barriers between the people living within the borders of Canada. My reasoning for this is that these barriers are no longer beneficial, regardless of why they were setup in the past. Barriers (or their close cousins incentives), based on race are segregationist. Ergo, any argument for the status quo, even if that argument involves treaties, is also segregationist.

Again, it's the vast majority of Indigenous people who would happily have the treaties abolished and their land returned to them. It's "us" who don't want that.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Sure you are. People just don't like it being called that for obvious reasons.

There’s a very big difference between advocating for segregation and acknowledging that while the existing segregation is bad some proposed “solutions” to it aren’t going to make things better for those currently impacted by it.

I’ll ask again since you didn’t answer, do you always twist facts to distract from your clearly pro-assimilation position when people point it out?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There’s a very big difference between advocating for segregation and acknowledging that while the existing segregation is bad some proposed “solutions” to it aren’t going to make things better for those currently impacted by it.

Sounds like we need people coming up with better solutions.

As for your question: I don't agree with the premise of the question.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Again, it's the vast majority of Indigenous people who would happily have the treaties abolished and their land returned to them. It's "us" who don't want that.

Right. I am not too sure BoLevi understands how things would look if we went back "pre-treaties".

His argument was had. In 1969 with the White Paper. It did not end well.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Right. I am not too sure BoLevi understands how things would look if we went back "pre-treaties".

His argument was had. In 1969 with the White Paper. It did not end well.

I think there are better ways to do it than what the White Paper proposed.

[afc wimbledon]

I used to live in segregation from my landlord, we had a 'treaty' and I paid him rent to live on his land, there were all kinds of better solutions I could have come up with but as it was his land I was renting it was completely up to him to decide if he wanted to change things

[fulham]

I'm having a hard time finding other western culture's that have succeeded in integrating a native population. The US just killed them all for the most part, and Australia has a significantly worse relationship with their aboriginal population. I have a hard time seeing a system with two sets of rules, or two kinds of citizens ever succeeding.

[Ducay]

The treaties basically existed (broad strokes here) to end wars and settle disputes and, ultimately, to preserve their way of life and guarantee they were not wiped out (as was the case for a much higher % of American tribes who kept the wars going).

I struggle with a solution since the indigenous have effectively been granted the benefits of the treaties (and their status) - along with the benefits of being part of the western civilization. I just dont see how a segregated system will ever work unless they truly go "back to their roots" and live off the land or completely join into society (can still preserve culture, etc, while doing it). More welfare and handouts is clearly not going to solve anything.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

part of correcting the behaviors is, IMO, removing the perceived celebration of those individuals through building names and street names.


There ain't no Hitler highway in German, you can be sure everyone knows who the #### he is. Yes, I know I Godwined this.

You won't see any of Stalin in Russia either, outside of one in an open air museum in Moscow...and that one has a very sobering message.

The statue of Stalin is quite tall, mostly intact except for his nose. However on the ground beside the staue is quite a large sort of cage built with wire. And the cage is filled with stones the size of heads. Each stone has a face that is in obvious distress. No words or inscription are needed to know what is thought of Stalin and it is very obvious that people remember what ghoulish acts were committed during his reign.

On the other hand, you can find statues, like huge statues of Lenin, all over Russia.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I think there are better ways to do it than what the White Paper proposed.

From what you presented, I thought the White Paper was your proposal. What are the better ways that you are thinking?