My dad was assaulted

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The point was actually made pretty poorly by the other poster, but at least you admit you've got nothing. Honestly Rouge, do you just post in these threads in order to be confrontational?

Might be nice of you to bring something to the table that at least attempts to address the social problems of First Nations rather than just trying to assassinate someone else's idea. I went after you on that point because you added nothing to the discussion.

The solution lies in the fact that the people who live on reserves have nothing to do, have an income and have poor leadership/role models. I think a full fledged 'solution' to this problem is far too complex to lay out in a single post, but overall, reducing the power of First Nations band leaders by restricting where/what they can spend their money on would be a start, and overall reduction (eventual elimination of segregation of First Nations) and reintegration into the greater society. Government money right now is doing the exact opposite of preserving First Nations culture.

Okay, well if you don't think the point was made then that's your conclusion. I can't even remember who it was but I thought it was plainly and well stated that it is illegal to just stop honouring the treaties that are in place. I didn't see anyone counter that simple but rather important point.

Do you think we can?

What did you bring to the conversation that was any more substantial than my contribution? The "solution" you briefly spelled out would breach the agreements that were made a long time ago and it simply won't work. It's a nice way of saying "cut them off" and that can not happen.

[flylock shox]

Nothing kills a thread faster than a long rambling post that no one can bother reading, so here goes...

The impression I get from reading over this thread again is that some folks view Canada’s native population as having received nothing but free land and free money from the government. With that in mind, I should point out that aboriginal “reserves” are not parcels of land that Canada gave to natives. It's not like Canada won a war, claimed the territory, and then was nice enough to give a little back. The term “reserve” likely stems from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, in which the British Crown “reserved” all lands not ceded to the Brits to the aboriginal population, as follows:

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds…

The Proclamation essentially recognized aboriginal entitlement to their historic lands. So it’s not as though Britain gave land to the aboriginals: it recognized that it was theirs and that they had rights to it unless they gave them up to the Crown. In a very real sense, the colonies were as much “reserves” as the land “reserved” for aboriginals.

So, land used by natives which had not been acquired by Britain as of 1763, and which was not later ceded by treaty, remained native land. This should give some idea of the importance of treaties.

Of course, the treaty system wasn’t perfect, and one of the big problems with it was that most aboriginal cultures had a different conception of “property” than did white settlers. In British culture, land became yours if you “enclosed” it – essentially meaning if you built your house on it, tended crops on it, or fenced it off and used it, it was yours. Similarly, British property rights focused on private property – my gun, my horse, my house, my food. Aboriginal cultures emphasized communal property: other than things you personally made, property belonged to the tribe, or to nature, not to the individual. These two ideas of property lead to misunderstandings in both the treaty process and every day life. And as far as real property was concerned, this problem was compounded by the fact that some tribes were nomadic. So a tribe might travel over traditional hunting grounds over the course of time, only to return to find that white folks had “enclosed” their vacated land. This wasn’t viewed by the Brits as problematic because, it seemed to them, this was not Indian Hunting Grounds, since the aforesaid Indians clearly weren’t there. Fortunately for Canada’s native population, aboriginal title over land can still be (and is regularly being) established over this type of land. If a band can establish that they had exclusive occupation of land prior to Britain asserting sovereignty over it, and that occupation was substantially continuous up until the present day, then aboriginal title can be claimed over that land. I believe roughly 80% of BC's land, for example, is subject to aboriginal title claims (either established or claimed).

Aboriginal rights and, specifically treaty rights, are now enshrined in section 35 of the Charter, and are therefore Constitutional rights. So even if you don't like it, you can therefore expect that Parliament won’t be in a position to change it any time soon.

Other things which emerge from this thread are the misconception that Canada’s aboriginal population has it easy (free money!), as well as a paternalistic attitude towards natives generally: we need to fix them, and tell them what to do. Interestingly, the UN sent a Special Rapporteur to Canada in 2007, who came to these conclusions:

Throughout his mission, the Special Rapporteur was disturbed to see the devastating impact of the paternalism that marks federal and provincial government, legislations, policies and budgetary allocation for Aboriginal people on and off reserve. These policies have seriously compromised the right to self determination that Aboriginal people enjoy under the original treaties and the International human rights instruments and deeply affected their housing and living conditions.

Overcrowded and inadequate housing conditions, as well as difficulties to access basic services, including water and sanitation, are major problems for Aboriginal peoples. For instance, during his visit to the Lubicon Lake Nation, the Special Rapporteur could witness how families still live without access to potable water and sanitation and appalling living conditions. He also noted the destructive impact of oil extraction activities that continues to lead to the loss of lands and the asphyxiation of livelihoods and traditional practices.

Some food for thought.

[flylock shox]

And so long as I'm doing some internet research, here's some more on the nasty downside of paternalism in the context of residential schools:

In the 19th century, the Canadian government believed it was responsible for educating and caring for the country's aboriginal people. It thought their best chance for success was to learn English and adopt Christianity and Canadian customs. Ideally, they would pass their adopted lifestyle on to their children, and native traditions would diminish, or be completely abolished in a few generations...

In all, about 150,000 aboriginal, Inuit and Métis children were removed from their communities and forced to attend the schools...

Throughout the years, students lived in substandard conditions and endured physical and emotional abuse. There are also many allegations of sexual abuse. Students at residential schools rarely had opportunities to see examples of normal family life...

When students returned to the reserve, they often found they didn't belong. They didn't have the skills to help their parents, and became ashamed of their native heritage. The skills taught at the schools were generally substandard; many found it hard to function in an urban setting. The aims of assimilation meant devastation for those who were subjected to years of mistreatment...

150,000 people may not seem like a lot given the schools ran for the better part of a century, but it sure is when you consider Canada's aboriginal population is only about one million. More reason to be cautious about whom one criticizes.

[fatso]

There's no way you can be serious with this stuff...

I mean, calling someone 'cowardly' on an internet messageboard? Geez louise, you gonna call me out to fight by the virtual bike racks at 3pm? And if I'm cowardly, what does that make you? The internet, conservative Braveheart? Give me a break... And your 'liar' analogy doesn't work and you know it.

I've been adamant, Calgaryborn, that I do not believe saying racist things necessarily makes someone a racist.,, not necessarily, anyways. Not immediately or without a doubt. I'm not trying to be noble or impress you. It's what I think. Believe it or not, I've actually been called racist myself (as well as misogynist, homophobic, etc.). I abhor those things, but I appreciate people have the right to question what I say.

I also believe people should be accountable for what they say - I'd imagine you'd appreciate that since you're always railing on about 'accountability' and the like. You think I said something offensive or wrong... tell me, and I'll try and address it. And guess what? I've actually learned something from people calling me out! I've actually changed my mind and grown and matured as a person. What I think today may not be what I think 10 years from now. How could it be? My goal in life is not to have what I think mirrored back to me. It's not to read the world in a way that singularly confirms what I already think (as it seems to me you do). That does not mean I don't have opinions and viewpoints... it means that I'm interested in learning and changing my mind.

That's all I've been doing in this thread is trying to understand why people are saying the things they are. Nothing more.

But instead of doing that, you decided to mischaracterize me, call me 'cowardly', argue that I am trying to suppress discussion... The irony of someone talking about 'open and honest communication' and then mischaracterizing the other's arguments is amazing.

I also believe the following things, that I've explained in this thead:

1. The First Nations community in this country is in a bad state. This is due to historical conditions and poor leadership. This is a problem that affects all citizens. However, I do not believe the solution is as simple as saying they need to own up and take the blame for their community issues. Nor do I believe that every time a first nations person does something bad it has to turn into a long-winded diatribe on how 90% of them are awful, that we have 'a real problem' that needs to be addressed, how everyone is sweeping it under the rug, etc.

Bottom line is this: something bad was perpetrated by three idiots.... who happen to be of a particular ethnic descent. By prioritizing their descent to make a comment about a specific incident is, to me, to take a swipe at that group as a whole, in all their internal diversity. It doesn't actually improve anything, it doesn't change anything. Instead it just allows re-iterations of stereotypes about that group, and doesn't help them, the person making the statement, or the community as a whole.

You and others are so worried about First Nations violence against non-First Nations citizens. What is one positive thing you suggested? What is one change you'd like to see implemented? Instead, all I read was complaining that there's some racial truth no one wants to acknowledge... a PC secret, and misinformation perpetuated as truth. Give me a break. I admit that I actively de-railed this thead into PC stuff... but I wasn't alone and it certainly wasn't unprompted.

2. I also believe that people have the right to have a say in how they are represnted in the media and in langauge. Doesn't mean others have to like it or agree to it. I just think that if a particular group asks others, not of that group, to call them by certain terms (and stop using other terms) other citizens should listen and probably respect that. I don't think that's unreasonable. In fact, those kinds of political gestures are important for change and for moving all groups towards acceptance and equality. You can disagree with that all you want and call it your 'right' to call them what you want. I'd ask why that's so important to you.

You and I are never going to agree. I can see that, and I'm glad for it.

You know what though? I will say that I was wrong to say West Karma should stop posting. I didn't mean it because of his content, but rather because he seemed exasperated and wasn't making sense. That's what I think ,but I shouldn't have said it as it was his thread after all. My bad...

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually the first time someone was called racist was post #18 and it happened several times. Others like you were less forthright and just called some comments racist. I don't think you were any more noble by avoiding addressing specific people either. Cowardly perhaps but, certainly not noble. A person who lies is by definition a liar. A person who says racist things is by definition a racist.



a. When someone identified the obvious problem with Indian violence within Canadian society the conversation never got off the ground because people like you were more concerned about the use of the word "Indian" and hijacked the conversation.

b. When I suggested that Natives needed to take some responsibility for the actions of their people the conversation never got off the ground. People like you thought such comments were not politically correct and therefore deemed them racist. So once again instead of talking about another valid issue the conversation turned into a discussion of whether or not it was PC to say.

c. When someone else suggested that the Canadian government carried some blame for Native violence because of the segregation of reservations and for giving Natives no personal responsibility but, rather handouts it was deemed a racist comment by people like you. So instead of discussing the validity of the statement the conversation was turned into a discussion of whether or not it was right(PC) to say such things.

So are three enough examples for you fatso?




Well it looks like you've provided yourself a fourth example. So you reason that because WK says things you find offensive he should remain silent. People like you have got a lot of gall. Perhaps he should be instructed to email all his future posts to a person like you so he can be corrected on what to feel, think, and type.



Historical progress is always preceded by frank and open discussion with people who are seeking solutions to the problems rather than the status quo. You, and people like you on this thread have demonstrated admirably why such open communication is difficult to achieve.

Move along folks... Nothing to see here... No progress at all!

[fatso]

Originally Posted by West Karma

UPDATE:

Looks like they caught the little rats! My Dad has to go to identify them in a lineup tomorrow, along with the other 2 victims.

What do you think their punishment will be? I say a couple days in the tank and then a guy like FATSO will rally around the Remand Centre demanding they be released, so no one is mistreated in our crazy society.

At least I will know their names...maybe I can send their parents a nice card congratulating them on bringing up some real nice boys!! And how hard it was under such hard circumstances, with all the worries they must have had to get through. Wondering, "is the cheque coming today?"

I missed this gem.... Actually, I'm not going to bite.

I'm genuinely glad they caught those loonies and your dad's gonna be all right. I hope they throw the book at them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fatso

I missed this gem.... Actually, I'm not going to bite.

I'm genuinely glad they caught those loonies and your dad's gonna be all right. I hope they throw the book at them.

How about you come back and post in this thread after YOUR dad gets brutally assaulted.

You're not even TRYING to see things from his viewpoint. THAT is the problem.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Azure

How about you come back and post in this thread after YOUR dad gets brutally assaulted.

You're not even TRYING to see things from his viewpoint. THAT is the problem.

You're joking right? In my very first post I said that I have no problem seeing these jerks get the crap kicked out of them. I've expressed my regret over the incident multiple times. And I've said repeatedly that I hope, and am glad, his father is ok.

In fact, I know better than to get drawn into these kinds of debates on CP. I made the mistake, and posted because I was genuinely shocked by the incident and wanted to find out more because I was worried about other attacks. I hate hearing about things like this garbage and I genuinely believe the cops should throw the book at these low-lifes. Doesn't mean I agree with how West Karma relayed the incident, but I'll be damned if you suggest I'm not sympathetic to it.

So what is it you'd like me to say Azure? What would convince you that I think this is an awful horrible thing I wouldn't wish on anyone, that no one deserves anything like this?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fatso

You're joking right? In my very first post I said that I have no problem seeing these jerks get the crap kicked out of them. I've expressed my regret over the incident multiple times. And I've said repeatedly that I hope, and am glad, his father is ok.

In fact, I know better than to get drawn into these kinds of debates on CP. I made the mistake, and posted because I was genuinely shocked by the incident and wanted to find out more because I was worried about other attacks. I hate hearing about things like this garbage and I genuinely believe the cops should throw the book at these low-lifes. Doesn't mean I agree with how West Karma relayed the incident, but I'll be damned if you suggest I'm not sympathetic to it.

So what is it you'd like me to say Azure? What would convince you that I think this is an awful horrible thing I wouldn't wish on anyone, that no one deserves anything like this?

And yet you convey the opinion that you think people shouldn't post here because they don't make sense.

Makes you sound REALLY sympathetic.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Azure

And yet you convey the opinion that you think people shouldn't post here because they don't make sense.

Makes you sound REALLY sympathetic.

LOL! Wow, you sure showed me Azure! You pick the one negative comment I made about West Karma's personal story that I already admitted was a mistake and shouldn't have said. Conveniently you glossed over all the others!

I get it though... you disagree with me. As I do with you.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fatso

LOL! Wow, you sure showed me Azure! You pick the one negative comment I made about West Karma's personal story that I already admitted was a mistake and shouldn't have said. Conveniently you glossed over all the others!

I get it though... you disagree with me. As I do with you.

Why shouldn't I pick out that comment? Everyone else that disagreed with him conveyed their thoughts into a respectful post, and even understood why he was posting the way he was.

You came right to the forefront and told him he doesn't make sense and shouldn't post here anymore.

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually the first time someone was called racist was post #18 and it happened several times. Others like you were less forthright and just called some comments racist. I don't think you were any more noble by avoiding addressing specific people either. Cowardly perhaps but, certainly not noble. A person who lies is by definition a liar. A person who says racist things is by definition a racist.



a. When someone identified the obvious problem with Indian violence within Canadian society the conversation never got off the ground because people like you were more concerned about the use of the word "Indian" and hijacked the conversation.

b. When I suggested that Natives needed to take some responsibility for the actions of their people the conversation never got off the ground. People like you thought such comments were not politically correct and therefore deemed them racist. So once again instead of talking about another valid issue the conversation turned into a discussion of whether or not it was PC to say.

c. When someone else suggested that the Canadian government carried some blame for Native violence because of the segregation of reservations and for giving Natives no personal responsibility but, rather handouts it was deemed a racist comment by people like you. So instead of discussing the validity of the statement the conversation was turned into a discussion of whether or not it was right(PC) to say such things.

So are three enough examples for you fatso?




Well it looks like you've provided yourself a fourth example. So you reason that because WK says things you find offensive he should remain silent. People like you have got a lot of gall. Perhaps he should be instructed to email all his future posts to a person like you so he can be corrected on what to feel, think, and type.



Historical progress is always preceded by frank and open discussion with people who are seeking solutions to the problems rather than the status quo. You, and people like you on this thread have demonstrated admirably why such open communication is difficult to achieve.

Move along folks... Nothing to see here... No progress at all!

Whoaaa! Have extra time, much?

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why shouldn't I pick out that comment? Everyone else that disagreed with him conveyed their thoughts into a respectful post, and even understood why he was posting the way he was.

You came right to the forefront and told him he doesn't make sense and shouldn't post here anymore.

Excuse me, but wasn't Elementary out at 3 p.m.?

[West Karma]

nm

[jayswin]

That's great to hear! Through all of the PC bickering in this thread, it's good to get back to the actual point of the thread, and hear that progress has been made.

Cheers.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by West Karma

NOTE:

My Dad went down to the police station on Thursday and positively ID one of the guys that was involved. Charges have been laid.

Cheers to that!!

Good to hear. Glad there will be some justice.

[Shnabdabber]

The biggest act of racism ever committed against the native population was to segregate them and divide them from the rest of the nation on the reserves. And people wonder why natives cant seem to integrate themselves into society.

Anyways, glad to hear someone got nabbed on this one. Sad state of affairs when a man gets mugged for a couple of bucks.

[driveway]

^ One thing that bears consideration is that there are a great many natives who have no wish to integrate into our society. They feel that our society is fundamentally flawed and broken and want no part of it.

[Save Us Sutter]

So I somehow managed to miss this thread. Wowzers. Few things I feel compelled to add to the discussion.....

My deepest sympathies are with you and your family WK but I must admit I was also confused by a couple of your posts. Seemed in some posts you are saying racist things, and in others you are freakin' out at others for doing the same thing? Fatso, maybe not the best thing to say (stop posting) but was pretty silly that even after apologizing you were still getting crapped on for it.

For the PC Conspiracy crowd. I understand being annoyed by hardcore PCers. However, you sound ridiculous when you say things like "the truth is being hidden" or "i can't say what I really think". I encourage you all to say what you really think. Fatso made many good points, but no one attacked his arguments, just a couple inconsequential remarks he made. Isn't that what you're accusing him of? Derailing a discussion? Odd.

In between all the crap, there was a pretty good discussion in this thread though. My thanks to IFF and flylock (among others)for some insightful comments and for doing some research on the topic.

I would be very interested to hear what our Native posters think are reasonable, realistic solutions to the problems their members face. It's pretty easy for outsiders to see that there is trouble but really, change must come from within mustn't it? Not implying that the government shouldn't be involved... just saying true knowledge of the situation is going to come from those who are living in it.

[maverickeastwood]

I have read the first bit of this thread and was a bit turned off by the terms used to describe those involved and the stereotypical attitudes of some.

Many Natives in Canada have problems that go back a long ways. From residential schools of the past to current affairs (reserve living, personal attempts at integration, substance abuse, etc). Just being part-native is challenging enough, as I am. From being stereotyped in job interviews, in stores and worse to being monikered as Tonto (no malice intended) and all the other stereotypical comparisons (lysol-drinking, uneducated, lazy, so on and so forth). Do not judge unless you want to be judged. I have been to school and am a highly qualified individual, no external monetary assistance and of my own volition. I also hold a well paid position in the oil and gas industry and pay taxes like everyone else. I have no "native status", by choice.

As for a solution to problems faced by natives today...Some of it can be remedied from within, but seeing as there are issues on both sides, it has to be a co-operative effort. The Indian Act has done nothing more than create two distinct peoples in Canada...Indians and others. Is this fair? I don't think so. I thought this was Canada and everyone should be equal under one law. This is the ideal, but isn't. As long as Natives live on these reserves and push entitlement, this will not go away. They have to leave these reserves, give up their "status" and join the rest of Canada. Now for the flip side...

A native walks into a job interview, gets an "up-and-down look", has his application handed back to him and is told no before the interview even starts. A native walks into a store and minds his own business. He may be the only one in the store. 30 seconds later, a staff member strolls up and asks, "can I help you?", to which I reply "no, just looking, thank you". This repeats itself 3 more times and other customers walk in are not "assisted" like I was. A native woman walks in and puts a spray bottle of lysol in her cart, alongside the milk and bread, and is told that she can't have the cleaner. The worse scenarios I won't get into.

In order to have harmony, you need co-operation on both sides. There may be too much animocity to get that though.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by maverickeastwood

I have read the first bit of this thread and was a bit turned off by the terms used to describe those involved and the stereotypical attitudes of some.

Many Natives in Canada have problems that go back a long ways. From residential schools of the past to current affairs (reserve living, personal attempts at integration, substance abuse, etc). Just being part-native is challenging enough, as I am. From being stereotyped in job interviews, in stores and worse to being monikered as Tonto (no malice intended) and all the other stereotypical comparisons (lysol-drinking, uneducated, lazy, so on and so forth). Do not judge unless you want to be judged. I have been to school and am a highly qualified individual, no external monetary assistance and of my own volition. I also hold a well paid position in the oil and gas industry and pay taxes like everyone else. I have no "native status", by choice.

As for a solution to problems faced by natives today...Some of it can be remedied from within, but seeing as there are issues on both sides, it has to be a co-operative effort. The Indian Act has done nothing more than create two distinct peoples in Canada...Indians and others. Is this fair? I don't think so. I thought this was Canada and everyone should be equal under one law. This is the ideal, but isn't. As long as Natives live on these reserves and push entitlement, this will not go away. They have to leave these reserves, give up their "status" and join the rest of Canada. Now for the flip side...

A native walks into a job interview, gets an "up-and-down look", has his application handed back to him and is told no before the interview even starts. A native walks into a store and minds his own business. He may be the only one in the store. 30 seconds later, a staff member strolls up and asks, "can I help you?", to which I reply "no, just looking, thank you". This repeats itself 3 more times and other customers walk in are not "assisted" like I was. A native woman walks in and puts a spray bottle of lysol in her cart, alongside the milk and bread, and is told that she can't have the cleaner. The worse scenarios I won't get into.

In order to have harmony, you need co-operation on both sides. There may be too much animocity to get that though.

You obviously seem pro-integration, but are you suggesting forced integration?