• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Notice to Aboriginal Voters: Globe and Mail Confirms Thomas Flanagan still a

Glorified Ape

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Actually no I don't [and have never] followed that arguement. Who are you ,or anyone else, to say what my family went through? My father worked like a slave all through the 30's trying to keep his widowed Mother alive and in her house, all the while being told by the childrens aid society that it was "sinful" for a widow and her lone son to be in a house together.....so, where's my money, etc?
See, IMO, the past is just that, the past, and should stay there.....

So you're saying that because Children's Aid gave your dad and grandmother some flack, they're entitled to money? I assume it was a Christian children's aid society since that's all that existed back then, to my knowledge. I don't think some unwelcome but (I assume) ineffectual attention entitles a settlement, but if you want to sue the descendant body for money, feel free - you won't get any complaints from me - I'm an atheist and could care less about the welfare of religious institutions (often for advancing the kind of asinine opinions that Children's Aid conveyed to your grandmother).

not the length of their stay (though their being here first does hold some implications, imo).

So then I really am entitled to more than someone else according to your last line....yahoo!

No, I said it holds some implications - primarily concerning their pre-existence here before the Europeans arrived and the rights (property or otherwise, by our standards) that that involves. They were the first settlers, and as such had rights, to say the least. It doesn't matter if they'd only arrived a year before the Europeans, they were still first. It's like the Western settlers staking land claims - if you got there first, the claim was yours. Or staking mineral rights claims - the company that discovers the resources is entitled to make a claim. The Europeans didn't "discover" North America (Viking or Spanish/Italian), the Natives did.

 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,391
Points
1,260
Yumpin' Yimminee's....I'm saying that I'm NOT entitled to anything just because my ansestors life's were turned around and thrown for a loop.......this line SHOULD have spelled out where I was trying to lead you,
See, IMO, the past is just that, the past, and should stay there.....
 

TCBF

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
It's partly my fault.  I've wound up GA on just about every thread there is.  In fact, I even started a NEW thread to wind him up on, after a favourite of mine ( :crybaby:) was locked.

My bad.

;)

Tom
 

Glorified Ape

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Yumpin' Yimminee's....I'm saying that I'm NOT entitled to anything just because my ansestors life's were turned around and thrown for a loop.......this line SHOULD have spelled out where I was trying to lead you,
See, IMO, the past is just that, the past, and should stay there.....

Bah, then we disagree. I'd put your grandmother and dad's experiences at the hands of the CAS as slightly less in severity than those historically experienced by the First Nations, but I suppose it's a subjective thing.

TCBF said:
It's partly my fault.  I've wound up GA on just about every thread there is.  In fact, I even started a NEW thread to wind him up on, after a favourite of mine ( :crybaby:) was locked.

My bad.

;)

Tom

I wouldn't say you've wound me up, though I did get annoyed (not with you, just by virtue of the subject material) in the Waco/RR thread. Good job on that one, I must say. I was thinking we should start a thread on it when we were debating it in the other thread. I especially liked your "Clintonistas" word - I'm going to steal that if I ever have cause to use it.  :p
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,391
Points
1,260
See, ya still can't grasp it can ya........I don't , nor should anyone, care who's ancestors suffered the friggin most. My "entitlement" started the day I was born, not a minute sooner..........sure would solve a lot of world problems if everyone was as smart as I.
 

COBRA-6

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Bruce Monkhouse said:
See, ya still can't grasp it can ya........I don't , nor should anyone, care who's ancestors suffered the friggin most. My "entitlement" started the day I was born, not a minute sooner..........sure would solve a lot of world problems if everyone was as smart as I.

+1, well said Bruce.

We're all Canadian now, regardless of who our ancestors were or where they came from. There should be one standard of rights and privileges for all of us.
 

Glorified Ape

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Bruce Monkhouse said:
See, ya still can't grasp it can ya........I don't , nor should anyone, care who's ancestors suffered the friggin most. My "entitlement" started the day I was born, not a minute sooner..........sure would solve a lot of world problems if everyone was as smart as I.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. History matters - if the Native situation was entirely of their own doing (and I'm not saying that a large part isn't), I'd agree. The fact remains that their current state is also a result of the treatment they received at the hands of the Canadian government, amongst others. As such, the government is responsible for the problems it creates, past and present. In the least, Native aid can be viewed as compensation for the usage of the land and resources that were theirs.

Piper said:
As President Bush said, "I think we can all agree that the past is behind us" (or something along those lines).

Yeah, coming from him that statement's not really surprising - he has good cause to want people to forget the past.
 

48Highlander

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Glorified Ape said:
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. History matters - if the Native situation was entirely of their own doing (and I'm not saying that a large part isn't), I'd agree. The fact remains that their current state is also a result of the treatment they received at the hands of the Canadian government, amongst others. As such, the government is responsible for the problems it creates, past and present.

How true.  You're absolutely right, it's our own governments faul that we have this mess now; if they hadn't agreed to give American Indians any special treatment, we wouldn't have these problems.

What I would REALLY like to know is how we as a species have gone from "survival of the fittest" to "the fittest must support the weakest".  Frankly, when ANYTHING, wether it be a society, an ideology, a religion, a technology, or an individual, has reached the end of it's usefulnes....LET IT DIE.  Why the hell do we insist on trying to prop up failiures?  Who decided that it's "morally neccesary" to support things which cannot exist on their own?  And how in the hell are we supposed to improve when so many insist on regressing?
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
UberCree said:
I liked Cairns approach because he takes a moderate stance on issues that are loaded with emotion and ignorance (see Piper post for example), on both sides.  Native advocates argueing for sovereignty and the ''Two Row wampum'' on one hand (complete independance from Canada) and those argueing for total assimilation of Aboriginal people on the other (Like Fanagan).  'Citizen plus' I would describe as both encouraging a collective nationalist Canadian citizenship amongst Native and non-Native people, while also respecting the fact that Canada was founded and established through a treaty process that cannot be simply tossed out at a whim. 
The 'Plus' is the catch for most opposition my spidey senses are detecting.  I will not agree with anyone that thinks that the Elders that signed the treaties were ignorant or duped.  I believe they did a better job in guaranteeing our long term survival than our leadership could today. 

Below is a quote from Book:
http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/citizens/
''My basic thesis is that the debate needs to be reformulated, that our language and our arguments are deficient, from what I consider to be a central concern. What kind of country-wide Canadian political community are we aiming for? A viable constitutional vision, I argue, must address two facts: Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians differ from each other; our differences are not total. There is much overlap -- and we share a common space. Are our future constitutional arrangements going to foster some version of common belonging so that we will feel responsible for each other, and will be eager to engage in some common enterprises, as well as accommodate our differences? ''

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is being argued for in the above paragraphs IS assimilation, in the Edward Campbell sense of "Equality before Law", or the libertarian ideal of people being free to persue their own goals without implying or imposing obligations on others. Equality before Law and freedom to persue goals without implicit or explicit obligations on others is independent of origin, sex, marital status or anything else. All citizens are Canadians first and foremost. If you want to choose to celebrate your heritage, great. If you want to teach us about your heritage, better still (so long as your students are willing).

As for any entitlements, like Bruce said, they begin at birth, and the only obligation that transcends our death is the obligation to provide and prepare our children for the future

edited to correct some grammatical errors
 

UberCree

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
48Highlander said:
What I would REALLY like to know is how we as a species have gone from "survival of the fittest" to "the fittest must support the weakest".  Frankly, when ANYTHING, wether it be a society, an ideology, a religion, a technology, or an individual, has reached the end of it's usefulnes....LET IT DIE.  Why the hell do we insist on trying to prop up failiures?  Who decided that it's "morally neccesary" to support things which cannot exist on their own?  And how in the hell are we supposed to improve when so many insist on regressing?

So it goes without saying that you would support social darwinism then.  The problem I see with your view is who gets to decide what is 'useful', 'a failure', or when things 'die'?  You?  I hope not.  Wouldn't that decision be left up to the collective society?  If so then that's exactly where we are at right now, trying to decide which way to go.  Sure dictatorships are efficient but as Canadians we have agreed to a social contract that obliges us to watch out for one another.  If you believe in 'survival of the fittest' then IMO you have no right being in the military.  Our job in the military is to protect those that cannot protect themselves on behalf of the greater societal good.  Survival of the fittest would mean I presume that you would only fight and defend yourself and your immediate family, or your ethnic group, or your tribe. Where would that take us?
 

UberCree

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
a_majoor said:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is being argued for in the above paragraphs IS assimilation, in the Edward Campbell sense of "Equality before Law", or the libertarian ideal of people being free to persue their own goals without implying or imposing obligations on others. Equality before Law and freedom to persue goals without implicit or explicit obligations on others is independent of origin, sex, marital status or anything else. All citizens are Canadians first and foremost. If you want to choose to celebrate your heritage, great. If you want to teach us about your heritage, better still (so long as your students are willing).

As for any entitlements, like Bruce said, they begin at birth, and the only obligation that transcends our death is the obligation to provide and prepare our children for the future

edited to correct some grammatical errors

I disagree wholeheartedly.  Alberta remains Alberta even if it also agrees to equalization payments that protect a national standard of living.  They do not cease to be Albertans.  Quebec same thing, it does not cease to be a french speaking province and the people do not cease to be Canadians (although some would agree with your view, as also would some extremist Native people) if they agree to contribute to Canada.  These are obligations, as you call them, that groups of people agree to.  As a citisen of Canada you and I are also obliged to uphold agreements made on Canada's behalf.  Whether they be free trade agreements, common law, international treaties or whatever.  Just because one day you or I do not like the agreement doesn't mean we can throw it out.  There are rules that need to be followed when people interact with each other and we cannot willy nilly pick and chose which ones we want to honour and which we don't.  If we could, then the Americans would be 100% correct in applying any trade sanctions they wanted to on our softwood exports, etc. etc. etc. 
If you believe in Anarchy then I guess this would be a good thing. 
 

UberCree

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
One more post, sorry to hog the board.  I encourage you all to watch this tonight, it should be interesting.  I personally like Jim Prentice and look forward to seeing what he has to say. 

**Special 90 MINUTE ELECTION Edition DEBATE 2006
Friday January 13 @ 7 pm eastern 4 pm pacific
Aboriginal Peoples Television Network

PLEASE NOTE: This debate was pre-taped on Thursday Jan 5, 2006 to accomodate the schedules of all candidates. 


Join host Madeleine Allakariallak and special guest journalist David Wiwchar from Ha-Shilth-Sa newspaper in Port Alberni as we bring you DEBATE 2006.

Aboriginal affairs critics from the major parties state what they would do for aboriginal people if they made the next government.

Participants include: Green Party – Ian Hopfe Liberal Party – Ethel Blondin-Andrew (for Minister Andy Scott) NDP Party – Pat Martin Conservative Party – Jim Prentice.

Also join professor Leah Gazan from Red River Community College and journalist David Wiwchar for a half hour analysis after the debate. That's this Friday at an earlier time -- 7 pm eastern 4 pm central (APTN National News Primetime is pre-empted this day only)
 

48Highlander

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
410
UberCree said:
So it goes without saying that you would support social darwinism then.  The problem I see with your view is who gets to decide what is 'useful', 'a failure', or when things 'die'?  You?  I hope not.  Wouldn't that decision be left up to the collective society?  If so then that's exactly where we are at right now, trying to decide which way to go.

Decide?  What's there to decide?  Why are we shoving money at the first nations?  There's no decision to be made about their usefulness, just start treating them like everyone else.  The majority of our problems could be solved if we just stopped clumping individuals into "minority groups", and then insisting on "helping" those groups.

UberCree said:
  Sure dictatorships are efficient but as Canadians we have agreed to a social contract that obliges us to watch out for one another.

Yes, watch out for one another.  But we certainly don't have a social contract which obliges us to treat certin individuals as special based on ther ethnicity, religion, or social status.  We do it mainly out of a sense of guilt, and a missplaced desire to be "fair".

UberCree said:
  If you believe in 'survival of the fittest' then IMO you have no right being in the military.  Our job in the military is to protect those that cannot protect themselves on behalf of the greater societal good.

"Our job in the military is to protect those that cannot protect themselves"?  Bullshit.  Our job is to protect society.  Our PRIMARY job is to KILL people.  It's certainly not to protect individuals.

UberCree said:
Survival of the fittest would mean I presume that you would only fight and defend yourself and your immediate family, or your ethnic group, or your tribe. Where would that take us?

Canada IS my "tribe".  We exist to protect that tribe.  Where would it take us?  Mainly to Afghanistan these days :)
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
UberCree said:
There are rules that need to be followed when people interact with each other and we cannot willy nilly pick and chose which ones we want to honour and which we don't. 

Since this is the crux of the argument, I will concentrate on this only. The rules that need to be followed in human interaction can be roughly divided into "contractual law" or "law of the jungle".

In a civilized society, we voluntarily interact through contract law, either formal written contracts, informal agreements or sometimes through a series of conventions which have evolved over time. For the most part, contracts are or should be between individuals or small groups of individuals (the establishment of a legal partnership or a shareholder corporation is a contract between several people). The extreme Libertarian position, of course, is all interactions are person to person, but as a practical matter you and I can agree this would be really time consuming and inefficient, so certain species of "collective agreements" are also desirable (which is why I am a small l libertarian). Where we diverge is what levels of collective agreements are required and how binding they are on people. One size does NOT fit all, so large or high level "contracts" (such as the Constitution or NAFTA treaty) really need to be a loose, flexible and limited in scope as possible. You have less need to "opt out" if there is room to accomodate your individual needs.

The other means of human interaction is the Hobbesian war of "All against all". If you have the will, you can eventually gain the resources to subdue others and make them conform to your will, or risk being forced to conform. This "will to power" is the root cause behind crime, terrorism and nasty ideologies like National Socialism. It is very seductive as well; if you have access to a weapon, or are big enough to beat people who resist you, or are charismatic enough to entice people to do your bidding, you can gain positions of power, influence and wealth without that tedious process of education and hard work. The "Ganstas" in Toronto are a perfect example of this philosophy in action.

Since most of us do not wish to live as slaves, but as a practical matter are not physically or mentally or emotionally prepared to become warlords or Ronin warriors to protect our own, we have agreed to a social contract that the government will have a monopoly on force, and be prepared to train arm and employ fighting forces on our behalf to protect us: the Armed forces against external agression, and the Police and Law Courts to protect us from criminals in our midst.

And that is really all there is too it. We no longer live in a world where there is short term advantage in haveing local tribes as allies against the New French or American invaders, or need local labour to harvest furs, or require large tracts of land to build a railway, the treaties and reservation systems built to support these activities are obsolete and do not fit the needs of Canada or the aborigional people. Like contracts which no longer fill their purpose, they should be terminated. The immediate effect would be all people living under current Canadian laws and conventions. (The fact that many of these laws and conventions are highly skewed or restrictive is another issue which is best addressed by  changes made by the legislature).
 

Glorified Ape

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
48Highlander said:
How true.  You're absolutely right, it's our own governments faul that we have this mess now; if they hadn't agreed to give American Indians any special treatment, we wouldn't have these problems.

What I would REALLY like to know is how we as a species have gone from "survival of the fittest" to "the fittest must support the weakest".  Frankly, when ANYTHING, wether it be a society, an ideology, a religion, a technology, or an individual, has reached the end of it's usefulnes....LET IT DIE.  Why the hell do we insist on trying to prop up failiures?  Who decided that it's "morally neccesary" to support things which cannot exist on their own?  And how in the hell are we supposed to improve when so many insist on regressing?

So we should let disabled children starve to death? Let the elderly that can't take care of themselves die?
 

midgetcop

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
48Highlander said:
What I would REALLY like to know is how we as a species have gone from "survival of the fittest" to "the fittest must support the weakest".  Frankly, when ANYTHING, wether it be a society, an ideology, a religion, a technology, or an individual, has reached the end of it's usefulnes....LET IT DIE.  Why the hell do we insist on trying to prop up failiures?  Who decided that it's "morally neccesary" to support things which cannot exist on their own?  And how in the hell are we supposed to improve when so many insist on regressing?

Hmm....I know you're trying to apply your above argument to this First Nations issue.....but methinks you've unintentionally travelled into *vastly* different territory here.....

:eek:
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,391
Points
1,260
I agree with the above 2 posters.....I think I know what you want to say but a clarification would be a REAL GOOD idea right about now.......
 

48Highlander

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Glorified Ape said:
So we should let disabled children starve to death? Let the elderly that can't take care of themselves die?

As a society?  Why the hell not?  It shouldnt be societys responsibility to take care of children or the elderly in the first place, but that's a different argument altogether, what we're talking about here is a social structure which cannot survive on it's own and has to instead be susidized by a more productive society.

What I'm saying is we need to stop supporting failiure.  If a person is in a vegetative state, pull the damn plug.  If an industry isn't competitive, let it go bankrupt.  If a community cannot afford to support itself in it's current incanrnation, let it evolve, or fall apart.

midgetcop said:
Hmm....I know you're trying to apply your above argument to this First Nations issue.....but methinks you've unintentionally travelled into *vastly* different territory here.....

Really?  How so?
 

xFusilier

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
a_majoor,

You argue that if a contract no longer serves it's purpose, it should be terminated, however you fail to define whose purposes.  My understanding of a contract is that it may not be terminated without the consent of both parties, should aboriginal peoples decide (and it is for them to decide) that the contract should not be terminated, then we are into the relm of, terminating this contract simply because we have the werewithal to do it, I fail to see the difference between that course of action and the Hobbesian "war of all against all".  As such, I must ask what your envisioned plan is for changing the present contractual obligation the Crown has to aboriginal people.

As for the term "survival of the fittest" this was a term describing the ability of an individuals reproductive not economic viability.  Seeing as poor people manage to generate progeny, survival of the fittest as a justification of "screw the poor", seems to be an attempt by certain individuals to cloak thier ideology in what is one of the greater (in terms of impact) scientific theories of the modern age.  Similarily Social Darwinism would be an examination of social factors that contribute to (or deny) an individual's ability to reproduce.  Hence the term used in application to an individuals economic ability, has little bearing on the current discussion.
 
D

dutchie

Guest
48Highlander said:
As a society?  Why the hell not?  It shouldnt be societys responsibility to take care of children or the elderly in the first place, but that's a different argument altogether, what we're talking about here is a social structure which cannot survive on it's own and has to instead be susidized by a more productive society.

What I'm saying is we need to stop supporting failiure.  If a person is in a vegetative state, pull the damn plug.  If an industry isn't competitive, let it go bankrupt.  If a community cannot afford to support itself in it's current incanrnation, let it evolve, or fall apart.

Really?  How so?

I really think you need to re-read what you've posted and edit. Although I think I see what you're trying to say regarding the special status that Natives have in Canadian society, you are using an exceptionally bad and offensive example that doesn't really fit what I think you're trying to say.
 
Top