- Reaction score
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.