Resolving Canada’s 'Indian problem’


L Gilbert
+1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

How come the UN never condemns native leaders for letting their people live in squalor on so many reserves? Attack a big soft target like Canada and the apologists come out and make useless noise. Takes two to tango.

Canada slammed during UN human rights review | National Union of Public and General Employees (external - login to view)

Quote:

Treaties are dated,

Some are.
Quote:

they separate people by race and they shouldn't,

Wrong. They separate people by culture.
Quote:

because scientifically, race doesn't exist.

Bullshyte. We're the human race. Well, some of us anyway.
Quote:

So why do we have treaites and a separation of races in the country?

Because Canada took from aboriginals and is compensating. DUH
Quote:

A rich country that does more than most ensure the population, without discriminaition, has decent living standards.

And is still working on a more equitable system. It's getting better.

Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

That is what some successful aboriginal chiefs suggest.

That doesn't make them any more right than you.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#32
Chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops ban in BC for one. Chief Weasel Head of Alberta has said so on CBC. If so many people-as in "the tax supported leadership" red and white, are against this, it must be a great idea. Imagine, letting Indians have their own house, property and money. Do leaders want well off, smart followers? Not if they can help it. They want dumb clients.

Must be many old fashioned Indian agents on this site, professing to be looking out for the best interest of Indians by keeping them poor. Very sad. tsk tsk
 
CDNBear
+3
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops ban in BC for one. Chief Weasel Head of Alberta has said so on CBC.

Here's the string dumpster...

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Your idea of solving the problem is by taking everything away from First Nations and having them disappear into the Canadian population.

Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

That is what some successful aboriginal chiefs suggest.

Please tell us how Weaselhead or Jules support what your answer to Gh claims.
 
WLDB
+1
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Who is he?

How can a person living in Canada not know who Robbie Robertson is? So strange.
 
CDNBear
+2
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

How can a person living in Canada not know who Robbie Robertson is? So strange.

dumpster doesn't live in Canada.

He lives in his own little world.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Must be many old fashioned Indian agents on this site, professing to be looking out for the best interest of Indians by keeping them poor. Very sad. tsk tsk

lol That's one of the most pathetic attempts at spin I have seen in a long time.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

dumpster doesn't live in Canada.

He lives in his own little world.

And that seems to be about 10 cubic cm of mousehole.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#37
My fans continue to respond, and this implies agreement because they offer no alternatives. It can be tough being so bright among dim bulbs.
 
CDNBear
+1
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

My fans continue to respond, and this implies agreement because they offer no alternatives.

No, I just like embarrassing you with facts, until you resort to posts such as the one I quote here.

Quote:

It can be tough being so bright among dim bulbs.

I don't find it tough at all.
 
Cliffy
+1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Who is he?

Listen and learn.

robbie robertson - words of fire deeds of blood - YouTube

 
dumpthemonarchy
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Listen and learn.

RR may be a good artist, but he has not come to my attention. Any word on that survey?

---------

Fact is, I write and the peanut gallery attempts to respond and fails to illiminate anyone beyond their in-group. Such is the backward tribal mentaltiy in clear sight for all to see.
 
Cliffy
+1
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

RR may be a good artist, but he has not come to my attention. Any word on that survey?

---------

Fact is, I write and the peanut gallery attempts to respond and fails to illiminate anyone beyond their in-group. Such is the backward tribal mentaltiy in clear sight for all to see.

You are the one who is blinded by your ideology and racial superiority. There is nothing superior about a race and system that systematically destroys the very life support system that all living things depend on. Democracy is and always has been ripe for corruption and control by the rich. Sheeple like yourself have no real say in anything our government does. It is a democracy in name only, like communism was a dictatorship.

Many, if not most tribal nations in Canada were matriarchal. A council of elder women usually had the final say. Most chiefs were appointed according to their skills in a particular endevor like fishing or hunting. But patriarchal European monarchies and governments refused to deal with women and insisted on dealing only with men. Women owned most of the land and possessions of the tribe, so men did not have the right to give away their land in treaties. To me, all treaties with matriarchal societies in Canada are illegal and that aboriginal women still own most of Canada. Until Canada is willing to negotiate with the Clan Mothers, anything they do is inconsequential to land ownership issues.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#42
Anyone who believes aboriginals were matriarchial is out of their mind. Men in tribal, pre-modern societies never listen to weak, small, unimportant women. Give me a break. lol!!!!!

Next thing you'll be telling me is that aboiriginals had democracy!!! Representaive govt and a free media. 99X lol!!!!!!
 
gerryh
+1
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Anyone who believes aboriginals were matriarchial is out of their mind. Men in tribal, pre-modern societies never listen to weak, small, unimportant women. Give me a break. lol!!!!!

Next thing you'll be telling me is that aboiriginals had democracy!!! Representaive govt and a free media. 99X lol!!!!!!


History major eh?

HAUDENOSAUNEE - MOHAWK - ONEIDA - ONONDAGA - CAYUGA - SENECA - TUSCARORA- Kahnawake Branch Of The Mohawk Nation Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy (external - login to view)

"The Haudenosaunee are a constitutional democracy that has existed since time immemorial and long before the colonial occupation of settler states such as Canada and the United States. The Haudenosaunee are governed by an ancient constitution known as the Kaianere’kó:wa; the Great Law of Peace."

CBC News In Depth: Aboriginal Canadians

"Women weren't always marginalized in aboriginal politics. In pre-contact society, many First Nations in Eastern Canada and on the West Coast had matriarchal structures that gave women a strong political voice.

"In these matriarchal societies, if there was any unequal power to be had, it was had by the women because they would hold the positions of clan mothers and they were the ones that made all the major decisions. So they had more say in many of the key areas than the men," says Otway.

In this system, chiefs were still male but were chosen by clan mothers and removed by them if they didn't like what the chief was doing."

and that's the difference between you and I, dummy, I back up my statements.
 
damngrumpy
#44
This weeks installment of I don't Indians why am I not surprised.
 
gerryh
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

This weeks installment of I don't Indians why am I not surprised.


Once again you have been shown that the Haudenosaunee had a Constitutional Democracy and you ignore it.....again.

I have also shown you that quite a few of the First Nations WERE a matriarchal society and you ignore that.
 
Cliffy
+2
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Once again you have been shown that the Haudenosaunee had a Constitutional Democracy and you ignore it.....again.

I have also shown you that quite a few of the First Nations WERE a matriarchal society and you ignore that.

There is no room under his bridge for facts. Trolls like tight places.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

This weeks installment of I don't Indians why am I not surprised.

Are you so upset for being PWND that you can't speak straight? What the heck does this mean?
 
CDNBear
+2
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Such is the backward tribal mentaltiy in clear sight for all to see.

That is exactly how I describe you.

That's funny.

Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Anyone who believes aboriginals were matriarchial is out of their mind. Men in tribal, pre-modern societies never listen to weak, small, unimportant women. Give me a break. lol!!!!!

Next thing you'll be telling me is that aboiriginals had democracy!!! Representaive govt and a free media. 99X lol!!!!!!

I really loved how Gh PWND you on that nonsense...

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

This weeks installment of I don't Indians why am I not surprised.

You aren't surprised, because you don't have a degree in History, and you know nothing about First nations. Why would you be surprised that we make you look like an idiot, by exposing that?

Hurry back for more education.
 
Serryah
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Listen and learn.

robbie robertson - words of fire deeds of blood - YouTube

Loved this CD; actually wore it out playing it so much. I remember the first time my father listened to it, it gave him chills and goose bumps.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#49
I'm glad someone likes RR.
 
CDNBear
+2
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

I'm glad someone likes RR.

LOL, ya, you should stick to talking about music.

Since you know less than nothing about First nations.

Hey, here's an idea, maybe you should join Jimmy at his Justin Beiber forum.

That's way more your speed.
 
L Gilbert
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Fact is, I write.......... Such is the backward .... mentaltiy in clear sight for all to see.

I noticed.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

History major eh?

HAUDENOSAUNEE - MOHAWK - ONEIDA - ONONDAGA - CAYUGA - SENECA - TUSCARORA- Kahnawake Branch Of The Mohawk Nation Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy (external - login to view)

"The Haudenosaunee are a constitutional democracy that has existed since time immemorial and long before the colonial occupation of settler states such as Canada and the United States. The Haudenosaunee are governed by an ancient constitution known as the Kaianere’kó:wa; the Great Law of Peace."

CBC News In Depth: Aboriginal Canadians

"Women weren't always marginalized in aboriginal politics. In pre-contact society, many First Nations in Eastern Canada and on the West Coast had matriarchal structures that gave women a strong political voice.

"In these matriarchal societies, if there was any unequal power to be had, it was had by the women because they would hold the positions of clan mothers and they were the ones that made all the major decisions. So they had more say in many of the key areas than the men," says Otway.

In this system, chiefs were still male but were chosen by clan mothers and removed by them if they didn't like what the chief was doing."

and that's the difference between you and I, dummy, I back up my statements.

To say that hundreds of years ago, women had power to run organisations requires much more than a say so from aboriginals today. It doesn't hold up. All tribal societies are male dominated, with a little influence by women. Women gather and basket weave, the men are the warriers, carry weapons and use them. Then there's a survery about Alberta men, whom 8% say violence against women is okay. In Canada, in the 1970s jokes were made in the House of Commons about violence against women. Not too long ago in Canada women were the property of men and the man was the king of his castle. Now go back 500 years. Try not to be so silly. Try not to embarrass yourself with delusions of the past.
 
CDNBear
+1
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

To say that hundreds of years ago, women had power to run organisations requires much more than a say so from aboriginals today.

The accounts were collected form first contact. Recorded, and saved in such prestigious places as, the Smithsonian, The Library of Congress. The British Museum.

Quote:

It doesn't hold up.

It holds up better, under limited scrutiny, than you claims of a history degree, lol.

Quote:

All tribal societies are male dominated, with a little influence by women.

And yet here you are, proven wrong by one post.

Quote:

Women gather and basket weave, the men are the warriers, carry weapons and use them.

That's funny. Men were actually known for their creative skills, as much as they were for their warrior skills. Many fine collections of bead work, from known artisans of the time, were in fact, made by men.

Quote:

Not too long ago in Canada women were the property of men and the man was the king of his castle.

I was already well aware of how far advanced we were to European settlers.

Quote:

Now go back 500 years.

You wouldn't survive.

Quote:

Try not to be so silly.

You should observe your own advice.

Quote:

Try not to embarrass yourself with delusions of the past.

Ummm, you do realize, the only one embarrassing themselves, is you.
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 16th, 2012 at 06:26 PM..
 
gerryh
+1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

To say that hundreds of years ago, women had power to run organisations requires much more than a say so from aboriginals today. It doesn't hold up. All tribal societies are male dominated, with a little influence by women. Women gather and basket weave, the men are the warriers, carry weapons and use them. Then there's a survery about Alberta men, whom 8% say violence against women is okay. In Canada, in the 1970s jokes were made in the House of Commons about violence against women. Not too long ago in Canada women were the property of men and the man was the king of his castle. Now go back 500 years. Try not to be so silly. Try not to embarrass yourself with delusions of the past.



Even when you are proven wrong, you're incapable of admitting it. My wife daycares toddlers that are more grown up when it comes to admitting an error than you are.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

Well, it was Tecumseh's aboriginal forces, working with General Isaac Brock and his British regulars that stopped the invasion of Upper Canada in 1812 and took the counter offensive, capturing several American forts and most of what is now Michigan, so that claim isn't so far off as it may seem at first...

Looking at history, making claims is what it's all about. In the broader picture, aboriginals played a much larger role in with the British in making Canada than they did in the USA-where aboriginals and English settlers fought from day one and then with the USA army. We don't have a history like the USA regarding aboriginals due in large part to the fur trade. It was far less confrontational and the current convoluted and relationship with aboriginals reflects this. However, the old days are gone and changes have to be made in light of dramatic changes from earlier centuries. Dysfunction has set in and whatever were the old ways are long gone.
 
CDNBear
+1
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Looking at history, making claims is what it's all about. In the broader picture, aboriginals played a much larger role in with the British in making Canada than they did in the USA-where aboriginals and English settlers fought from day one and then with the USA army.

It's nice to see you getting closer to the truth. The latter part of that statement was wrong. But at least the beginning of your statement, was a refreshing admission of the fallacious contents of your previous claims.

Quote:

We don't have a history like the USA regarding aboriginals due in large part to the fur trade. It was far less confrontational and the current convoluted and relationship with aboriginals reflects this.

Meh, an argument could be to a degree.

Quote:

However, the old days are gone and changes have to be made in light of dramatic changes from earlier centuries. Dysfunction has set in and whatever were the old ways are long gone.

Now that I can agree with.
 

Similar Threads

8
CTV: One Dead Indian
by Jersay | Jan 5th, 2006
no new posts