First Nations Treaties
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
So I take it then that you agree with scrapping the Official Languages Act and replacing it with no official language at all, scrapping compulsory languages of instruction and second languages in school, etc.?
If that is what you meant, then maybe we could agree on something there. Just have no official position with regards to culture at all, and let each school teach the language and culture of its choosing.
If that's not what you meant, and that you still support Canada officializing our European languages and cultures, then you'd be contradicting yourself. So, what is your position on that?
You truly are a genius. Stick to meaningless one-liners, and it's impossible to counter your arguments since I can't even understand what you're on about.
And the best part is, when I ask for clarification, you throw out another meaningless one-liner. Hey, as long as I'm clueless to what you're on about, I can't counter your argument very effectively now can I.
The government needs to operate with one language as it needs to be able to communicate with itself. Other than that, I don't care about language. We'll all be speaking Chinese and/or English in another 100 years.
I see. So you do agree that language and culture need to be regulated by the government, at least to some degree. Yet, you choose not to acknowledge that the one the government chooses as the common one gives natives of that language and culture a distinct advantage over those who must learn them secondarily.
So how do we choose a common language and cultural norms without advantaging the majority ethnic group even more than it is advantaged already? Certainly if the government officializes one language for common communication, it ought to show due consideration for the impact this government decision may have on the local indigenous language and culture and community, no? Or is it just a one way street intent on assimilating towards your ethnic language and culture, along with the economic perks that go with that?
Of course people that spoke the working language of government would have an advantage. I haven't chosen not to acknowledge that. I just don't care about it. If I moved to France I would learn French. If I moved to Brazil, I would learn Portuguese.
I disagree with your premise that links "culture" and "language". Immigrants have been coming to Canada en masse and have been doing quite well learning the language and maintaining their culture.
No. I don't care about people's languages and culture. They can keep them alive if they so choose. The government has other, more pressing issues to deal with.
Nope, as I've said before, Chinese will probably take over as the dominant language. Since I'm not Chinese, it is I that will be doing the assimilating (assuming I live that long) and I don't really care about culture.
Trudeau and Chretien tried something like this with their Green Paper in 1970 or thereabouts. Got nowhere fast.
And that's social conditioning, created by PC thinkers, I personally don't think in such myopic ways. If you were to say "My people" in reference to Scot's. I would take an issue with it. The fact that you do, and felt the need to point it out, only proves my point, your argument is weak, you haven't any real knowledge of the intricacies of treaties and the plight of the North American Native and really feel no need to educate yourself.
You seem more then happy to wallow in your one sided view and blather half truths and innuendo's.
Then try honesty and doing more research, then you wouldn't have to be dishonest.
Your argument fails from the get go. You make assumptions and base your whole opinion on a mere fraction of the Native populace, or my people, if you will.
Your reasoning is tarring the lot of us with one brush. You assume incorrectly that our leadership is actually our collective voice. Do all politicians speak for you?
Well duh. Of course. But we aren't talking about immigrants are we? We're talking about people who were here when the first immigrants came, with whom the Crown negotiated treaties, to allocate land and resources without war. War is far more costly then a treaty, or so they thought.
The scenario your looking for is a kin to a Chinese immigrant coming here and negotiating with a land owner. Once the land is transferred, the immigrant cancels the check, but thinks he should keep the land anyways.
- You really should read up on the history of the area, before your posts illuminate your myopic understand of the conflict that has plagued that region for quite some time.
Not according to your posts.
As far as I know, no Native Nation wishes to opt out of "Canada". There are a few Nations that have never ceded to the Crown. Under treaty, it was termed that we walk side by side as one. The annuity paid, is for service and for trade of property.
Are you insinuating, that we are at the Gov't teat, getting something for nothing? That statement in and of itself, is the culmination of all your thinking, and it illuminates your unwillingness to broaden your knowledge of the situation. We aren't getting something for nothing. The Crown took the bulk of the Nation and promised to protect and care for us perpetually, for that. Why is that so hard for you to phathom?
I actually agree with that.
:roll:
Even in the face of overwhelming facts that prove that that statement is based on incorrect assumptions, you continue to make it. Are your opinions based on fact or are you just like Avro and juan and prefer to come to your conclusions based on emotion, heresay and innuendo?
No, that's what you are talking about. I'm talking about immigration. You are part of the problem. You are so busy trying to push your own agenda you can't be bothered to listen to the point of view of others. I really don't care what you and "your people" want. I don't care what has or hasn't happened in the past. Unlike you, I tend to be a forward looking person. That's why most of your post is just nonsense to me.
Well of course not. Why would they want to...I mean as long as the money keeps flowing?
And erroneously applying a scenario that doesn't fit. You're comparing apples to Buick's.
Wow, I always thought that by going after sloth, waste, crime and inept leadership, made me part of the solution. I'm sure all my detractors in the Native community will be glad to know you see me, as I see them...:roll:
There's views, then there's lies, half truths and misconceptions, fomented by bigotry and stupidity.
That's obvious, but didn't you just chastise me for "You are so busy trying to push your own agenda you can't be bothered to listen to the point of view of others."
Pot meet kettle.
The only difference between me and you is, I use fact. I'm still waiting to yours.
In some circumstances, neither do I. The only time I dwell at any great length or with any severity on the past is, when I see people negate it, and try to use a bastardized version of it, to formulate and portray an erroneous history to further their own agenda.
I disagree, I think your way of thought is retrogressive and antiquated.
And still you haven't even attempted to disprove the facts I laid out for you on the actual monies spent on First Nations people. How odd.
Well ya, it's called rent, obligations, as dictated by a written contract. What is so hard for you to grasp about that?
Good to know. So you are just like juan and Avro. That will make it much easier to debate you on this topic.
