Idle no more. But what do they want?

I've looked on all the national media and can't find a succinct list of what the natives want. Yes, they're not one nation, but dozens of voices, so a unified list of demands would normally not be possible. However it's a national movement now, so they're should be a single list of demands.

For someone who is supposedly on a hunger strike, Theresa Spence is sure remaining rather portly. But don't excuse her of feigning a famine because that would obviously make you a racist. You gotta love what decades of liberalism has done to our culture.

Someone posted this in the Globe And Mail's comment section.

This land does NOT belong to them. Why do some people keep saying that it does?
Is it because that's what they want you to believe? Well then the marketing campaign must be working.

Let's get this straight...

1. These people's ancestors did not just appear in North America magically out of thin air one day 50,000 years ago. They came in waves across the land/ice bridge from Asia. What's more, these waves in many case were not related groups of people. They came from various places around North Eastern Asia and were from different genetic strains....in other words the "natives of North America are not a homogenous group of people and more importantly.... They are immigrants too, like millions of immigrants today.

2. The idea that the "natives" were peaceful caretakers of the land or benevolent tenants couldn't be further from the truth. The various tribes warred on each other constantly. They were violent. Want proof? Ask the Huron's...oh that's right you can't. The Iroquois wiped them out. How about slavery that was rife among the first nation tribes until the Europeans came over and freed the slaves and put an end to this "valued cultural tradition"? Is slavery peaceful and humane?

3. The idea that we "stole" this land from them is also ridiculous. A more technologically advanced and numerous culture invaded and conquered. This is exactly what has been happening since the dawn of humanity all around the globe. To say we "stole" their lands is just plain wrong. That is akin to saying the Saxons should return England to the Angles. Or maybe we should launch a campaign to have Roman descendants give Italy back to the Etruscans?

It is a nonsensical notion driven by the politically correct bleeding hearts on the left and some intellectually deficient liberals, and it will continue to cost this country needless and wasted billions and billions until we get some backbone and turn off the taps.

Are these people in trouble? Yes. Do they need help? Yes.
Are they responsible enough to look after themselves and efficiently spend the billions the tax payers give them? Certainly not.

The only way to fix this situation is to bring them into society as equals. They should be getting jobs and paying taxes like the rest of us because in reality, they are no more special than any of the other hundred or more cultures that call Canada home.

Turn off the taps. Do away with this "traditional use" and "cultural" nonsense. Educate their children to become modern citizens, instead of finding their identity and source of pride in some folks who occupied the land 15000 years ago. Let them stand or fall on their own account.

Danny Crispin said:

Someone posted this in the Globe And Mail's comment section.

This land does NOT belong to them. Why do some people keep saying that it does?.

Click to expand...

Why do you care if it's posted on the comments section of the Globe? Anyone can post anything on newspaper comments. Surely you've noticed that most comments are angry, combative and often times offensive. I'm not speaking on this issue, but in general the comments sections are generally not worth the read. Sure, if you're already set in your negative opinion about something you'll find lots of supporting commentary to give virtual high fives, but you won't find much intellectual curiosity or respect for alternate opinions in any comments page. Compare this to the Letters section of the Globe print edition, where you must use your true name, where the comments are much more carefully and considerately written.

As for this topic, there are lands that are their lands. These are the lands from the Treaties the crown signed with the various tribes. These treaties were signed in exchange for military support against the French and American armies and for other cooperation with the crown. As for forcing them to drop their culture and raise their children as modern citizens as you suggest; well, we tried that with the residential school system where we forcibly took the children, forbade them to speak their native languages, and pushed them to accept our ways. It didn't work well at all. Canada could have taken the USA route and conducted genocidal wars against its native people, but we instead chose another route.

Regardless, this thread is not intended as a forum to debate your post. What I'm seeking is a better understanding of what the natives want. Only then can we discuss the merits of their case. I imagine even the PM has asked where are their list of demands and the PMO has replied there aren't any.

Who said I cared about it being posted on the Globe's comment sections? I'm in agreement with what was written.

I understand the Treaties--but the point is, they stole the land that is considered 'their land.' They really don't have any more right to it than we do.

Danny Crispin said:

Who said I cared about it being posted on the Globe's comment sections? I'm in agreement with what was written.

Click to expand...

I assumed you mentioned it was in the Globe's comments section because you felt it gave some weight to your own post, otherwise why mention it. Well, at least we now know your position. Fair enough.

You remind me of myself when I first joined UT back in, IIRC, 2002'ish. I was confident in my positions and opinions on things, held strongly black-white conservative views and intentionally looked for articles, quotes and information sources that supported my preconceived opinions. Any opinion, article or post contrary to my own was considered rubbish and as written by ignorant fools, lefties and special interests. Well, I'm an older fellow today, and will freely admit that I do my best to consider and respect all perspectives of an issue and to remain both intellectually curious and suspicious before I post anything. I can't speak for you of course, only for myself and if I could look back on my younger self I'd tell him to question every opinion and notion he's ever been held or been told by his elders, peers and family. So, the above comment in the Globe, did you ask yourself why he posted this, what was his objective, what feelings did he want to convey, etc?

As for the Idle No More movement, I'm interested in knowing what the native demands are. All land is conquered land, it's the way of human expansion across the globe. In Canada's case we made treaties with those who came before us. Do they, for example want to expand upon the rights granted under these treaties?

On wiki it says "The founders of Idle No More have outlined the vision and goals of the movement in a January 10, 2013 press release as follows:

• The Vision [...] revolves around Indigenous Ways of Knowing rooted in Indigenous Sovereignty to protect water, air, land and all creation for future generations.
• The Conservative government bills beginning with Bill C-45 threaten Treaties and this Indigenous Vision of Sovereignty.
• The Goal of the movement is education and the revitalization of Indigenous peoples through Awareness and Empowerment."

So, now we need to know what this means specifically so we can consider and then either grant or reject their demands.

Admiral Beez said:

I assumed you mentioned it was in the Globe's comments section because you felt it gave some weight to your own post, otherwise why mention it. Well, at least we now know your position. Fair enough.

You remind me of myself when I first joined UT back in, IIRC, 2002'ish. I was confident in my positions and opinions on things, held strongly black-white conservative views and intentionally looked for articles, quotes and information sources that supported my preconceived opinions. Any opinion, article or post contrary to my own was considered rubbish and as written by ignorant fools, lefties and special interests. Well, I'm an older fellow today, and will freely admit that I do my best to consider and respect all perspectives of an issue and to remain both intellectually curious and suspicious before I post anything. I can't speak for you of course, only for myself and if I could look back on my younger self I'd tell him to question every opinion and notion he's ever been held or been told by his elders, peers and family. So, the above comment in the Globe, did you ask yourself why he posted this, what was his objective, what feelings did he want to convey, etc?

As for the Idle No More movement, I'm interested in knowing what the native demands are. All land is conquered land, it's the way of human expansion across the globe. In Canada's case we made treaties with those who came before us. Do they, for example want to expand upon the rights granted under these treaties?

On wiki it says "The founders of Idle No More have outlined the vision and goals of the movement in a January 10, 2013 press release as follows:

• The Vision [...] revolves around Indigenous Ways of Knowing rooted in Indigenous Sovereignty to protect water, air, land and all creation for future generations.
• The Conservative government bills beginning with Bill C-45 threaten Treaties and this Indigenous Vision of Sovereignty.
• The Goal of the movement is education and the revitalization of Indigenous peoples through Awareness and Empowerment."

So, now we need to know what this means specifically so we can consider and then either grant or reject their demands.

Click to expand...

I never went out of my way to find this particular comment--it was sent to me in an email. I respect other opinions that aren't in line with mine. I enjoy hearing views that I don't agree with. Yes, I question everything I read and hear. I know not to take anything at face value.

Danny Crispin said:

I never went out of my way to find this particular comment--it was sent to me in an email. I respect other opinions that aren't in line with mine. I enjoy hearing views that I don't agree with. Yes, I question everything I read and hear. I know not to take anything at face value.

Click to expand...

Excellent. You're better man than I was circa 2002.

I just had a look on the Globe's comments section on http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...tionship-with-ottawa/article7552681/comments/ It's incredible the negative and blanket statements people post while shielded by the web.

I think there is an event planned for this Saturday (at the harbourfront, I believe), I hope to go down there and photograph the proceedings. Who knows, maybe some of the message may come across, in which case I will report what I find out