Is Canada a Racist Country?
rob...@maloca.com
My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
All summer he has been looking for a job.
He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
that discriminates against any group of people?
Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a backlash?
And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
and can not hire?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Larry McLean
get a job. Typical business people, whine whine whine if they don't get
their way.
Perhaps he should have been a plumber or an electrician or a machanic.
Sherif Hanna
rob...@maloca.com wrote in article <8706478...@dejanews.com>...
> My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
> All summer he has been looking for a job.
> He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
> people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
> in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
> males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
> based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
> any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
> What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
> that discriminates against any group of people?
> Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a backlash?
> And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
> and can not hire?
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
I completely agree with you that this is absolutely disgusting. Although I
am a man of colour (Egyptian in origin), I think racism in all forms is
stupid.
Hiring should be based solely on skills, training, and experience. Not what
colour you are. What if your nephew is way better at those jobs than other
non-white people? Then it's the banks' own loss.
The fact is, I am just starting my university career, and I don't want to
get a job when I graduate just because I am of a different skin colour.
That annoys me very much. I want to be hired because I am damn better than
all the other people at what the job requires!!!
Hey, you ask, is Canada a Racist Country? Got news for you. YUP. And both
ways too. In trying to revert racism, they are creating more racism and
hate. Jeez, sometimes I wonder if it can all end.
Sherif :)
Adam Conway
In ab.general Sherif Hanna <NOSPA...@idirect.com> wrote:
: rob...@maloca.com wrote in article <8706478...@dejanews.com>...
: > My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
: > that discriminates against any group of people?
: > Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a backlash?
: I completely agree with you that this is absolutely disgusting. Although I
: am a man of colour (Egyptian in origin), I think racism in all forms is
: stupid.
: Hiring should be based solely on skills, training, and experience. Not what
: colour you are. What if your nephew is way better at those jobs than other
: non-white people? Then it's the banks' own loss.
: In trying to revert racism, they are creating more racism and
: hate. Jeez, sometimes I wonder if it can all end.
Is this racism? Is it "creating... hate" to attempt to ensure
that different cultures and races are represented in numbers equivalent
to their actual portion of the population? I don't think so.
It may be a stupid way to do things, yes. It may be back-firing
on itself, yes. But it is not racism.
Racism is caused by people who blame Egyptians (EXAMPLE) for the
fact that Egyptians must account for 1% of all Canadian bankers. Canada
is trying to do its best to restitute minorities who face daily subtle and
pervasive attempts to belittle their culture and beliefs by promising them
a niche to preserve their values.
It may be racist to deny them this. It may be racist to ay
"Sorry, your culture, represented in this country by 13,000
(HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER) refugees, has to compete with modern Western Culture
(OXYMORON) without aid. SO long, thanx for the neat food."
Is my culture going to benefit from another WASP Banker?
Probably not. Is my culture going to benefit from a... Hare Krishna
(EXAMPLE) banker? Probably, as such an experience is mind-expanding and
indispensable. Think about it.
Adam
-"-"- "You May be Right ===
[,-,] I may be Crazy <<oqo>>
<*'*> But It just might be [["="]]
--- A Lunatic you're looking for" -""-""-
Owl Pretending Adam Conway Owl Perched on a
to Be a Bat aco...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Pneumatic Drill
Jay North [Dennis]
Bullshit! Tell him to get off his ass & apply for some jobs instead
of walking in expecting them to bow to him. Besides, they probably
already have a manager. Tell him to set his sights a tad lower than
manager right off & maybe he will get hired.
Been in any banks lately? Lots of white males working there. I go
in & out of banks regularly making deliveries & if they are not hiring
white males there is a lot of volunteer work going on.
I think your nephew is having you on. Has he touched you up for a
"little" cash while he looks?
On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 18:32:09 -0600, rob...@maloca.com created the
following:
>My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
>All summer he has been looking for a job.
>He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
>people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
>in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
>males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
>based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
>any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
>What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
>that discriminates against any group of people?
>Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a backlash?
>And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
>and can not hire?
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
_________________________________________
........An Opinion Is Like An Anus.......
..........Everyone Has One, And..........
..Everyone Thinke Everone Eles's Stinks..
Godfrey A. Whyte
rob...@maloca.com wrote:
> He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
> people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
> in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
> males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
> based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
> any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
>
If this is official policy, would you mind naming the banks and the
officers who provided the info?
And aren't there a whole lot of qualified people of all hues who can't
get appropriate jobs?
Godfrey
fac...@hotmail.com
On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 18:32:09 -0600, rob...@maloca.com wrote:
>My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
>All summer he has been looking for a job.
>He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
>people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
>in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
>males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
>based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
>any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
>What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
>that discriminates against any group of people?
>Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a backlash?
>And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
>and can not hire?
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
I work for a company that provide computer services for one of
the big 6 banks and often visit their skyscrapers. I find few
white men are employed in the clerical areas but the higer you
go, the more white men there are. In the boardrooms they are all
white males. It is people like you that created the prblem by
discriminating against women and minorities years ago and now are
forced to clean it up. It is unfair to evaluate a situation by
examining a tiny part of it only, instead look at the whole issue
starting from when the banks were established. In the beginning
women were only given the menial jobs, did people like you
complain then?, i doubt it.
frank...@ns.sympatico.ca
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 02:59:46 -0700, "Godfrey A. Whyte"
<gwh...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>rob...@maloca.com wrote:
>
>> He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
>> people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
>> in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
>> males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
>> based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
>> any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
>>
>
>If this is official policy, would you mind naming the banks and the
>officers who provided the info?
>
>And aren't there a whole lot of qualified people of all hues who can't
>get appropriate jobs?
>
>Godfrey
Federal policy under the Employment Equity laws dictate that "Federal"
Departments have quota's that they *must* follow. Employment Equity
also covers the physically challenged, women and minority groups other
then those of Afro decent. They (the Feds) also have requested that
the private sector use the same guidelines. If you are using
Government money in any way,shape or form you must agree to these
"quota's" whether you are in the private sector or not. Further, many
big businesses have "opted in" to EE to earn brownie points with the
Feds. The Banks are included in those that have "opted in" and that is
common knowledge. (Ask your local Manager). It is tough for white
males to get jobs, as they have become the minority when you consider
all those in the "special" classifications of EE. These labels hurt
everyone. As an ex-Fed I seen it happen dozens of times and some of
the time it works, but many times it does not.
The field of employment should be a "level playing field" with no
reference to race, religion, color. age or sex on the application
form. The interview should be held in a manner that the person
interviewed would not be visible to the interviewer. Only then would
the practise of hiring be fair.
FP
Jack Plant
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 13:02:51 GMT, frank...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>Federal policy under the Employment Equity laws dictate that "Federal"
>Departments have quota's that they *must* follow. Employment Equity
>also covers the physically challenged, women and minority groups other
>then those of Afro decent. They (the Feds) also have requested that
>the private sector use the same guidelines. If you are using
>Government money in any way,shape or form you must agree to these
>"quota's" whether you are in the private sector or not. Further, many
>big businesses have "opted in" to EE to earn brownie points with the
>Feds. The Banks are included in those that have "opted in" and that is
>common knowledge. (Ask your local Manager). It is tough for white
>males to get jobs, as they have become the minority when you consider
>all those in the "special" classifications of EE. These labels hurt
>everyone. As an ex-Fed I seen it happen dozens of times and some of
>the time it works, but many times it does not.
>The field of employment should be a "level playing field" with no
>reference to race, religion, color. age or sex on the application
>form. The interview should be held in a manner that the person
>interviewed would not be visible to the interviewer. Only then would
>the practise of hiring be fair.
And you can believe this but still believe that we have too many
political parties eh!?
Randall J. Fox
The question should really be:
ARE YOU A RACIST?
After reading your posting about Caribana:
> It is there right in Canada to commit murder and mayhem as that
> is part of their culture and all parts of their culture are protected
> under the Canadian Charter of Rights and under the official
> government policy of multiculturalism.
> Continue to expect further skyrocketing rates of crime with the
> continued outrageously high rates of immigration to Canada.
I would say the answer is obvious...
There aren't any jobs for new MBAs in any bank over any colour...
Wake up and stop blaming immigrants, the government or whomever
it's convienent to blame...
Get a life Robert
In article <8706478...@dejanews.com>, rob...@maloca.com wrote:
> My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
> All summer he has been looking for a job.
> He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
> people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
> in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
> males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
> based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
> any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
Frosty Deere
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 12:07:04 GMT, fac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 18:32:09 -0600, rob...@maloca.com wrote:
>
>>My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
>>All summer he has been looking for a job.
>>He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
>>people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
>>in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
>>males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
>>based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
>>any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
>>What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
>>that discriminates against any group of people?
I check with a Bank Manager and one he told me this not true, and he
is white. I also went to my other bank and asked the same question
and again told its not so.
But if you read the messages about the Refrom Party Drawing the Lines,
yes Canada is becoming very racist. Its very clear cut they would
like us all to become one nations, one langauge, one race and one
anything else they can single out, then maybe that is the highest
number when it comes to their IQ.
york...@sympaticon.ca
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 15:14:02 GMT, fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere)
wrote:
>But if you read the messages about the Refrom Party Drawing the Lines,
>yes Canada is becoming very racist. Its very clear cut they would
>like us all to become one nations, one langauge, one race and one
>anything else they can single out, then maybe that is the highest
>number when it comes to their IQ.
It is my understanding that the Reform Party wishes to abolish
official multiculturalism.
Official multiculturalism exacerbates our now race-obsessed land; it
is a subtle form of apartheid.
We need unity in this country, not more hyphenated Canadians who are
officially encouraged to associate themselves with and strengthen
these links with, their previous country of residence.
Dave B.
*************************
To reply, remove the n from my email address.
James H. Steiger
Adam Conway <aco...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
> Is this racism? Is it "creating... hate" to attempt to ensure
>that different cultures and races are represented in numbers equivalent
>to their actual portion of the population? I don't think so.
>
> It may be a stupid way to do things, yes. It may be back-firing
>on itself, yes. But it is not racism.
>
> Racism is caused by people who blame Egyptians (EXAMPLE) for the
>fact that Egyptians must account for 1% of all Canadian bankers.
Following this logic, people who claim that the basketball-playing
capabilities (or lack of same) of Asians accounts for their
non-representation in the NBA must also be racist. Hmmmm.
It is, in fact, the assumption that representation in "numbers
equivalent to their proportion in the population" is indicative
of anything, or necessary for anything, that is, well, inane.
>
> It may be racist to deny them this. It may be racist to ay
>"Sorry, your culture, represented in this country by 13,000
>(HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER) refugees, has to compete with modern Western Culture
>(OXYMORON) without aid. SO long, thanx for the neat food."
>
> Is my culture going to benefit from another WASP Banker?
>Probably not.
That, my dear fellow, IS racism.
>Is my culture going to benefit from a... Hare Krishna
>(EXAMPLE) banker? Probably, as such an experience is mind-expanding and
>indispensable. Think about it.
In much the same way that the Vancouver Grizzlies would "benefit"
if the Canadian Government forced them to start at least one Asian to
achieve the proper "balance" for their "community."
It certainly *would* be a "mind expanding" experience!!
What I love about politically correct types is their utter
inability to think logically while repeating the same tiresome
cliches over and over.
Professor James H. Steiger Department of Psychology
(ste...@unixg.ubc.ca) 2136 West Mall
Office: 604-822-2706 University of British Columbia
Fax: 604-822-6923 Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
Michael Gothreau
On 4 Aug 97 04:39:13 GMT, "Sherif Hanna" <NOSPA...@idirect.com>
wrote:
>rob...@maloca.com wrote in article <8706478...@dejanews.com>...
>> My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
>> All summer he has been looking for a job.
>> He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
>> people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
>> in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
>> males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
>> based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
>> any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
>> What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
>> that discriminates against any group of people?
>> Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a backlash?
>> And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
>> and can not hire?
>>
>> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>>
>
>I completely agree with you that this is absolutely disgusting.
Speaking as a purple-polkadotted person who cannot get a job because
employers don't believe purple-polkadotted people exist, I must say I
agree completely.
Employers should be free to hire on the basis of merit. IMO,
officially, there should be no such thing as race in Canada. Citizens
are citizens. Race, creed and colour and what kind of breakfast
cereal each of us eats should not be a factor.
>Although I am a man of colour (Egyptian in origin), I think racism in all
>forms is stupid.
What colour is an Egyptian?
I find it sad that any of us would refer to ourselves as "a man of
colour". You are a person, even if you are purple-polkadotted like
me.
>Hiring should be based solely on skills, training, and experience. Not what
>colour you are. What if your nephew is way better at those jobs than other
>non-white people? Then it's the banks' own loss.
One problem that needs to be solved is that whites will hire whites
and purple-polkadotted will hire purple-polkadotted...
>The fact is, I am just starting my university career, and I don't want to
>get a job when I graduate just because I am of a different skin colour.
>That annoys me very much. I want to be hired because I am damn better than
>all the other people at what the job requires!!!
That is still an inferior method of hiring, IMO. I'm a musician
running a band and I am often faced with the choice of "hiring" other
band members. The considerations of musical ability are important,
but if I have a talented virtuoso who has an attitude of superiority
due to that talent and a qualified artisan who cares about the music
more than the attention, I'll pass over the virtuoso. Harmony in your
operation is an important factor.
>Hey, you ask, is Canada a Racist Country? Got news for you. YUP. And both
>ways too. In trying to revert racism, they are creating more racism and
>hate. Jeez, sometimes I wonder if it can all end.
Yeah, and it has been this way for as long as Canada has existed.
Yet, we are more tolerant than some other nations, and we try to find
methods to equalize. It isn't great, but someday, it may be :-)
if...
Michael Gothreau goth...@direct.ca
1:134/67.6 @Fidonet
Frosty Deere
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 18:00:07 GMT, york...@sympaticon.ca wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 15:14:02 GMT, fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere)
>wrote:
>
>>But if you read the messages about the Refrom Party Drawing the Lines,
>>yes Canada is becoming very racist. Its very clear cut they would
>>like us all to become one nations, one langauge, one race and one
>>anything else they can single out, then maybe that is the highest
>>number when it comes to their IQ.
>
>It is my understanding that the Reform Party wishes to abolish
>official multiculturalism.
Well the can dream, at least there is no law yet to stop them from
that yet.
>We need unity in this country, not more hyphenated Canadians who are
>officially encouraged to associate themselves with and strengthen
>these links with, their previous country of residence.
>
>Dave B.
Dave are you saying that to have a united country one can not have
links to the brith place of the great grand parents. The sure leave
me and my family up the creek and without a paddle. See we are North
America and we have no tie to europe as the average canadian and
member of the reform party
Joseph Geizer
This is a very discouraging thread for someone who is about to graduate
with a BBA (let alone an MBA) to read. I've been sending resumes all over
Canada (and I am not exaggerating) looking for some sort of petty
experience to get a half decent job sometime in the future. I work in a
major department store doing maintenance work, and they won't even
consider me to work in the cash office! So, there probably is a bit of
truth to the statements already given. But, it could also be a problem of
lack of experience (which I think has the most weight).
Joseph
Chuck Rampersad remove '.ca' to mail
>All summer he has been looking for a job.
>He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
>people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
>in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
>males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
>based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
>any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
>What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
>that discriminates against any group of people?
>Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a backlash?
>And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
>and can not hire?
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Actually I think that the bank was just giving your nephew a line to
direct his regret from not getting a bank job to another group. Two of my
former roommates are both white and got jobs with Canadian Banks upon
graduation. (BMO and Canada Trust)
I myself am white (despite having a long funny-looking last name) and
last year I got to 3rd and final interviews with ScotiaBank, until I had a
better job offer given to me by a manufacturing concern.
regards!
Chuck
york...@sympaticon.ca
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 18:57:08 GMT, fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere)
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 18:00:07 GMT, york...@sympaticon.ca wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 15:14:02 GMT, fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But if you read the messages about the Refrom Party Drawing the Lines,
>>>yes Canada is becoming very racist. Its very clear cut they would
>>>like us all to become one nations, one langauge, one race and one
>>>anything else they can single out, then maybe that is the highest
>>>number when it comes to their IQ.
>>
>>It is my understanding that the Reform Party wishes to abolish
>>official multiculturalism.
>
>Well the can dream, at least there is no law yet to stop them from
>that yet.
Official Multiculturalism is merely legislation. It can be repealed by
any majority vote at any time.
>Dave are you saying that to have a united country one can not have
>links to the brith place of the great grand parents.
I didn't say that. See below.
>The sure leave
>me and my family up the creek and without a paddle. See we are North
>America and we have no tie to europe as the average canadian and
>member of the reform party
You are confusing (like a lot of people) multiculturalism with
official multiculturalism.
Government policy which encourages cognition of and helps underline,
our differences, and encourages the development of parallel cultures
is *not* healthy for Canada.
Dave B.
What happens when the centre gives way?
Sam Falaki
I think you are a paranoid crybaby. I hope you don't believe the
lies that you are telling everyone on the net. Some people may actually
believe you. You should be preoccupying yourself with making
things work (for example, buy your son a book on how to pass an
interview) rather than finding scapegoats to blame for your
failures. Your reaction is that of, and appeals to persons
incapable of any profound reasoning. It's easy to blame everything
on foreigners but you better get over it 'cause that's what Canada
is made of and what makes Canada so special (among other things)
is it's cultural openness and civility. I believe I am much more
Canadian and proud to be Canadian than you are although I wasn't
born here.
Sam
Larry McLean
rob...@maloca.com wrote:
>
> My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
> All summer he has been looking for a job.
> He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
> people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
> in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
> males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
> based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
> any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
> What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
> that discriminates against any group of people?
> Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a backlash?
> And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
> and can not hire?
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John Carrick
On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 18:32:09 -0600, rob...@maloca.com wrote:
>My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
>All summer he has been looking for a job.
You don't imagine that he is alone in that, do you? While the
American unemployment rate has dropped below 5%, (this news causing
panic selling on the stock market last week, because it signalled a
possible shortage of workers and a pressure on wages), in Canada
we remain at well over 10%, if you include those who have given up
looking.
>He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
>people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
>in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
>males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
>based upon race and gender.
I don't know what these laws are that you are talking about. The
rules that the Rae Government put though in Ontario were toothless
in the first place, and have been thrown out by Butcher Harris anyway.
>Because of this law they arent hiring any white males and dont expect
> to be hiring any for at least a decade!!!
There are only six major Canadian banks, so that the young man seems
to have confined his job search to an amazingly small market. At any
rate, I don't believe for a moment that white M.B.A. graduates have no
hope of a job until 2007.
One of two things is happening with this post.
[1] The writer is sincere but misinformed. Either the personnel
people have it wrong, or his nephew has it wrong, or he has it wrong.
White M.B.A. graduates are *certainly* being hired by someone in
Canada. If they were not it would be splashed across the media as a
major scandal.
Does anyone think that a yellow right-wing rag such as the "Toronto
Sun" would not have screamed such news to the skies?
Another factor that is not mentioned in the original post is that
down-sizing has been taking place in the six major Canadian banks.
This means that employees of all colours with M.B.A's have been
let go by them over the past several years.
Why is his nephew looking for work with companies that are firing
people who not only have his certification, but also have job
experience? It makes one wonder what value an M.B.A. has, if
graduates are making such dumb decisions.
[2] The entire story may be a racist fable, invented to damage race
relations by convincing white Canadians that they are being treated as
second class citizens so that non-whites can be hired.
My guess is that the second explanation is the correct one; however,
people do make honest mistakes about this sort of thing, so there is
a possibility that the man's information is just wrong.
>What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
>that discriminate against any group of people?
Please! We have had discriminatory practices for years! Just look at
the numbers and you'll see who has been getting hired and promoted!
Whites have been doing disproportionately well for decades!
Your problem isn't with discriminatory hiring pracrtices. It is with
those hiring practices that don't continue to favour whites.
>Will such racist hiring practises enshrined in law lead to a backlash?
The pro-white racist hiring and promotion practices that we have had
for years have already produced a backlash. So have the sexist ones.
People of colour, along with women, are demanding that they be treated
as well as white men with the same qualifications.
Do many white men hate to hear this? Did they vote in large numbers
for Mike Harris, when he promised to get rid of employment equity?
Does the sun rise in the east?
>And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
>and can not hire?
Governments get their rights from the people. The people express
their wishes in a number of ways, including at the ballot box. As I
have already said, this happened two years ago in Ontario, when white
males voted very heavily for the Progressive Conservatives, trusting
that thery would end affirmative action the provincial level. They
did.
(There is no dispute about the disproportionate support for
Harris among males and females. These are hard numbers. Nobody
invented them. They are agreed to by all parties. Harris says that
they are correct. Do *not* tell me that I am talking through my hat!)
(The P.C's also promised to scrap photo radar - which was unpopular
*only* because it was too good at catching people - and
slash welfare payments and taxes, so that it is difficult to know how
important a part employment equity played in their victory. What we
*do* know is that there was a huge discrepancy in the way men and
women split their support in '95, with a much smaller proportion of
women voting P.C.
That suggests that males were moved by different issues than were
females. One of these may well have been opposition to any measures
that would reverse the present white male advantage in getting hired
and promoted.
Presumably women feel the same way about photo radar, welfare, and
taxation as men do. That means that something else is causing them to
have a much greater dislike of Harris.)
Please, don't tell me I don't have my facts straight. I specialise in
getting them right. Disagree with my opinions all you like.
frank...@ns.sympatico.ca
I have to believe it as it is policy. And yes there are to many
political parties. Official status of a party should be required only
if they garner 20% of the seats. (say 60). Note that I said "Official
Status".
FP
Frosty Deere
On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 11:14:03 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Maybe I'm (EXAMPLE) pissed off because people move to my country and expect to live
>by their own rules, they want to keep their former culture and igonore mine (whatever
>can be called Canadian culture).
Gee you make a never interest pont here. Lets see some time back
around the year 1500 your anccestors came here and did just that to
the naitve people that lived here then and now and you have totally
ignored there land claims, treaties, rights and even took away there
right to be a nation, by passing a law that made then Canadian
Citizens with out even asking them.
>They refuse to adapt to the existing Canadian way of
>life.
This makes up a Canadian Culture ? By stripping others from there
human rights and adapt to a system that has not respected those that
were here before you ?
> Specifically, look at some Indians (from India) who must wear a turbin as part
>of their religion, we obliged although there is supposed to be some "separation
>between state and religion". We altered the standard military and RCMP uniform to
>include a turbin. I am also willing to bet that Indians do not get the required hair
>cut either. I think that if you are so devouted to your religion you should choose
>not to become part of the military or RCMP. This is just one example of how we get
>trampled on. Come on over, bring your culture and way of life with you, we'll adapt
>to your way of life, don't bother making any changes, we'll surely oblige you.
Strange that it was find to tramp over others before and now when the
knife turns in your back, you don't like it. There are thousand of
court cases where natives lost because you legal system said the might
was right, and that nativea up to 1952 could not even hire lawyers to
fight for land claims in Canada.
Maybe its time Canaians look inside their own house and see that they
do not have such a wonderfull history them selfs when it comes to
human rights.
G-Man
Larry McLean wrote:
>
> rob...@maloca.com wrote:
> >
> > My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
> > All summer he has been looking for a job.
> > people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
> > in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
> > males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
> > any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a decade!!!
> > What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
> > Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a backlash?
> > And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
> > and can not hire?
> >
I had the same experience about 10 years ago when I was considering applying to the
RCMP. I met with a recruiting officer and he told me that I had to meet one of the
following criteria: visual minority (black, native, asian etc...)
female
university education
He told me that unless I had previous police experience or a criminolgy background
that I basically had no chance of being accepted.
It works both ways...I know of someone (he is half black) who went to Regina (boot
camp) and was sent home under questionable circumstances (his words). His race may
have helped to get him in but it may also have played a part in getting him out.
york...@sympaticon.ca
On 5 Aug 1997 15:30:02 GMT, bro...@students.uiuc.edu (blair patrick
bromley) wrote:
>However, my guess is that in a comparison to the rest of the world,
>Canadians are relatively tolerant and fair to people of different
>backgrounds. I don't think you could say that Canadians are more
>"racist" than people of other nations.
To say that "Canada is a racist nation" is to render impotent the
meaning of the word "racist". If *Canadians* are racist, then you'd
better invent a new word (for the American south and Japan for
example).
Dave B.
york...@sympaticon.ca
On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:27:13 GMT, fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere)
wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 11:14:03 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe I'm (EXAMPLE) pissed off because people move to my country and expect to live
>>by their own rules, they want to keep their former culture and igonore mine (whatever
>>can be called Canadian culture).
>
>Gee you make a never interest pont here. Lets see some time back
>around the year 1500 your anccestors came here and did just that to
>the naitve people that lived here then and now and you have totally
>ignored there land claims, treaties, rights and even took away there
>right to be a nation, by passing a law that made then Canadian
>Citizens with out even asking them.
So you agree that it is wrong to let newcomers in who want to set up
parallel cultures and respect the existing culture.
>>They refuse to adapt to the existing Canadian way of
>>life.
>
>This makes up a Canadian Culture ? By stripping others from there
>human rights and adapt to a system that has not respected those that
>were here before you ?
I'm waiting first for the Iroquois to recompense the Hurons and the
Sioux to recompense the Apache for taking over large tracts of land.
>Maybe its time Canaians look inside their own house and see that they
>do not have such a wonderfull history them selfs when it comes to
>human rights.
That does not change the point. Is is good for Canada to allow others
to set up parallel cultures? Is unity and cohesiveness important? What
happens when the centre (at which all these groups are clawing) gives
way?
James H. Steiger
para...@nospam.bc1.com (Someone) wrote:
>In article <33e6326f...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>, James H. Steiger
>(ste...@unixg.ubc.ca) analyzed carefully the situation and wrote...
>>
>The problem, my dear professor, is that in sports it's quite easy
>to discern who's a good player and who's bad; even when team play
>is required, it is also obvious when the team is leaving some player
>aside.
>
>Why? Because it's open to the public, and because the results are
>simple to understand : score or not score, the game ends in a few
>minutes and we know the results.
>
>In the world of businesses and employment, it's not the same.
>
>Deals are made behind closed doors, and a good "player" can easily
>be put aside if the team does not feel comfortable with his or her
>accent, skin colour, religion, etc.
All of these assertions are wrong. First, evaluation of player
quality in sports is neither clear-cut nor simple. For example,
consider the most recent issue of Sports Illustrated, which
declared Tony Gwynn "the best hitter since Ted Williams." This
label was based on his batting average, which most knowledgeable
baseball statisticians is vastly inferior to several other indicators
of offensive productivity.
Similar comments hold for basketball, and any other team-oriented
sport.
>The results aren't easily understood by the "great public" and can't
>be evaluated after just a few minutes.
>
>Consider this: big corporations are overwhelmingly white and male.
>Whenever a top notch female and/or coloured executive is promoted,
>some of the white males who have to work under this person's
>supervision won't feel comfortable.
>
Ignorant racist assertion. I feel perfectly comfortable working
under anyone who is qualified to supervise me. On the other hand,
if someone with suboptimal qualifications is forced into a position
of authority, I might feel uncomfortable, and have every reason to.
>Therefore, the CEOs and directors feel that whatever good is done to
>the company by promoting a capable coloured/female is outweighed by
>the harm caused by some other also good employees feeling uncomfortable
>-and probably lowering productivity and even leaving the company.
Vivid imagination. A frequently voiced fantasy of anti-"white"
racists.
>
>Once a group has the reins of power in its hands, that group won't let
>those reins go easily, and they're going to fight to the death before
>even accepting they have a clear advantage, at least for starters.
>
Standard politically correct cliche. How many thousands of times have
I read the one about "patriarchal males refusing to relinquish the
*reins* of power."
>>It is, in fact, the assumption that representation in "numbers
>>equivalent to their proportion in the population" is indicative
>>of anything, or necessary for anything, that is, well, inane.
>
>About as inane as your comparison of business and sports.
>
Actually, if you knew anything about business, you would know that
there are very substantial analogies between team sports and the world
of business. If you had ever rowed competitively in an 8-oared
shell, where intense timing, incredible endurance, and complete
mutual trust are all necessary ingredients, and where the phrase
"a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" is stunningly
appropriate, you would realize something. Promoting someone with
suboptimal (objectively determined!) qualifications on the bogus
(totally unproven) grounds that this advances the greater good of
society creates a non-competitive society.
is li
>Well, you know what happens when a large (and growing) sector of the
>population is under-represented, discriminated against, and mistreated?
>
>Choose: police state, or gradual opening of opportunities to these
>people.
>
>( Ah... capabilities! I can almost hear the voice protesting that
>if it happens those "groups" are not capable enough, then they're
>rightly kept in the gutter. Didn't the Greeks and Romans call your
>ancestors "bar-bars" because they thought they didn't have the gift
>of speech and they could only bark? Of course, no "bar-bar" could
>ever aspire to having much power in the Empire, until much later.
>But then those Romans, great warriors that they used to be, grew
>fed and soft... One day, those inferior "bar-bars" realized there
>was only one way to prove they were as capable as any Roman. )
>
Again, a bogus analogy. I know of no one (not a *soul*) in my line of
work who has ever made such an assertion. What we do, my dear
non-professor, is give exams. Everyone has an identical chance.
And the fact is, if, by the time you are 22 years old, you cannot
perform competitively, you really have nobody to blame but yourself.
There are thousands before you who overcame incredible odds and were
able to perform. Quit whining, and start performing.
Besides, if you bother to read the writings of politically correct
types, they've long ago given up the premise that reverse
discrimination is fair. They recognize that it is not "fair,"
that it, more often than not, results in the promotion of some
less-capable (and often socioeconomically privileged) minority member
over some no-more-privileged (and often less) "white" person.
>>>
>>> Is my culture going to benefit from another WASP Banker?
>>>Probably not.
>>
>>That, my dear fellow, IS racism.
>
>But probably yes, then. The characteristic of "-isms" is that they
>don't use "probably". :)
Non sequitur. The most subtle racisms all use "probably."
>
>>>Is my culture going to benefit from a... Hare Krishna
>>>(EXAMPLE) banker? Probably, as such an experience is mind-expanding and
>>>indispensable. Think about it.
>>
>>In much the same way that the Vancouver Grizzlies would "benefit"
>>if the Canadian Government forced them to start at least one Asian to
>>achieve the proper "balance" for their "community."
>
>You can't put society in the same level with sports, and still pretend
>to live in a "civilization." If life where total competition, only the
>"best" individual or group keeping all powers, then we'd live in state
>of continuous open war.
>
The above sentence was incoherent. Try rewriting. A few less cliches,
a bit more thought. In fact, life is very much like sports. And it is
*very* competitive. Promoting those of a particular race on the
grounds that they are automatically disadvantaged has already been
discredited, and in fact is itself racism. The fallback position that
while unfair, reverse discrimination somehow helps society is equally
bankrupt. If the principle holds in medicine, where excellence may
well hold the key to our future survival (after a few interesting
viruses go through one more mutation), it *should* also hold in
basketball, a far *less* serious activity. The fact is, in basketball,
where the outcome occurs within a 2 hour time frame, it is clear that
one cannot afford reverse discrimination, and nobody would tolerate it
for a minute. In medicine, the outcome is played out in a much
lengthier time frame, but the consequences are far *more* significant.
The human race can no more afford reverse discrimination in academics
than the Vancouver Grizzlies can afford it in basketball.
>>It certainly *would* be a "mind expanding" experience!!
>>
>>What I love about politically correct types is their utter
>>inability to think logically while repeating the same tiresome
>>cliches over and over.
>
>Which I love about politically incorrect types is how they never
>realize that they respond to cliches with cliches.
>
>Where have the thinking individuals gone? Ou sont les neiges d'antan?
Clearly not to your neck of the woods.
G-Man
Frosty Deere wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 11:14:03 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Maybe I'm (EXAMPLE) pissed off because people move to my country and expect to live
> >by their own rules, they want to keep their former culture and igonore mine (whatever
> >can be called Canadian culture).
>
> Gee you make a never interest pont here. Lets see some time back
> around the year 1500 your anccestors came here and did just that to
> the naitve people that lived here then and now and you have totally
> ignored there land claims, treaties, rights and even took away there
> right to be a nation, by passing a law that made then Canadian
> Citizens with out even asking them.
>
> >life.
>
> This makes up a Canadian Culture ? By stripping others from there
> human rights and adapt to a system that has not respected those that
> were here before you ?
>
> >of their religion, we obliged although there is supposed to be some "separation
> >between state and religion". We altered the standard military and RCMP uniform to
> >include a turbin. I am also willing to bet that Indians do not get the required hair
> >cut either. I think that if you are so devouted to your religion you should choose
> >not to become part of the military or RCMP. This is just one example of how we get
> >trampled on. Come on over, bring your culture and way of life with you, we'll adapt
> >to your way of life, don't bother making any changes, we'll surely oblige you.
>
> Strange that it was find to tramp over others before and now when the
> knife turns in your back, you don't like it. There are thousand of
> court cases where natives lost because you legal system said the might
> was right, and that nativea up to 1952 could not even hire lawyers to
> fight for land claims in Canada.
>
> do not have such a wonderfull history them selfs when it comes to
> human rights.
If you want to get to the point, the white men (and women) who came here to Canada in
the 1500's took advantage of uneducated, naive natives. There was some bloodshed, but
most of what was taken was not taken by force, most of it was taken by negotiation
and treaties that remain in effect today. There are still arguments about
interpretations of some of the treaties, but nonetheless, most of the acts were
peaceful. Canada is the only nation on earth born out of treaty and negotiation and
not full fledged war. Most other nations' lands that were seized were taken by force,
there were no rights given to existing inhabitants (assuming they weren't completely
slaughtered). Although you may disagree, the natives of Canada are the best treated
indiginous (sp ?) people on the planet.
I want to know how long does ones ancestors have to be here in order for one to be a
native of a land. I was born here, not somewhere else, doesn't that make me a native
to Canada ?? Why is someone else receiving special treatment that I can't get, only
because their ancestors were here before mine ????
york...@sympaticon.ca
On 5 Aug 1997 01:38:15 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
>The people express
>their wishes in a number of ways, including at the ballot box. As I
>have already said, this happened two years ago in Ontario, when white
>males voted very heavily for the Progressive Conservatives, trusting
>that thery would end affirmative action the provincial level. They
>did.
And there was not a whimper of protest.
Dave Warren
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 18:00:07 GMT, york...@sympaticon.ca wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 15:14:02 GMT, fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere)
>wrote:
>
>>But if you read the messages about the Refrom Party Drawing the Lines,
>>yes Canada is becoming very racist. Its very clear cut they would
>>like us all to become one nations, one langauge, one race and one
>>anything else they can single out, then maybe that is the highest
>>number when it comes to their IQ.
>
>It is my understanding that the Reform Party wishes to abolish
>official multiculturalism.
>
>Official multiculturalism exacerbates our now race-obsessed land; it
>is a subtle form of apartheid.
>
>We need unity in this country, not more hyphenated Canadians who are
>officially encouraged to associate themselves with and strengthen
>these links with, their previous country of residence.
>
>Dave B.
>
>
>*************************
>
>To reply, remove the n from my email address.
For some of the morons I see the government lets into this country who do
nothing (live on welfare, criminals, don't learn english/french) I think there
needs to be a crack down on people who don't serve a purpose in Canada.
------------------------------------------------------------
DMW Software Solutions (Computer Tutoring)
Email: dwa...@golden.net | Dave Warren 1:221/1000 (Fidonet)
Http://www.golden.net/~dwarren
Serving: Southern Ontario Region
ICQ #: 1036310
Someone
In article <33e6326f...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>, James H. Steiger
(ste...@unixg.ubc.ca) analyzed carefully the situation and wrote...
>
>capabilities (or lack of same) of Asians accounts for their
>non-representation in the NBA must also be racist. Hmmmm.
The problem, my dear professor, is that in sports it's quite easy
to discern who's a good player and who's bad; even when team play
is required, it is also obvious when the team is leaving some player
aside.
Why? Because it's open to the public, and because the results are
simple to understand : score or not score, the game ends in a few
minutes and we know the results.
In the world of businesses and employment, it's not the same.
Deals are made behind closed doors, and a good "player" can easily
be put aside if the team does not feel comfortable with his or her
accent, skin colour, religion, etc.
The results aren't easily understood by the "great public" and can't
be evaluated after just a few minutes.
Consider this: big corporations are overwhelmingly white and male.
Whenever a top notch female and/or coloured executive is promoted,
some of the white males who have to work under this person's
supervision won't feel comfortable.
Therefore, the CEOs and directors feel that whatever good is done to
the company by promoting a capable coloured/female is outweighed by
the harm caused by some other also good employees feeling uncomfortable
-and probably lowering productivity and even leaving the company.
Once a group has the reins of power in its hands, that group won't let
those reins go easily, and they're going to fight to the death before
even accepting they have a clear advantage, at least for starters.
>It is, in fact, the assumption that representation in "numbers
>equivalent to their proportion in the population" is indicative
>of anything, or necessary for anything, that is, well, inane.
About as inane as your comparison of business and sports.
Well, you know what happens when a large (and growing) sector of the
population is under-represented, discriminated against, and mistreated?
Choose: police state, or gradual opening of opportunities to these
people.
( Ah... capabilities! I can almost hear the voice protesting that
if it happens those "groups" are not capable enough, then they're
rightly kept in the gutter. Didn't the Greeks and Romans call your
ancestors "bar-bars" because they thought they didn't have the gift
of speech and they could only bark? Of course, no "bar-bar" could
ever aspire to having much power in the Empire, until much later.
But then those Romans, great warriors that they used to be, grew
fed and soft... One day, those inferior "bar-bars" realized there
was only one way to prove they were as capable as any Roman. )
>>
>> Is my culture going to benefit from another WASP Banker?
>>Probably not.
>
>That, my dear fellow, IS racism.
But probably yes, then. The characteristic of "-isms" is that they
don't use "probably". :)
>>Is my culture going to benefit from a... Hare Krishna
>>(EXAMPLE) banker? Probably, as such an experience is mind-expanding and
>>indispensable. Think about it.
>
>In much the same way that the Vancouver Grizzlies would "benefit"
>if the Canadian Government forced them to start at least one Asian to
>achieve the proper "balance" for their "community."
You can't put society in the same level with sports, and still pretend
to live in a "civilization." If life where total competition, only the
"best" individual or group keeping all powers, then we'd live in state
of continuous open war.
>It certainly *would* be a "mind expanding" experience!!
>
>What I love about politically correct types is their utter
>inability to think logically while repeating the same tiresome
>cliches over and over.
Which I love about politically incorrect types is how they never
realize that they respond to cliches with cliches.
Where have the thinking individuals gone? Ou sont les neiges d'antan?
-Someone.
G-Man
> Is this racism? Is it "creating... hate" to attempt to ensure
> that different cultures and races are represented in numbers equivalent
> to their actual portion of the population? I don't think so.
>
> It may be a stupid way to do things, yes. It may be back-firing
> on itself, yes. But it is not racism.
>
> Racism is caused by people who blame Egyptians (EXAMPLE) for the
> is trying to do its best to restitute minorities who face daily subtle and
> pervasive attempts to belittle their culture and beliefs by promising them
> a niche to preserve their values.
>
> It may be racist to deny them this. It may be racist to ay
> "Sorry, your culture, represented in this country by 13,000
> (HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER) refugees, has to compete with modern Western Culture
> (OXYMORON) without aid. SO long, thanx for the neat food."
>
> (EXAMPLE) banker? Probably, as such an experience is mind-expanding and
> indispensable. Think about it.
Maybe I'm (EXAMPLE) pissed off because people move to my country and expect to live
by their own rules, they want to keep their former culture and igonore mine (whatever
can be called Canadian culture). They refuse to adapt to the existing Canadian way of
life. Specifically, look at some Indians (from India) who must wear a turbin as part
blair patrick bromley
Canada definitely has some people in it who harbor racist attitudes;
some even allow their racist attitudes and prejudices to manifest
themselves in the form of unfair discrimination, libel, and slander.
However, my guess is that in a comparison to the rest of the world,
Canadians are relatively tolerant and fair to people of different
backgrounds. I don't think you could say that Canadians are more
"racist" than people of other nations.
Blair
--
Blair P. Bromley "The future of humanity lies in the exploration
Fusion Studies Laboratory and development of space. If humans choose to
103 S. Goodwin Avenue ignore the challenge and opportunity of space,
Urbana, Illinois, 61801 then they will condemn themselves to a mediocre
blair patrick bromley
york...@sympaticon.ca writes:
>On 5 Aug 1997 15:30:02 GMT, bro...@students.uiuc.edu (blair patrick
>bromley) wrote:
>>However, my guess is that in a comparison to the rest of the world,
>>Canadians are relatively tolerant and fair to people of different
>>backgrounds. I don't think you could say that Canadians are more
>>"racist" than people of other nations.
>To say that "Canada is a racist nation" is to render impotent the
>meaning of the word "racist". If *Canadians* are racist, then you'd
>better invent a new word (for the American south and Japan for
>example).
Yep, but don't just single out these parts of the world; try eastern
Europe, the former Soviet republics, the Middle East, China, etc. etc..
Blair
>Dave B.
>*************************
>To reply, remove the n from my email address.
James H. Steiger
crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick) wrote:
>Another factor that is not mentioned in the original post is that
>down-sizing has been taking place in the six major Canadian banks.
>This means that employees of all colours with M.B.A's have been
>let go by them over the past several years.
Why does that necessarily follow? More important would be
the question of whether there has been discrimination in
the downsizing phase.
An example. St. Bonaventure University decided to downsize. All
people let go were white male senior professors. This was explicitly
justified on the grounds of "maintaining equity objectives." Weren't
you informed about this?
For someone who (see below) claims to have an unassailable supply
of facts, seems like you're getting off on the wrong foot.
>Please! We have had discriminatory practices for years! Just look at
>the numbers and you'll see who has been getting hired and promoted!
>
Actually, we have had discriminatory practices. A recent article by
Andrew Irvine tracks hiring data at Canadian universities, and
concludes that there has been a definite, demonstrable bias in favor
of female candidates for 20 years.
>Whites have been doing disproportionately well for decades!
One might say that blacks have been doing "disproportionately well" in
the NBA for decades. Short people have been doing "disproportionately
well" in horseracing for decades. Fat people are underrepresented at
the Olympics in most events.
You must carefully define what you mean by "disproportionately well,"
or the statement is certainly meaningless. Very few statistical
analyses of "proportionality" even begin to look at performance data.
>Your problem isn't with discriminatory hiring pracrtices. It is with
>those hiring practices that don't continue to favour whites.
Nothing in his post indicated that. You are projecting. What I infer
about *your* motivation is that you are in favor of continuing
practices that openly discriminate against whites. Your rather
pedantic and superficial response to the gentleman's posting
(a concerned parent is clearly in pain and expressing that
pain, and your response is to be completely insensitive
and pedantic) indicates that probably you've never been passed over in
favor of a totally unqualified, upper middle class minority member who
just happened to fit an appropriate quota. I'm happy for you.
>(The P.C's also promised to scrap photo radar - which was unpopular
>*only* because it was too good at catching people - and
>slash welfare payments and taxes, so that it is difficult to know how
>important a part employment equity played in their victory.
Nonsense, Nonsense. Photo radar was unpopular for a whole range of
reasons. One reason is that allows one to be convicted, with
no real chance of appeal, by a machine. It reminds me vaguely of
what happened to me during a visit to South Africa in 1983. I received
a ridiculous phone bill for several hundred dollars. Long distance
bills were not itemized in South Africa. The bill simply said "3045
message units."
I had made only one long distance call for a few minutes, and the
phone had a lock on it. I protested, but was told that there were
no protests. If I wanted, I could have the phone removed. It would
then take about a year to get a new one installed. Well, I paid.
Photo radar is a lot like that.
Is that example simple enough for you?
But there are many other reasons. Check out the SENSE web site.
>
>Please, don't tell me I don't have my facts straight. I specialise in
>getting them right. Disagree with my opinions all you like.
Seems to me your main specialty is an extremely unwarranted arrogance.
Most of what you said was opinion. However, your grasp of "facts"
in the case of reverse discrimination is clearly VERY superficial,
based on the typical, lamebrained analysis of "proportional
representation" that deduces prejudice on the basis of a whole range
of premises that have never been subject to empirical analysis.
I'll most certainly feel free to disagree with you. Many analyses
presented in the feminist literature do not even take into account the
number of applications from men and women. For example, if there are
120 Male Ph.D.'s in a field and 9 women, and 28 men and 7 women get
jobs, does that mean there is "discrimination against women?" Well, in
the wild and wacky world of feminist statistical analysis, it does.
Frosty Deere
On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 16:48:15 GMT, york...@sympaticon.ca wrote:
>So you agree that it is wrong to let newcomers in who want to set up
>parallel cultures and respect the existing culture.
Parallel where in things are repected that you follow your way life
and we can live side by side but not change boats.
>
>>>They refuse to adapt to the existing Canadian way of
>>>life.
>>
>>This makes up a Canadian Culture ? By stripping others from there
>>human rights and adapt to a system that has not respected those that
>>were here before you ?
>
>I'm waiting first for the Iroquois to recompense the Hurons and the
>Sioux to recompense the Apache for taking over large tracts of land.
Well If the present dominating people would respect the treaties the
signed most of these lands would in fact be returned but that is not
possible and we both know that, to much time has passed.
But its no a question of returning land, its a question of returning
one right to live has the creator put them here, and no man has that
right to take someone culture, relgion, language because they feel the
have such a right because of there numbers and legal system.
Frosty Deere
>
> Canada definitely has some people in it who harbor racist attitudes;
>some even allow their racist attitudes and prejudices to manifest
>themselves in the form of unfair discrimination, libel, and slander.
Do you think this is growing large in size, or is it more people are
begining to come out and say what they feel ?
>However, my guess is that in a comparison to the rest of the world,
>Canadians are relatively tolerant and fair to people of different
>backgrounds. I don't think you could say that Canadians are more
>"racist" than people of other nations.
I have to agree, there are places much more racist than Canada.. But
it would seem that some polictical parties are starting to push
peoples buttons about race more and more each day, and when it move to
the level of government, its time to take a close look at what and who
are behind these people.
Frosty Deere
On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:32:45 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
>If you want to get to the point, the white men (and women) who came here to Canada in
>the 1500's took advantage of uneducated, naive natives. There was some bloodshed, but
>most of what was taken was not taken by force, most of it was taken by negotiation
>and treaties that remain in effect today. There are still arguments about
>interpretations of some of the treaties, but nonetheless, most of the acts were
>peaceful. Canada is the only nation on earth born out of treaty and negotiation and
>not full fledged war. Most other nations' lands that were seized were taken by force,
>there were no rights given to existing inhabitants (assuming they weren't completely
>slaughtered). Although you may disagree, the natives of Canada are the best treated
>indiginous (sp ?) people on the planet.
Yes I disagree and here are some more reasons as to why.
Who are the Cree ? Well they are ( were ) hunters and lived
off the land that was about to flooded by Quebec. They had trap lines
and large areas of land they have call home before the European even
came to this land. So what was this Hydro thing all about ?
Well to find out then needed to go to a courtroom in Montreal.
The city was a strange place for them and looking at stairs
that moved without you taking a step was odd. Then there was these
little rooms that you got into and doors would close and would carry
to up to the top of someplace above the earth.
These were beautiful people, honest people and now they were in
court room to find out how they lived and what the effect of a flood
would be to their lives.
I hope to show you what some of those effect might have been
and how they came about.
Remember that Hydro is the Key to Quebec's Seperation and
coffers when it comes to exporting a product and bringing in large
amounts of money.
The government told the people of Quebec that the building of
the Dam's would produce 125,000 jobs but that never happened and in
fact only hired about 23,000. So they even pulled the wool you might
say over the non-natives eyes.
What was this court case about that took almost a half a year ?
Was it to allow the Cree to fight the government to stop the
construction. No!
Was it to get more money ? No!
It was to prove if the work already done had indeed effected
their lives and would future work do the same enough to stop working
on it Needing to prove this was nothing more that a govenment using it
power over people and in this case the Cree.
Frosty Deere
On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:32:45 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
>If you want to get to the point, the white men (and women) who came here to Canada in
>the 1500's took advantage of uneducated, naive natives. There was some bloodshed, but
>most of what was taken was not taken by force, most of it was taken by negotiation
>and treaties that remain in effect today. There are still arguments about
>interpretations of some of the treaties, but nonetheless, most of the acts were
>peaceful. Canada is the only nation on earth born out of treaty and negotiation and
>not full fledged war. Most other nations' lands that were seized were taken by force,
>there were no rights given to existing inhabitants (assuming they weren't completely
>slaughtered). Although you may disagree, the natives of Canada are the best treated
>indiginous (sp ?) people on the planet.
Still pounding away at the keys and here are more facts.
Did you know that in Oct 7, 1763, the Royal Proclamation sought
to deal with the problem of Indian unrest in the west. It was at this
time that Nova Scotia annexed all the area the French had known as
Acadia.
Did you know on May 19, 1781 the Chippewas ceded
Michikimackinac I. to the British for L.5,000.
Did you know that on May 9, 1790 the Ottawa, Chippewas,
pottawatamies and huron ceded two million acres in Ontario to Britain.
Did you know that the Jay Treaty was concluded between the
British and the U.S., effective July 1. 1794. The British were to
withdraw from interior posts, principally Detriot, Grand Portage and
Michilimac, which became U.S., property. Both wold have the right to
pass freely over the internation boundary. This treaty is the heart
of the Iroquois argument over the transfer of goods from American to
Canadian reservations. It has been repeated that such trade and
transfer of goods in not summgling but in fact is the law under this
treaty. Only when they sit down as a nation to nation can anything be
settled. But instead the Canadian govrnment perfers to just pass laws
to remove the freedom of the native people.
Did you know that on Sept 7, 1796, Chippewas ceded 220,000
acres of land in Upper Canada to Britain in Middlesex, Oxford and
Lambton Counties.
Did you know that on Aug 1, 1805 the Mississauga Indins ceded
250,000 acres in York county in Upper Canada. and again in on Sept 6.
1806 they ceded another 85,000 acres in Peep anf Halton in Upper
Canada.
Did you that on Nov, 23, 1815 once again the Chipewas ceded
250,000 acres of land to Upper Canada.
I am beginning to wonder about this word "ceded", has nothing
more than to mean stolen or taken with little or nothing in return.
Did you no that on Oct 17 1817 the Chippewas ceded 1,500,000
acres in Dyfferen and that on Oct 28, of the same year the Mississauga
ceded 650,000 acres, then in Nov 5, the Chippewas ceded 1,900,000.
Did you know that on Nov 28, 1822 the Mississauga indians ceded
another 2,748,000 acres of land.
Did you know that on July 1, 1860 the control on Indian Affairs
was transfered to Canada. ( I don't where it was transfer from. )
G-Man
> you quotes
>
> >If you want to get to the point, the white men (and women) who came here to Canada in
> >the 1500's took advantage of uneducated, naive natives. There was some bloodshed, but
> >most of what was taken was not taken by force, most of it was taken by negotiation
> >and treaties that remain in effect today.
>
> into thin air. The Beotuk were hunted like animals right up till the
> end and I do not have the dates but it was not that far back in
> history. The smallpox blankets given to natives may not have been
> bullets but still it was killer. Taking children away and placing
> them in schools and forced to speak English or French right up till
> the mid 1940's is all documented.
Millions..let's get that one cleared up first, there weren't "millions" of natives
across the entire North America. Yes. I agree that disease killed many, but this was
not intentional. You might also remember we are talking Canada here, not the US. You
might also remember that white man came here to conquer the new world for their King
or Queen. Usually, when a nation is conqered, the remaining inhabitants aren't given
anything !
> >There are still arguments about
> >interpretations of some of the treaties, but nonetheless, most of the acts were
> >peaceful.
>
> When you have a loaded gun place to your head, yes its peacful
I'd say that the natives of Canada did a lot better than most. The land could have
been seized and ALL natives could have been eradicated as was the case in many other
conquered societies
> >Canada is the only nation on earth born out of treaty and negotiation and
> >not full fledged war. Most other nations' lands that were seized were taken by force,
>
> Force, key word... Meaning what, that just because the Europeans that
> landed here felt because the Church and Kings told them that they were
> surperior, they had the right to take land, rape, kill and burn those
> that would not accept their religon and way of life ?
>
> >there were no rights given to existing inhabitants (assuming they weren't completely
> >slaughtered). Although you may disagree, the natives of Canada are the best treated
> >indiginous (sp ?) people on the planet.
>
> If this were true, then explain how ? Explain why natives have been
> fight year after year to get what belongs to them, and that includes
> land never give or sold.
The fact that they are here to fight and have the right to fight is one major
explanation ! Everyone in everyday life has to put up a fight sometime. I agree that
members of some races have to struggle much harder, but life isn't perfect for
anyone. I resent the fact that I pay over half of my paycheque back to the government
in the form of all kinds of different taxes and natives do not and they still bitch
and complain about their treatment.
> One someone walks into your house and steals a painting, and a hundred
> years later it is found, its still your painting.
Depends on your view of the law, there are statutes of limitations !
> When the Europeans
> came here they took land, that is stealing and in any court of land
> anything that is stolen is returned. Thats is, as long as it is not
> in the courts of those that did the stealing.
Treaty after treaty says it's all of our land now !
> >I want to know how long does ones ancestors have to be here in order for one to be a
> >native of a land. I was born here, not somewhere else, doesn't that make me a native
> >to Canada ??
> That makes you a native European, but that does not make you an Native
> Indian.
>
I wasn't born in Europe, I was born and raised right here, in Canada. I have
absolutely no affiliation with Europe at all.
By your logic, we are all natives then...after all, the ancestors of native North
Americans started in the same place as all other humanoid life on earth !!!
> > Why is someone else receiving special treatment that I can't get, only
> >because their ancestors were here before mine ????
>
> Like what ? I know you are going to bring up TAX, well that is cost
> of the RENT you are paying for land you leased when you European
> ancestor but that is not the question of this thread, racism is and I
> will still to that.
G-Man
> you and many others where taught was that you were good Canadians and
> the history books you got in school was what the government wanted you
> to know. These books were written by non-natives and always told a
> one sided story.
Yes, we all know that history is written by the victors.....which is my point
entirely. My ancestors were the victors, which in just about any other time in
history would mean that the losers would be enslaved and have no rights. Please
remember that we are talking about events that started 500 years ago at which time my
ancestors were also being persecuted for their religion. That's why so many came to
North America in the first place. They did something about the injustices they
perceived. But, I had absolutely nothing to do with their actions, I can't change the
past, I can only live my own life and impact the present. I think native Canadians
should stop living in the past, stop bitching and complaining and get on with
life....it's far too short to be crying foul all the time.
Barry Bruyea
fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere) wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:32:45 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
Please excuse me for deleting much of the original points and reply to
you quotes
If you want to get to the point, the white men (and women) who came here
to Canada in
the 1500's took advantage of uneducated, naive natives. There was some
bloodshed, but
most of what was taken was not taken by force, most of it was taken by
negotiation
and treaties that remain in effect today.
And the Iroquois committed virtual genocide on the Hurons. The Mohegans
were almost wiped out by the Iroquois federation. The Apache's drove
the Yaqui out of Arizona and New Mexico. The Sioux drove other tribes out
of the Black Hills and claimed them as there own. The Cree almost wiped
out the Assiniboine.
Lets face it, it was not a good time to be alive.
Frosty Deere
On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 10:09:45 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
>It wasn't just the native population, blacks were also housed next to dumps and
>landfills and continue to live near unsuitable areas. In 1946 the US still had
>segregated schools...hell, right up to the 1970's. I'm not trying to say that none of
>what you say has happened, I'm not denying your version of history. What I am saying
>is that I'm pissed because you are trying to lay all of what happened in the last 500
>years on my shoulders, I'm not responsible for what white men did 500 years ago or
>100 years ago. North America was taken from natives, some by treaty, some by
>force...that's just the way it is. The Romans took a lot of land throughout history
>(the inhabitants of these lands were slaughtered and/or enslaved). Land continues to
>be taken from societies around the globe, some by force...unfortunately, that's life.
>I'm just observing that compared to most, the natives of North America made out
>better than other invaded nations.
We are not talking about groups of people like African's that were
brought here as slaves, we are talking about nations of native people
that signed treaties and the only promise the government ever kept was
to break the all. But the native people did not break them and so
they are still legal documents.
Do you think that someone can close there eyes and say racism doesn't
exist ? No the native problem does still exist in Canada, and the
government know this, and after years of pushing the legal rights of
native people under the rug, its not going to wash anymore.
Europe was invaded, but we do not see these countries ruled by the
United States, Germany lost the war, but they still have there country
and government. No one after the war, said now you have to learn a new
language and culture. The same thing for Japan, They lost and no one
said "okay get out or put the people on reservations. Only in North
America did they do that, and even then they took away what belonged
to these people.
But the topic is is racism alive in Canada, and if you want to take it
personal, that is your problem. I am only pointing out that when it
comes to the native people in Canada it is still alive and living.
We still see today hunting and fish battles in courts. So get the
idea that we are talking about 500 years ago and as person that votes
you can change things with your government, whereas the native can
not.
Doug
Frosty Deere wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:32:45 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Please excuse me for deleting much of the original points and reply to
> you quotes
>
> >If you want to get to the point, the white men (and women) who came here to Canada in
> >the 1500's took advantage of uneducated, naive natives. There was some bloodshed, but
> >most of what was taken was not taken by force, most of it was taken by negotiation
> >and treaties that remain in effect today.
>
> into thin air. The Beotuk were hunted like animals right up till the
> end and I do not have the dates but it was not that far back in
> history. The smallpox blankets given to natives may not have been
> bullets but still it was killer. Taking children away and placing
> them in schools and forced to speak English or French right up till
> the mid 1940's is all documented.
This is completely irrelevant. Trying to judge previous governments
and behaviors by todays social codes is like saying all people were
idiots becuase they didn't know the earth was round in ancient Greece.
> >There are still arguments about
> >interpretations of some of the treaties, but nonetheless, most of the acts were
> >peaceful.
>
> When you have a loaded gun place to your head, yes its peacful
>
> >Canada is the only nation on earth born out of treaty and negotiation and
> >not full fledged war. Most other nations' lands that were seized were taken by force,
>
> Force, key word... Meaning what, that just because the Europeans that
> landed here felt because the Church and Kings told them that they were
> surperior, they had the right to take land, rape, kill and burn those
> that would not accept their religon and way of life ?
In that historical time frame, *yes*! Its rather inane to suggest
otherwise. And don't forget, the natives were doing their own killing
and fighting as well, what happened was that the immence loss of native
life was due to the fact the the Europeans were very efficent killers
that had technology on their side. If the reverse had been true the
shoe would have been on the other foot.
> >there were no rights given to existing inhabitants (assuming they weren't completely
> >slaughtered). Although you may disagree, the natives of Canada are the best treated
> >indiginous (sp ?) people on the planet.
>
> If this were true, then explain how ? Explain why natives have been
> fight year after year to get what belongs to them, and that includes
> land never give or sold.
>
> One someone walks into your house and steals a painting, and a hundred
> years later it is found, its still your painting. When the Europeans
> came here they took land, that is stealing and in any court of land
> anything that is stolen is returned. Thats is, as long as it is not
> in the courts of those that did the stealing.
What utter horseshit! do you thing the Scots that were thrown off
their land during the displacements and in some cases starved to death
could now go back and claim the land again? The only reason the natives
in Canada get such attention is because of the racism industry and
attempts to judge previous generations and decisions by todays standards
and a refusal to accept the fact that as one Swedish anthropologist
points out "If a culture cannot adapt it will die". In Canada, we'll
bankrupt ourselves and demolish our own culture to see another survive
regardless of its suitability to present day reality. If you went back
to the time in which these conflicts took place the choice would be
simple for the natives adapt our way of live or die. Hell, the british
used precisely the same concept in Culloden.
> >I want to know how long does ones ancestors have to be here in order for one to be a
> >native of a land. I was born here, not somewhere else, doesn't that make me a native
> >to Canada ??
> That makes you a native European, but that does not make you an Native
> Indian.
Being born here makes me a native European????????? I suggest you
check the meaning of the word.
> > Why is someone else receiving special treatment that I can't get, only
> >because their ancestors were here before mine ????
>
> Like what ? I know you are going to bring up TAX, well that is cost
> of the RENT you are paying for land you leased when you European
> ancestor but that is not the question of this thread, racism is and I
> will still to that.
Has nothing to do with it. Am I more Canadian than a recent immigrant?
Should I get special dispensation because *I* was born here and he
wasn't? Talk about a class society. You don't mind racism as long as
you benefit from it.
ALE...@interlog.con
G-Man wrote:
>
> Frosty Deere wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:32:45 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please excuse me for deleting much of the original points and reply to
> > you quotes
> >
> > >If you want to get to the point, the white men (and women) who came here to Canada in
> > >the 1500's took advantage of uneducated, naive natives. There was some bloodshed, but
> > >most of what was taken was not taken by force, most of it was taken by negotiation
> > >and treaties that remain in effect today.
> >
> > There was a lot of bloodshed. Millions of people do not just vanish
> > into thin air. The Beotuk were hunted like animals right up till the
> > end and I do not have the dates but it was not that far back in
> > history. The smallpox blankets given to natives may not have been
> > bullets but still it was killer. Taking children away and placing
> > them in schools and forced to speak English or French right up till
> > the mid 1940's is all documented.
>
> across the entire North America. Yes. I agree that disease killed many, but this was
> not intentional. You might also remember we are talking Canada here, not the US. You
> might also remember that white man came here to conquer the new world for their King
> or Queen. Usually, when a nation is conqered, the remaining inhabitants aren't given
> anything !
>
> > >interpretations of some of the treaties, but nonetheless, most of the acts were
> > >peaceful.
> >
> > When you have a loaded gun place to your head, yes its peacful
>
> been seized and ALL natives could have been eradicated as was the case in many other
> conquered societies
>
> > >not full fledged war. Most other nations' lands that were seized were taken by force,
> >
> > Force, key word... Meaning what, that just because the Europeans that
> > landed here felt because the Church and Kings told them that they were
> > surperior, they had the right to take land, rape, kill and burn those
> > that would not accept their religon and way of life ?
> >
> > >slaughtered). Although you may disagree, the natives of Canada are the best treated
> > >indiginous (sp ?) people on the planet.
> >
> > If this were true, then explain how ? Explain why natives have been
> > fight year after year to get what belongs to them, and that includes
> > land never give or sold.
>
> explanation ! Everyone in everyday life has to put up a fight sometime. I agree that
> members of some races have to struggle much harder, but life isn't perfect for
> anyone. I resent the fact that I pay over half of my paycheque back to the government
> in the form of all kinds of different taxes and natives do not and they still bitch
> and complain about their treatment.
>
> > years later it is found, its still your painting.
>
>
> > came here they took land, that is stealing and in any court of land
> > anything that is stolen is returned. Thats is, as long as it is not
> > in the courts of those that did the stealing.
>
>
new very little or nothing at all about monatary structures.
White man says, "we take land, we give you pretty little beads(usually
glass)" Indian elder, "Nice beads, OK" (I don't mean to make Natives
sound stupid, but most Natives will understand where I'm coming from(I
am 1/2 Iroquois).
So in my books this is 'Con Artist'ry at its finest,
Or in other words theft.
> > >I want to know how long does ones ancestors have to be here in order for one to be a
> > >native of a land. I was born here, not somewhere else, doesn't that make me a native
> > >to Canada ??
> > That makes you a native European, but that does not make you an Native
> > Indian.
> >
>
> I wasn't born in Europe, I was born and raised right here, in Canada. I have
> absolutely no affiliation with Europe at all.
> By your logic, we are all natives then...after all, the ancestors of native North
> Americans started in the same place as all other humanoid life on earth !!!
>
ALE...@interlog.con
G-Man wrote:
>
> > I have some interest things to show you and others about the treatment
> > of the native people in Canda left out of you text books used in
> > school. I will post them over the next few days and allow to digest
> > them. Then tell me if Canada treats its native population better than
> > anyone else. Then just how many countires have people living on
> > reservation in the world that you can say we are leaders in treating
> > people better because we took everything they had for ourselves
> > and for this we put them on reservations and give them back a small
> > amount just to keep them alive so that we can rape there land for our
> > pesonal well being.
> >
> > Did you know that many of the places were the native people
> > were sent to live back in the early 1940s were unsuitable for anyone
> > to live. Such was the case with the Stoneys in Alberta. One third of
> > the Stoneys wouldn't live on the reservation and so of 780 the other
> > 2/3's lived off the reservation. The place was unfit for farming but
> > for 20 years the government tried to teach them how to farm. Only two
> > crops were ever of any value.
> > In fact it was written by a government leader that the land was
> > not suitable to sustaining seven whitemen.
> >
> > Did you know that in 1946, their were 26,000 children that were
> > of school age but that only 113, in all of Canada had reached grade 7.
> > We are talking 1946, not so far in the past as some think. This lack
> > of action on the part of the government is still effecting native
> > TODAY. So when I here things like its not my problem. Well this what
> > was said 20 and 30 years ago and if not addressed it will be the same
> > 20 years from now. So as much as you would like to think your not
> > part of the problem you are if your not part of the solution. Native
> > Rights are not something that can not sweeped under a rug anymore. If
> > the laws had been followed in the past we would not have the things
> > you see a problems TODAY.
>
> It wasn't just the native population, blacks were also housed next to dumps and
> landfills and continue to live near unsuitable areas. In 1946 the US still had
> segregated schools...hell, right up to the 1970's. I'm not trying to say that none of
> what you say has happened, I'm not denying your version of history. What I am saying
> is that I'm pissed because you are trying to lay all of what happened in the last 500
> years on my shoulders, I'm not responsible for what white men did 500 years ago or
> 100 years ago. North America was taken from natives, some by treaty, some by
> force...that's just the way it is. The Romans took a lot of land throughout history
> (the inhabitants of these lands were slaughtered and/or enslaved). Land continues to
> be taken from societies around the globe, some by force...unfortunately, that's life.
> I'm just observing that compared to most, the natives of North America made out
> better than other invaded nations.
>
>
me, what do we have to be proud of now, and where's our glory?
asian
I am a Chinese who comes from HK five years ago. Although I do find
some Canadians are still very racist (especially when there were times
they were annoyed by our existence), I still find most of the Canadians
very nice to us. However, one thing which bothers me most is the coming
of power of the Reform Party. This party , as we all know, is a very
right-wing party which doesn't welcome the coming of us immigrants. Now
it seems that more and more people in the west are supporting them. I
was wondering if it shows that more and more people here are supportive
of their racist attitude ?
Frosty Deere
On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 22:02:58 -0400, ALE...@INTERLOG.CON wrote:
>G-Man wrote:
>>
>> Frosty Deere wrote:
>> > Please excuse me for deleting much of the original points and reply to
>> > you quotes
>Most Natives at the time, had very little "White man's" education,
>new very little or nothing at all about monatary structures.
>White man says, "we take land, we give you pretty little beads(usually
>glass)" Indian elder, "Nice beads, OK" (I don't mean to make Natives
>sound stupid, but most Natives will understand where I'm coming from(I
>am 1/2 Iroquois).
>So in my books this is 'Con Artist'ry at its finest,
>Or in other words theft.
It was theft, and it was craft that was used for 1000s of years in
Europe.
K. Nelson
In article <33E731...@nospam.com>, x...@nospam.com says...
>
>Larry McLean wrote:
>>
>> rob...@maloca.com wrote:
>> >
>> > My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
>> > All summer he has been looking for a job.
>> > He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
>> > people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
>> > in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
>> > males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
>> > based upon race and gender. Because of this law they arent hiring
>> > any white males and dont expect to be hiring any at least a
decade!!!
>> > What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
>> > that discriminates against any group of people?
>> > Will such racist hiring practises enshired in law lead to a
backlash?
>> > And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they
can
>> > and can not hire?
>> >
>
>I had the same experience about 10 years ago when I was considering
applying to the
>RCMP. I met with a recruiting officer and he told me that I had to meet
one of the
>following criteria: visual minority (black, native, asian etc...)
> female
> university education
>
>He told me that unless I had previous police experience or a criminolgy
background
>that I basically had no chance of being accepted.
>
>It works both ways...I know of someone (he is half black) who went to
Regina (boot
>camp) and was sent home under questionable circumstances (his words).
His race may
>have helped to get him in but it may also have played a part in getting
him out.
The RCMP are specifically mentioned in Bill C68 (affirmative action
bill) My son was also told that he need not apply. I wrote to Herb Gray
who explained the hiring process. A new system called "Block
Recruiting" is in place,and the bottom line is and I quote:
"This method of election ensures that all applicant are treated fairly.
It may, however, displace candidates of one group who received a higher
ranking on the RRST which could decrease their chances of being selected
for the CTP. This is done to allow for a more equitable representation
of candidates within designated groups."
In other words, more qualified white applicants will be passed over.
Do we want less qualified people in the RCMP or any where for that
matter? I think not.
As for banks, the branch where I do my banking has no white employees
whatsoever, not even the manager. The first language I see on the bank
machine is Chinese.
There might as well be signs outside these organization saying "White
Males need not apply"
Why are we allowing this?
Richard J. Sexton
In article <33e9b57c...@news.axess.com>,
Frosty Deere <fro...@frostys.qc.ca> wrote:
>Yes Canada is a Racist Country and it not improving but in fact going
>the other direction. More and more I hear racist words come out of
>people mouths, and its always to put blame on others to protect there
>own mistakes.
This seems to be more revalent in cities that out here in the country.
We had a plumber come by two days ago, a 60'ish guy that looked
like he might have been a redneck souther sherriff but talked
like he just came out of a sweat.
Refreshing.
--
--
Join the march to save individuality
Doug
Frosty Deere wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 22:07:23 -0400, ALE...@INTERLOG.CON wrote:
>
> >Ya right, Natives at that point were a proud and glorious people, tell
> >me, what do we have to be proud of now, and where's our glory?
>
> us, we did not steal land, destory cultures, rape the land, and last
> we never made anyone extinct as those that came here to find the
> promised land.
Ahhhh, cut the noble savage crap! did you know that our nations
Capital is named not after the river on which it sits but the treaty for
which the Iroquois would let the Huron back on thier own land? Your
complaints aren't making a lot of sense. First you complain that the
treatys weren't honored and then you blame the continued payouts to the
various bands for removing your honour and glory. Givne the
circumstances that you identify and the mind set in history at the time
what would yu have the "invaders" do simply kill every native in sight?
Are you seriously suggesting that that was the better solution??
Becuase in previous history that was basically the sytem followed.
Doug
Frosty Deere wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 17:04:09 -0700, Doug <cru...@pacificcoast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Frosty Deere wrote:
> >>
> >
> > This is completely irrelevant. Trying to judge previous governments
> >and behaviors by todays social codes is like saying all people were
> >idiots becuase they didn't know the earth was round in ancient Greece.
>
> rules put in place by the past. If you tell a lie enough times it
> becomes the truth, when in fact it is not.
>
> > In that historical time frame, *yes*! Its rather inane to suggest
> >otherwise. And don't forget, the natives were doing their own killing
> >and fighting as well, what happened was that the immence loss of native
> >life was due to the fact the the Europeans were very efficent killers
> >that had technology on their side. If the reverse had been true the
> >shoe would have been on the other foot.
> >
> there are many pages that express how peaceful the people here were
> and how they helped those that came here. It was not till Chris
> Columbus started taking slaves and cutting off hands of the natives
> for not working hard enough to collect gold that the word of these new
> people began to spread, but not fast enough.
> >
> > What utter horseshit! do you thing the Scots that were thrown off
> >their land during the displacements and in some cases starved to death
> >could now go back and claim the land again?
>
> unless you try.
>
> > The only reason the natives
> >in Canada get such attention is because of the racism industry and
> >attempts to judge previous generations and decisions by todays standards
> >and a refusal to accept the fact that as one Swedish anthropologist
> >points out "If a culture cannot adapt it will die". In Canada, we'll
> >bankrupt ourselves and demolish our own culture to see another survive
> >regardless of its suitability to present day reality. If you went back
> >to the time in which these conflicts took place the choice would be
> >simple for the natives adapt our way of live or die. Hell, the british
> >used precisely the same concept in Culloden.
>
> nothing from Canada. You think that the man on the street really
> gets anything ? The hunter is luck he can hunt, anymore and if it
> were not for his hunting he would die. But even there Canada has
> tried to stop even that.
>
> > Being born here makes me a native European????????? I suggest you
> >check the meaning of the word.
>
> other than a ship that crossed the ocean many years ago. You can
> believe what you want but the truth is truth.
So given that most anthropologists beleive that the native populations
of North America came across the Bering Strait and were imigrants
themselves what makes you any different than I?
> >> Like what ? I know you are going to bring up TAX, well that is cost
> >> of the RENT you are paying for land you leased when you European
> >> ancestor but that is not the question of this thread, racism is and I
> >> will still to that.
> >
> >Has nothing to do with it. Am I more Canadian than a recent immigrant?
> >Should I get special dispensation because *I* was born here and he
> >wasn't? Talk about a class society. You don't mind racism as long as
> >you benefit from it.
>
> The key word is Canadian... See as natives Canadians have not got into
> there THICK HEADS that we are not Canadians. You can not pass a law
> and take away our nations without our agreeing with that idea. And we
> will not become Canadians, and we will vote. We will demand that what
> is ours beturned and slowly bit and parts are being return in one form
> or the other. So let me point out I am a Mohawk and I belong the the
> Confederacy of the Six Nations. We have our legal passports, we are
> rexcognized in the United Nations and we have a Land Base. So do not
> put us in the same boat.
Nope, I don't think I'd get in a boat with you, cause you're a bigot
and a racist and moreover you're one of the worst kind. Not ony do you
refuse to recognize any "rights" but yours, but you insist that the only
people that should be held up to any code of behavior is the other guy.
If you think that the clock can just be turned back a couple of hundred
years and we'll all just carry on and ignore everything and everyone
that built this country (as did a lot of the Native populations) you're
not very bright either.
Understand something. I was born on Canadian soil and I am a Canadian,
not a Mohawk, not an Iroquois, not a Huron or Blackfoot, Sequoia, Micmac
or anything indigenous but never the less a Canadian with as much claim
to this nation as you, as is my son etc etc. I am a Canadian as defined
by every international statute in the world (except possibly yours) and
I'm not leaving my homeland and I'm not paying some person off because
he thinks he's more Canadian than I am, nor do I drive my car by looking
out the rear view mirror. History isn't alway nice but time rolls on,
adapt or become extinct. I functionfairly well in this world. do I
think there are things we can absorb from native cultures? Absolutely,
but we aren't about to become driven by them largely because they don't
fit whole hog in todays society. If you want to blockade the above, do
it! If you don't agree fight it, but time ain't goin' backwards buddy
and you're wasting my time and yours and breeding a contempt into your
culture that won't do it any good in the long run. I've been in bars in
foreign cuntries that asked me to leave because the patrons didn't like
"round eyes", tough cookies, they were the power that was in force and
I got up and left. You don't have to like it but you may as well start
dealing with reality.
Gregg Wassmansdorf
Mr. Carrick has provided a thorough and convincing response to the racism
question posed above. No disagreement here.
Gregg Wassmansdorf
John Carrick wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 18:32:09 -0600, rob...@maloca.com wrote:
>
> >My nephew recently graduated with an MBA.
> >All summer he has been looking for a job.
>
> You don't imagine that he is alone in that, do you? While the
> American unemployment rate has dropped below 5%, (this news causing
> panic selling on the stock market last week, because it signalled a
> possible shortage of workers and a pressure on wages), in Canada
> we remain at well over 10%, if you include those who have given up
> looking.
>
> >He approached all the banks and in the case of two of them the
> >people in their personnel departments told him there was no point
> >in him even applying to banks because they could not hire any white
> >males due to a Canadian "Employment Equity" law that sets quotas
> >based upon race and gender.
>
> I don't know what these laws are that you are talking about. The
> rules that the Rae Government put though in Ontario were toothless
> in the first place, and have been thrown out by Butcher Harris anyway.
>
> >Because of this law they arent hiring any white males and dont expect
> > to be hiring any for at least a decade!!!
>
> There are only six major Canadian banks, so that the young man seems
> to have confined his job search to an amazingly small market. At any
> rate, I don't believe for a moment that white M.B.A. graduates have no
> hope of a job until 2007.
>
> One of two things is happening with this post.
>
> [1] The writer is sincere but misinformed. Either the personnel
> people have it wrong, or his nephew has it wrong, or he has it wrong.
>
> White M.B.A. graduates are *certainly* being hired by someone in
> Canada. If they were not it would be splashed across the media as a
> major scandal.
>
> Does anyone think that a yellow right-wing rag such as the "Toronto
> Sun" would not have screamed such news to the skies?
>
> Another factor that is not mentioned in the original post is that
> down-sizing has been taking place in the six major Canadian banks.
> This means that employees of all colours with M.B.A's have been
> let go by them over the past several years.
>
> Why is his nephew looking for work with companies that are firing
> people who not only have his certification, but also have job
> experience? It makes one wonder what value an M.B.A. has, if
> graduates are making such dumb decisions.
>
> [2] The entire story may be a racist fable, invented to damage race
> relations by convincing white Canadians that they are being treated as
> second class citizens so that non-whites can be hired.
>
> My guess is that the second explanation is the correct one; however,
> people do make honest mistakes about this sort of thing, so there is
> a possibility that the man's information is just wrong.
>
> >What is this country coming to when it sets racist hiring quotas
> >that discriminate against any group of people?
>
> Please! We have had discriminatory practices for years! Just look at
> the numbers and you'll see who has been getting hired and promoted!
>
> Whites have been doing disproportionately well for decades!
>
> Your problem isn't with discriminatory hiring pracrtices. It is with
> those hiring practices that don't continue to favour whites.
>
> >Will such racist hiring practises enshrined in law lead to a backlash?
>
> The pro-white racist hiring and promotion practices that we have had
> for years have already produced a backlash. So have the sexist ones.
>
> People of colour, along with women, are demanding that they be treated
> as well as white men with the same qualifications.
>
> Do many white men hate to hear this? Did they vote in large numbers
> for Mike Harris, when he promised to get rid of employment equity?
> Does the sun rise in the east?
>
> >And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
> >and can not hire?
>
> Governments get their rights from the people. The people express
> their wishes in a number of ways, including at the ballot box. As I
> have already said, this happened two years ago in Ontario, when white
> males voted very heavily for the Progressive Conservatives, trusting
> that thery would end affirmative action the provincial level. They
> did.
>
> (There is no dispute about the disproportionate support for
> Harris among males and females. These are hard numbers. Nobody
> invented them. They are agreed to by all parties. Harris says that
> they are correct. Do *not* tell me that I am talking through my hat!)
>
> (The P.C's also promised to scrap photo radar - which was unpopular
> *only* because it was too good at catching people - and
> slash welfare payments and taxes, so that it is difficult to know how
> important a part employment equity played in their victory. What we
> *do* know is that there was a huge discrepancy in the way men and
> women split their support in '95, with a much smaller proportion of
> women voting P.C.
> That suggests that males were moved by different issues than were
> females. One of these may well have been opposition to any measures
> that would reverse the present white male advantage in getting hired
> and promoted.
> Presumably women feel the same way about photo radar, welfare, and
> taxation as men do. That means that something else is causing them to
> have a much greater dislike of Harris.)
K. Nelson
In article <33E875...@nospam.com>, x...@nospam.com says...
Agreed wholeheartedly. They do not have to live on reserves, we pay for
their education all the way through University if they wish. It appears to
me that they choose to live on Reserves, we do not force them to. However,
leaving the Reserve would mean working for a living wouldn't it?
The Government should put a stop to this and say 'no more land claims'.
Settle what is outstanding one way or another and assist the Natives to
become contributors to society. You would be surprised at how close to home
some of these claims are, your land could be next.
We boarded with an Indian Family on Manitoulin Island this year. They were
all well educated (University) and 3 of them where teachers. They choose to
stay on the reservation when they could leave it easily. However, that
would change their tax status would it not?
G-Man
Frosty Deere wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 22:07:23 -0400, ALE...@INTERLOG.CON wrote:
>
> >Ya right, Natives at that point were a proud and glorious people, tell
> >me, what do we have to be proud of now, and where's our glory?
>
> The glory is in the fact we never took anything that did not belong to
> us, we did not steal land, destory cultures, rape the land, and last
> we never made anyone extinct as those that came here to find the
> promised land.
Oh please, FUCK OFF (please excuse the language). All natives are saints...what a
load of shit. We won't mention the fact that up to half of all natives murdered were
killed by members of waring tribes. Tribes were completely wiped out by other
tribes !!
G-Man
Frosty Deere wrote:
>
> Do you think that someone can close there eyes and say racism doesn't
> exist ? No the native problem does still exist in Canada, and the
> government know this, and after years of pushing the legal rights of
> native people under the rug, its not going to wash anymore.
>
> Europe was invaded, but we do not see these countries ruled by the
> United States, Germany lost the war, but they still have there country
> and government. No one after the war, said now you have to learn a new
> language and culture. The same thing for Japan, They lost and no one
> said "okay get out or put the people on reservations. Only in North
> America did they do that, and even then they took away what belonged
> to these people.
Actually, Germany, remember East Germany, the part not controlled by the allies, was
taken over by the communists and had only a puppet government controlled by the USSR.
The other part, West Germany was turned into a democracy after the war. The country
was controlled by the allies for a time until a government was elected. Even today,
some laws remain from the post-war doctrines. Allied countries have the right to
build military bases in Germany and conduct military exercises at will.
> But the topic is is racism alive in Canada, and if you want to take it
> personal, that is your problem. I am only pointing out that when it
> comes to the native people in Canada it is still alive and living.
Yes, I have no doubt that racism is alive and well in Canada. I'm sorry to say that
there will always be racism as long as there are visible differences between
cultures. Racism is learned and can be brought about by many different events in ones
personal experiences. Because of different skin colours or physical features, a bad
experience between two individuals may be blamed on one of the person's skin colour
instead of the individual. Instead of thinking of an individual as an asshole, the
entire group to which this person belongs becomes labelled.
I don't think hunting and fishing rights have much to do with racism, I think it's
more political than anything. Whether you beleive it or not, a native has MORE rights
than a white person. A native does not have to pay taxes, they can collect food for
themselves at will (the issue of hunting and fishing before the courts is about
commercially hunting and fishing, as I understand it, the treaties limit hunting and
fishing to personal or family needs only).
G-Man
The levels of intolerance increase with the decrease of economic stability. As more
and more people are out of work, they look for someone else to blame, instead of
taking responsibility for themselves, they will look to blame everyone else for their
misfortunes.
I would like to get one thing straight, all I tend to see in this thread is how all
of us white people are racist.....yes some are, but many other cultures are just as
if not more racist towards us. There are blacks, natives, asians, etc... who are
racist as well.
G-Man
ALE...@INTERLOG.CON wrote:
> Ya right, Natives at that point were a proud and glorious people, tell
> me, what do we have to be proud of now, and where's our glory?
Who's fault is that, not mine !!! People get taken advantage of everyday...again,
that's life. Don't start bitching to me about the short comings of your ancestors. As
mentioned earlier, there was also a great deal of inter-tribal wars during this
time...natives killing natives....but no one mentions this.
Frosty Deere
On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 22:07:23 -0400, ALE...@INTERLOG.CON wrote:
>Ya right, Natives at that point were a proud and glorious people, tell
>me, what do we have to be proud of now, and where's our glory?
The glory is in the fact we never took anything that did not belong to
Frosty Deere
On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 09:52:06 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Frosty Deere wrote:>>
>>
>> There was a lot of bloodshed. Millions of people do not just vanish
>> into thin air.
>
>across the entire North America.
Lets see I said MILLIONS and I guess you are the Expert on the numbers
that lived here before the fools rushed in.
But see their is this expert call Jennings and he writes BOOKS that
you can read and in his books on Native Amricias he states the
following..
Did you know they now believe that there where between 90 and
110 million aboriginal people in the Amercas, of whom 90% were killed
or died in the first century after the European contact. ( Jennings
1975, 22. )
Now tell me this G-MAN as you are a known expert on natives in North
Americas, that Smithsonian Institions, Vol 15, and all its 924 pages
of information is wrong when it points out that its research and
Jennings believe that 90 to 110 million native people lived here
before you anccestor dropped in for a visit ? But then no honest
teacher would dare to tell the truth, because its not in the text
books they hand out to students, but then even they do not have the
knownledge about what they teach Canadian Students. We and this
includes me, taught in schools what the government and some time ago
what the Church wanted us to learn. We were put in to groups of
people and this how in education we begin to teach RACISM. We have
the good, the bad and other forms of people that all thoughout our
education we put people in to groups according to color, and anything
else.
Anyway I am no expert myself, but I do no that what I post here is the
truth and I can support those thing which I post.
Frosty Deere
On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 21:57:20 -0700, asian <as...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am a Chinese who comes from HK five years ago. Although I do find
>some Canadians are still very racist (especially when there were times
>they were annoyed by our existence), I still find most of the Canadians
>very nice to us. However, one thing which bothers me most is the coming
>of power of the Reform Party. This party , as we all know, is a very
>right-wing party which doesn't welcome the coming of us immigrants. Now
>it seems that more and more people in the west are supporting them. I
>was wondering if it shows that more and more people here are supportive
>of their racist attitude ?
I think it does, and you can find the same here in Quebec with its
party.
Frosty Deere
Frosty Deere
On 7 Aug 1997 09:43:57 -0400, ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton)
wrote:
>In article <33e9b57c...@news.axess.com>,
>Frosty Deere <fro...@frostys.qc.ca> wrote:
>>Yes Canada is a Racist Country and it not improving but in fact going
>>the other direction. More and more I hear racist words come out of
>>people mouths, and its always to put blame on others to protect there
>>own mistakes.
>
>
>This seems to be more revalent in cities that out here in the country.
>
>We had a plumber come by two days ago, a 60'ish guy that looked
>like he might have been a redneck souther sherriff but talked
>like he just came out of a sweat.
>
>Refreshing.
>
This might very true, since its in the inner cities that jobs are
being lost, and people that were once paid $15 plus are not willing to
take jobs at $6.75. Whereas immigrants are willing to take these
jobs.
Frosty Deere
On 7 Aug 97 13:24:25 GMT, kne...@nospam.com (K. Nelson) wrote:
>In article <33E875...@nospam.com>, x...@nospam.com says...
>>
>>Frosty Deere wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:32:45 -0300, G-Man <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Agreed wholeheartedly. They do not have to live on reserves, we pay for
>their education all the way through University if they wish. It appears to
>me that they choose to live on Reserves, we do not force them to. However,
>leaving the Reserve would mean working for a living wouldn't it?
So you are saying give up our small countries in favour of living like
you. The education is a treaty right, and was given as part to as
fair trade for land taken and as far as being FREE, give us back the
resources that Canada has taken from our lands and we would gladly pay
our onw bills
One does not have to give up there homeland to work in some other
country, I have lived on the reservation most of life, and have
worked in New York, Denver, Germany, Okinawa, Kentucky, Ohio, Ontario
and Quebec. So what is your point. I paid tax for over 30 years
and more than average non-native paid.
>The Government should put a stop to this and say 'no more land claims'.
>Settle what is outstanding one way or another and assist the Natives to
>become contributors to society.
Why because it would be simpler to avoid the turth, that the land is
not yours.
> You would be surprised at how close to home
>some of these claims are, your land could be next.
Many are and that is no reason to make a law to say its legal to steal
someone land because your government and its people think MIGHT IT
RIGHT.
>We boarded with an Indian Family on Manitoulin Island this year. They were
>all well educated (University) and 3 of them where teachers. They choose to
>stay on the reservation when they could leave it easily. However, that
>would change their tax status would it not?
No it means they enjoy living at home and teaching there own children
and not what is taugh in the non-native schools. That is why more
native school are now being run by natives and the curriculum is also
now being written by natives. Its one reason that just like here
where Iive we have over 50% of the teachers native, but then brings up
the question as to why the non-native is working here ? They have to
pay tax and yet their is a need for 5000 teachers in Quebec.
blair patrick bromley
asian <as...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I am a Chinese who comes from HK five years ago. Although I do find
>some Canadians are still very racist (especially when there were times
>they were annoyed by our existence), I still find most of the Canadians
>very nice to us. However, one thing which bothers me most is the coming
>of power of the Reform Party. This party , as we all know, is a very
>right-wing party which doesn't welcome the coming of us immigrants. Now
>it seems that more and more people in the west are supporting them. I
>was wondering if it shows that more and more people here are supportive
>of their racist attitude ?
I'm not a Reform Party supporter, but I don't think it is fair or
correct to characterize it as a party of racists, although like most
political parties, it probably has members who are what I would refer to
as big R racists.
I find it very difficult to believe that anyone could claim not to
harbour some racist attitudes, prejudices, or negative stereotypes against
people of a different racial, ethnic, or cultural group.
We are all bigotted/biased/prejudiced to one degree or another. What
matters is how we act upon our biases, and how we justify our actions.
My impression is that many members of the Reform party are concerned
about social disunity / communication breakdown caused by excessive
levels of immigration (from all parts of the world), and the support
of multicultural programs which would appear to do more to separate than
unify people in Canada.
I do think that it is good to celebrate our differences, ... life
would be a bit boring if everyone was exactly the same, but isn't it good
and perhaps more important to celebrate what we have in common?
Blair
--
Blair P. Bromley "The future of humanity lies in the exploration
Fusion Studies Laboratory and development of space. If humans choose to
103 S. Goodwin Avenue ignore the challenge and opportunity of space,
Urbana, Illinois, 61801 then they will condemn themselves to a mediocre
york...@sympaticon.ca
On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 21:57:20 -0700, asian <as...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am a Chinese who comes from HK five years ago. Although I do find
>some Canadians are still very racist (especially when there were times
>they were annoyed by our existence), I still find most of the Canadians
>very nice to us. However, one thing which bothers me most is the coming
>of power of the Reform Party. This party , as we all know, is a very
>right-wing party which doesn't welcome the coming of us immigrants. Now
>it seems that more and more people in the west are supporting them. I
>was wondering if it shows that more and more people here are supportive
>of their racist attitude ?
Can you show me or document the Reform party platform which actually
purports that one race is genetically superior to another? Or that
preferential treatment be given on the basis of race?
Chretien has been quoted as saying that he likes Black MPs because the
smile a lot.
Does this bother you? Either you're bothered by the Liberals AND the
Reformers or you're bothered by neither.
Reformers call for the abolition of Official Multiculturalism, a
reduction of immigration (esp. the out-of-control family class
immigration), and an end to systemic discrimination against Whites.
Dave B.
*************************
To reply, remove the n from my email address.
Rob
G-Man wrote:
> The fact that they are here to fight and have the right to fight is one major
> explanation ! Everyone in everyday life has to put up a fight sometime. I agree that
> members of some races have to struggle much harder, but life isn't perfect for
> anyone. I resent the fact that I pay over half of my paycheque back to the government
> in the form of all kinds of different taxes and natives do not and they still bitch
> and complain about their treatment.
Which Natives are you talking about?? There is a very large
misconception that Natives do not pay tax, but that's all it is - a
misconception. The only income that is not taxable has to be earned on a
reservation. If you've ever visited a reservation, you would have
noticed that this is not much money that we are talking about... GST has
a similar clause. Most working Natives pay plenty of tax.
Rob
Frosty Deere
Rob do you think that anyone will believe you. Hell half have never
seen more than one reservation here in the soouth, but have never seen
the conditions of those in the North. and Central parts of the
country. Heck I bet most can not even tell us the number of
reservtions there are in Canada. But many are like Davis Inlet, where
the community is broke by the sixth month each year just running the
Band Office.
fac...@hotmail.com
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 17:00:06 -0700, Doug
<cru...@pacificcoast.net> wrote:
> Ahhhh, cut the noble savage crap! did you know that our nations
>Capital is named not after the river on which it sits but the treaty for
>which the Iroquois would let the Huron back on thier own land? Your
>complaints aren't making a lot of sense. First you complain that the
>treatys weren't honored
A few treaties were many were not.
>and then you blame the continued payouts to the
>various bands for removing your honour and glory.
Payments given only in some cases
>Givne the
>circumstances that you identify and the mind set in history at the time
>what would yu have the "invaders" do simply kill every native in sight?
The invaders may have wished to do so but in the massive
wilderness this was impractical. It wasn't done, that doesn't
mean the invaders were nice people.
>Are you seriously suggesting that that was the better solution??
>Becuase in previous history that was basically the sytem followed.
In some cases, but it was impractical in this case as I said. In
any case the invaded will complain against the invaders long
after the invasion, In Canada and elsewhere.
blair patrick bromley
Gregg Wassmansdorf <wass...@ciaccess.com> writes:
>Mr. Carrick has provided a thorough and convincing response to the racism
>question posed above. No disagreement here.
>Gregg Wassmansdorf
>John Carrick wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 18:32:09 -0600, rob...@maloca.com wrote:
>>
>> Do many white men hate to hear this? Did they vote in large numbers
>> for Mike Harris, when he promised to get rid of employment equity?
>> Does the sun rise in the east?
>>
>> >And who gives the government the right to tell employers who they can
>> >and can not hire?
>>
>> Governments get their rights from the people. The people express
>> their wishes in a number of ways, including at the ballot box. As I
>> have already said, this happened two years ago in Ontario, when white
>> males voted very heavily for the Progressive Conservatives, trusting
>> that thery would end affirmative action the provincial level. They
>> did.
>>
>> (There is no dispute about the disproportionate support for
>> Harris among males and females. These are hard numbers. Nobody
>> invented them. They are agreed to by all parties. Harris says that
>> they are correct. Do *not* tell me that I am talking through my hat!)
Harris won the election for a couple of reasons.
1. Lyn McLeod wasn't a viable alternative for premier.
She had no significant ideas of her own, and she was
an armchair critic.
2. The Liberals screwed up when they had their opportunity to do
something when Peterson was in office.
3. The NDP under Bob Rae screwed up the budget and exaserbated the
economic problems while we were in a mini-recession.
4. Mike Harris and the PCs had laid out a plan for economic and
social renewal thru their Common Sense Revolution which
people could check out.
5. Mike and the PCs were the only ones to push and promote spending
cuts, reduction in government bureacracy and government interference,
education reform, reduction in waste and abuse of our social
safety net, and above all, cutting taxes.
I don't think white males are worried about equal opportunity or
fairness. That's not why many white males (and non-white) (and females).
were against employment equity.
Employment equity appeared to be a good idea, but somehow it metamorphasised
into a government-sponsored program of unfair discrimination of qualified
individuals for jobs because they didn't fall into a designated "minority"
group. It also involved the equalization of pay for significantly different
jobs.
Employment equity should help applicants get a fair chance to have their
resumes reviewed and be interviewed for a job. If two people with the
same qualifications are doing the same job with the same number of years
of experience, they should essentially get the same pay. Employment
equity should help cut down the amount of internal networking and paternalism
which allows less qualified people to get jobs just because "they know someone".
Eric Mills
> When the Europeans came here they took land, that is
> stealing and in any court of land anything that is stolen
> is returned. Thats is, as long as it is not
> in the courts of those that did the stealing.
cru...@pacificcoast.net:
== What utter horseshit! do you thing the Scots that were thrown
== off their land during the displacements and in some cases starved
== to death could now go back and claim the land again?
Perhaps they couldn't but should be able.
In any case, it does mean the poor Scots should make
common cause with other oppressed people,
rather than extend the exploitation.
James H. Steiger
fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere) wrote:
>Sorry..... Yes there is such a thing as inherited guilt... If you
>have something stolen by someone going back 100 yesrs, and you are
>aware or not aware you can still be charged with possesion of stolen
>goods. Try buying a stolen car and see what happens to you.
Sorry Frosty, you seem badly confused about the distinction between
"inherited guilt," (i.e., being "guilty" because of a genetic
connection to some one who was guilty of something) and "receiving
stolen property." All the examples you give are of the latter.
Professor James H. Steiger Department of Psychology
(ste...@unixg.ubc.ca) 2136 West Mall
Office: 604-822-2706 University of British Columbia
Fax: 604-822-6923 Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
Eric Mills
as...@hotmail.com
> I am a Chinese who comes from HK five years ago. Although I do find
> some Canadians are still very racist (especially when there were times
> they were annoyed by our existence), I still find most of the Canadians
> very nice to us. However, one thing which bothers me most is the coming
> of power of the Reform Party. This party , as we all know, is a very
> right-wing party which doesn't welcome the coming of us immigrants.
> Now it seems that more and more people in the west are supporting them.
> I was wondering if it shows that more and more people here are supportive
> of their racist attitude ?
Nail on the Reform head, hit squarely.
(In other words, yes.)
Eric Mills
> On July 20 Riel was sentenced to death on Aug 1.
Ah, but Gabriel Dumont, who might have won the war
but for Riel's indecision, managed to escape.
Frosty Deere
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 17:20:02 -0700, Doug <cru...@pacificcoast.net>
Doug wrote:
>So given that most anthropologists beleive that the native populations
>of North America came across the Bering Strait and were imigrants
>themselves what makes you any different than I?
That is not a proven fact and its quite possible it was the other way
around or we were all put here by someone from Mars.
> Nope, I don't think I'd get in a boat with you, cause you're a bigot
>and a racist and moreover you're one of the worst kind.
Thankyou its nice to know I am all these things because I am
fighting for what is right, just as you would if the shoe were on the
other foot.
If Canada took away your rights, you would right there up
front fighting to protect them and yet I am all those things because I
tell you and point out all the facts about how Canada has treated its
natives. Wow !
You know if you had 100 acres of land and the guy next to you
had the same size but that after about 20 years you notice your land
is getting small because he move the fence, you would fight to get
your land back. If you didn't you would be a fool.
That is just what the tireaties have done, they move the fence
and evenif means getting something back in return, is all the natives
are asking. NO WHERE are they asking Canadians to move, go home, but
only asking just as if they were Canadians to correct the mistakes.
>Not ony do you
>refuse to recognize any "rights" but yours, but you insist that the only
>people that should be held up to any code of behavior is the other guy.
No, what native people are saying is to have someone other than Canada
look at what could be done to fix the problem because Canada thinks
the simple solution is to sweep it all under the table and it will go
away. Let face one fact Canada knows it has a native problem and the
reason is we are not Canadians. We are nations that live within a
larger nation. Just as the French People of Quebec are in fact
Nation within a Nation but they are treated a bit better than native
peoples.
>If you think that the clock can just be turned back a couple of hundred
>years and we'll all just carry on and ignore everything and everyone
>that built this country (as did a lot of the Native populations) you're
>not very bright either.
No one has said turn anything back but ignoring the truth of the
present day is also not going change anything. All it will do is make
the lie that more stronger.
> Understand something. I was born on Canadian soil and I am a Canadian,
>not a Mohawk, not an Iroquois, not a Huron or Blackfoot, Sequoia, Micmac
>or anything indigenous but never the less a Canadian with as much claim
>to this nation as you, as is my son etc etc.
You are right you are a Canadian but I am not. I am a Mohawk
and belong to the Mohawk Nation. What is so hard to understand that
when the treaties were signed we did not give up our nationhood. What
we did sign was treaty calle the "Two Row Wampum" and in that treaty
we pointed out that both nations can live side by side. That both
nations can share but at the same time seperate from each other.
The problem is some where along the line Canada said "our
native people" and passed a law extingushing all our nations. Canada
had no right to declare us Canadians and tell us we are so without
asking us if wanted to be Canadians.
>I am a Canadian as defined
>by every international statute in the world (except possibly yours) and
No where have I said you or anyone else is not a Canadian,
>I'm not leaving my homeland and I'm not paying some person off because
>he thinks he's more Canadian than I am, nor do I drive my car by looking
>out the rear view mirror.
I think you are going overboard here. No one is asking anyone to
leave, and the only thing native people want is the rights to the
resources on there land or at least an equal share. Its sad that in
parts of Canada some native that still live off the land have lost
hunting rights but Canada will allow Americans to fly up into those
areas and kill all they want. Do you think that Davis Inlet is the
only place that is like that ?
> History isn't alway nice but time rolls on,
>adapt or become extinct. I functionfairly well in this world.
Yes and so do I but at the same time many people still suffer because
we turn a blind eye at things we do not want to see.
> do Ithink there are things we can absorb from native cultures?
The world has and more than most people are aware of.
> Absolutely, but we aren't about to become driven by them largely because they don't
>fit whole hog in todays society. If you want to blockade the above, do
>it! If you don't agree fight it, but time ain't goin' backwards buddy
So here you say fight it and then tell me there is no chance to
correct anything. If you read the history of Oka, you would learn
that it was not just 1990 that people there protested but right back
almost 100 or more. And even today the problems there are not cleared
up.
>and you're wasting my time and yours and breeding a contempt into your
>culture that won't do it any good in the long run.
I am not breeding anything that was not there before. Like I said,
you can no lie and hope over time it will become the truth.
>I've been in bars in
>foreign cuntries that asked me to leave because the patrons didn't like
>"round eyes", tough cookies, they were the power that was in force and
>I got up and left. You don't have to like it but you may as well start
>dealing with reality.
Gee I have been to almost everywhere in Aisa and not once was I ever
asked to leave, I have seen others asked to leave but only after they
made fools of themselves. But that is not the point anyway.
Thanks for you views, the best way to understand someone is to talk
about it.
Peace
Karen Gordon
K. Nelson (kne...@nospam.com) writes:
> In article <33E731...@nospam.com>, x...@nospam.com says...
>
> The RCMP are specifically mentioned in Bill C68 (affirmative action
> bill) My son was also told that he need not apply. I wrote to Herb Gray
> who explained the hiring process. A new system called "Block
> Recruiting" is in place,and the bottom line is and I quote:
>
> "This method of election ensures that all applicant are treated fairly.
> It may, however, displace candidates of one group who received a higher
> ranking on the RRST which could decrease their chances of being selected
> for the CTP. This is done to allow for a more equitable representation
> of candidates within designated groups."
>
> In other words, more qualified white applicants will be passed over.
> Do we want less qualified people in the RCMP or any where for that
> matter? I think not.
> As for banks, the branch where I do my banking has no white employees
> whatsoever, not even the manager. The first language I see on the bank
> machine is Chinese.
>
> There might as well be signs outside these organization saying "White
> Males need not apply"
> Why are we allowing this?
_______________________________
(Karen): It's not so much that we are 'allowing this' to happen. As a very
'tolerant, humanitarian, and democratic' country, which has been brainwashed
by the government and by mass-immigration supporters (who have a great deal
to gain by the immigration policies), we are INTIMIDATED against speaking out
on these issues.
How many, who have spotlighted the abuses by immigrants to our land, have not
been quickly tagged 'racists'? How many, who have questioned the motives of
of federal government in allowing so many non-adaptive cultures to our land,
have not been quickly tagged 'bigots and racists'? How many, when they have
spoken out on the COSTS associated with the numbers flooding into Canada who
have no English skills, have not been dubbed 'xenophobic' and worse?
These tags and labels are MEANT to keep Canadians from speaking out on these
vital issues. They absolutely RELY on the 'kind and humanitarian' nature of
Canadians to feel the pressure of these intimidations. And who loses, and
who benefits? One guess....
Canadians must learn to love and care for what they have built over the past
3-4 generations enough to protect it. This means being able to speak out
without fear on issues which go to the heart of all that we hold dear. No
tags or intimidations from those that would take what we created should make
us silent.
We OWE no one from other lands anything. If we choose to share what we have,
we have the right to do it on our terms. That is not 'racism'. That is
being smart. That is caring for your own country and lifestyle. That is
what every other damn country does - without being dubbed 'racist'.
Marc Lidwill
Frosty Deere wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 17:04:09 -0700, Doug <cru...@pacificcoast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Frosty Deere wrote:
> >>
> >
> > This is completely irrelevant. Trying to judge previous governments
> >and behaviors by todays social codes is like saying all people were
> >idiots becuase they didn't know the earth was round in ancient Greece.
>
> Its not irrelevant, and the reason why is that we live by the same
> rules put in place by the past. If you tell a lie enough times it
> becomes the truth, when in fact it is not.
It is *irrelevent*. Rules, governments and people change over time.
Besides, there is no such thing as inherited guilt or responsibility.
You can't be directly held responsible for events that you were not even
around to participate in.
>
> > In that historical time frame, *yes*! Its rather inane to suggest
> >otherwise. And don't forget, the natives were doing their own killing
> >and fighting as well, what happened was that the immence loss of native
> >life was due to the fact the the Europeans were very efficent killers
> >that had technology on their side. If the reverse had been true the
> >shoe would have been on the other foot.
> >
> Well maybe you are right but lets recall that according to history
> there are many pages that express how peaceful the people here were
> and how they helped those that came here. It was not till Chris
> Columbus started taking slaves and cutting off hands of the natives
> for not working hard enough to collect gold that the word of these new
> people began to spread, but not fast enough.
> >
> > What utter horseshit! do you thing the Scots that were thrown off
> >their land during the displacements and in some cases starved to death
> >could now go back and claim the land again?
>
> If it were taken to the world courts, who knows. Can not say
> unless you try.
>
> > The only reason the natives
> >in Canada get such attention is because of the racism industry and
> >attempts to judge previous generations and decisions by todays standards
> >and a refusal to accept the fact that as one Swedish anthropologist
> >points out "If a culture cannot adapt it will die". In Canada, we'll
> >bankrupt ourselves and demolish our own culture to see another survive
> >regardless of its suitability to present day reality. If you went back
> >to the time in which these conflicts took place the choice would be
> >simple for the natives adapt our way of live or die. Hell, the british
> >used precisely the same concept in Culloden.
>
> Native people are still living off the land here in Canada and get
> nothing from Canada. You think that the man on the street really
> gets anything ? The hunter is luck he can hunt, anymore and if it
> were not for his hunting he would die. But even there Canada has
> tried to stop even that.
Natives (which is really a misused term) recieve much from Canada.
Social Services (e.g. medical care, education, among other things) are
available to everyone.
>
> > Being born here makes me a native European????????? I suggest you
> >check the meaning of the word.
>
> So sorry but that is what you are, you have no attachment to this soil
> other than a ship that crossed the ocean many years ago. You can
> believe what you want but the truth is truth.
Sorry, but your 'truth' is illogical, and doesn't really make much sense
anyway. The history of humans on this planet has been one of migration.
The idea that present day people are not natives of this land because of
the relatively small amount of time spent here (a few hundred years or
so) is absurd. Where would you draw the line? A few hundred years? A few
thousand? How about hundreds of thousands of years. If your going to use
the time here distinction, you need to apply it equally to everybody. Of
course if you did that, nobody would be native to anywhere.
NATIVE: Born in the region in which one lives. (This is the distinction)
>
> >> Like what ? I know you are going to bring up TAX, well that is cost
> >> of the RENT you are paying for land you leased when you European
> >> ancestor but that is not the question of this thread, racism is and I
> >> will still to that.
> >
> >Has nothing to do with it. Am I more Canadian than a recent immigrant?
> >Should I get special dispensation because *I* was born here and he
> >wasn't? Talk about a class society. You don't mind racism as long as
> >you benefit from it.
>
> The key word is Canadian... See as natives Canadians have not got into
> there THICK HEADS that we are not Canadians. You can not pass a law
> and take away our nations without our agreeing with that idea. And we
Of course you can, and it happens all through history. As countries
appropriate more territory (war, settlement expansion, etc.), people are
usually appropriated as well (unless they move). Most of he time, it
happens whether people like it or not. Eventually, future generations
become used to the idea and are more acceptable of their situation. It
might take time, but it will happen (especially quick if history is
forgotten).
> will not become Canadians, and we will vote. We will demand that what
> is ours beturned and slowly bit and parts are being return in one form
> or the other. So let me point out I am a Mohawk and I belong the the
> Confederacy of the Six Nations. We have our legal passports, we are
> rexcognized in the United Nations and we have a Land Base. So do not
> put us in the same boat.
You do not have sovereignty, you are part of Canada whether you like it
or not.
--
Regards,
Marc Lidwill
--------------------------------------------------
Basically, I have two secrets for success in life:
First, Don't tell everybody everything you know.
--------------------------------------------------
To email me, remove the NOSPAM from my address.
Frosty Deere
On Fri, 8 Aug 1997 13:17:46 GMT, Marc Lidwill
<mlid...@usops.shl.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
One thing I would like to point out the topic is Canada and Racism.
And how it deals with native people. Rigth now this is starting to
follow a new path and if that is route you want to take I will glad to
invite other natives into this area and we can continue. I am not
interested in creations and how one got here on this earth. Lets
stick to the issue of RACISM in todays world.
>> > This is completely irrelevant. Trying to judge previous governments
>> >and behaviors by todays social codes is like saying all people were
>> >idiots becuase they didn't know the earth was round in ancient Greece.
>>
>> Its not irrelevant, and the reason why is that we live by the same
>> rules put in place by the past. If you tell a lie enough times it
>> becomes the truth, when in fact it is not.
>
>It is *irrelevent*. Rules, governments and people change over time.
>Besides, there is no such thing as inherited guilt or responsibility.
>You can't be directly held responsible for events that you were not even
>around to participate in.
Sorry..... Yes there is such a thing as inherited guilt... If you
have something stolen by someone going back 100 yesrs, and you are
aware or not aware you can still be charged with possesion of stolen
goods. Try buying a stolen car and see what happens to you.
>Natives (which is really a misused term) recieve much from Canada.
>Social Services (e.g. medical care, education, among other things) are
>available to everyone.
You are right about the term since we are not natives but Mohawks,
Cree's, Balckfoot and many other Nations. The term was give when some
clown got lost looking for a place to get herbs and spices..
And you are right they are available, and they were also available
before Canadians has some of them. Why ? Treaties..... Treaties.....
Treaties....
>> > Being born here makes me a native European????????? I suggest you
>> >check the meaning of the word.
>>
>> So sorry but that is what you are, you have no attachment to this soil
>> other than a ship that crossed the ocean many years ago. You can
>> believe what you want but the truth is truth.
>
>Sorry, but your 'truth' is illogical, and doesn't really make much sense
>anyway. The history of humans on this planet has been one of migration.
>The idea that present day people are not natives of this land because of
>the relatively small amount of time spent here (a few hundred years or
>so) is absurd. Where would you draw the line? A few hundred years? A few
>thousand? How about hundreds of thousands of years. If your going to use
>the time here distinction, you need to apply it equally to everybody. Of
>course if you did that, nobody would be native to anywhere.
I did not start this thread. And its has nothing to do about present
day racism in Canada.
>> >> Like what ? I know you are going to bring up TAX, well that is cost
>> >> of the RENT you are paying for land you leased when you European
>> >> ancestor but that is not the question of this thread, racism is and I
>> >> will still to that.
>> >
>> >Has nothing to do with it. Am I more Canadian than a recent immigrant?
>> >Should I get special dispensation because *I* was born here and he
>> >wasn't? Talk about a class society. You don't mind racism as long as
>> >you benefit from it.
>>
>> The key word is Canadian... See as natives Canadians have not got into
>> there THICK HEADS that we are not Canadians. You can not pass a law
>> and take away our nations without our agreeing with that idea. And we
>
>Of course you can, and it happens all through history. As countries
>appropriate more territory (war, settlement expansion, etc.), people are
>usually appropriated as well (unless they move). Most of he time, it
>happens whether people like it or not. Eventually, future generations
>become used to the idea and are more acceptable of their situation. It
>might take time, but it will happen (especially quick if history is
>forgotten).
So since the United States won the war against Japan, that makes them
Americans I guess.
Well if that is what you want to believe, then do so but we as nations
rejected it and its the reason as Mohawk Person I have a Iroquoian
Passport and can travel with it to most places in this earth. And
that is because I am NOT A CANADIAN. Its also why a court case was
just won about three weeks aog now allows me to cross the border from
Canada and to the United States or the other way around without paying
any Customs, or Duty on anything, and no limit on personal objects...
All because we are not Canadians.. Its also the reason I can work in
the United States without a GREEN CARD. You try doing that. See
North America is our HOME LAND. What are you going to say to us, "go
back to where you came from" like msot people tell Asians or Blacks?
>You do not have sovereignty, you are part of Canada whether you like it
>or not.
Yes we are because of TREATIES TREATIES TREATIES, and do know how many
treaties there are ? Well let me help you out and start by saying
there are 280 of them. Or a total of over 600 pages with maps
included. How do I know this, because I have them sitting right here
on my desk. What do you want natives to say ? Your own ancestors
signed treaties that allows to live on parcels of land and for that
in most it was agreed for that right you government would pay for our
education. In return for signing we would be allows to live our lives
to hunt, fish and what ever else was agreed to at the time. No where
has any treaty beeb extingushed because it takes both parties to do
so. This is why the Cree in North Quebec have pointed out that if it
seperates from Canada it will remain with Canada or go it alone. See
Quebec has no treaties but are trying to use an agreement for James
Bay as one. Other wise what do you think the natives are going to do.
Say you can mine all the gold, silver, itron ore, and clear cut the
trees because we are nice people now and you owe us nothing ? What is
this South Africa, where the rich get richer and poor get poorer ?
Jack Plant
John Carrick wrote:
<snipped>
>
> [1] The writer is sincere but misinformed. Either the personnel
> people have it wrong, or his nephew has it wrong, or he has it wrong.
>
> White M.B.A. graduates are *certainly* being hired by someone in
> Canada. If they were not it would be splashed across the media as a
> major scandal.
It is.
>
> Does anyone think that a yellow right-wing rag such as the "Toronto
> Sun" would not have screamed such news to the skies?
It has!
>
> Another factor that is not mentioned in the original post is that
> down-sizing has been taking place in the six major Canadian banks.
> This means that employees of all colours with M.B.A's have been
> let go by them over the past several years.
Mostly whites.
>
> Why is his nephew looking for work with companies that are firing
> people who not only have his certification, but also have job
> experience? It makes one wonder what value an M.B.A. has, if
> graduates are making such dumb decisions.
GOvernment intervention and subsidization has destroyed its value.
>
> [2] The entire story may be a racist fable, invented to damage race
> relations by convincing white Canadians that they are being treated as
> second class citizens so that non-whites can be hired.
Paranoia. You refuse to accept the facts.
>
> My guess is that the second explanation is the correct one; however,
> people do make honest mistakes about this sort of thing, so there is
> a possibility that the man's information is just wrong.
No, your information is wrong.
>
york...@sympaticon.ca
On 8 Aug 1997 14:40:11 GMT, bro...@students.uiuc.edu (blair patrick
bromley) wrote:
> Harris won the election for a couple of reasons.
<snip>
> I don't think white males are worried about equal opportunity or
>fairness. That's not why many white males (and non-white) (and females).
>were against employment equity.
Global News reports that they received more mail protesting government
employment discrimination against Whites than any other issue, in the
runup to the 1995 Ontario election.
That speaks volumes.
mebe...@sfu.ca
Frosty Deer, there is no reason to vilify Whites for "progress."
All of us, all people, have had to let go of their traditional ways in
order to fit into the technology-driven wage economy. I wish we didn't.
And real or imagined, the "injustices" of the past are not sufficient
to demand rent from the non-Natives who you call Canadians. We really
shouldn't visit the sins of the father on the children. Tell me,
since you don't consider yourself a Canadian, do you vote? do you
receive any of the benefits of being a Canadian? And do you really
want to be segregated and separated from the rest of Canada? We've
had that racist Indian policy since confederation, in the form of
the Indian Act and reserves, and it ain't done Natives any good.
Frosty Deere
On 9 Aug 1997 08:12:53 GMT, mebe...@sfu.ca wrote:
>Frosty Deer, there is no reason to vilify Whites for "progress."
Nothing wrong with progress as long as you give something back to
those you take that progress from or have them part of that progress.
In the case of the Cree they were never consulted or allowed to get
involved in how James Bay could be built and at the same time save
there way of live and living of the land. So to flood a land the
size of France and not consult with the poeple there by just say here
is $50 million and now step aside so we can get on in the name of
progress with a Billion Dollar progrect. Get a copy of a book called
" Strangers Devour The Land".
>All of us, all people, have had to let go of their traditional ways in
>order to fit into the technology-driven wage economy.
No this is not so, One does not have togive up traditional ways to
live in this world along side of progress.
> I wish we didn't.
Then don't.
>And real or imagined, the "injustices" of the past are not sufficient
>to demand rent from the non-Natives who you call Canadians.
No one is demanding anything, its a fact. There are whole cities in
the USA that people pay taxes and it for the lease of there land and
in one case the people just a few years ago didn't to pay the tax.
They were told then you will have to move and not by the Onadaga's by
by the city of Syracuse New York if they broke there lease and the
city would have to pay. See the 100 year lease for the land ran out.
> We really
>shouldn't visit the sins of the father on the children.
So it a Sin now to have to pay for the using of someone land ?
Which means if I die my children should not have to pay off anyone
that I owe money to ?
>Tell me, since you don't consider yourself a Canadian, do you vote?
No I do not vote and in fact Quebec was very upset because they wanted
us to vote as a people in the seperation vote and we told them we
would not. We also told them not to send in there people and try to
get names of voters or our police would arrest them for tresspassing.
>do you receive any of the benefits of being a Canadian?
I get benefits as a treaty native living on the reservation, but not
if I lived off, in that case I would be as everyone else.
>And do you really want to be segregated and separated from the rest of Canada?
Its not a question of segregation. Canada is not part of the United
States by its still part of Norht America.
> We've had that racist Indian policy since confederation, in the form of
>the Indian Act and reserves, and it ain't done Natives any good.
This true, and a part of that is an Actical call Number 89, is one
reason. It is the reason we have no businesses or investment to give
us jobs for our people. It has a very positive value by at the same
time is keeps us from doing anything to advance as people.
The good part is that it proves we are not Canadians or there would no
be such an act.
Look this is to everyone, native people do not want anything more than
a better share of life. Just like someone that goes on strike for
better wages or job protection. We are asking anyone to leave, but we
have to do something about places like Davis Inlet, and we have to
make sure those things do not happen. We have to stop send jobs to
Mexico and give to our people so they get a feeling of value and can
earn money and not have to live on welfare. Is that so hard to
understand. Is it so hard to understand that if Quebec Seperates,
they can tell us because they think its right that we must become
Quebecois. We have never been and will never be. But we need joint
ventures, profit sharing, land managment, and a willingness to listen
to our veiws about what you are doing to our land and needs of our
people before you rip up the heart of the earth to clear cut the trees
so that mankind can have a few boards and paper. Here in Quebec at a
palce called Barrier Lake the government agreed not to cut trees near
a lake, but over time the cut closer and closer. When the counicl
protested, the government remove them and replaced them so they could
cut those trees. Very mind that the trees protected the run off, and
nature. It was getting in the way of progress. What progess ? The
death of lake, and the creatures that live around it ? That is
progess. Well then if it is, then its also the DEATH OF EARTH.
James H. Steiger
ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Gordon) wrote:
>We OWE no one from other lands anything. If we choose to share what we have,
>we have the right to do it on our terms. That is not 'racism'. That is
>being smart. That is caring for your own country and lifestyle. That is
>what every other damn country does - without being dubbed 'racist'.
Precisely.
One seldom hears inquiries about whether (a) how easily, if at all,one
may be a citizen in Japan if one is, say, Irish-Canadian by descent,
or (b) whether one may become an Israeli citizen without certain
racial-religious qualifications. It would be very interesting to see a
list of citizenship regulations for a number of countries, so that a
number of our delusional citizens (i.e., the ones constantly accusing
everyone else of racism) would have some more reasonable idea of
how *other* cultures guard their borders.
Richard J. Sexton
In article <33ec8c31...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>,
James H. Steiger <ste...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Your ability to ramble in lengthy, run-on sentences is unparalleled,
>Frosty. But the fact remains, there is a semantic and logical
>distinction between "genetic guilt" and "receiving stolen property."
The metric of the internet is information, not grammer and spelling.
If you fail to comprehend the points raised by an author, email
them privately. If nobody understand what the person is saying
this will be refelected in public. The fact that responses to
badly written and editied posts occur should be proof of this.
Pedantic nit picking is the eminent doain of the print media
and the writing style you are complaining about is reflective
of the contemporary colloquilisms of usenet and has been that
way since it's inception and will be that way after your death.
>By the way, I don't know any "white" people. Stop using the racist
>term, please. I'm Irish-German-Canadian, and my skin is a olive-tan.
>If you hold it next to a piece of white paper, you can see that it
>bears no resemblance. Do I call native people "redskins?"
See above, re colloquilism. You seem to be alone in this complaint;
moreso, take it up with the "white power" guys.
>One may be in possession of property that is later determined not
>to be owned properly without having been guilty of anything. Suppose
>I buy a car from a car dealer, and it turns out the car was stolen
>and the title forged. Am I guilty? If I gave the car to my daughter,
>would she be guilty?
Ask any pawn shop owner what happens if it can be shown they
are in possession of stolon goods, even if they were convinced
they were not stolen.
--
Join the march to save individuality
James H. Steiger
fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere) wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Aug 1997 22:49:39 GMT, ste...@unixg.ubc.ca (James H.
>Steiger) wrote:
>
>>fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere) wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry..... Yes there is such a thing as inherited guilt... If you
>>>have something stolen by someone going back 100 yesrs, and you are
>>>aware or not aware you can still be charged with possesion of stolen
>>>goods. Try buying a stolen car and see what happens to you.
>>
>>Sorry Frosty, you seem badly confused about the distinction between
>>"inherited guilt," (i.e., being "guilty" because of a genetic
>>connection to some one who was guilty of something) and "receiving
>>stolen property." All the examples you give are of the latter.
>>
>Gee then I stand corrected and the case of a land claim here in Quebec
>is all wrong and those people that have deeds to land that was never
>sold, traded or surrended have all the rights to live on stolen lands
>and the lawyers for the case must be all nuts. And the government
>lawyers are in a stalemate because they can not find anything to say
>other wise. You can not have anything that was stolen and think it
>yours because you think so. Hell tell that to the Swiss right now,
>why are the returning the gold ? Because they can not own what is not
>their's. But it will take many courtrooms and lawyers to argue this
>because its the native going into a whitemans courtroom and has to
>deal with his laws written to portect his rights and could careless
>about anyone trying to take anything away from them.
Your ability to ramble in lengthy, run-on sentences is unparalleled,
Frosty. But the fact remains, there is a semantic and logical
distinction between "genetic guilt" and "receiving stolen property."
By the way, I don't know any "white" people. Stop using the racist
term, please. I'm Irish-German-Canadian, and my skin is a olive-tan.
If you hold it next to a piece of white paper, you can see that it
bears no resemblance. Do I call native people "redskins?"
So, for example, statements like "all white people share in the guilt
for the travesties committed against Native Peoples" is typical mumbo
jumbo cliche-slinging, invoking the concept of genetic guilt. All
"white" people are not guilty, any more than all Native People are
guilty for the scalping of one of the relatives of some person
currently living in Oklahoma.
Receiving stolen property involves taking ownership, consciously,
of something you know belongs to someone else. Since whether the
land belongs to First Nations people at all is in legal dispute, it
is difficult to see how anyone who lives could be charged with
receiving stolen property.
One may be in possession of property that is later determined not
to be owned properly without having been guilty of anything. Suppose
I buy a car from a car dealer, and it turns out the car was stolen
and the title forged. Am I guilty? If I gave the car to my daughter,
would she be guilty?
Of course not. She would be no more guilty than the people living
on land without clear title.
People who "inherited" lands that are not theirs inherited, in a
sense, stolen (actually misappropriated) property. They are "guilty"
of nothing. If the government now decides they must give the land up,
they will be victimized (in many cases having come from abroad and
having paid for the land in good faith to someone else).
Receiving stolen property is a crime, and should be punished where it
occurs.
The concept of genetic guilt is bogus, the product of people who
either cannot think logically, or are trying to dupe other people
who cannot think logically. It is frequently employed by people who
want to claim a high moral ground, when in fact they have no claim.
The mumbo-jumbo in your post above simply confirms that you can't
make fine semantic distinctions.
Governments (and lawyers) do many things that are neither fair nor
logical. People have a curious ability to rationalize any wrong
committed for their benefit, and to get totally rabid about any wrong
committed against them. It is quite ironic that while making improper
semantic statements about a situation where a government allegedly
mistreated native people, you apparently approve of such action
directed against other innocent citizens.
A person who immigrated here (say, from Africa) 20 years ago, and
purchased a piece of land, in good faith, with clear title, will
be victimized by the removal of that land just as much as some person
whose relatives lost the land in an invasion hundreds of years ago.
And are you seriously going to argue that said African is guilty of
anything?
That's the curious thing about two wrongs. They seldom make a "right."
Richard J. Sexton
In article <5siete$p8k$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>, <mebe...@SoFuckedUp.ca> wrote:
>Frosty Deer, a revitalized traditional economy, reserve-based economic
>development, and more government handouts, will not create self-sufficient
>Indians, nor will it give you the economic independence to support your
>self-governments. Natives must learn to accept the fact that the route
>to their self-respect, pride, and dignity, economic independence, is the
>same route every native-born Canadian and recent immigrant must take:
>participation in the mainstream economy as a hard-working individual, not
>as a member of some collective entitled to handouts, or rent, just because
>their ancestors were here first.
Translation: An alien culture comes to North America about 400 years
ago, and by cheating, lying killing and stealing, imposes it's culture
and economic model on the dominent society. Later on when the original
culture cries "foul" they are told to embrace that foreign culture or shut up.
Note that the argument espoused by the idiot I'm quoting above
would work in defense of any totalitarian regime dominating
another culture, and in fact can no doubt be attributed to
Atilla the Hun.
John Corman
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 07:41:45 -0600, Rob <013...@nt.com> wrote:
>Which Natives are you talking about?? There is a very large
>misconception that Natives do not pay tax, but that's all it is - a
>misconception. The only income that is not taxable has to be earned on a
>reservation. If you've ever visited a reservation, you would have
>noticed that this is not much money that we are talking about... GST has
>a similar clause. Most working Natives pay plenty of tax.
If you're a native fisherman with a fleet of seiners is it not
possible to have the head office of your business on the reserve but
have another home off the reserve? It's a rhetorical question.
John Corman ******** jco...@island.net
mebe...@sfu.ca
Brother, don't blame whitey for "progress"--the technology-driven
wage economy forces everyone, black, brown, red, yellow, mixed, and white,
to "fit in." No one is to blame for the loss of Native traditional ways.
It is just the way the world works. If you don't like it, move to a commune,
or, better yet, see if there are some Indians who will adopt you and let
you on their reserve.
Richard J. Sexton
In article <33ece13c...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>,
>
>>The metric of the internet is information, not grammer and spelling.
>>
>Frosty has trouble comprehending information. This is
>manifested more in his inability to deal with ideas than
>his grammar, but it is also manifested in his writing style.
This is your opinion, not objective fact.
>>If you fail to comprehend the points raised by an author, email
>>them privately.
>
>I comprehend his points quite well. I disagree with them. I'll
>do what I please. Keep your orders to yourself.
They arn't orders, they're suggestions to sombody who is obvioulsy
new to usenet and doesn't seem to understand the cultiral
dynamics of it.
>>>term, please. I'm Irish-German-Canadian, and my skin is a olive-tan.
>No, I'll take it up with the "red power" guys, or, in fact, anyone
>else I please. Now who's being a pedantic nitpicker, and trying to
>set rules for our ever-free usenet?
Wern't you just complaining about "orders" ? I understand
consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds and such...
That usenet is free is a popular myth, but you'lll learn this
in time as you use it more.
>>>One may be in possession of property that is later determined not
>>>to be owned properly without having been guilty of anything. Suppose
>>>I buy a car from a car dealer, and it turns out the car was stolen
>>>and the title forged. Am I guilty? If I gave the car to my daughter,
>>>would she be guilty?
>>Ask any pawn shop owner what happens if it can be shown they
>>are in possession of stolon goods, even if they were convinced
>>they were not stolen.
>Can you cite me a case where an individual who purchased a car,
>in good faith, from a car dealer who showed them a forged title,
>has been charged with anything? Thought not.
I have no idea. You probably know a lot more about stolen
cars than I do.
I only know how pawn shops work because of hanging around looking
for antique wristwatches and hearing cops having little talks
with the owners.
>Again, Richard, you are confused about the nature of proof by
>counterexample. To show that two concepts are not necessarily related,
>one need only show one counterexample.
Or one could look it up in the lawbooks. But feel free to modus
ponens your way out of a speeding ticket though.
Now, why don't you and de Morgan go and buzz off and derive
some wff's?
Frosty Deere
On Sat, 09 Aug 1997 15:54:37 GMT, ste...@unixg.ubc.ca (James H.
Steiger) wrote:
>fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Aug 1997 22:49:39 GMT, ste...@unixg.ubc.ca (James H.
>>Steiger) wrote:
>>
>>>fro...@frostys.qc.ca (Frosty Deere) wrote:
>>>
>Receiving stolen property involves taking ownership, consciously,
>of something you know belongs to someone else. Since whether the
>land belongs to First Nations people at all is in legal dispute, it
>is difficult to see how anyone who lives could be charged with
>receiving stolen property.
Simple, if want to believe the lie is the truth and you court system
tells you the lie is the turth, then you believe what you want, and we
will keep telling you the lie is false. In your court system and
legal system it set up to protect your rigths and not the rights of
native people, other wise at one time it would not have been illegal
for Canadian Lawyers to defend native land claims.
>One may be in possession of property that is later determined not
>to be owned properly without having been guilty of anything.
Yes but they also have to return it. Which as we can see in the
province of B.C. the people there are rejecting this fact.
>Suppose
>I buy a car from a car dealer, and it turns out the car was stolen
>and the title forged. Am I guilty? If I gave the car to my daughter,
>would she be guilty?
If its proven you knew, about yes. But in any event the car must be
returned and no payment is return to you.
>People who "inherited" lands that are not theirs inherited, in a
>sense, stolen (actually misappropriated) property. They are "guilty"
>of nothing. If the government now decides they must give the land up,
>they will be victimized (in many cases having come from abroad and
>having paid for the land in good faith to someone else).
Like I said you can believe the lie, because your court and legal
system will protect this idea.
>Receiving stolen property is a crime, and should be punished where it
>occurs.
Or at least return to the rightful owners... Like the gold in in
Europe..
>
>The concept of genetic guilt is bogus, the product of people who
>either cannot think logically, or are trying to dupe other people
>who cannot think logically. It is frequently employed by people who
>want to claim a high moral ground, when in fact they have no claim.
I guess that is what was done to the native people, and in many cases
still to day. James Bay comes to mind.
>The mumbo-jumbo in your post above simply confirms that you can't
>make fine semantic distinctions.
I am only stating the fact of some court cases that are now in the
courts and the reasons they are. But then we have to remember whos
court system we are dealing with.
>A person who immigrated here (say, from Africa) 20 years ago, and
>purchased a piece of land, in good faith, with clear title, will
>be victimized by the removal of that land just as much as some person
>whose relatives lost the land in an invasion hundreds of years ago.
But if in fact the land was known to government to be in dispute, that
person should have been informed that a claim to the title is in the
courts. Which in the 10,000 acres next to where we live this not done
and today the people are learning they are living on disputed land and
that we can prove in there own court system we own this land and have
a title right from the KING.... Yeah he took a chuck of land and said
"I give this land to the Mohawks" The government rigth now are
between a rock and hard place.
>And are you seriously going to argue that said African is guilty of
>anything?
No he is not, but the government that allowed him to buy the land and
not inform him of that facts are.
>That's the curious thing about two wrongs. They seldom make a "right."
But we are not guilty of a wrong, we own the land and that is FACT.
>Professor James H. Steiger Department of Psychology
>(ste...@unixg.ubc.ca) 2136 West Mall
>Office: 604-822-2706 University of British Columbia
>Fax: 604-822-6923 Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
I guess I am to be impressed by this ?
James H. Steiger
ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton) wrote:
>In article <33ec8c31...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>,
>James H. Steiger <ste...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>Your ability to ramble in lengthy, run-on sentences is unparalleled,
>>Frosty. But the fact remains, there is a semantic and logical
>>distinction between "genetic guilt" and "receiving stolen property."
>
>The metric of the internet is information, not grammer and spelling.
>
Heavy observation. Still doesn't deal with the fact that
Frosty has trouble comprehending information. This is
manifested more in his inability to deal with ideas than
his grammar, but it is also manifested in his writing style.
>If you fail to comprehend the points raised by an author, email
>them privately.
I comprehend his points quite well. I disagree with them. I'll
do what I please. Keep your orders to yourself.
>If nobody understand what the person is saying
>this will be refelected in public. The fact that responses to
>badly written and editied posts occur should be proof of this.
>
Proof of what? You write no better than poor Frosty.
>Pedantic nit picking is the eminent doain of the print media
>and the writing style you are complaining about is reflective
>of the contemporary colloquilisms of usenet and has been that
>way since it's inception and will be that way after your death.
You write inane nonsense like this, and you accuse me of
pedantic nit-picking? Look, 2+2 does not equal 5, no matter
what "contemporary colloquialisms" Frosty chooses to employ.
Saying the opposite of what you mean is always going to
cause problems, unless you think your readers are psychic.
And, "genetic guilt" is not related to "receiving stolen property."
If you are so bright and clear headed, why don't you deal with
the substance of the original debate, rather than trailing off
into the typical nitwit's defense of "you use dem big wurds,
so you'se is rong, cuase I'm a deep thinkin populist."
Complete nonsense, complete non sequitur.
>
>>By the way, I don't know any "white" people. Stop using the racist
>>term, please. I'm Irish-German-Canadian, and my skin is a olive-tan.
>>If you hold it next to a piece of white paper, you can see that it
>>bears no resemblance. Do I call native people "redskins?"
>
>See above, re colloquilism. You seem to be alone in this complaint;
>moreso, take it up with the "white power" guys.
>
No, I'll take it up with the "red power" guys, or, in fact, anyone
else I please. Now who's being a pedantic nitpicker, and trying to
set rules for our ever-free usenet?
>>One may be in possession of property that is later determined not
>>to be owned properly without having been guilty of anything. Suppose
>>I buy a car from a car dealer, and it turns out the car was stolen
>>and the title forged. Am I guilty? If I gave the car to my daughter,
>>would she be guilty?
>
>Ask any pawn shop owner what happens if it can be shown they
>are in possession of stolon goods, even if they were convinced
>they were not stolen.
Can you cite me a case where an individual who purchased a car,
in good faith, from a car dealer who showed them a forged title,
has been charged with anything? Thought not.
Again, Richard, you are confused about the nature of proof by
counterexample. To show that two concepts are not necessarily related,
one need only show one counterexample.
Frosty gave examples of what he *thought* showed a necessary
connection between "genetic guilt" and "receiving" (or inheriting)
"stolen property" .
Showing (assuming you actually know what you are talking about, which
is a bit of a stretch) an instance (pawnbroking) where two concepts
are connected does not show that they are indistinct. Is this too
difficult for you?
SUMMARY: You use the typical dumb-guy's defense that the person
who is making a fool out of you is an elitist snob. While claiming
to be a populist, you give lots of orders, as if you were some
how queen of the internet.
Dumb guys have used the "elitism" ploy for ages, along with similar
nonsense about "pointy headed intellectuals" not being able to think
logically, etc. When that fails, they fall back on name calling,
saying things like "why don't you go hang out with the other white
power guys."
I'm not a "white power guy." I just like turning around the silly
cliches of these whining anti-white racists who hang around certain
newsgroups.
Question is, are you just another "dumb guy?" You sure act like one.
Frosty Deere
To those that have sent me email requesting additional native
information. Also you can search on the NET for one of the best
Native Homepages by looking up MOHAWK.
From data...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Sat Aug 09 13:10:41 1997
Newsgroups: alt.native
Subject: Canadian First Nations sites
From: data...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
Date: 9 Aug 1997 17:10:41 GMT
HERITAGE DATABANK CONSULTING
data...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Please note we now have a Website Address for your
convenience
============================================
| HERITAGE DATABANK CONSULTING |
============================================
www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~databank
v24.6.97
HERITAGE DATABANK CONSULTING maintains a 100,000,000 byte (160,000
pg. printout) History and Native Studies research files accessable
on-line
by computer in a BBS format; this includes over 60,000 files, 18,000
biographies, 1,200 tribal listings. We specialize in Western Canadian
Native and Historical information. Our BBS maintains the most
comprehensive on-line files onthe history of Indian Tribes in North
America. In addition our files are expanding into broader areas of
world history.
Files can be accessed on-line via modem at 1-900-451-4166 IN CANADA;
Outside Canada other arrangements must be made. Call 1-403-885-2505.
Below are the major files currently existing - more detailed listings
follow below:
ARCHAEOLOGY BIBLIOGRAPHIES
GENEALOGIES HISTORY
NATIVE STUDIES NATURAL HISTORY
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT BIOGRAPHIES
ROCK & ROLL SONGS NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS MAILING LISTS
FIRST NATIONS WEBSITES/HISTORY PAGES
More detailed information is available on our website
www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~databank
ARCHAEOLOGY (141,000 bytes; 30 cultures)
AUTHORS (174,000 bytes; 2300 references consulted in this BBS)
CLIPPINGS (125,000 bytes)
GENEALOGIES (243,000 bytes; 1300 individuals)
NATIVE GENEALOGIES
GEOLOGY (60,000 bytes)
HISTORY (10,000,000 bytes total)
AFRICA (62,000 bytes; 23 states)
ASIA (241,000 bytes; 81 states)
EUROPE (167,000 bytes; 65 states)
EURASIAN PEOPLES (154,000 bytes; 93 Peoples/tribes)
NORTH AMERICA (9,000,000 bytes total; 14 states)
FUR TRADE (400,000 bytes total; Personages, Events, Posts - 440
posts listed)
CANADA (7,500,000 bytes total; General data, Acadia, Buffalo Bone
industry, Hudson Bay, National Parks, New France, Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, Wars)
LAWS (230,000 bytes)
1885 REBELLION (332,000 bytes; Events, Rebellion Conspiracies)
PROVINCES
ALBERTA (4,800,000 bytes total; General Data; Events; Caves,
Climate, Coal, Farming/Ranching, Fishing, Forestry, Ghost
Towns, Gold, Hauntings, Horses, Income, Law, Logging, Medicine,
Mining, Missions, Negro, Oil/Gas, Provincial Parks, Steele's
Scouts, Trails, Transportation)
LOCATIONS (2,800 places; 290 Posts/Forts)
BRITISH COLUMBIA (290,000 bytes; Gen. Dat., Events; 300 locations;
50 post/forts)
MANITOBA (245,000 bytes; Gen. Dat., Events, 200 locations; 52
posts/forts)
NB, NFLD, NS;
N.W.T. (260,000 bytes; Gen.Dat., Events; 170 places 25 posts/
forts)
ONTARIO, PEI, QUEBEC
SASKATCHEWAN (1,200,000 bytes total; Gen. Dat., Events; 480
locations; 76 posts/forts)
YUKON
UNITED STATES (800,000 bytes total; Events, Gen. Dat.; Indian Wars,
States - 23 states listed) (520 locations total)
MONTANA (420,000 bytes; 300 locations)
INDEX TO FURTHER RESEARCH (1,200,000 bytes, 40,000 headings)
INDIAN (41,000,000 bytes; 1200 Tribes)
FIRST NATIONS HISTORY PAGES/WEBSITES
NATIVE GENEALOGIES
ABORIGINAL LAW (188,000 bytes)
LEGENDS (500,000 bytes)
PLACE NAMES (470,000 bytes)
TREATIES (670,000 bytes)
INDIAN TRIBES
Abnaki, Absaroka, Abenaki, Abitibi, Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians, Agate Basin Culture, Ahikainah, Aishihik,
Akainai, Akiskowak, Alaska Eskimo, Alberta Culture, Alberta
Native Communications Society, Alberta Slave, Aleut,
Algommequin, Algonkian, Algonquin, Alimibequeck, Allumete,
Amiskapi Pikuni, Anasazi, Andatahouat, Anna, Apache,
Aputoksi Pikuni, Arapaho, Arara (SA), Archecadrene,
Archithinue, Arcs A Plat, Arikara, Aroland First Nation,
Ashigane, Ashkee, Asinepoet, Asini Pwat, Asinipwat,
Asseeneepaytock, Assembly of First Nations, Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs, Asseneipouals, Assine Poet, Assine Poetsak,
Assinepoet, Assiniboin, Assiniboul, Assinikoon, Assinipoils,
Assinipwat, Assini Wachi Wininiwak, Assitaehronon, Assiaguer-
onon, Assitaeronon, Assurini (SA), Athabasca, Athabascan,
Athapaskan, Atena, Athena, Atlin, Atnah, Atsena, Atsina,
Atsina-Algo,
Attekameg, Attistae, Avonlea Culture, Awokanak, Ayachiniwak,
Ayachisinew Wininiwak, Ayachisinewak, Ayatciyiniwak, Aymara
(SA), Aztec, Aztec-Tanoan
Bad Robes, Bannock, Bascoutton, Baxoje, Beaux Hommes, Bear
Lake, Beaver, Beaver Hunter, Beaver First Nation, Beaver
Lake First Nation, Beaver People, Beaver River, Beaver Slave,
Bedonkohe, Bedzaqetcha, Behansa, Bella Bella, Bella Coola,
Beothuk, Besant Culture, Big Bellies, Big Bellies of the
Missouri, Big Belly, Big Knife, Big Knives, Bistchonigotinne,
Bistchonigottine, Black Feet, Black Paint People, Black
Pawnee, Blackduck Focus, Blackfeet, Blackfeet Tribe of
Montana, Blackfoot (8,010,000 bytes; 3 Tribes), Blackfoot
Confederacy, Blackfoot Nation,
Blackfoot Sioux, Blanket, Blanket People, Blood, Blood
People, Blue Cloud People, Blue Earth, Boeuf, Boothroyd,
Bouscoutton, Braided Hair, Brule Sioux, Buffalo Nations
Cultural Society, Bungi, Burnt Thigh Sioux,
Cado, Caddoan, Came Down The River, Canarsee, Caribou
Eaters,
Caribou People, Carrier, Cascade, Cassiar, Castahanas,
Castor,
Catawba, Cayuse, Central Algonkin, Central Woodland
Algonkin, Central American, Chabatore, Chaimanak,
Chayimanak,
Champagne & Aishihik First Nations, Chantorabin, Chaudiere,
Chemawawin First Nation, Chepawey, Chepewyan, Cheppewean,
Cherokee, Cheveux Releves, Cheyenne, Chichique, Chickesaw,
Chikiwere, Chilkotin, Chintagottine, Chipewyan (640,000
bytes;
213 Bands; Bands)
Chipperas, Chippewa (380,000 bytes; 116 Bands),
Chippewa-Cree, Chippewas of the Nawash First Nation,
Chippewayeen, Chipewayanoawok, Chipewayanawak,
Chiricahua, Chitragottine, Chitra-Gottineke, Chiwere,
Choctaw, Christieneaux, Christinaux, Christino, Cibeque
Apache, Cikanni, Circee, Clovis Culture, Cluny, Coast
Salish, Cody Complex, Coeur D'Alene, Cold Lake First
Nations,
Columbia, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Commanche,
Comox, Confederated Tribes of Siletz, Confederation of
Tribal
Nations, Constance Lake First
Nation, Copper Eskimo, Copper Indians, Cottenais, Cotton Na
Hew, Cottonahew, Cowichan, Cree (14,400,000 bytes; 1412
Bands),
Cree Nation Tribal Council, Cree Speakers, Cri, Cris,
Cristieneaux, Cristienaux, Crow (133,000 bytes; 6 bands),
Crow Foot, Crow Mountain, Crow's Feet, Cut Head, Cut Throat,
C
Cuthead Sioux, Cutthroat,
Dakota (900,000 bytes; 127 Bands), Datomes, Datones,
Deerskin,
Delaware, Denbigh Flint
Complex, Dene, Dene Nation, Dene-Tha, Deneid, Denesuline,
Desnedenekade, Desbedeyarelottine, Dhegia Sioux, Digger,
Dinnae, Dinnie, Dirt Lodge People, Dog's Rib People, Dogrib,
Dorset Culture, Dusty Head, Dwellers Among The Beaver,
Dwellers on a Peninsula, Dwellers on the River, Dwellers on
the Rocks
Eagle Eyed, Eahshejahbe, Early Woodland Culture, Earth
People, Earchithinue, East Main Band, Eastern Algonkin,
Eastern People, Eastern Woodlands, Echel Tao Tima, Eden
Culture, Edjieretrukenade, Eenou, Einew, Einewak,
Eleidlinot-
tine, Enemies, Enfranchised, English River First Nation,
Enna, Entrails People, Erie, Esbaottine, Esbataottine,
Esbataotinne, Esclave, Eskimo, Eskaleut, Eta, Etagottine,
Etatchogottine, Etchaoutinne, Etchaottine, Etchareottine,
Etcheridiegottine, Etchesottine, Etechesottine, Etheneldeli,
Ettachaottine, Ettine Tinney, Exact People, Exact Speaking
People, Eythinyowuk,
Fall, Federation of Saskatchewan First Nations, Fer A
Cheval,
Fire Nation, First Nations Coalition for Accounability,
Fish, Flat Head, Flatbow, Flathead, Flathead Nation,
Flatside
Dogs, Floating Down The River, Flying Fall, Foes, Folsom
Culture, Foolish Folk, Fort William First Nation, Fox
Gens De Orignal, Gens De Bois Fort, Gens De Montagnes, Gens
du
Montagne, Gens Du Roche, Gitksan, Goat, Grand Council of The
Crees (of Quebec), Grand Rapids First Nation, Grand Pagnes,
Great Basin (73,000 bytes), Great Knife, Great Knives, Great
Padouca Nation,
Green Hands, Green Wood, Gros Ventre, Gros Ventre of the
Missouri, Gros Vents, Gu'tskia'we, Gut People, Guyandot,
Guyandotte, Gwitchin
Hahatonwan, Haida, Haihai, Haisla, Han, Hanna Culture, Hare,
Hay River Slave, Head Cutters, Heiltsuk, Hidatsa,
Hivernants,
Hoha, Hohe, Home, Hopi (140,000 bytes), Horn Mountain
People,
Hunkpapa Sioux, Huron, Huronnne
Illinois, Inca (SA), Inca Empire (SA), Indian Association of
Alberta, Indian Birch First Nation, Ingalik, Ininiwak,
Ininyowuk, Innu (17,000 bytes; 45 Bands), Interlake Reserves
First Nations, Interlake Tribal Council, Inuid, Inuit, Inuk,
Inuktitut, Inuvaliut, Iowa, Ioway, Ipiutak Cultre,
Iroquoian,
Iroquois (189,000 bytes; 27 Bands),
Isashbahatse, Island Butte People, Island People, Issati,
Iswanid, Itama Culture, Itoaten
Jayimanak, Jasper Snake
Kahkakiwaitcanak, Kainai (3,000,000 bytes; 256 Bands),
Kainau,
Kakakiwechanak, Kakawatamitukinik, Kalispel, Kamloops Phase,
Kamanistiquia, Kanehiaw Estcik, Kanienkehaka, Kansas,
Kaska,
Kaskaskia, Kaskitewiyasitak,
Kaw, Kawchaodinne, Kawchodine, Keethisteno, Kenisteno,
Kickapoo, Kilistino, Kilistinoc, Killistino of the Nipisire-
ne, Killistinoe, Killitinoe, Kinbasket, Kinehiyaw Eschik,
Kinepikew Wiyiniwak, Kinepiko Wininiwak, Kinesteno, Kiniste-
noog, Kinisteneaux, Kinistino, Kiowa, Kiowa Apache,
Kiristinon, Kiristious, Kitchigami, Kitunahan, Kiwistinok,
Klanoh Klatklam, Klickitat, Klikitat, Klodesseaottine,
Knaiakhotana, Kojejewininewug, Kootenai, Kootonae,
Kopaqmiut,
Kotasiskikaminowak, Koyukon, Krayirogottine, Kraylongottine,
Kree, Krestino, Kristeneaux, Kristineaux, Kullyspel,
Kutchin,
Kutenai (730,000 bytes; 124 Bands), Kutenaian, Kutona'xa,
Kwakiutl, Kyitonehe, :-)
L'Association Des Metis D'Alberta et D'Nord-Ouest, Lake,
Lakoda, Lakotid Race, Lax Kw'Alaams, League of Indains of
Alberta, League of Indians of Canada, League of Indains of
Saskatchewan, Lenape (30,000 bytes, 3 Bands), Lenapid Race,
Lerma Culture, Liars,
Lilloet, Lilooet, Little Prairie People, Lodge By The River,
Long Ear, Loucheux, Lower Assurini (SA)
Mackenzie Eskimo, McKean Culture, Mahah, Mahican, Mai-Tain-
Ai-Thi-Nish, Maitain Assini, Maitain Asini, Makoutepoel,
Maleceet, Malecite, Mamikininiwug, Mandan, Mandane, Mangers
de Lard, Manitoba Metis Federation, Manitoba Warriors, Many
Chiefs, Marameg, Maricopa, Mascouten, Mascoutin, Mashquegon,
Maskegon, Maskote, Massachuset, Matauakirinouek, Matawa
First Nation, Matawa Kirinouwak, Mathias Colomb First
Nation,
Mathkoutench, Mattabesic Confederation, Maya, Mekesue,
Meadow,
Men of Diverse Races, Menomeni, Menominee, Menomini,
Menominie
, Mesoamerican, Metis (350,000 bytes), Metis Association of
Alberta, Metis Nation of Alberta, Metoac, Miami, Micmac
(45,000
bytes; 36 bands), Middle Woodland Culture,
Migichihiliniou, Mihkowiyiniwak, Minataree, Minetaree,
Mingo,
Miniconjou, Minikayawozupi, Minikoozu, Minitaree,
Minneconjou,
Miscoo Wininiwak, Mississauga, Mithcoo Ethenue, Moche (SA),
Mohegan, Mohican, Moniaw, Moniaiginiwok, Moniyaw, Moniyawak,
Monsauni, Monsoni, Monsounic, Montagnais, Montagnard,
Moose Lake First Nation, Moose People, Moosomin First
Nation,
Moquis, Moravian, Mountain, Mountain People, Mountain
Peoples
Cultural Society, Mountain Poets, Mud House People, Mud
Lodges, Muncy, Muscagoe, Muskagoe, Muskegoe, Musketoon,
Muskoday, Muskotay, Musqueam
Na-Anike, Nabesna, Nacho Nyak Dun, Na-chu Ny'a'k-dun,
Na-Dene,
Nadouessis, Nadouweseaux, Nahane, Nahani, Nahanne, Nahany,
Nahathaway, Nahiawuk, Nahua, Nai-ah-ya'og, Naka Wininiwak,
Naka Wiyiniwak, Nakkawininiwak, Nakoukouhrinus, Nakoda
5,360,000 bytes; 564 Bands),
Nanaimo, Nandawibi, Nanymo, Napakstokwewak, Naraganset,
Naskapi, Nation Du Boeuf, Nation of Fire, Nation of the
Boeuf,
Nauset, Navaho, Navajo (80,000 bytes), Nayhaythaway,
Naywatame
Poet,
Naywattamee Poet, Nazca (SA), Nehethewuk, Nehiawak,
Nehiapwat,
Nehigawok, Nehiyaw, Nehiyawak, Nepissings, Nesakep Culture,
Netsilik Eskimo, Neutral, New England, New Westminster Band,
Nez Perce, Nicola Valley Culture, Nicola Valley Tribal
Council, Nihames, Nimousen Alliance, Nimpkish, Nipissing,
Nipmuc, Misibourounik, Nisga'a, Nishga, Nishnawbe-Askintn,
Niska, Nitsitapi,
Nohanus, Non-Status, Non-Treaty, Nootka, North Eastern
Algonkin, Northard, Northern, Northern Algonkin, North
Central Algonkin, Northern Indian Strangers, Northern
Plains,
Northwest, Northwest Coast, Northwest Plains, Northwestern,
Northwestern Plains, Norton Culture, Ntlakapmuh,
Ntlakyapamuk
Nunakvik, Nuuchahlnuth, Nuxalk
Ocean Man First Nation, Ogalala Sioux, Ojibwa (370,000
bytes;
113 Bands), Ojibway, Ojibwe, Okanagan (200,000 bytes),
Oakanagan Tribal Council, Okanogan, Old Crow, Old Michigan
Copper
Culture, Olmec, Omaha, Omaskekowak, Ondatatouaouat, Oneota
Culture, Onion Lake First Nation, Onze Sansan, Onze Sansen,
Oojibaway, Ookanawgan, Opwasimu, Osinipoille,
Oskquisaquimai,
Ossinipoile, Otaskimewok, Otauoais, Otcipiwewak, Oto, Otoe,
Otoe-Missouria, Otomid, Ottauau, Ottawa, Ouendat, Ouenebei-
gonhelinis, Oueschekgagamiouilimi, Ouikaling, Outaoak,
Outaouac, Outaouak, Oxbow Culture
Padouca Nation, Paegin, Pahakana (SA), Paipekomak, Paiute,
Palani, Papago, Parted Hair People, Passamaquadi, Patuxet,
Pawistiko Wininiwak, Pawistikowininiwak, Pawkee, Pawnee,
Paxoje, Paygan, Payment People, Peeagan, Pegan, Peigan,
Pelican Lake Culture, Pend D'Oreille, Pendant D'Oreille,
Pennakook, Penobscot, People, People Among the Beavers,
People Beside the Laughing Water,People Dwelling in the
Shelter, People of the Fork, People of the Mountain River,
People of the Mountains, People of the Place of the Floating
Scum, People of the Rapids, People of the Rising Sun,
People of the Rocks, People of the Stone Fort, People of
This Place, People Who's Lodges are Here, People Who Speak
Like Ducks, Peoples of the Interior, Peoples of the North
Sea, Peoria, Pequot, Piankeshaw, Piankshaw, Picaneaux,
Piegan, Piekwi, Pigan, Piikani Nation, Pkano Wiyiniwak,
Pikano Wininiwak, Pikenow, Pikuni (2,600,000 bytes; 275
Bands),
Pitchibourenik, Plains (timeline, 211,000 bytes),
Plains Bungi, Plains Chippewa, Plains Ojibway, Plainview
Culture, Plaited Hair, Plascoted Des Chiens, Plateau,
Pleasant Valley People, Pocumtuc, Poet, Poisson Blancs,
Pomnaska, Ponca, Porcupine, Pork Eaters, Porteur,
Potawatomi,
Pottawattomi, Poundmaker First Nation, Prairie Pottawattomi,
Prairie Potawatomi, Precise Speakers, Prince Alberta Grand
Council, Pueblo, Puisascamin, Puntlatch, Pwat, Pwatak ;-}
Quapaw, Quechua (SA), Quechumara (SA), Quiche (SA), Quichua
(SA), Quinnipiac, Quito (SA)
Rapid, Rapids People, Rasaouakaoueton, Real People, Rebels,
Red Indians, Red Pheasant First Nation, Red River, Ree,
Registered, River People, Rocky Mountain, Roodt Digger,
Ruffian
Sa Ahksi, Sadlermiut, Sah He Ah Be, Saheabe, Sahiya, Sahesa
Tinney, Saiha, St. Francis, St. Francois, Saleesh, Saleeish,
Salish, Salishan, Sandia Culture, Saihk, Sanona, Sanpoil,
Sans Arcs, Santa Rosa Culture, Santee Sioux, Sapeten,
Sarcee,
Sarsi, Sasiwak, Sauk, Sauk/Fox, Saulteaur, Saulteaux,
Saulteaux First Nation, Saulteur, Sauteur, Savannah,
Savanois,
Saxsiiwak, Sazuetina, Scottsbluff Culture, Sechelt,
Seechelt,
Sekana, Sekani, Selkirk Focus, Semiamhoo, Seminole, Seneca,
Senipoet, Shahaptian, Shahyabi, Shaway, Shawnee, Shawpatin,
Shee-Wap, Shell, Sheyela, Shibogama First Nations Council,
Shi-E-A-Lah, Shieya, Shi-E-Yah, Shinnecock, Shiyo, Shoal
River
First Nation, Shoo-Shwap, Shoshone, Shoshonean, Shoshoni,
Shu-Shwap, Shuswap (202,000 bytes; 34 Bands), Shyela,
Sicamas,
Sicannie, Sihasabe, Sikanni, Siksika (1,800,000 bytes; 176
Bands), Siksikau, Sikxihahowex, Siletz, Silx Nation,
Sinepoett,
Sioux, Sircies, Sissseton, Six Nationas, Skalzis, Skeetshoo,
Slave, Slaves of the
Upper Hay River, Slavey, Snake, Snare, Snaring, Sneneymexw,
Snenymo, Sock, Songhees, Songish, Sook, Sooke, Sorcereur,
Soshoca, Sochoco, Soto (1,260, 000 bytes; 218 Bands),
Soteaux,
South American, Southward, Southwd., Southwest, Soyitapi,
Sparrowhawk, Spokan, Spokane, Spotted Horse People,
Squamish,
Status, Sto:lo Nation, Stockbridge, Stone, Stone People,
Stoney Stoney Sioux, Stonies, Strangers, Strongbow,
Stongwood,
Subarctic, Sumas Nation, Sungatswitwunshasta,
Sungatswwitwunshasta, Suscee, Suseekoon, Susquehannock,
Sutaio, Swhanemisgh,
Taber Man, Tacullie, Tagish, Tahltan, Tahmungcibi, Takulli,
Tamung Chibi, Tanaina, Tanana, Taos Pueblo, Tatsanottine,
Tayhan Nakota, Tchatorabin, Tco'Ko, Tekamamcouene, Tepehuan
Tete De Boule, Tete de Plate Nation, Teton Sioux,
The-Ottine,
Thekkane, Theottine, They of the Wooden Boats, They Who
Braid
Their Hair, They Who Speak a Different Language, Thickwood,
Thilanottine, Thlingchadine, Thlingchatinne, Thompson,
Thunderchild First Nation, Tillamook, Timucua, Tinnae,
Tipahamawakunak, Tiwa, Tlehonnipts, Tlingit, Tlinkit,
Toeganbe, Tokanpee, Toltec, Tona'xa, Tonkawa, Totatkenne,
Totonac, Tonacan, Treaty, Treaty Seven Tribal Council,
Tsade,
Tsatinne, Tsattine, Tschantoga, Tshabatore, Tsetautkenne,
Tsilhqot'in, Tsimpsean, Tsimshian, Tso Ottine, Tso Tli'na,
Tso-tinne, Tso-tlina, Tsotli'na, T'suu T'Inna (550,000
bytes;
54 Bands), Tsu'Qos, Tunaha, Tuna'ha, Tuna'xa, Tuna'xe,
Tunaxa Cultural Group, Tutchone, Two Kettle, Tza-Denne,
Tza Tinne (470,000 bytes; 72 Bands), Tzo-tlina, Tzotlina,
Tzu-Tinne
Umatilla, Upper Hay River Slave, Usabetora, Ussinnewudj
Eninnewuk, Utaca, Ute (32,000 bytes; 2 Bands), Uto-Aztecan
Wabenaki, Wahpeton, Wakashan, Walla Walla, Wapemaksa, Wapha
Mawksa, Washagamis Bay First Nation, Waymistikosiwok, Wea,
Weaw, Wechepowuck, Weepers, Wendat, Wenro, West Coast, West
Side, White, White Mountain, Wichiyela, Wichita, Wichiyela,
Willamette, Willow, Willow People, Winiiwak, Winnebago,
Winterers, Witapaha, Wolf, Wood, Woodland People, Wyandot,
Wyandotte
Yakima, Yanton (20,000 bytes), Yantonai, Yatcheethinyowuc,
Yellowknife, Yetzkabi, Yukon, Yukon First Nations, Yunca
(SA)
MAILING LISTS (330,000 bytes)
NATURAL HISTORY ((210,000 bytes)
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT (105,000 bytes)
PERSONS/BIOGRAPHIES (9,200,000 bytes; 18,000 listings)
SALES ITEMS (History/Native Studies Books; 4000 Ethnographic Col-
lectables, costumes, etc.)
ROCK& ROLL LYRICS (87,000 bytes)
TITLES (145,000 bytes)
For More Detailed Information, visit our web site
www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~databank@)
--
email:
data...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Frosty Deere
On 9 Aug 1997 13:50:16 -0400, ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton)
wrote:
>>One may be in possession of property that is later determined not
>>to be owned properly without having been guilty of anything. Suppose
>>I buy a car from a car dealer, and it turns out the car was stolen
>>and the title forged. Am I guilty? If I gave the car to my daughter,
>>would she be guilty?
>
>Ask any pawn shop owner what happens if it can be shown they
>are in possession of stolon goods, even if they were convinced
>they were not stolen.
>
Please excuse my grammer............... grin.
I just had to call my friend Johnny L, who happens to own a Pawn Shop.
I asked him that question, and you 100% right. The police do chesk
his store about once a week and he has to keep records of very
transaction to protect his business.
Since I own a computer store he has called me place many times before
taking in computers, for advice on what to look for. So far we have
helped to a few notebooks back to end users.
I know I am not perfect my son tells me all the time. Then I did get
him to get a BA and he is working on his MA, and then a PHd we hope.
But it is expensive as hell going to a school in the USA.
Peace
Frosty Deere
On Sat, 09 Aug 1997 15:54:37 GMT, ste...@unixg.ubc.ca (James H.
Steiger) wrote:
>>Steiger) wrote:
>Your ability to ramble in lengthy, run-on sentences is unparalleled,
>Frosty. But the fact remains, there is a semantic and logical
>distinction between "genetic guilt" and "receiving stolen property."
Gee I had to get back to the above, as I had to think about it just
abit. After I did not want to upset you and have grade my writing
once again
Then I am product of your government and it education system that told
me I was a dumb SOB because I refused to listen and they had to beat
me about once a week. The even got my parents to believe I was a bad
child and they to would abuse me in an effort to correct my bad
behaivour in the governments educational systems for natives. No
matter what I did, it was never good enough and here 40 years later it
seems its still not good enough.
But then I must be a better person than you because I have never
insulted anyone because they were handicaped in anyway. Be it
langauge, the way the dress or even the lack or better education than
mine. I never found I had to impress anyone about myself, to say I
can say these thing because of who I am.
It is funny how my writting has become part of the topic. Is it done
to show you are superior to me and my education and therefore what you
write makes my words invalid ? That you have to point out you are so
much smarter than I in your writting skills, and that mine are not.
Still it does not mean my words are any less important.
Well made you have a better education, maybe you live in a better
house and you make more money but then maybe you don't. But I don't
put people down when because I want to win a debate.
Frosty Deere
On Sat, 09 Aug 1997 21:00:17 GMT, jco...@island.net (John Corman)
wrote:
If you are talking about a fishing right, that is not the same thing.
See in that case the waters become an extended part of the native
land. But lets take a constuction jobs where we have a fabication
plant here in Kahnawake, ( or we did have ) only the work do on the
reservation is non-taxable. Once the steel leaves and ironworkers go
to install the building, all income becomes taxable. Which in this
case is about 45% in Quebec. Yes they are paid very well for climbing
up those steel beams of about 3 inchs wide and 90 to hundred feet
above the ground.
Be we have no fishing rights in our treaties and so the idea to us
means nothing, we have no choice but to work off, and save money to
start businesses because we get little or no help.
My son just opened a business and it took him over five month to get a
$5,000 loan. What needed was $30 to $50 but because of Artical 89
that is the most he could get and so I had to help him.
See the truth is that it is not as easy as you thing opening a
business on a reservation. But that is all together another topic and
one I am not interested in getting into.
mebe...@sfu.ca
Frosty Deere
Not as long as Canada has two law, one for native and one for
non-natives.
Again I repeat myself, why are their no Acts for anyother race of
people in Canada. Show me one Indian Act for anyother race.
Show me one other Department of Indian Affairs for anyother race.
You can not find one. If native people were able to own the resources
on there lands and buy or sell them as anyone else, many would need
nothing and in fact maybe we would have a Department of Canadians.
So you gave us a few penny's over the last five hundred years but
Canada has taken everything and only kept one promois, and that was
break every treaty they ever signed
Ask yourself why its only been about the last 10 years that banks have
opened on resevations. Why there is almost no manufactoring on
reservations. Why is it we have only about 10% of employment on the
reservation and the other 90% is off.
Going back a few years ago the government gave our reservation some
investment money to start a moble home company. It last only one
year. Why.. Someone forget to inform Quebec and they would not allow
the transportation of the homes built. Then they trained Algonquins
to build homes in Northern Quebec and after the training they were
told to wait. In the mean time the construction of homes right in the
village they lived were going up with UNION workers from the south.
Their are many stories about development projects, but most are
subject to fail.
Last year we needed a loan of $35,000 to have a hockey team in what is
called TIER II, and this was to get the players on the ice. The sale
of tickets would have more than covered the loan but because of
ARTICAL 89 we could not get the loan.
I own business and its taken me about 15 years to get where I am
because I was forced to fight my way up where if it where not for
ARTICAL 89, it would not have taken me this long to get to where I am
today.
A new immigrant to Canada can get a better chance at a economic future
most natives.
Take the time and visit a reservation some time and ask the people why
there are no shopping centers, no plants, not mills, and no jobs.
All this only causes hate because of what could have been. There is
no need for the native people in Canada to live like this.
Canada is so quick to rush off to help the rest of the world and yet
we have Davis Inlet and even that has not change that much yet.