Re: [OT] The mass graves that never were?

On 6/2/24 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <sa8p5j9mj0r18sb4ahs8m1uuglsv2vrilu@4ax.com>,
  The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
 

On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:05:17 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>

Obviously the groups that have benefitted have been the aboriginal
groups. A prime example are the "acknowledgements" you hear everywhere
which implicitly recognize aboriginal claims that are by no means
established much less valid.

>
I despise those land acknowledgements. I participated in an online
health seminar last year via Zoom, had serious difficulties getting
connected and finally arrived about two minutes late for the start of
the meeting - and had to sit through a land acknowledgement. It kept me
from missing any of the useful content of the meeting but it irked me
to have to listen to it especially given that WE WERE ONLINE, not
standing on anyone's "sacred ground".

>
Since retirement I have been 'attending' a lot of McMaster webinars
which they publicize via the alumni association. Which of course is
how I learned who their native neighbors were. (The difference of
course being that southern Ontario is covered by native treaties
whereas in most of southern BC - which is where 95% of the population
is - native groups (I refuse to call them 'nations' since to me the
idea of a 'nation' with under 10000 population being equal to Britain,
France the US etc is beyond ludicrous) get all kinds of benefits from
me and thee and have reserves but mostly no treaties) Obviously I know
who all the tribes are in the areas of Vancouver and Victoria since
you always hear them when there's a government announcement.

 About a month and a half a go, I went to a city council meeting for the
first time because I wanted to see what their plans were regarding some
adjustments to traffic flow in my neighborhood.
 The meeting started not with the Pledge of Allegiance to America, but
rather an "acknowledgment" that America is systemically racist and the
land our city is built on was stolen from the Gabrieleno Tongva tribe.
 (And how does a native American tribe end up with a hispanic name in the
first place? If that's what the original Spanish settlers called them,
isn't it perpetuating the racism or whatever to memorialize them with
the name their oppressors gave them?)
 When it came time for public comment, I got up and told them that (1)
you say it's "acknowledged" that America is systemically racist as if
that's a settled question of fact and not open for debate or challenge.
It is not.

It is not what?  Settled?  Racist?  Google "antecedent" and see if this helps you.
  And (2) if you acknowledge the city and all its facilities

are stolen property, I'd like to know your timeline for giving it back
to its rightful owners. Because that's what you do with stolen property,
is it not? You give it back.

Yes, see Midnight Oil's song "Beds are Burning" if you need help.
  If you're not planning on giving it back,

you're just a bunch of smug, insufferable leftist idiots who get off on
signaling your dubious virtue to everyone else.
 About half the rest of the people in the room gave me applause, which
was far more than I ever expected in California. So maybe there's hope
for us yet.

Why isn't paying reparations an option?  Because it doesn't fit your fucked up, stupid narrative?

Similarly, any time there is a discussion of disposition of public
land there has become an expectation that aboriginal groups will be
involved in the discussion - there's currently such a discussion going
on concerning a large park on the west coast of southern Vancouver
Island.

>
I guess I can sort of see a role for indigenous participation if the
ownership of the land is contested but as far as I know, the land in
this city is NOT claimed by the Indians.
>

On top of that you have demands - some of which have been
granted - for closure of public parks for 4-6 weeks at a time for
native ceremonies to be held where if you're not native you are barred
from the park.
>

That's just wrong. If it's owned by the government, it's flat-out
racist to deny non-indigenous people access to it. EVER. And if it's
indigenous land, then they control it ALL THE TIME, not just 4 to 6
weeks of the time. That proposal is just a way to give them full
ownership by stealth.

>
As long as the government is FIRMLY committed to no transfer of
parkland it's bearable - the one near me is adjacent to the main road
from Vancouver to Whistler (which is a major ski resort).
>

Sorry - but I just don't buy it.

>
The whole land claims thing is the can of worms that nobody will open,
at least in the southern part of the country. (If I recall correctly,
the Delgamuk (sp?) Decision did settle some claims, in the favour of

>
The legal case you're referring to is "Delgamuukw v. British Columbia
(1997)" and didn't settle anything other than a court ruling that they
had rights that had to be dealt with by negotiation and not government
fiat. Obviously Justin Trudeau was in his mid 20s at that point right
about the time he was doing several school productions in blackface.
>
The obvious question of course is where people like me would go if the
aboriginal fantasy of 'no more white people anywhere in North America'
since with one exception  no one in my direct ancestry came to North
America after WW1 with some going back 300+ years.
>
As I've said before the ultimate question for me is "at what point do
I become considered 'native' to Canada since if the answer is 'never'
then we need to have a most unpleasant conversation" (since that would
imply a race war nobody wants)
>

the indigenous, back in the 70s but I believe it was all in the Far
North.) It's a matter that the courts COULD resolve, for once and for
all, but neither side seems eager to press for a court decision by
filing lawsuits. Not that I'd want them to under the current prime
minister! I'm sure his "progressive" running buddies and their
"activist" judges would LOVE nothing better than to give all the land
back to the Indians and Innuit! What an orgy of virtue-signalling there
would be from the Liberals if that happened!!! Of course the next day,
when reality set in, it would become obvious that the notion of
deporting all the non-indigenous people and taking away the land that
they paid mortgages on for generations or inherited was a non-starter
and would utterly gut this country. I imagine the indigenous people
would realize how catastrophic this all was for them very quickly too
as all that government money would dry up since there'd be no one left
to tax and almost no one left to govern since all the non-indigenous
people would be gone.

>
I'm skeptical since JT has no aboriginal blood in his family tree as
far as I know and in any case his family tree is 75% non French
Canadian despite his name. Now I know Quebecers think they've been in
North America longer than anybody else but most of the French
settlement was 18th century...