1  2  3  Next

I've been a bit hesitant to ask this question, but I figure I might as well try.

In the past on this forum, respondents have been really hostile to the term 'settler Canadians'. My question, though, is what term should be applied to non-Native Canadians to distinguish them from Indigenous people? We are, for the most part, descended from people who settled in what's now Canada, so why is it not an appropriate term?

If we're not 'settlers', then what are we?

   

Canadians!!!

   

Natives are settlers too, they just got here before we did.

   

If you're born here then you're a Canadian, period, no matter where your bloodline comes from originally.

   

Move a couple hundred miles out of the big city. You'll sure feel like one sometimes!

   

^^^

"Settlers" is a term meant to divide us. How can I be a 'settler' if I am the 6th generation born here?

   

It depends on the context and the reason for making the distinction.
Why do you need to label folks?

I do not see a problem at all with the term but the source of the problem is that most people have no idea of history ---- which is largely not their fault.

Most of the pioneers were just as much slaves as they were settlers. Calling them "settlers" is a euphemism.

Canuckletards.

   

Any one Born in Canada is a NATIVE of Canada.

   

Use that word on me and the conversations stops right there. It's an insult and it's meant to be one too. Not going to go along with any of this sort of crap that the "woke" keep generating to push their divisive agenda.

   

And since the division Jared is creating is based on race.......

   

'Pioneers.'

   

Jared isn't creating anything. He's asking what non-natives would like to be referred to as.

   

Being called a settler is just a pseudo-polite way of being called a fucking whitey. And I'd rather be called a fucking whitey because at least the contempt in saying something like wouldn't be disguised behind a bogus attempt at civility the way using something like "settler" is.

   

For some, I think you are correct. It's an expression of contempt to some First Nations. Then again, there are those who don't like to be called 'Indian' and those who don't care. It all depends on context I think.

I too would prefer they just express their contempt up front, then we can get that out of the way and I can pay attention to the people who are willing to meet half way.

   

To me it poisons the water right off the bat. No difference than if the government sent some negotiator to a meeting with the Native leadership and he opened up the proceedings by saying something like "now what can we do to make you wagonburners happy?". Maybe creeps and fools like Trump think that starting off with insults is the best way to success but I'm pretty sure that most normal people from all groups would disagree with that method of doing things.

   

1  2  3  Next