You aint to bright...Harper
McRobert @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:47 pm
People get screwed all the time guys...In order to live the lifestyle you have, people elsewhere must live in poverty. We live in excess and so they must be opressed.
Thats the way of the world young padawan. Right or wrong is irrelevent for it was and now is.
Libralesso @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:48 pm
martin14 martin14:
Libralesso Libralesso:
martin14 martin14:
Libralesso, the entire history of humankind is based on
raping the planet, killing and displacing other peoples
to protect and encourage our own development.
Every society on the planet has done it in one form or another,
some just better at it than others.
Why would you want to change any of it, and what makes you think
you could change any of it ?
raping the planet, killing and displacing other peoples
to protect and encourage our own development.
Every society on the planet has done it in one form or another,
some just better at it than others.
Why would you want to change any of it, and what makes you think
you could change any of it ?
Because pillaging the environment is completely unsustainable, we are proving that as we speak with environmental catastrophes. We need a more reciprocal approach to our environment if we are to survive, raping natural resources does not provide a reciprocal approach.
I do not know if we can change it, but it is possible to build a sustainable economy, why should we not try?
ok, with the environment, these things all need to be legislated,
otherwise human nature will seek to avoid anything sustainable, cause that
costs money.
The second issue is what to do with other societies who choose to not
participate in such programs and legislation, cause it will slow them down.
So what to do with them, because lets face it, if the Chinese really consumed
resources like the USA does, it won't matter what we in Canada do or don't do.
I don't believe we avoid sustainability a lot of cultures had sustainable economics. Anyways that is a big problem I guess the best thing to do would be trade embargo. It is the only real thing a country could do to get another country to change.
ziggy @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:56 pm
Think I'll go crack a cold one and get some ![[popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Eating Popcorn")
McRobert @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:58 pm
Greed rules economics, the game is simply choose the next prosperous nation, build it up and then collapse it. ie. When the people get to "fat and lazy" or demand to much they burn it down but not before they move the key players assets and wealth to the next promise land.
Mustang1 @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:00 pm
Libralesso Libralesso:
Many weren't worded just fine, and even if they were they ignored the cultural context of words and the culture of Aboriginal peoples. Words mean different things in different cultures, one of the flaws you did not look at.
Yes, they were - you don't think Tyandaga knew what he was doing when he interpreted components of the Haldimand Tract? Get a grip - he was unaware as to the lexicon? You're still wrong and now you're being condescending to Aboriginal groups.
$1:
Not changing my tune Britain was still very oppressive towards Aboriginal peoples, but they were just somewhat better than the actual country of Canada in policy making. Mainly because Canada made more policies of oppression than Britain did.
And Britain was also quite fair to Aboriginals - look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763 or aforementioned the Haldimand Tract. No one is denying they did in fact mistreat some aboriginals but history certainly doesn't suggest vilifying them either. Again, you're relying on banal generalization that are ahistorical
$1:
Of course they would push back, any nation would have pushed back considering what Canada did to them.
Jesus, Josephy and Livy, can you read? I said they also pushed each other! The Huron-Wendat, Ojibwa, Kanienkeh all fought major conflicts with other tribes and they "stole" each other's territory. Wars were fought well before Contact and guess what? THEY PUSHED EACH OTHER FIRST!!
$1:
That still doesn't disprove the fact that Canada pushed harder and tried to destroy their way of life completely.
Now we're retreating to "push harder"? Moving the goalposts again - it seems that your original point was junk and instead of admitting that you made yet another ill-advised foray into matters beyond you, you're now trying to rely on cheap semantics to save you. Pitiful.
$1:
I clearly said in my last post we were talking about economic history before you joined in, so I used history in that sense.
Again, you're a liar and coward. You specifically wrote "WHOLE HISTORY" so, you're a liar. Secondly, I specifically wrote that even if you want to worm your way back to semantics, it still doesn't represent even our "whole" economic history - because we didn't get all of our resources from aboriginal land. So, on both counts, you're flat ass full of it.
$1:
No stole land from most, and unfairly purchased land from others.
That's pathetic bastardization of the English language - fix it and then i'll address. Get some intellectual pride, fake historian.
Libralesso @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:17 pm
Even if you believe they were translated you forgot to address the cultural context of words. do you speak another language? If you do then you will notice there are certain words that do not translate well, or there is no translation at all. this si the case I am talking about, it is hard eve if you had the best translator to translate them into a different culture, especially one as different as the Aboriginal culture. So you can see why even if you had a good translator it would not translate well. This could happen with the sense of ownership, since Aboriginal ownership of land was very different than European ownership of land.
The Proclamation of 1763 was one of the more fair policies, it actually ave Aboriginals rights to their lands. To bad we've ignored it completely. No we should not vilify Europeans, but we should acknowledge how most of this land came to be under our control, and it was an unfair process.
If you were saying that I guess I did misread your post. That is very true that they fought wars with each other. However it doesn't make the fact that Canada oppressed them any less valid.
Not retreating to "pushed harder", i thought you wrote Aboriginal peoples pushed back, which is true. But Canada really tried to destroy their culture especially in the 20th century.
I said symbolizes our economic history, in which I mean our rape and plunder of the land, we did it back then by displacing Aboriginal Nations, and we continue to do it. Although it is more subtle how we do it now, we try to hide the fact that they own the land, or are living there. We still have the same colonial practices in our economics. Our economics has always revolved around exploiting natural resources.
saturn_656 @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:43 pm
Libralesso Libralesso:
Our economics has always revolved around exploiting natural resources.
Damn good thing too, without our "Natural Resource" sector this global downturn would be hitting us much harder.
Buy stock in some gold mining companies...
Mustang1 @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:43 pm
Libralesso Libralesso:
Even if you believe they were translated you forgot to address the cultural context of words. do you speak another language? If you do then you will notice there are certain words that do not translate well, or there is no translation at all. this si the case I am talking about, it is hard eve if you had the best translator to translate them into a different culture, especially one as different as the Aboriginal culture. So you can see why even if you had a good translator it would not translate well. This could happen with the sense of ownership, since Aboriginal ownership of land was very different than European ownership of land.
"Cultural Context"?!?!? In the 19th century? And i noticed you conveniently sidestepped my Tyandaga example (likely because you didn't know anything about it) as there's no way he didn't understand the lexicon, the culture or the concepts. Prove my example wrong, fake historian, or your point becomes moot.
$1:
The Proclamation of 1763 was one of the more fair policies, it actually ave Aboriginals rights to their lands. To bad we've ignored it completely. No we should not vilify Europeans, but we should acknowledge how most of this land came to be under our control, and it was an unfair process.
And, in your gross incompetence you omitted it from your sneaky attempt to sully the British. Great historical work. In fact, it proves my point, and punts yours. And, oops, another dipwad ahistorical comment - "we've ignored it completely"? I'll spot you one post to retract that before I rip apart.
$1:
If you were saying that I guess I did misread your post. That is very true that they fought wars with each other. However it doesn't make the fact that Canada oppressed them any less valid.
I was right. My point still stands. Your reading comprehension issues aren't my concern
[quote[
Not retreating to "pushed harder", i thought you wrote Aboriginal peoples pushed back, which is true. But Canada really tried to destroy their culture especially in the 20th century. [/quote]
Again, your inability to comprehend the written word isn't my issue. And while I don't disagree with the notion of 19th and 20th century assimilation tactics, it still doesn't salvage the rest of your missteps.
$1:
I said symbolizes our economic history,
Damn, do you ever stop making crap up? This is like Bullshit Review and you're the Crown Prince of Crap Mountain! You said it symbolizes our "WHOLE" economic history and that's utter pigswill in itself. Start telling the truth.
$1:
in which I mean our rape and plunder of the land,
We "raped" the land?!? Uh-oh, here's where i smack your ignorance around. Again. Why don't you look up the slash and burn methods that some aboriginal groups used pre-Contact. We're not the only ones to allegedly "rape and plunder" the land - so, i'll be looking for yet another retraction and a condemnation of the aboriginals as well. Damn, seriously, read up on this stuff BEFORE you post.
$1:
we did it back then by displacing Aboriginal Nations,
Already established that we didn't "displace" all aboriginals - now you're either being willfully ignorant or you're denying objective fact. Either way, this smacks of first rate amateurism.
$1:
Although it is more subtle how we do it now, we try to hide the fact that they own the land, or are living there.
We do own the land that we possess legal title to.
$1:
We still have the same colonial practices in our economics. Our economics has always revolved around exploiting natural resources.
Using natural resources today is hardly comparable to colonial times. Seriously, if this is how you arrive at historical conclusions, you may want to find another major because you really haven't demonstrated any advanced understanding of these topics, yet you seem blissfully unaware that you're presenting an intellectual train wreck.
Mustang1 @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:44 pm
saturn_656 saturn_656:
Libralesso Libralesso:
Our economics has always revolved around exploiting natural resources.
Damn good thing too, without our "Natural Resource" sector this global downturn would be hitting us much harder.
Buy stock in some gold mining companies...
And remind the ingrates that they benefit from said national resources.
Libralesso @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:01 pm
You clearly don't understand what I mean by cultural context of words. Words have different meanings in different cultures. One example would be that ownership would more or less have been translated to stewardship. They are completely different concepts. As for your Tyanadaga example, one person or historical event (in any study of history not only in this argument) does not prove something. He would have known the culture, but he was not present in every single deal.
I did not ignore it, it is common history, everyone should know about it. Also we have ignored it for the most part, it is prevalent when Aboriginal peoples argue for their land claims, but for the early 20th century we have tried to replace it with the Indian act. only recently has it become brought up as a way to protect Aboriginal rights.
It does symbolize our economic history. This country was founded on resource exploitation. The way we got most of these resources was by taking them from Aboriginal peoples. Its out there for every to clearly see.
Most Aboriginal philosophy of land use were reciprocal, even the slash and burn method which helps the forest. Which is why we still use it today. Aboriginal nations did not rape the land, they used it but gave back what they used. It is a founding proinciple in their philosophies. Common in every nation throughout this country.
How did we not displace them. so I guess the voluntarily went to reserves. they said you know what take our sacred land, we don't want it anymore.
No we don't own the land there are hundred of land claims in the courts right now, we took it.
The methods and machinery has changed but it is still the same mentality. look at Calgary they have oil we build up there, and when the oil runs out we go somewhere else. it has happened to every city in this country. We take what we want, and then we leave the area.
Anyways I am going to watch the political debates tonight, and then probably finish my essay so i wont be online anymore. Maybe you should go too. You need to get enough sleep so you can continue to fight the war on reality you face everyday.
Mustang1 @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:40 pm
Libralesso Libralesso:
You clearly don't understand what I mean by cultural context of words. Words have different meanings in different cultures. One example would be that ownership would more or less have been translated to stewardship. They are completely different concepts.
Nope, i get it - i simply don't find relevancy in your erronous application. Many groups understood the concepts...the fact that you're unaware of this is neither surprising or my problem, fake historian.
$1:
As for your Tyanadaga example, one person or historical event (in any study of history not only in this argument) does not prove something. He would have known the culture, but he was not present in every single deal.
I'm well aware of the historical inquiry method - i don't need pointers from some 3rd year wannabe. In fact, what you fail to grasp is my example (which you had no idea about) illustrates well how little you know about the garbage you spew. You make idiotic generalization that are easily disproved and what you also don't get is that this isn't the only example. Shuffle on.
$1:
I did not ignore it, it is common history, everyone should know about it. Also we have ignored it for the most part, it is prevalent when Aboriginal peoples argue for their land claims, but for the early 20th century we have tried to replace it with the Indian act. only recently has it become brought up as a way to protect Aboriginal rights.
Some do know about - some, like you, have a little knowledge, but fail to grasp the larger historical context.
$1:
It does symbolize our economic history. This country was founded on resource exploitation. The way we got most of these resources was by taking them from Aboriginal peoples. Its out there for every to clearly see.
We didn't take it - some of it was legally purchased, some of it wasn't even theirs and some of it belonged to no one. Really, take a break from history and go pretend you're Caesar or Optimus Prime with your imaginary friends because you're truly a history tard.
$1:
Most Aboriginal philosophy of land use were reciprocal, even the slash and burn method which helps the forest. Which is why we still use it today. Aboriginal nations did not rape the land, they used it but gave back what they used. It is a founding proinciple in their philosophies. Common in every nation throughout this country.
Say what?!?!? Slash and burn helps forests?!?!? What?!?! It's a method that is largely regarded as ecologically destructive! Do you know anything?!?!? Damn, you truly are an ignoramus - you're actually defending it? Absolutely moronic.
$1:
How did we not displace them. so I guess the voluntarily went to reserves. they said you know what take our sacred land, we don't want it anymore.
Uh oh, ready for it? We didn't displace everyone - in fact could you explain the Six Nations of the Grand River? Thanks.
$1:
No we don't own the land there are hundred of land claims in the courts right now, we took it.
We don't own ANY land? Are you really this daft?
$1:
The methods and machinery has changed but it is still the same mentality. look at Calgary they have oil we build up there, and when the oil runs out we go somewhere else. it has happened to every city in this country. We take what we want, and then we leave the area.
And you benefit from it - enjoy your subsidized education, ingrate.
$1:
Anyways I am going to watch the political debates tonight,
Translation: Mario Kart with imaginary friends.
$1:
Maybe you should go too.
Nah, busting open your ignorance is fun! I love smacking around pretentious nothings who think they actually participate in historical discourse.
$1:
You need to get enough sleep so you can continue to fight the war on reality you face everyday.
Sorry, my witless chimp, this smells of projection and you reek of it. Oh...and i'm not about to take "advice" from some goof that creates labels for himself like "Classical Historian." Don't come back to you get a clue, wannabe historian, because i'll be here to school you each and every time.
McRobert @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:27 pm
How do you feel about the points I made regarding our ties to the US economy though? Sorry I am just curious about what your opinions are.
Caelon @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:17 pm
Libralesso Libralesso:
It does symbolize our economic history. This country was founded on resource exploitation. The way we got most of these resources was by taking them from Aboriginal peoples. Its out there for every to clearly see.
Sorry I am a bit late coming into the debate, but you have made some points I wish to dispute.
No it was started as an agricultural based colony. The fur trade drove the exploration of the interior. Initially it was the aboriginals who increased the hunting to obtain furs for trading purposes.
$1:
Most Aboriginal philosophy of land use were reciprocal, even the slash and burn method which helps the forest. Which is why we still use it today. Aboriginal nations did not rape the land, they used it but gave back what they used. It is a founding proinciple in their philosophies. Common in every nation throughout this country.
In earlier statements you called the aboriginal land management sustainable. A more accurate term is subsistence. Sustainable would be more accurate if you were talking about land management practices. The first nations were not practicing land management they were a simple hunter gather society. Slash and burn practices need a a 20 to 30 year recovery period due to the destruction of organic matter n the soil. When one area was over exploited they migrated to a new area. Sustainable would be modern agricultural methods.
$1:
The methods and machinery has changed but it is still the same mentality. look at Calgary they have oil we build up there, and when the oil runs out we go somewhere else. it has happened to every city in this country. We take what we want, and then we leave the area.
I am afraid you will not find any oil in Calgary. You will find oil related head offices, but the oil is located in other areas. Drilling activity moves but the resources do not. Wells may see stimulation or fractionation over its life. It may even be closed for a few years and then reopened as new technology makes more of the resource available. Resources like oil and minerals are finite, but the life span is longer than you are making out. For example at current levels the tar sands have over 400 years before they are gone. Plus as the mining process moves the previously mined are is reclaimed to an ecologically productive level. Not necessarily the same virgin forest, but perhaps a mixture wooded land and meadows.
Reverend Blair @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:34 pm
$1:
Nah, free speech my partisan chum, it's a right wing core value.
Unless you happen to be one of Harper's candidates of course.
RUEZ @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:37 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
$1:
Nah, free speech my partisan chum, it's a right wing core value.
Unless you happen to be one of Harper's candidates of course.
Their free speech is never in question.