Evil Americans Still Ruin the World for Petrodollars

[A Very Super Market]

Natives are not segregrated, at least not in respect to the term used for the American '50s style racism. Natives living outside the reserves live their lives as any other citizen. But the "bonuses" for natives exist only if they remain on their worthless reserves. The main problem with this idea is that as a response to the fear of assimiliation, it succeeds brilliantly, but is utterly useless inactually supporting the reserve residents. All the "bonuses" from living there are taken away if they leave, apart from very rare exceptions. And of course, the residents have terrible lives marked mainly by alcoholism.

As for Quebec, if British Columbians need to have French everywhere, why don't the Quebecois need to see cursed Anglais plastered everywhere? More fear of assimiliation. Again, the solution to one problem exacerbates the other. Canada is a messed up country too.

[Megas Methuselah]

Not exactly racist; the Canadians have a different idea than the Yanks' "melting pot" theory. Their multi-cultural approach enables Quebec, for example, to be uniquely Quebec (and distinct from Ontario; no race-based differentiation there, rather lingual and cultural), and the Aboriginals to also be seen as "separate" whilst not segregated. A thin line of distinction there, I know.

There is a difference between multiculturalism and multinationalism. For decades now, both Quebec and the First Nations have been screaming for both national recognition (semi-fulfilled in the Aboriginal case, I guess) and a multinational system of government. Do not forget that there are some 60-80 First Nations and other Aboriginal Nations, as well as more francophone nations than Quebec (Acadia, eh?).

Racism is also rubbish, and this is what you are describing. That your people should be kept seperate, and suffer as a result, because of their race.

What is unjust about making your people equal to everyone else?

You have even admitted that the reservations are what make your people impoverished, so get rid of them.

So you suggest that we abandon the last scraps of our nation-states and go live our lives in urban ghettoes with the rest of the Aboriginal peoples who don't live on reserves? That doesn't change anything, aside from a physical shift of positions. The main problem with Aboriginal peoples, especially First Nation peoples, is the horrifyingly widespread alcoholism, family dysfunctionalism (both resulting in physical, sexual, and mental abuse), and poverty. Being forced to enter urban Canada would not help two of the more important factors (alcoholism and family dysfunction), which are the primary issues that result in poverty; this has already been proven, as I've said, by the Aboriginals who are already living in urban areas.

I dissagree. On the one hand, Quebec agitated for minority ethnic representation (being French, they wanted Canadian government documents to be bi-lingual), then refused to produce Quebec government documents/signage etc. in English. Let's not be so crude as to equate ethnicity and skin colour; the shade of your skin is no more relevant than that of your hair or eyes.

From Meth's posts and what I know of the situation and the legality, Natives are still very much segregated.

Interestingly, I have heard that Quebec is beginning to suffer from it's own racist approach to Anglo-Saxons.

Do you remember the situation in 1995 when Quebec came very, very, very, very close to seceding from Canada? This is how frustrated they are with Canada's attitude towards the minority nations in the state.

Btw, where have you heard about Quebec treating "Anglo-Saxons" as such? I do know that French is the primary language in the province, and that having your education in French is a law or something (?) meant to preserve the French language. Perhaps you see this as an attack upon "Anglo-Saxons"? It's more of a defence to help keep their province from assimilating into English-speaking society, as the French language is one their main factors behind their call to recognition as a nation. (interestingly, one could argue that this call for national recognition is relatively undermined by Canada's adoption of French as another official language of the country as a whole)

Cursed racist Québécois, demanding they can speak their own language in their own country, and having the nerve too to ask to be adressed by their government in their mother tongue without so much as having to reply in the language of their massa.

Language fascism, says I. About time the native English language stands up to this vile imperialist policy with renewed economical repression.

Haha, yeah. It's interesting, though, how you term the whole of Quebec as their own country. Don't forget that Canada was built on treaties with the First Peoples, and that in 1985 Quebec itself recognized the various First Nations (most significantly, the ones inhabiting the province of Quebec) as nations. Quebec's nationalism, very much like Anglo-Canada, is built on multi-culturalism and, since 1985, one could say multinationalism, as well. It's a messy situation not many people fully understand.

Natives are not segregrated, at least not in respect to the term used for the American '50s style racism. Natives living outside the reserves live their lives as any other citizen. But the "bonuses" for natives exist only if they remain on their worthless reserves. The main problem with this idea is that as a response to the fear of assimiliation, it succeeds brilliantly, but is utterly useless inactually supporting the reserve residents. All the "bonuses" from living there are taken away if they leave, apart from very rare exceptions. And of course, the residents have terrible lives marked mainly by alcoholism.

As for Quebec, if British Columbians need to have French everywhere, why don't the Quebecois need to see cursed Anglais plastered everywhere? More fear of assimiliation. Again, the solution to one problem exacerbates the other. Canada is a messed up country too.

Yeah, it is. PVC's call for the removal of "segregration" should be seen as nothing more than the opinion of some outsider who does not even understand the situation. Abolishing the reserves and condeming the Franco-Canadians into mainstream Anglo-Canadian society would only serve to tear the country apart. Especially since minority nationals already form a large portion of Canada's population and, in the Aboriginal case, is expanding rapidly.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Abolishing the reserves and condeming the Franco-Canadians into mainstream Anglo-Canadian society would only serve to tear the country apart.

There is no question that the reserve system needs to be changed, or perhaps totally abolished. On the other hand, it would need to be replaced with something that actually worked for everybody. That last part is, in my mind, the tricky bit.

EDIT: I understand your passion for this, but dismissing a different opinion as the opinion of an uneducated outsider is perhaps overkill, especially as there are many Canadians who agree with him. It would be perhaps wise to listen to the whole argument without resorting to ad hominem. Though I freely admit I have been guilty of this in the past, it may be worth it to learn from my mistakes.

[Megas Methuselah]

EDIT: I understand your passion for this, but dismissing a different opinion as the opinion of an uneducated outsider is perhaps overkill, especially as there are many Canadians who agree with him. It would be perhaps wise to listen to the whole argument without resorting to ad hominem. Though I freely admit I have been guilty of this in the past, it may be worth it to learn from my mistakes.

Yeah, you're probably right. But at least it can be understood that my "passion" for this is largely shared by all First Nations. It can be almost seen as by giving up our reserves, we may be giving up our very identity. This may not be true, but it certainly reflects why many First Nation people are this fanatic concerned about it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is a difference between multiculturalism and multinationalism. For decades now, both Quebec and the First Nations have been screaming for both national recognition (semi-fulfilled in the Aboriginal case, I guess) and a multinational system of government. Do not forget that there are some 60-80 First Nations and other Aboriginal Nations, as well as more francophone nations than Quebec (Acadia, eh?).

Ah, but what proportion of the total population of Canada do they make up? Can they prosper without the Federal Government and the Anglophones? One of the facets of a Nation is the ability to determine one's own destiny.

If I were to use the definition of Nation that you do, then England would be composed of around 4-6 and the UK of 10+. There are some xenophobic ultra-nationalists here who might like that, but they're a minority and pretty much all burn with a deep hatred of all outsiders.

So you suggest that we abandon the last scraps of our nation-states and go live our lives in urban ghettoes with the rest of the Aboriginal peoples who don't live on reserves? That doesn't change anything, aside from a physical shift of positions. The main problem with Aboriginal peoples, especially First Nation peoples, is the horrifyingly widespread alcoholism, family dysfunctionalism (both resulting in physical, sexual, and mental abuse), and poverty. Being forced to enter urban Canada would not help two of the more important factors (alcoholism and family dysfunction), which are the primary issues that result in poverty; this has already been proven, as I've said, by the Aboriginals who are already living in urban areas.

"Nation-States" is a European term, and one that has been used to justify keeping your people on useless land that the rest of Canada doesn't want. The genius of the system is that they have enshrined this in Law as a privilage and convinced you that you have a "right" to live on the worst land. Get rid of the special legal status of aborigonals, and integrate your land into the rest of Canada and the Provincial and Federal Governments will suddenly find thier Urban and Rural poverty statistics going through the roof.

They'll no longer hanve any excuse or legal barrier to giving your people exactly the same standard of living as other Canadians.

Do you remember the situation in 1995 when Quebec came very, very, very, very close to seceding from Canada? This is how frustrated they are with Canada's attitude towards the minority nations in the state.

Peoples, not Nations. You cannot have more than one Nation in a State.

Btw, where have you heard about Quebec treating "Anglo-Saxons" as such? I do know that French is the primary language in the province, and that having your education in French is a law or something (?) meant to preserve the French language. Perhaps you see this as an attack upon "Anglo-Saxons"? It's more of a defence to help keep their province from assimilating into English-speaking society, as the French language is one their main factors behind their call to recognition as a nation. (interestingly, one could argue that this call for national recognition is relatively undermined by Canada's adoption of French as another official language of the country as a whole)

Canada became bi-lingual to please the French-speakers, who then became mono-lingual to upset the English-speakers. So, the English speakers just leave the province if they can afford it. It's a mini "brain drain" and it's caused by xenophobia. Ultimately, "cultural genocide" is very difficult, and the Canadian government is not in that business. If Canadians in Quebec were speaking less French and more English it's much more likely to be because of convenience than ideology.

Yeah, it is. PVC's call for the removal of "segregration" should be seen as nothing more than the opinion of some outsider who does not even understand the situation.

We have exactly the same problem here with the Welsh-speakers, united only by their hatred of the English, and of those Welsh who favour English over Welsh because of (as I said) convenience. They consider these people "traitors", and during the 1970's Welsh speakers engaged in acts of vandalism minor terrorism against English-speakers.

Did you know that the Welsh term for England is, "The Lost Land", even after 1600 years?

So, I have an idea about these sorts of cultural-ethnic clashes.

Abolishing the reserves and condeming the Franco-Canadians into mainstream Anglo-Canadian society would only serve to tear the country apart.

There's an old British saying from the Legends of King Arthur, "One Land, One King", it means that everyone should live together under one government and one Law. It doesn't mean that everyone should be the same. In this case it means that the Anglo-Canadians, Franco-Canadians and everyone else should integrate together, not that one should be subject to another.

[Megas Methuselah]

Ah, but what proportion of the total population of Canada do they make up? Can they prosper without the Federal Government and the Anglophones? One of the facets of a Nation is the ability to determine one's own destiny.

Nope. I don't know about Quebec, but the First Nations have no chance at prospering alone. Luckily, First Nation nationalism doesn't involve secession from Canada. As for the proportion, an article in the Canadian Journal of Political Science claims that "... close to one quarter of Canada's population can be claimed as 'minority nations.'"

If I were to use the definition of Nation that you do, then England would be composed of around 4-6 and the UK of 10+. There are some xenophobic ultra-nationalists here who might like that, but they're a minority and pretty much all burn with a deep hatred of all outsiders.

The First Nations are generally grouped together as Aboriginal. Canada's trinational view of Aboriginal, French, and English, if you'll see it that way.

"Nation-States" is a European term, and one that has been used to justify keeping your people on useless land that the rest of Canada doesn't want. The genius of the system is that they have enshrined this in Law as a privilage and convinced you that you have a "right" to live on the worst land. Get rid of the special legal status of aborigonals, and integrate your land into the rest of Canada and the Provincial and Federal Governments will suddenly find thier Urban and Rural poverty statistics going through the roof.

They'll no longer hanve any excuse or legal barrier to giving your people exactly the same standard of living as other Canadians.

If the reserve land was so useless, then I might ask why, throughout the 20th century, Canada repeatedly stole reserve land and made it illegal for the bands to use the law to defend themselves. Besides, if people don't want to live on the reserves, they don't need to. A bit less than half currently live in rural centers. You can't force the rest to leave, however beneficial you might imagine it might be for them; it's their land and they won't give it up.

Peoples, not Nations. You cannot have more than one Nation in a State.

You seem to be confusing a nation and a state. A nation is merely a group of people tied together by common ground, be it history, language, or ethnic origin. There can certainly be multiple nations within a state. If that were not so, then why would Canada and Quebec recognize the First Nations as nations?

In spite the claims of many states as being single nation-states, that is just not true; most states are multinational.

Canada became bi-lingual to please the French-speakers, who then became mono-lingual to upset the English-speakers. So, the English speakers just leave the province if they can afford it. It's a mini "brain drain" and it's caused by xenophobia. Ultimately, "cultural genocide" is very difficult, and the Canadian government is not in that business. If Canadians in Quebec were speaking less French and more English it's much more likely to be because of convenience than ideology.

Language is a major issue to support Quebecois nationalism; something which is not the same with many Aboriginal people, as most speak English as their primary language anyways. Be that as it may, the adoption of French as an official language was only done to appease the Franco-Canadians and quiet down the call for national recognition within Quebec. It's a clever move that, in the long run, undermines Quebecois nationalism.

We have exactly the same problem here with the Welsh-speakers, united only by their hatred of the English, and of those Welsh who favour English over Welsh because of (as I said) convenience. They consider these people "traitors", and during the 1970's Welsh speakers engaged in acts of vandalism minor terrorism against English-speakers.

Did you know that the Welsh term for England is, "The Lost Land", even after 1600 years?

So, I have an idea about these sorts of cultural-ethnic clashes.

Be that as it may, the situations are different. Neither Quebec nor the First Nations are united solely by hatred of the Anglo-Canadians. And in the case of the First Nations, language isn't even a factor in Aboriginal nationalism.

There's an old British saying from the Legends of King Arthur, "One Land, One King", it means that everyone should live together under one government and one Law. It doesn't mean that everyone should be the same. In this case it means that the Anglo-Canadians, Franco-Canadians and everyone else should integrate together, not that one should be subject to another.

Minority nationalism will never let this happen. You must understand that what you suggest is a practical impossibility.

All Canadians should learn French, as should all English school children. It is the double standard that angers me.

Ugh. Learning French was such a pain the ***. Canada should never have adopted French as an official language, anyways; this can only serve to aggravate the various national and cultural minorities in the country who hate seeing one minority being placed above them (which is, btw, one of the major obstacles for minority nations in Canada).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope. I don't know about Quebec, but the First Nations have no chance at prospering alone. Luckily, First Nation nationalism doesn't involve secession from Canada. As for the proportion, an article in the Canadian Journal of Political Science claims that "... close to one quarter of Canada's population can be claimed as 'minority nations.'"

So 75% of the population are.... what? White? Anglo-Saxon? Of British Descent? Anyway, "nationalism" requires the ability to direct the nation's course; otherwise it's really just frustration. That was my point.

The First Nations are generally grouped together as Aboriginal. Canada's trinational view of Aboriginal, French, and English, if you'll see it that way.

Which is very different to the "60-80" you quoted before, and actually politically managable. Perhaps all the "First Nations" should be grouped together under a single Province; though the term "aborigonal" is innacurate.

If the reserve land was so useless, then I might ask why, throughout the 20th century, Canada repeatedly stole reserve land and made it illegal for the bands to use the law to defend themselves. Besides, if people don't want to live on the reserves, they don't need to. A bit less than half currently live in rural centers. You can't force the rest to leave, however beneficial you might imagine it might be for them; it's their land and they won't give it up.

Is it their land, or merely the land left to them after the unstoppable British Empire took all it wanted? Is there any reserve well known for it's wealth in minerals or agriculture? In any case, I'm not talking about forcing people to leave, simply about dissolving the reservations; a purely political issue, not a physical one.

You seem to be confusing a nation and a state. A nation is merely a group of people tied together by common ground, be it history, language, or ethnic origin. There can certainly be multiple nations within a state. If that were not so, then why would Canada and Quebec recognize the First Nations as nations?

the purpose of a "Nation" is to give a State an identity. While you are technically correct, you've missed the point. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation. As to why the "First Nations" were recognised as Nations: to tie them to the land of the reservations of course.

In spite the claims of many states as being single nation-states, that is just not true; most states are multinational.

A state can be multi-ethnic, but a multi-national state is doomed to collapse from internal disision.

Language is a major issue to support Quebecois nationalism; something which is not the same with many Aboriginal people, as most speak English as their primary language anyways. Be that as it may, the adoption of French as an official language was only done to appease the Franco-Canadians and quiet down the call for national recognition within Quebec. It's a clever move that, in the long run, undermines Quebecois nationalism.

You're right, but you've ignored the fact of the supression of English in Quebec, which is as bad as supressing French in another Province.

Be that as it may, the situations are different. Neither Quebec nor the First Nations are united solely by hatred of the Anglo-Canadians. And in the case of the First Nations, language isn't even a factor in Aboriginal nationalism.

They may not be the same, but they are similar, and a major element of your ethnic identity is clearly a sense of injustice directed at the Canadian government. The basic psychology is clearly very similar, and to say otherwise is to do an injustice to the Welsh as well. Look up "Welsh knot".

Minority nationalism will never let this happen. You must understand that what you suggest is a practical impossibility.

Minority nationalism should probably grow up, then. Life is what it is.

Ugh. Learning French was such a pain the ***. Canada should never have adopted French as an official language, anyways; this can only serve to aggravate the various national and cultural minorities in the country who hate seeing one minority being placed above them (which is, btw, one of the major obstacles for minority nations in Canada).

There are more French speakers than any other linguistic minority, and they comprise the majority in at least one Province. Other minority languages are not statistically as significant. Also, French is a very useful language to have if history, philosophy, or literature interest you.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So 75% of the population are.... what? White? Anglo-Saxon? Of British Descent?

78% speak English as their primary daily language. Visible minorities come in at about 15% of the population. Two territories are majority aboriginal, and Nunavut is considered "the aboriginal territory", though obviously they don't have a cross-section of all of the tribes. Canada itself is about 4% Native American. The French Canadian population is best determined by language, since the census reports that most people in Quebec identify as Canadian, whereas a plurality in the mostly English New Brunswick report themselves as French. All provinces have British, French, Canadian, or Native American ancestry reported as a plurality except for Saskatchewan, where a plurality identifies as German. Of course, most of the people who answer British, French, German, Irish, etc. are really Canadian.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re.../index-eng.cfm

Which is very different to the "60-80" you quoted before, and actually politically managable. Perhaps all the "First Nations" should be grouped together under a single Province; though the term "aborigonal" is innacurate.

They do have a territory essentially to themselves, Nunavut. 85% of the population there is native.

the purpose of a "Nation" is to give a State an identity. While you are technically correct, you've missed the point. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation. As to why the "First Nations" were recognised as Nations: to tie them to the land of the reservations of course.

The First Nations and Quebec have both been recognized as "distinct societies and nations within Canada" by various governments. Quebec was recognized as such only a couple of years ago by Prime Minister Harper, though of course they already had special status before that.

A state can be multi-ethnic, but a multi-national state is doomed to collapse from internal disision.

Canada almost did less than fifteen years ago, and it may well do so in the next hundred years.

You're right, but you've ignored the fact of the supression of English in Quebec, which is as bad as supressing French in another Province.

Not according to the PQ, sadly.

There are more French speakers than any other linguistic minority, and they comprise the majority in at least one Province. Other minority languages are not statistically as significant. Also, French is a very useful language to have if history, philosophy, or literature interest you.

I do recall many students outside of Quebec being upset at being forced to learn French. Aside from equalization payments and politicians being forced to pander to Quebec to win a majority government, that is probably the main reason for the casual quasi-dislike of Quebec (or their governments) from the rest of Canada.

[Megas Methuselah]

So 75% of the population are.... what? White? Anglo-Saxon? Of British Descent?

I can see EMFM answered this point, yet I'd like to elaborate. As he said, despite much of the census answers involving English, Irish, German, etc. they are all largely Anglo-Canadian. Canadian nationalism is a strange new breed that heavily involves multiculturalism, and thus precludes any such nonsense of certain minorities, including Aboriginals and Quebecois, from declaring themselves to be anything more than a seperate culture/ethnicity (i.e. nations).

Which is very different to the "60-80" you quoted before, and actually politically managable. Perhaps all the "First Nations" should be grouped together under a single Province; though the term "aborigonal" is innacurate.

EMFM already talked about Nunavut, but I'd like to add that it is NOT a province; it is a territory, and thus much more tightly-bound to the federal government than the provinces. Besides, these people are Inuit, not First Nation nor Metis.

The First Nations are semi-united by the Assembly of First Nations, in spite of the fact that they are scattered across the entire breadth of the country. This assembly, though, does not include Metis or Inuit.

Is it their land, or merely the land left to them after the unstoppable British Empire took all it wanted? Is there any reserve well known for it's wealth in minerals or agriculture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubicon_Lake_Indian_Nation

the purpose of a "Nation" is to give a State an identity. While you are technically correct, you've missed the point. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation. As to why the "First Nations" were recognised as Nations: to tie them to the land of the reservations of course.

We've been "tied" to these reserve lands far before recognition as nations.

A state can be multi-ethnic, but a multi-national state is doomed to collapse from internal disision.

If the Quebecois and Aboriginals end up becoming a permanently dissaffected group, you may well be right. At the moment, many Franco-Canadians and Aboriginals still say they're proud Canadians; its not too late.

Minority nationalism should probably grow up, then. Life is what it is.

Very convenient answer, euro. I'm sure you of all people realize how stubborn nationalism is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can see EMFM answered this point, yet I'd like to elaborate. As he said, despite much of the census answers involving English, Irish, German, etc. they are all largely Anglo-Canadian. Canadian nationalism is a strange new breed that heavily involves multiculturalism, and thus precludes any such nonsense of certain minorities, including Aboriginals and Quebecois, from declaring themselves to be anything more than a seperate culture/ethnicity (i.e. nations).

If I may, Anglo-Canadian can only really refer to someone who is part Anglo-Saxon, functionally this has included Northumbrians and Danes (in England) since the Norman Conquest, and also now embraces naturalised immigrants to Northern Ireland (Anglo-Irish) and Wales (Anglo-Welsh). It doesn't really include Scots, Catholic Irish or anyone else.

EMFM

already talked about Nunavut, but I'd like to add that it is NOT a province; it is a territory, and thus much more tightly-bound to the federal government than to the provinces. Besides, these people are Inuit, not First Nation nor Metis.

So Innuits are not "First Nation"? Don't you find that politically odd, as they must have been there as long as the rest of you?

The First Nations are semi-united by the Assembly of First Nations, in spite of the fact that they are scattered across the entire breadth of the country. This assembly, though, does not include Metis or Inuit.

It doesn't provide you with actual government though, does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubicon_Lake_Indian_Nation

So, basically they're still taking what they want and you still can't stop them; that's sad but it aptly proves my point.

We've been "tied" to these reserve lands far before recognition as nations.

Even before the coming of the Colonists?

If the Quebecois and Aboriginals end up becoming a permanently dissaffected group, you may well be right. At the moment, many Franco-Canadians and Aboriginals still say they're proud Canadians; its not too late.

From here it looks like decline is on-going.

Very convenient answer, euro. I'm sure you of all people realize how stubborn nationalism is.

I'm not a European.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

EMFM already talked about Nunavut, but I'd like to add that it is NOT a province; it is a territory, and thus much more tightly-bound to the federal government than to the provinces. Besides, these people are Inuit, not First Nation nor Metis.

Yes, I originally wrote territory and then changed it for some reason.

Still, Nunavut is granted a fair amount of autonomy, and their MP is the current health minister.

If the Quebecois and Aboriginals end up becoming a permanently dissaffected group, you may well be right. At the moment, many Franco-Canadians and Aboriginals still say they're proud Canadians; its not too late.

The Quebecois are not oppressed in the slightest. They have little if any reason to complain.

If I may, Anglo-Canadian can only really refer to someone who is part Anglo-Saxon, functionally this has included Northumbrians and Danes (in England) since the Norman Conquest, and also now embraces naturalised immigrants to Northern Ireland (Anglo-Irish) and Wales (Anglo-Welsh). It doesn't really include Scots, Catholic Irish or anyone else.

He should have used the term Anglophone, though Anglo or Anglo-Canadian is often used to refer to the English-speaking majority by others, especially the French.