Evil Americans Still Ruin the World for Petrodollars

[Louis VI the Fat]

Most people agree that the former Soviet Union caused immense ecological disaster, that will prove costly for generations to come, or can nit be repaired within a human timescale at all. People agree too that China has massive ecological problems.

Few will believe that Canada is following in their wake. Only commies are thought to ruin the environment with utter disregard for human, environmental and social consequence.

At a massive 540,000,000 cubic meters in volume, Canada’s largest dam is second in size only to China’s Three Gorges Dam. But unlike that world-famous utility structure, the monumental Syncrude Tailings Dam near Fort McMurray, Alberta, doesn’t generate electricity or attract the attention of tourists.

It’s an industrial processing dam that holds back a thick soup of fine tailings, a by-product of oil sands extraction. These tailings and the ponds that contain them are a common feature of surface-mined oil sands facilities. Managing these artificial ponds requires the construction of dams, many of which are large enough to be visible from space.

The world's second largest dam contains toxic waste.

It is visible from outer space. It is the world's largest construction, capital site. It looks like Coruscant.

Canada has always had mining operations. In the early 20th century, farmers started to complain about the devastating effects the disposal of waste in the water had on their production. Since then, large lakes have been build that store the toxic waste. And industry has bought numerous 'scientific' reports that show that this toxic waste isn't dangerous at all, merely un unaesthetical sight. (Then why don't they use it for drinking water or stop building all these terribly expensive storage bassins)

The extraction of this tar sand oil is very disruptive. Soil has to be stripped 50-100 meters deep of an area the size of England. The process to extract the oil is very water intensive. It is the most polluting form of oil extraction. This water is not processed, it is simply stored in enormous open air lakes. The damagesare left there for future genrations to sort out.

At its core, this is not about extraction or not. It is about keeping the damage down as low as possible. And about who pays for this damge. As it stands, the profits are for the mining corporations. The costs are socialized. Canadians wil have to pay for generations to clean it all up. This cleaning up is more costly than the profits in the first place. (In fact, Canada would be better off to just pay the mining corporations several hundreds of billions of dollars outright, on the condition they do not extract the oil. Canada will have to pay this anyway to clean up after the plunderers have left, but won't have to pay the price in social and environmental destruction that can not be repaired)

http://www.petropolis-film.com/#//

[Sasaki Kojiro]

See, if the storage of the oil tailings has negative effects, we should be able to build a causal chain of events. That it what needs to be shown. I believe it, but talking about how the lakes "are visible from space" is just rhetoric.

Nuclear power is safe and the waste is stored safely, but I am sure there are articles otu there about how it won't fully decay for '100 million years' etc etc.

[Mooks]

Would you be able to see the mining operation from space? Seems like the black wasteland that will be the mining field would blend in nicely with the white snow and forests.

I can see why the canadians are going to do it, thats alot of oil (127 billion I think I read), but I sure feel sorry for the natives. As I wouldnt want to live anywhere around that area.

I also feel sorry for Bambi and all the little bunny rabbits

[Meneldil]

For those interested National Geographic got an article about it here.

For size, check out google maps. It's way larger than any open mining pit operation in the world btw.

Fringe evil nutjob envo's propaganda.

[KukriKhan]

Once we strip the emotion out of the discussion, what we're left with (I think) is poorly-written lease agreements. If we take as given that mining has and will occur, and it is always messy and unsightly, can we not write in mandatory mitigating or recovery conditions?

Like: "You can mine the tar sands, but within 10 years of the beginning of that operation, you must restore the area to its original state (or 90% or 75% of its original state, whatever is agreed is desireable). Cut down a forest? Re-plant a new one in its place. And so on."

Then the onus of "small footprint" is on the developers, not the citizens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My dream, as is the call of some political theorists, is to see Canada reform its government to include representation of its minority nations (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike), to re-adress the severely outdated (and, thus, racist/sexist) Indian Act, settle all of the legal disputes with Canada, and to bring the Aboriginal standards of living up to the same level as the average Canadian.

You would be much better off demanding that the Canadian government revoke the Indian Act and integrate the Reservations into the rest of Canada. Realistically, the reason the remaining Natives are so impoversihed is because they are kept seperate from the rest of Canada.

Segregation is rubbish for everyone involved, regardless of whether you are American or Welsh.

[CrossLOPER]

*headsmack*

I've been reading it: "less than 3" for years, and never understood.

D'uh.

<3s Kukri

[Tellos Athenaios]

Like: "You can mine the tar sands, but within 10 years of the beginning of that operation, you must restore the area to its original state (or 90% or 75% of its original state, whatever is agreed is desireable). Cut down a forest? Re-plant a new one in its place. And so on."

But realistically that doesn't help or compensate for one bit. The forests there are not some Finnish or Swedish production forests: the Canadian forests & their ecosystems the aboriginals care about are forests that required thousands of years to build up and are not going to be replaced within a mere generation.

Once cut down they will, again, require thousands of years to build up. Probably longer if some human involvement of ‘aiding’ the forest occurs: that will only make things worse. (FYI: once upon a time there were scientists who thought: let's emulate a biosphere, let's recreate it. It was one big lesson in humility for the scientists since they got it all wrong.) In the meantime of course the aboriginals have lost forest, have they not?

Similarly as long as the tar sands remain relatively undisturbed the toxic chemicals and so on remain basically undisturbed and are if still toxic at least a not quite as dangerous since they are relatively isolated from the environment. (Being in heavy tar sand means they don't start moving around too much throughout food chains and so-on; which is where these chemicals can and will do real damage.) By contrast the waste that will be created by extracting the oil from the tar sands will be faaar more toxic because the chemicals will be left in a far more concentrated substance (waste). Far more dangerous because these higher concentrations make it easier for a person to be poisoned beyond what the human body can cope with (e.g. cancer, liver malfunction, nervous damage, increased risk of malformed limbs or disfunctional organs in newborn babies, hormone disruptions).

EDIT: For an interesting comparison. Just suppose that someone would discover a massive amount of oil/gas right below Jerusalem. And furthermore suppose the only way to get to that oil would effectively mean to destroy the holy sites in Jerusalem.

Do you think the offer of "well, you know if we just rebuild this stuff in, say, 10 years then it's okay?" would work? I doubt it: this is not just about the mere fact these are considered holy places by many (and therefore it would be sacrilege to destroy them) but also about the fact that nobody in his right mind is going to believe that whatever substitute put in place 10 years later will in effect be the same.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But realistically that doesn't help or compensate for one bit. The forests there are not some Finnish or Swedish production forests: the Canadian forests & their ecosystems the aboriginals care about are forests that required thousands of years to build up and are not going to be replaced within a mere generation.

Once cut down they will, again, require thousands of years to build up. Probably longer if some human involvement of ‘aiding’ the forest occurs: that will only make things worse. (FYI: once upon a time there were scientists who thought: let's emulate a biosphere, let's recreate it. It was one big lesson in humility for the scientists since they got it all wrong.) In the meantime of course the aboriginals have lost forest, have they not?

They aren't required to replace it with the same:

Approximately 20% of Alberta's oil sands are recoverable through open-pit mining, while 80% require in situ extraction technologies (largely because of their depth). Open pit mining destroys the boreal forest and muskeg. The Alberta government requires companies to restore the land to "equivalent land capability". This means that the ability of the land to support various land uses after reclamation is similar to what existed, but that the individual land uses may not necessarily be identical.[45] In some particular circumstances the government considers agricultural land to be equivalent to forest land. Oil sands companies have reclaimed mined land to use as pasture for wood bison instead of restoring it to the original boreal forest and muskeg. Syncrude asserts they have reclaimed 22% of their disturbed land.[46]

But most of Canada is forest ~

Tearing down forests is a shame, but you have to weigh in the benefits.

Similarly as long as the tar sands remain relatively undisturbed the toxic chemicals and so on remain basically undisturbed and are if still toxic at least a not quite as dangerous since they are relatively isolated from the environment. (Being in heavy tar sand means they don't start moving around too much throughout food chains and so-on; which is where these chemicals can and will do real damage.) By contrast the waste that will be created by extracting the oil from the tar sands will be faaar more toxic because the chemicals will be left in a far more concentrated substance (waste). Far more dangerous because these higher concentrations make it easier for a person to be poisoned beyond what the human body can cope with (e.g. cancer, liver malfunction, nervous damage, increased risk of malformed limbs or disfunctional organs in newborn babies, hormone disruptions).

What are these toxic chemicals, where are they leaking out, and how do they cause diseases? Is the only way to stop them being leaked out to stop the mining?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In any case, I don't buy the whole "tar sands are improving the life of the population". Sure, they might increase the wealth of Alberta (and thus, the life of some people living there), and of some companies. But I don't think people who live around the places where tar sand is exploited are better off, white or non white alike. Forests are burned down, water ponds are polluted, natural species disappear, the list goes on.

Then why, pray tell, are the individuals in the region generally voting for parties who will keep the sands going? That aside, they do give the average Albertan better infrastructure, better social programs, and better tax rates. Admittedly there could be some problems with people living in the immediate area, and those could be addressed, but the sands themselves do improve Albertan lives and the Albertan economy.

Companies using illegal tactics is another argument altogether, and I would personally argue it is being exaggerated. I fail to see anything illegal in the doctor incident, for example, unless you can find a link proving otherwise and providing the information.

EMFM, I'm surprised you refuse to see this, despite claiming to be quite aware of what's going on in Canada: when I was there, it was a big issue, that made the headline quite often on national newspapers. I know you hate environmentalists, but in this case, I'd say you're openly being blind, just because you don't want to agree with any left-wing-fringe-envo's-nutjobs, while it's actually a problem brought up by a lot of people, both from the left and from the right.

I am, and I've seen all of the headlines, read the articles. I'm not being openly blind - I just disagree with shutting down the tar sands. They are very, very important to the Albertan economy, and they need to be kept going for that economy to survive in the present state. Sure, some environmental safeguards need to be put in place, but that is another issue altogether. Alberta is a happening place, and the oil is what's causing that. From an economic point of view, the tar sands need to be exploited.

You would be much better off demanding that the Canadian government revoke the Indian Act and integrate the Reservations into the rest of Canada. Realistically, the reason the remaining Natives are so impoversihed is because they are kept seperate from the rest of Canada.

That is my view also, but unfortunately many will resist.

[Tellos Athenaios]

They aren't required to replace it with the same:

But most of Canada is forest ~

Tearing down forests is a shame, but you have to weigh in the benefits.

Understandably so. But my point is not so much whether or not you agree with the general idea of cut down forest -> plant trees -> everybody happy? My point is that this is easy to say but does not work in practice for various reasons:
(a) The plant trees part yields an inferior result to the original that was cut down
(b) And you do not happen to care about that forest, but the aboriginals do: it is their neighborhood. (By contrast Minarets in Switzerland is a positively minor deviation from local architecture yet that is now a banned feature...?)
(c) And the fact that aboriginals loose income, livelihood, and what else and that some random trees by some random company does not compensate for that.

It is in other words a cheap excuse and not a real compensation program: a $0,02 for the environmentalists so they hopefully shut up.

What are these toxic chemicals, where are they leaking out, and how do they cause diseases? Is the only way to stop them being leaked out to stop the mining?

It starts with the substance itself: there are many toxic ‘crude oil’ components in it. Now some of them are of the ‘less toxic than others’ type (i.e. bitumen) but the real problem is not _that_ they are toxic but that they tend up to accumulate in the body of whatever animal swallows it. And IIRC these tar sands usually contain metal oxides as well. Now these crude-oil types and oxides are passed on from prey to predator in the foodchain and because humans tend to consume a lot of fatty animals as well as living long and being generally the top of that foodchain the negative effects tend to come out in us.

A more direct danger comes from refining the crude oils; a process which tends to emit H2S (distinguishable by its smell of rotten eggs). H2S is quite toxic. But H2S is more commonly known for the fact that is a prim offender/cause of acid rain: it is readily oxidized to H2SO4.

[KukriKhan]

You make good points about forest re-plants, so I concede that it's an imperfect solution.

So then, the issue is one of ownership, yes? We have old-growth Redwood groves in northern California. Beautiful place. When I moved here in the late 80's, there was a substantial "Save The Redwoods!" campaign; people tying themselves to trees, disabling logging machines, etc.

Didn't work. Ya know what DID work? Wanna save the trees? BUY the trees. Activists got some Hollywood rich guys to buy up a bunch of the land on which the redwoods stood. So they stand today.

You assert that the tar-sands land in Alberta belongs to Aboriginals. Is that true, according to Canadian law?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You assert that the tar-sands land in Alberta belongs to Aboriginals. Is that true, according to Canadian law?

I'll try and find you a link to that, but either way, the natives are working the sands too.

[Sigurd]

EDIT: For an interesting comparison. Just suppose that someone would discover a massive amount of oil/gas right below Jerusalem. And furthermore suppose the only way to get to that oil would effectively mean to destroy the holy sites in Jerusalem.

Our technology makes it possible to drill horizontally. You don't actually need to sit right above the source to extract the oil.
Most of the tar sand oil lies too deep to dig it out with excavators and big trucks.

We had an animation showing how we will extract the bitumen of the tar sand without digging it out of the sand. Sadly it seems lost in our new branding process.
Basically we shoot steam into the wells and extract the oil/water. It runs through pipes to a separator which separates the oil from the water. The water returns to the well site where it is reheated and pumped back into the tar sand. Water is never stored in great lakes. It runs in a closed system.

Later we will be capturing any CO2 emission and store it. We have several large projects with CO2 capture which seems promising. A few rigs in the North Sea is already running with nearly zero CO2 emission.

A map over the Canadian tar sand area for you to play with.

[KukriKhan]

Thanks for the map Sigurd. The place is huge.

[Meneldil]

Then why, pray tell, are the individuals in the region generally voting for parties who will keep the sands going? That aside, they do give the average Albertan better infrastructure, better social programs, and better tax rates. Admittedly there could be some problems with people living in the immediate area, and those could be addressed, but the sands themselves do improve Albertan lives and the Albertan economy.

Wow, wow. There are dozens of reasons why people here would vote for the conservative. For one, a widely accepted rule in political studies is that the more far you are from the coast, the more people become conservative (which, in Canada's case, explain why usually liberals weight more in Québec, Ontario, and to a lesser level BC).
Assuming that it's okay because people still vote conservative is approximative at best.
Furthermore, "people" usually screw up big time. And it's even more likely when there is a crapload of money to be made quickly and easily, as it is the case now.

Companies using illegal tactics is another argument altogether, and I would personally argue it is being exaggerated. I fail to see anything illegal in the doctor incident, for example, unless you can find a link proving otherwise and providing the information.

It's not as if oil companies were well-known for using illegal tactics and going rogue whenever they have a chance, right?
Generalization apart, the fact that they do use illegal tactics, or at least, quite shady ones, is well documented. I read dozens of articles about it last year, and though some seemed quite on the fringe (either "ZOMG WE'RE DOOMED" or newspapers from Québec, that usually think anything from Canada is crap), I've also read some that seemed very serious, on the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and what not.
At least two of those happened to be published on Courrier International, I'll look up for them once I'll feel like browsing through my own archives.

I am, and I've seen all of the headlines, read the articles. I'm not being openly blind - I just disagree with shutting down the tar sands. They are very, very important to the Albertan economy, and they need to be kept going for that economy to survive in the present state. Sure, some environmental safeguards need to be put in place, but that is another issue altogether. Alberta is a happening place, and the oil is what's causing that. From an economic point of view, the tar sands need to be exploited.

That is not another issue altogether. I'm willing to admit that tar sands have to be kept going, even though doing so will probably harm the local environment and destroy the lands of the aboriginals. That is quite bad in itself, but heh, given that nobody comes up with a way to replace oil, and given that aboriginals can hardly make their voices heard, it will have to be done.
What Louis and some other people are bitching at is the way it is being done at the moment. So far, many people points to a complete lack of respect for the environment and the populations that used to live there. Maybe this is all environmentalists' propaganda. But if it's not, then Canada is not doing any better than Brazil, Nigeria or China.

[Subotan]

Nice Signature Louis

[Megas Methuselah]

You would be much better off demanding that the Canadian government revoke the Indian Act and integrate the Reservations into the rest of Canada. Realistically, the reason the remaining Natives are so impoversihed is because they are kept seperate from the rest of Canada.

Segregation is rubbish for everyone involved, regardless of whether you are American or Welsh.

That is my view also, but unfortunately many will resist.

Proposals such as this idiocy have been turned down in the past before. If the Canadian Government even mentioned such an action again, I'd go join the Mohawk Warrior Society and round up all the gangsters in the 'hood to do the same, despite their obvious vices, so angered would I be (and most of Aboriginal Canada, as well) over such an unjust act.

If the Aboriginals weren't so opposed to this, it could be seen as a wise thing to do, but this is not the case. Aboriginal nationalism is only going to grow stronger with time.

It starts with the substance itself: there are many toxic ‘crude oil’ components in it. Now some of them are of the ‘less toxic than others’ type (i.e. bitumen) but the real problem is not _that_ they are toxic but that they tend up to accumulate in the body of whatever animal swallows it. And IIRC these tar sands usually contain metal oxides as well. Now these crude-oil types and oxides are passed on from prey to predator in the foodchain and because humans tend to consume a lot of fatty animals as well as living long and being generally the top of that foodchain the negative effects tend to come out in us.

A more direct danger comes from refining the crude oils; a process which tends to emit H2S (distinguishable by its smell of rotten eggs). H2S is quite toxic. But H2S is more commonly known for the fact that is a prim offender/cause of acid rain: it is readily oxidized to H2SO4.

What about Sasaki's other question, though: Is the only way to stop them being leaked out to stop the mining?

but the sands themselves do improve Albertan lives and the Albertan economy.

The whole health care issue with the locals, though, is an issue that should be addressed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Our technology makes it possible to drill horizontally. You don't actually need to sit right above the source to extract the oil.
Most of the tar sand oil lies too deep to dig it out with excavators and big trucks.

The point I was trying to convey had not so much to do with a nice company with shiny new tech doing extremely neat things and basically saving the world. It was sort of an analogy with the practice of simply cutting down a forest and then ‘reclaiming’ it; a simple illustration of why that idea is basically flawed.

Still to the uninformed ears/eyes it seems a bit optimistic to assume that you can remove a heavy substance, pump in some gas/water and expect “nothing to break”. A similar story was once sold w.r.t. gas & Waddenzee. Suffice to say it turned out the theory did not actually deliver there (or rather: that the forecasts had been slightly too optimistic).

As for the question whether or not the only way to avoid pollution from these toxic chemicals is not to mine there: you are missing the point somewhat. These chemicals are already there: you just want to avoid these ending up in high concentration in some waste substance. At the moment these are simply diluted by the vast amount of sand/water/non-toxic components. What is needed is an effective long-term waste-disposal strategy; beyond merely dumping stuff into a pond (which simply results in a toxic layer of sediment on the bottom of the pond, hence it doesn't actually solve anything) which is what the current water-reclaiming idea of some companies amounts to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Proposals such as this idiocy have been turned down in the past before. If the Canadian Government even mentioned such an action again, I'd go join the Mohawk Warrior Society and round up all the gangsters in the 'hood to do the same, despite their obvious vices, so angered would I be (and most of Aboriginal Canada, as well) over such an unjust act.

If the Aboriginals weren't so opposed to this, it could be seen as a wise thing to do, but this is not the case. Aboriginal nationalism is only going to grow stronger with time.

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.

[KukriKhan]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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

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.

[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]

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.

Loius, in Canada everything has to be bi-lingual, except in Quebec where it's only in French, where teaching is only in French.

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

[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).