StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Jub wrote:Concessions accepted.

Choke, you worthless sack of shit. Nobody conceded a goddamn thing to you. How are you racist?

Jub wrote:I'm so forcing them to smoke drugs and huff gas and destroy the nice houses we built for them. I'm forcing them to complain about how harsh the world treats them even though they don't pay taxes and get free education on our dime. I'm forcing them to drop out of school and have kids and then not do the job that was handed to them just because they were born native.

That's how you're a fucking racist, you piece of shit. Huge sweeping generalisations about an entire race. Turns out that's fucking racist. You're just as bad as the fucking racist shitheads I have to listen to here in Australia, bitching about how "All Abos are lazy jobless drunks who feed off our tax money".

You're an idiot, you have no understanding of what it takes to make a society of equals. You probably think reverse racism is something that actually exists.

I'm sure as hell not going to bother responding to you further, not because I'm conceding to you, but because you disgust me and I don't feel you're worth addressing beyond this.

Jub wrote: It isn't and nobody should be pair reparations for things generations past did. If you're going to pay for hardship pay for current hardship. If you want to fix the issues then deal with the cause and not just treating the symptoms.

You are right; it is not different.

In both cases, the cause of the injury was not some random bunch of people; it was governments.

When you say "treated the same as other citizens" you are denying the fact that they are not citizens of Canada the same as you and I. They are First Nations, and those Treaties gave them a set of rights we can't take away from them. If that bothers you, go build a time machine and bitch to the people that signed those treaties. When your ancestors moved here, and gained their Canadian citizenship, they got the rights that go with that, but also the responsibilities. If you don't want them, move somewhere else that you think gives you a better deal.

If nobody should be 'forced' to 'pay' for the actions of 'past generations', doesn't that introduce a hard limit on total reparations for anything, given ability to pay and the lifespan (or earning power) of those held to be responsible?

Maybe a nation as a whole can be held responsible! GASP.

SilverWingedSeraph wrote:That's how you're a fucking racist, you piece of shit. Huge sweeping generalisations about an entire race. Turns out that's fucking racist. You're just as bad as the fucking racist shitheads I have to listen to here in Australia, bitching about how "All Abos are lazy jobless drunks who feed off our tax money".

You're an idiot, you have no understanding of what it takes to make a society of equals. You probably think reverse racism is something that actually exists.

I'm sure as hell not going to bother responding to you further, not because I'm conceding to you, but because you disgust me and I don't feel you're worth addressing beyond this.

Not all of them are this way, but all of them, that choose to claim it, are given special rights. This is regardless of need. The rich nations still have poor members because these benefits aren't evenly spread and native issues often spill into communities where people pay taxes to support their special status. Is what happened to them in the past right or fair or good? No, hell no. Is what is going on right now the correct way to solve things? No, not at all.

amigocabal wrote:

Jub wrote: It isn't and nobody should be pair reparations for things generations past did. If you're going to pay for hardship pay for current hardship. If you want to fix the issues then deal with the cause and not just treating the symptoms.

You are right; it is not different.

In both cases, the cause of the injury was not some random bunch of people; it was governments.

Exactly, and the Canadian government isn't and hasn't tried to fix this in a way that is both respectful and effective.

Phantasee wrote:When you say "treated the same as other citizens" you are denying the fact that they are not citizens of Canada the same as you and I. They are First Nations, and those Treaties gave them a set of rights we can't take away from them. If that bothers you, go build a time machine and bitch to the people that signed those treaties. When your ancestors moved here, and gained their Canadian citizenship, they got the rights that go with that, but also the responsibilities. If you don't want them, move somewhere else that you think gives you a better deal.

So you're never aloud to bitch about anything that happened in the past because the past is set and can't be changed? The fact is that treaties can be changed and treaties are also ignored as it suits governments. Why are these treaties so important that they alone are set in stone?

Stark wrote:If nobody should be 'forced' to 'pay' for the actions of 'past generations', doesn't that introduce a hard limit on total reparations for anything, given ability to pay and the lifespan (or earning power) of those held to be responsible?

Maybe a nation as a whole can be held responsible! GASP.

That it does. Given the way some wrongs are paid for and others aren't all crimes should be paid for or none should. Why are some crimes paid for any many more not?

I love how it all comes down to the usual white guy being jealous of the "special rights" afforded to equalize the playing field for minorities who have been fucked over sideways by whites.

Flagg wrote:I love how it all comes down to the usual white guy being jealous of the "special rights" afforded to equalize the playing field for minorities who have been fucked over sideways by whites.

Except that they aren't currently being fucked over and the treaty system isn't working and creating hard feelings on both sides. How much do you know about native issues in Canada Flagg?

Jub wrote:Except that they aren't currently being fucked over

Wrong. Thanks for playing, though!

Losonti Tokash wrote:

Jub wrote:Except that they aren't currently being fucked over

Wrong. Thanks for playing, though!

How are we currently fucking them over? They take the drugs and drink and drop out of school on their own and dealers are equally willing to sell to whites. I get that they're more likely to be addicted to these things and, it can be argued that the stolen generation stripped them of their ability to be good parents. However, what's keeping them from getting educated and competing for the same jobs everybody else does?

Are you trying to be the poster child for people who don't understand social problems?

Jub wrote:

Flagg wrote:I love how it all comes down to the usual white guy being jealous of the "special rights" afforded to equalize the playing field for minorities who have been fucked over sideways by whites.

Except that they aren't currently being fucked over and the treaty system isn't working and creating hard feelings on both sides. How much do you know about native issues in Canada Flagg?

Enough to know that it's similar to the native issues here. Rampant alcoholism and drug abuse thanks to being virtually exterminated followed by decades of "reeducation" by fuckwits like you.

Flagg wrote:I love how it all comes down to the usual white guy being jealous of the "special rights" afforded to equalize the playing field for minorities who have been fucked over sideways by whites.

He might have a point if they were merely fucked over sideways by a random bunch of white people.

But they were fucked over sideways by the Canadian government. It is proper for a government to equalize the playing field for people that it fucked over sideways.

A similar principle applies if the British government equalizes the playing field for Ireland. It would not be holding Jamaican immigrants responsible for the acts of a bunch of random Brits centuries ago, but taking responsibility for its own past conduct.

Flagg wrote:

Jub wrote:

Flagg wrote:I love how it all comes down to the usual white guy being jealous of the "special rights" afforded to equalize the playing field for minorities who have been fucked over sideways by whites.

Except that they aren't currently being fucked over and the treaty system isn't working and creating hard feelings on both sides. How much do you know about native issues in Canada Flagg?

Enough to know that it's similar to the native issues here. Rampant alcoholism and drug abuse thanks to being virtually exterminated followed by decades of "reeducation" by fuckwits like you.

I haven't reeducated anybody and I'm not the one that chose to build tax free liquor and tobacco outlets on their land;they do that themselves these days. Nor am I the one that makes them take everything we give them and then complain that it isn't enough. This whole setup means they never have to look inwards and say, 'Maybe we should take steps to clean ourselves up using this aid the government keeps giving' instead of screeching that we don't do enough for them.

Why should I be doing or paying anything for a bunch of people that neither myself nor my family did anything to by virtue of being an ocean away when they were getting wiped out by disease and starvation? I didn't do anything, and our government, in its current form, also didn't have a hand in. We weren't even Canada at that stage.

So we're back to the "other people did it? Why should there be a shared social responsibility?"

weemadando wrote:So we're back to the "other people did it? Why should there be a shared social responsibility?"

Why should I shoulder any part of the blame for this issue? You can't even argue that my family did it. I don't have any guilt in this matter just like I don't have any guilt over owning slaves.

Also, why shouldn't the natives take responsibility for clean themselves up with the aid we're giving them? Just because we started it doesn't mean we support them forever because they can't sack up and fix things. In fact that sparks a question, how long after the initial wrong are you supposed to keep helping when the people you're helping aren't helping themselves?

Jub wrote:

weemadando wrote:So we're back to the "other people did it? Why should there be a shared social responsibility?"

Why should I shoulder any part of the blame for this issue? You can't even argue that my family did it. I don't have any guilt in this matter just like I don't have any guilt over owning slaves.

And what of the actions of the Canadian government? Even if you reject shared social responsibility, surely you can not reject government responsibility.

Jub wrote: Also, why shouldn't the natives take responsibility for clean themselves up with the aid we're giving them?

They should take responsibility for their own conduct.

Maybe if people like you had 'solutions' that weren't just 'stop taking my money you filthy savages' constructive progress could be made. Instead, the attitudes you display arguably contribute to the problem.

Racism bad? Who knew?!

Jub wrote:

weemadando wrote:So we're back to the "other people did it? Why should there be a shared social responsibility?"

Why should I shoulder any part of the blame for this issue? You can't even argue that my family did it. I don't have any guilt in this matter just like I don't have any guilt over owning slaves.

Also, why shouldn't the natives take responsibility for clean themselves up with the aid we're giving them? Just because we started it doesn't mean we support them forever because they can't sack up and fix things. In fact that sparks a question, how long after the initial wrong are you supposed to keep helping when the people you're helping aren't helping themselves?

You can make that argument for some social programs, but you are forgetting that treatise are contracts. It is not writing a wrong it is upholding an agreement.

France does not expect Louisiana back just because a different government gave it up.

spaceviking wrote:

Jub wrote:

weemadando wrote:So we're back to the "other people did it? Why should there be a shared social responsibility?"

Why should I shoulder any part of the blame for this issue? You can't even argue that my family did it. I don't have any guilt in this matter just like I don't have any guilt over owning slaves.

Also, why shouldn't the natives take responsibility for clean themselves up with the aid we're giving them? Just because we started it doesn't mean we support them forever because they can't sack up and fix things. In fact that sparks a question, how long after the initial wrong are you supposed to keep helping when the people you're helping aren't helping themselves?

You can make that argument for some social programs, but you are forgetting that treatise are contracts. It is not writing a wrong it is upholding an agreement.

France does not expect Louisiana back just because a different government gave it up.

But they are filthy savages therefor the treaties should be ignored. Racism 101.

They are also identical filthy savages, so no need to differentiate between different groups. If one reserve is like jub describes, just apply that to all of them.

I'm going to cover why the treaties are shit and should be abolished.

It boils down to the fact that they don't work. Native communities are underfunded and many nations don't even have the government officials to figure out how to get access to the funds that are available. From their perspective we're failing them by not giving them enough money to get them out of the hole they're in and from the prospective of the rest of the nation we're dumping money into a black pit of people that aren't working and haven't developed the land to earn any money from it. So our tax money is going towards just barely keeping these people alive and yet isn't enough to get them anywhere. I can't support spending more on this because these hundreds of little communities of 1000 to 500 people are just too small to create wealth and I can't support letting things get any worse because as I've said, these are people like any other.

A quote from the Tsawwassen Chief, Kim Baird:

"There isn't enough money through Indian Affairs to pay for major capital investment in infrastructure like local governments have," she said.

"The problem under the Indian reserve system is that the capital deficit is just so enormous.

"When we went into self-government, we knew we were taking on that responsibility, and it wasn't something we were too happy to take on … but the federal government was really failing us in that regard."

"One of the big surprises to me is the fact that everyone recognizes us as another government now," she said. "Before, we were constantly asserting it, but no one treated us that way. Now, when we walk into a situation, it's a given, and that's really, really changed the dynamics in any number of situations."

See, I respect these people. They decided that they wanted more and they set out to take the steps to get it. If other bands did this and worked to create larger communities that could sustain themselves I would respect and support giving them extra funds to make that happen. It's also hilarious that the place that didn't bother with treaties, British Columbia, has the nations that are doing the best.

The largest nation in Canada is right next door to me in West Kelowna and to be honest they're mostly alright, but even they've had issues. They're where I get that stores that used to have policies about hiring a certain percentage of native employees came from, they also found that the natives they were hiring were worthless and the nation itself allowed them out of the agreement. The main source of tension is when we need to do infrastructure upgrades and they try to gouge the city on land prices.

Once again, my main issue comes from expecting people to be smart enough to avoid drugs and drinking and to move to where they aren't shitting in a bucket and can get a job instead of a handout. Even the language used in these treaties and the fact that they the federal governments are stewards of these peoples show that they aren't expected to be able to care for themselves. So how long do we care for them, keeping them just above water, before we can expect them to take over and start swimming on their own?

to be honest Jub, that doesn't sound too different from some of the really deprived areas in the UK - like some the Valleys villages.

a cluster of houses stuck to a hillside with a single shop. No jobs and no chance of jobs and people will refuse to even consider moving to the next valley.

These people will not move, and they're not native's who've had to fight for generations to have rights to their land. Any policy based on 'these people need to move' will fail.
Ironically, if they were slightly richer and thus feeling more secure, you'd have a bigger chunk of people prepared to move, because they can feel confident it'd still be there when they come back in a few years.

madd0ct0r wrote:to be honest Jub, that doesn't sound too different from some of the really deprived areas in the UK - like some the Valleys villages.

a cluster of houses stuck to a hillside with a single shop. No jobs and no chance of jobs and people will refuse to even consider moving to the next valley.

These people will not move, and they're not native's who've had to fight for generations to have rights to their land. Any policy based on 'these people need to move' will fail.
Ironically, if they were slightly richer and thus feeling more secure, you'd have a bigger chunk of people prepared to move, because they can feel confident it'd still be there when they come back in a few years.

Aren't most of those really poor villages mostly populated by generations of people who've been on the dole? If so, doesn't this just prove that handouts aren't effective if the people receiving them don't help themselves?

It's almost like you don't even try to understand the social problems that might make for a situation like that, but instead place all the blame on the victims!

Here's a question: In the US compared to whites, blacks score lower on tests, make less money, are more likely to be on food stamps/welfare, and disproportionately are convicted of crimes. Do you think it's because blacks are just inherently lazier, dumber, and more criminal than whites?

If you want to be flippant about his concern for 'federal handouts', you could say that in Canada, it has ended up that some of the largest federal checks are actually going to the other people we conquered and annexed land from: the French. There's a joke in there somewhere about the benefits of conquering rich people.