Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse
the treaties were organized by many different groups and guess what? legal documents have varying differences in their interpretation. i'm advocating that we listen to indigenous people's interpretation of the treaties, rather than just the colonial interpretation.
|
I also have my own interpretation of the treaties but you probably wouldn't like it, much like I don't like yours. How about we agree to stick with the traditional interpretation?
The point is: I AND A MAJORITY OF CANADIANS
DO NOT AGREE TO THE ARBITRARY QUESTIONING AND REINTERPRETATION OF TREATIES OR GIVING A PLATFORM TO ANYONE SELFISHLY WANTING TO DO SO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse
again, the groups of people the land was taken from still exist. there are still inuit organizations and people. there are metis organizations and people. there are cree organizations and people. why are colonial/individualistic ideas of land "ownership"/stewardship the only valid ones? is the traditional mennonite idea of the commons not valid, for example?
|
All of the above types of land use are fully valid and adaptive under certain circumstances. Current circumstances warrant that privately or communally owned intensive use forms should dominate. This means we need agriculture to feed everybody - agriculture replaced hunting and gathering exactly because it supported more people. The Six Nations Confederacy adopted agriculture well prior to European contact precisely to increase their numbers on the small territory they initially held and thereby dominate nearby tribes to gain more territory. It's called a successful cultural adaptation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse
i think you, and everyone else, should "own" the national parks/provincial parks, yeah? isn't that the basis of democracy, where the people have power over the way their state/the land is dictated?? most of your discussion of property is gibberish though, as your definition of private property and who owns it is completely warped.
|
Yes, this is the basis of democracy: the majority of citizens make sure that extremely unevenly educated ideologues such as yourself don't destroy our society from the within.
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhorse
i disagree that "the state" is oppressive, the problem is the state we have now oppresses the majority for the benefit of the few. the issue isn't the "state", it's who has power in the state. and again, your silly ideas of private property.. how does a free society have areas where you can't go to access the things you need to survive? the entire idea of private property is oppressive because by offering land and thus resources to a select few who have the means to own it, you're depriving others of using it for their guaranteed human rights to food/water/shelter. if someone owns all the water sources in Canada at some point and refuses anyone access to the water, how is that conducive to a free society?
|
First of all, the Crown owns all waterways over a certain (small) size in Canada for exactly this reason. Secondly, you're calling for a return to the hunter gatherer ideal, which cannot be implemented with this many people - 95% would simply starve, the rest would survive by eating the others after all the plants and animals are eaten. Tragedy of the commons.
Sorry, but things didn't end up this way arbitrarily because some whitey decided a long time ago. Things EVOLVED to work this way due to complex population dynamics over tens of thousands of years (evolutionary time). I actually agree that high population density is unsustainable in the long run, and I also very much agree that current trends in global politics/power dynamics are coming to a head in the much more near term but what you're advocating would make things infinitely worse. It's basically suicide.