Academic Frances Widdowson, a co-author of the True North-published book “Grave Error,” and her team were surrounded, shouted down, and allegedly assaulted by a mob of Indigenous activists.
It's odd, because from what I remember, FN people have been saying all these decades and centuries is that the land does not "belong" to anyone, rather we as humans are custodians who should live harmoniously with our surroundings, including plants, animals and humans. Usage of the land is supposed to be an uncoerced agreement brought about be respectful and reasonable means. In theory.
"Ownership" of territory is not a thing, so I was told. So any FN peoples accepting title, deed, ownership of land is contravening their elder's teachings, no? Those groups accepting title are not upholding their ancestor's teachings and have abdicated their cultural identity, so therefore cannot be defined as FN,
OR, someone is faking the whole title thing, and the land which has been seized by the "government", (which can be proven to be controlled by non-Canadian entities, ) will be held by the "government" until such time that it can be handed over to, say, UN forces, or whatever power decides to use it to their own advantage.
I strongly doubt handed-over lands will benefit FN people - if so, just certain families and friends.
I question the claim First Nations claiming through “oral history” that basically all of Canada, the second largest country in the world, belongs to them, when they only had very small populations of tribes who were at constant war with one another and they believed in in cannibalism, slavery and torture.
Not bad for a population of 1.8 million indigenous people out of which only 700 thousand have Indian Status compared to a Canadian population of 40 million multi-cultural working tax paying people. They equate to less than 3% of the Canadian multi-cultural population of 40 million and yet they believe the world revolves around First Nation who have not contributed anything toward the development of Canada and yet never recognize how their lives have improved significantly from the many amenities invented and manufactured by the white man, such as but not limited to, cars, trucks, boats, power tools, cell phones, computers, cloths, refrigerators, stoves, light bulbs, electricity and education through schools and universities etc.
In the beginning there was no one here and then the Indians came from Asia or someplace else and themselves discovered the new world. Does this mean the Indians found America because they got here first? To see this question in its clear light consider the biblical story of Cane and Able. Able was a shepherd while Cane was a farmer. Able moved around with flocks while Cane cultivated the earth.
Now imagine that each day while Able attended livestock Cane built fences and said this is mine and this is also mine until Cane has enclosed all the existing land while Able continues as a Shepherd. Does this mean that the descendants of Cane owning to the original occupation of the earth own the whole world?
When the Indians claim “we stole their land” I question this claim?
Theft requires that someone legitimately owns something so that it is possible for someone to illegitimately take it. If I steal your corn and it turns out it wasn’t your corn, you stole it from someone else then I have indeed committed theft but not against you only against the person who actually owns the corn.
Theft with respect to the Indians is rendered problematic because the Indians themselves had no concept of property rights. The Indians held that no one actually owns land, land is the common property of all. Who then gets to use the land? Naturally it is the one who is occupying it. This picture was further complicated by the fact that there were two types of Indian tribes. The sedentary agriculture tribe and the nomadic hunting tribe. The sedentary tribe cultivated the land and seemingly by occupation they were rightful owners. The hunting tribe, since they moved around occupied no particular place. Over time however the hunting tribe used their marshal skills to defeat and displace the sedentary tribes. They then became the new sedentary tribe and their claim to the land was also based on their occupancy. Of course there were constant clashes amongst the tribes. No one wanted to be ejected from their land. Everyone understood however there was no real basis for complaint as it wasn’t there land in the first place. When everyone is a renter, use is solely accordance with possession. This is the conquest method in the purist form.
The Whiteman who settled in America didn’t come as foreign invaders. They came as settlers. Unlike the Spanish who ruled Mexico from afar. The English families who arrived to live in America, left everything behind and staked their lives on the new world. Another words, they came as immigrants.
It is FALSE that the Europeans invaded and usurped an Indigenous “nation” or group of nations, in the manner that is now often implied, similar to how Nazi Germany invaded Poland or the Netherlands. The country was very sparsely populated and no native group or authority purported to govern anything larger than mainly itinerant bands or tribes, or to have borders or any concept of national space and jurisdiction. BASICALLY THEY WERE NEVER A NATION – so how can they now call themselves First Nations.
We can say of course that immigration doesn’t confer any privileges. And just because you come here to settle doesn’t mean you have the right to the land that is here. But then that logic would also apply to the Indians. Let’s recall the Indians who were here once came as immigrants. The natives were themselves immigrants, crossing the Bering Straits between Siberia and Alaska, thousands of years ago.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS
There is no such thing as an irrevocable "right" to land and its natural resources. If that was true than the Italians would still be demanding that the Roman Empire was still a valid entity- or the British Empire was still in control of all its land area. So too is the ABORIGINAL EMPIRE OVER (if there ever was such a thing in North America).
In order to call any piece of land "ours" or "mine" or "theirs” you have to be able to defend it by military force if necessary. The natives of the Americas were unable to do this and so the "Aboriginal Empire” collapsed and passed into history. It is no more real or in effect than the Egypt of the Pharaohs.
PLUS the Europeans and those from other continents who immigrated legally to Canada and their descendants, have a right to live here equal to that of any Indigenous person.
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE SHOULD WORK ON “INTEGRATING” INSTEAD OF “SEGRAGATING”.
Wonder who is paying for them to go on the warpath……money is the only thing that gets their interest!
It's odd, because from what I remember, FN people have been saying all these decades and centuries is that the land does not "belong" to anyone, rather we as humans are custodians who should live harmoniously with our surroundings, including plants, animals and humans. Usage of the land is supposed to be an uncoerced agreement brought about be respectful and reasonable means. In theory.
"Ownership" of territory is not a thing, so I was told. So any FN peoples accepting title, deed, ownership of land is contravening their elder's teachings, no? Those groups accepting title are not upholding their ancestor's teachings and have abdicated their cultural identity, so therefore cannot be defined as FN,
OR, someone is faking the whole title thing, and the land which has been seized by the "government", (which can be proven to be controlled by non-Canadian entities, ) will be held by the "government" until such time that it can be handed over to, say, UN forces, or whatever power decides to use it to their own advantage.
I strongly doubt handed-over lands will benefit FN people - if so, just certain families and friends.
WHEN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE SAY WE STOLE THEIR LAND
I question the claim First Nations claiming through “oral history” that basically all of Canada, the second largest country in the world, belongs to them, when they only had very small populations of tribes who were at constant war with one another and they believed in in cannibalism, slavery and torture.
Not bad for a population of 1.8 million indigenous people out of which only 700 thousand have Indian Status compared to a Canadian population of 40 million multi-cultural working tax paying people. They equate to less than 3% of the Canadian multi-cultural population of 40 million and yet they believe the world revolves around First Nation who have not contributed anything toward the development of Canada and yet never recognize how their lives have improved significantly from the many amenities invented and manufactured by the white man, such as but not limited to, cars, trucks, boats, power tools, cell phones, computers, cloths, refrigerators, stoves, light bulbs, electricity and education through schools and universities etc.
In the beginning there was no one here and then the Indians came from Asia or someplace else and themselves discovered the new world. Does this mean the Indians found America because they got here first? To see this question in its clear light consider the biblical story of Cane and Able. Able was a shepherd while Cane was a farmer. Able moved around with flocks while Cane cultivated the earth.
Now imagine that each day while Able attended livestock Cane built fences and said this is mine and this is also mine until Cane has enclosed all the existing land while Able continues as a Shepherd. Does this mean that the descendants of Cane owning to the original occupation of the earth own the whole world?
When the Indians claim “we stole their land” I question this claim?
Theft requires that someone legitimately owns something so that it is possible for someone to illegitimately take it. If I steal your corn and it turns out it wasn’t your corn, you stole it from someone else then I have indeed committed theft but not against you only against the person who actually owns the corn.
Theft with respect to the Indians is rendered problematic because the Indians themselves had no concept of property rights. The Indians held that no one actually owns land, land is the common property of all. Who then gets to use the land? Naturally it is the one who is occupying it. This picture was further complicated by the fact that there were two types of Indian tribes. The sedentary agriculture tribe and the nomadic hunting tribe. The sedentary tribe cultivated the land and seemingly by occupation they were rightful owners. The hunting tribe, since they moved around occupied no particular place. Over time however the hunting tribe used their marshal skills to defeat and displace the sedentary tribes. They then became the new sedentary tribe and their claim to the land was also based on their occupancy. Of course there were constant clashes amongst the tribes. No one wanted to be ejected from their land. Everyone understood however there was no real basis for complaint as it wasn’t there land in the first place. When everyone is a renter, use is solely accordance with possession. This is the conquest method in the purist form.
The Whiteman who settled in America didn’t come as foreign invaders. They came as settlers. Unlike the Spanish who ruled Mexico from afar. The English families who arrived to live in America, left everything behind and staked their lives on the new world. Another words, they came as immigrants.
It is FALSE that the Europeans invaded and usurped an Indigenous “nation” or group of nations, in the manner that is now often implied, similar to how Nazi Germany invaded Poland or the Netherlands. The country was very sparsely populated and no native group or authority purported to govern anything larger than mainly itinerant bands or tribes, or to have borders or any concept of national space and jurisdiction. BASICALLY THEY WERE NEVER A NATION – so how can they now call themselves First Nations.
We can say of course that immigration doesn’t confer any privileges. And just because you come here to settle doesn’t mean you have the right to the land that is here. But then that logic would also apply to the Indians. Let’s recall the Indians who were here once came as immigrants. The natives were themselves immigrants, crossing the Bering Straits between Siberia and Alaska, thousands of years ago.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS
There is no such thing as an irrevocable "right" to land and its natural resources. If that was true than the Italians would still be demanding that the Roman Empire was still a valid entity- or the British Empire was still in control of all its land area. So too is the ABORIGINAL EMPIRE OVER (if there ever was such a thing in North America).
In order to call any piece of land "ours" or "mine" or "theirs” you have to be able to defend it by military force if necessary. The natives of the Americas were unable to do this and so the "Aboriginal Empire” collapsed and passed into history. It is no more real or in effect than the Egypt of the Pharaohs.
PLUS the Europeans and those from other continents who immigrated legally to Canada and their descendants, have a right to live here equal to that of any Indigenous person.
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE SHOULD WORK ON “INTEGRATING” INSTEAD OF “SEGRAGATING”.
Someone please hire teachers who won't brainwash the youth. How stupid!