Canadian Politics Today

Yes and now newcomers to the country have to explicitly recognize that.

Why make them different than other citizens who haven't taken  the oath. Citizenship is citizenship, parts of it are not optional regardless of how you got it.

Edit: You want them to simply be just another citizen of Canada and they're not that socially, historically, nor legally.

They would, collectively, be WAY better off if they were.

What principle would that be?

That observing the law does not require adding in anything about treaties. Ordinary citizens have nothing to do with observing treaties. That's the courts' job.

This is nothing more than pushing aside the argument among some newcomers that they're not bound by the bleeding heart white liberal guilt over our history with natives. Progressives insist EVERYONE share their angst and guilt at being related to people who won a war instead of those who lost one.

You think liberals want you to feel guilty about winning the war? You don't have a very good understanding of the situation then. You don't have to feel guilty about anything, but most sane people recognize that government sponsored abuse of indigenous peoples actually happened. That's the truth part. They also recognize that there should be reconciliation for those abuses. We're talking about kids taken from their homes and used in medical experiments. We're talking about **** and physical abuse that goes well beyond the paddling or having your knuckles smacked by a ruler like you probably experienced when you were a kid.

Children have been abused by adults through most of history. If you look at the way British boarding school kids were treated back in the day, well, it was horrific by modern standards. Even the high end schools, like the one Prince Charles attended, could be a nightmare. The saying 'spare the rod, spoil the child' was commonplace, as was the sentiment. Nor was sexual abuse paid much attention throughout society, regardless of who the victims were. It was something people and institutions largely dismissed as unlikely or not serious.

Well and good. We're more sophisticated than that, now. But I fail to see how acknowledging that native kids were among those who suffered in those days, and compensating them, also requires we impose some kind of oath for immigrants to respect treaties.

Nah, you don't have to feel guilty about any of those things. You objecting to the government making amends for them does make you look like a complete **** though.

Gee, and I respect you so very much for your calm, dignified wisdom.

You truly see no difference in how indigenous children were treated compared to "British" children? Give me a break. This was systematic abuse. It's incomparable. The way aboriginal children were treated was absolutely nothing compared to the schools that white kids were going to. White kids weren't used in "medical" experiments. White kids weren't left to die from outbreaks and if they were, there would have been insane riots against the government. We're not talking about ancient history. We're talking about **** that happened in the last 75 years. It's incomprehensible that you see no difference in the indigenous people were treated.

I did not say there was 'no' difference. I was pointing out that children were always treated roughly and their complaints ignored by society. The kids who were treated the most roughly were those without power, without parents to protect them. Society was awfully callous for most of our existence. Just think of how the British, a democracy, let a million Irish starve to death with little care or concern. And what happened to good little White kids in 1930 Ottawa who got sick but had no parents to pay a doctor? Nothing good. And deaths from disease were expected. We had over 14,000 new TB cases a year until WW 2. Heck, Canada lost more dead to the Spanish Flu in the years after WW1 than we did to the fighting. 

None of which has any relation to why we should make immigrants promise to respect treaties.

For someone who says they're not saying there's "no" difference, you sure are doing a lot of equating and equivocating.

You mean placing things into perspective? I find it helps.

So the abuse of indigenous people just wasn't that bad. Is that what you're saying? Historians are wrong. The government commissions are wrong. Indigenous peoples themselves are wrong. Is that it? I should privilege the retired white managerial class Canadian's perspective over those others?

Not sure why you keep bringing up that stuff about me. First, it's irrelevant to the topic. Second, I was a high school dropout, a janitor, a busboy, a security guard, and a data entry operator in a modern sweatshop long before I was a member of the 'entitled class'.

And perspective always helps give understanding. Sorry if it shatters your illusions but I'm not the hand wringing type that worries too much about what happened in the past. I think more about what's happening today and what's going to happen tomorrow.

Not sure why you keep bringing up that stuff about me. First, it's irrelevant to the topic. Second, I was a high school dropout, a janitor, a busboy, a security guard, and a data entry operator in a modern sweatshop long before I was a member of the 'entitled class'.

And perspective always helps give understanding. Sorry if it shatters your illusions but I'm not the hand wringing type that worries too much about what happened in the past. I think more about what's happening today and what's going to happen tomorrow.

Get this. Your perspective doesn't mean ****. That's the point. You don't get an opinion on how others have been affected by generations of abuse. Your perspective is to deny them their experiences because you're arrogant enough to think that your opinion on their lives is important. It's not.