Canadian Politics Today

Wear a push bra and expose & show off giant cleavage in every man's face, but get offended when a man looks at them.  Life is confusing sometimes.

You're supposed to look but not stare. Or at least, you're supposed to notice, but not look. It depends on who notices you noticing and how hey feel about it. Or as Jerry told George "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it! You get a glimpse and then look away!"

This after George had visibly admired the cleavage of their boss's 15 year old daughter.

Some of this is simply tradition, and tradition binds us together. We have fewer and fewer things to do this, so I'm okay with standing for the national anthem.

So you think that the national anthem is a good way to bind together, and a general acknowledgement of native land is not ?

This looks like a pretty clear opportunity for compromise.   

The Algonquins lay claim to most of eastern Ontario, including the Ottawa valley all the way up to North Bay. I remind you this was all heavily forested and they had no real means of moving around but foot and canoe on navigable rivers. Their total population, including those off reserves, is something like 16,000, or about 4,000 families. The idea that if a member of their tribe ever visited or hunted on a piece of territory it belongs to them through eternity is laughable.

Is this a 'claim' in terms of a tribe asking for land ?  Please be clear - I haven't heard of this one.  'The Algonquins' were Iroquois and Mohawks both I thought.  Anyway, I went back to the original and this is just a side-issue...

Not always, and not evidently in this case. The original person quoted said what was said. That his opinion basically is that all this land belongs to the Algonquin, and the settlers should leave and give it back does not change the fact he thinks such statements are meaningless.

I think quoting individual first nations people who disagree with this point or that is fine, but by quoting a first nations person you are de-facto acknowledging that they are stakeholders, and valued contributors.  So you should be ready to have your (on this point) ally to be used against you on other points is all.

We did tresspass and we've been slow in resolving the issue.

Did we trespass any more than FN who fought each other over territory? Should we have been more violent about it? Certainly the Europeans had the advantage of technology and numbers and we will eventually have to resolve these issues to where there is some sort of mutual satisfaction, but I don't buy the noble savage bit.

The Chilcotin incident was nothing compared to what FN on the coast often did to each other. The Haida raided far to the south, wiping out Qualicum villages on southern Vancouver Island, taking heads and slaves. We do need breakthroughs and they won't happen without mutual respect. That won't come from one side doing all the apologizing. A dirty deed was done by both sides IMO.

You're trying to apply logic to something that is purely subjective.  People won't accept the anthem if you make claims of fact.  Further to that, you added a subjective interpretation - yours - on the second artifact of emotional attachment.

I apply logic to everything. It's the liberatarian in me. There is nothing or should be nothing divisive about the national anthem. It says "Our home and native land". Unless, of course, you don't think all those Europeans should be here at all and it shouldn't be their home. And if you're that kind of **** then making some gesture isn't going to help anyway.

Incidentally, has anyone ever asked these activist types how they feel about Africans? Asians? Arabs? I mean, if the Europeans are trespassing after living here fore centuries, and don't belong here, what do they think of immigrants who just arrived in the last generation or two?

The second statement, the 'acknowledgement' as some call it, says some people are here illegitimately. I'm not going to accept that. It's bullshit. My people kicked the **** out of yours? Deal with it. At least we didn't slaughter you to the last man the way you did to the people who were there before you took over.

I think both things are silly except that they are important to people.  You want to say the thing important to you is factually necessary and the thing important to others isn't.

No. I want to point out the national anthem is inclusive and the acknowledgement is the opposite. It suggest some have more rights to this land because their ancestors lost to ours. Nowhere else in the world does this sort of **** happen. You think they start every meeting in Turkey lamenting that they're on stolen land that properly belongs to the Christian Byzantines they slaughtered or drove out? You think the Egyptians apologize to the remnants of the Christian population there for stealing their land?

I apply logic to everything. It's the liberatarian in me. There is nothing or should be nothing divisive about the national anthem.

That's ridiculous.  Deciding if something divisive or offensive is absolutely subjective so I will stop you right there. 
 

 The second statement, the 'acknowledgement' as some call it, says some people are here illegitimately. 

Here's the U of T one.  Why don't you tell me what you *subjectively* find offensive ok ?

As we gather together (at Emmanuel College), we acknowledge this sacred land on which the University of Toronto operates. It has been a site of human activity for 15,000 years. This land is the territory of the Huron-Wendat and Petun First Nations, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. The territory was the subject of the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Iroquois Confederacy and Confederacy of the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. Today, the meeting place of Toronto is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work in the community, on this territory.

We are also mindful of broken covenants and the need to strive to make right with all our relations.


Here's the SJ version of the statement to be read before events now: 

I'm not going to accept that. It's bullshit. My people kicked the **** out of yours? Deal with it. At least we didn't slaughter you to the last man the way you did to the people who were there before you took over.

No. I want to point out the national anthem is inclusive and the acknowledgement is the opposite. It suggest some have more rights to this land because their ancestors lost to ours. Nowhere else in the world does this sort of **** happen. You think they start every meeting in Turkey lamenting that they're on stolen land that properly belongs to the Christian Byzantines they slaughtered or drove out? You think the Egyptians apologize to the remnants of the Christian population there for stealing their land?

Yes, let's be more like Turkey and Egypt.... we can even add it to our 'values test' 

That's ridiculous.  Deciding if something divisive or offensive is absolutely subjective so I will stop you right there.

How about this then. I invite anyone who finds the anthem offensive to go **** themselves. Is that better?
 

Here's the U of T one.  Why don't you tell me what you *subjectively* find offensive ok ?

As we gather together (at Emmanuel College), we acknowledge this sacred land on which the University of Toronto operates. It has been a site of human activity for 15,000 years. This land is the territory of the Huron-Wendat and Petun First Nations, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. The territory was the subject of the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Iroquois Confederacy and Confederacy of the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. Today, the meeting place of Toronto is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work in the community, on this territory.

We are also mindful of broken covenants and the need to strive to make right with all our relations.

I would think that if you speak that aloud you ought to be crying and lamenting what scum all your ancestors are (unless you'e a native, of course) and then should immediately leave Canada so as to not continue to inflict yourself on the proud natives and their holy land where you are neither welcome nor have any legitimate place. In fact, I'd contribute to plane tickets to ship every **** who believes this should be spoken at meetings and at the start of the day back to wherever his ancestors came from, provided they never return.

For my part, this is most **** definitely NOT the land of the Huron or Seneca, and if they want to refight the war to make it so they can bring it on - and be joined by all their little zealot progressive friends on the left.

Here's the SJ version of the statement to be read before events now: 

Yes, let's be more like Turkey and Egypt.... we can even add it to our 'values test' 

I hope you cry properly every time that is spoken, and then lament your existence. As to the SJ version, it's "This is Canada. Don't like it? **** off and leave. Think it belongs to you? Try and take it."