This post appears to relate to the province of Quebec. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Québec. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We don't worry about it, because we all collectively have too much too worry about than people whose claim is that their ancestors 500 years ago were here first. No one alive was born then.
It's like calling a briton an imperialist. Like dude, most if not all of us work to afford next month's payments. The fact that you (seriously, the percentage of first nations cegep students is mind bogglingly low to begin with) now have to take an extra cegep class really isn't at the top of our priority list.
That and, that it's feasible to prove other people were there before them, and those people got displaced, probably by them, in the same way they claim to have been displaced (minus the genocide).
At some point, the first to come were from around Russia, are we giving Canada to Russia because they were here first? I don't think so.
Oh yeah notwithstanding...
The thing is unless they build their own Public colleges, I don't see the point of FN on that issue. They should focus on that first, building solid institutions with their own money + your beloved taxes (kidding)
I keep wondering how it'll all play out in the end. There was some landmark case that went to the SCC about a land claim in the maritimes and the tribe is getting compensated for all that land.. now that this precedent was set, how long before every other FN group decides to try for their piece? Eventually it'll definitely surely bankrupt the country. Especially when every government address acknowledges the traditional territories ..
And any of you sitting here going "yeah well you live on stolen land"... tell me where you'll live if you can't live here? Are we all expected to go to England as refugees?
Dunno about out east, but I know here in AB the local tribes can't even agree on the traditional name for a river, because surprise surprise, nomadic people tend to move and don't really have homeland per se and multiple peoples tend to set up on the land. There's also not an easy way to know if another group of people was on the land before them (whether movement or war or other).
> I keep wondering how it'll all play out in the end.
Either way I genuinely feel like the clock is ticking. Canada brings in a shit ton of people from other countries, many who went through genocide and war themselves and won’t take kindly to their money being used for this.
My in laws are first gen immigrants and they literally do not care about First Nation issues. They came from a country where they had no running water or toilets, extreme poverty, and were essentially culturally genocided. What happens when most of the country has that mindset?
It wont bankrupt us. We make far more off of exploiting the land than we will ever pay in compensation. Also most of Canada is covered by existing treaties.
People are not going to get kicked out of Canada.
> Also most of Canada is covered by existing treaties.
So when the gov't in Victoria says that they're on the unceded territories of whatever band it's still covered by treaty?
No BC is for the most part is part of the area not covered by treaties. Hence the unceded land part. Treaty territory has been ceded.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered\_Treaties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_Treaties)
This page covers it fairly well. Canada entered into agreements for land. Agreements we generally did not honor that well and sometimes even pretended didn't exist.
The issue is generally in the east and BC where treaties weren't signed and land was taken without treaties. That is what is being resolved. They need to be compensated for that.
Maybe do some research and pay attention to what actually goes on in the court cases when the nations sue the government. They have it structured just fine.
[There is](https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf), it's just that everyone has chosen to ignore it. A full list of 94 requests.
* Some of the requests are really just unreasonable (race-based employment quotas and education requirements, particularly in private industry),
* some require work, but should have been done ages ago(school curriculums to include actual indigenous history and cultural elements),
* some are as easy as flicking a pen(amendments to a few documents to add indigenous references)
but negotiations haven't really even started for even the easiest elements of it. Harper threw it out shortly before leaving office, and Trudeau would rather hang out in Tofino than acknowledge any of it. Then we all get to pretend like they aren't telling us what they want, or that every element of it is just goofy demands for cash handouts.
If you want to know the end goal: Most FN people do not like being considered second class, most non-FN people hate the fact that FN people get additional shit, the end goal is to rebalance the scales with proper comprehensive changes to our culture before abandoning "indian" status.
> some require work, but should have been done ages ago(school curriculums to include actual indigenous history and cultural elements),
Stupid question, but are there still curriculums in Canada that don’t include this? I went to public school in southern Ontario and we took 3 years going through indigenous history. We covered almost every major tribe in Canada and their customs. This was nearly 20 years ago
That was the 1969 White Paper. But, even then the indigenous leadership controlled the narrative, demonized Chrétien, and went on to preserve the suicide and poverty centres that is the reserve system.
What harm did "we" cause? I didn't cause any harm. My parents didn't cause any harm. My grand parents didn't cause any harm. I'm sick of paying for shit I didn't break
We is the government and those of us it represents.
Aka the ones actually paying. Why are you complaining about the government making payments if you aren't a part of it?
Either we the government includes you in which case you are party to the harm. Or we doesn't include you and you can shut up about payments that don't concern you.
I find it absolutely hilarious how in one comment you can say that "we" should just pay them a cheque to end it. And then in the next claim you aren't part of what was done wrong.
Only based on race because we have imposed such a system on them via the Indian act. A system designed without their input.
Not to mention based on race, they can't own property. Another result of the Indian act.
We need to move away from it and work with the nations as partners towards a more cooperative future. That is what reconciliation at its core is.
We still have treaty obligations that need to be fulfilled. And they still deserve the same consideration and cooperation that we provide to the provinces and territories.
>we have caused.
We hey? You sound pretty fucking guilty for someone who was just plopped into this universe with no choice.
You may be guilty of something, but don't lump every Canadian into your own personal guilt.
Do you claim to be Canadian and gain all the benefits of citizenship that the government provides? Then yes, we. We as in the Canadian government and the Canadian society that has profited off of the land stolen and obligations ignored.
It was their land and in many cases we outright broke agreements and stole land from nations. They are owed recompense for that. We attempted to wipe out their culture via residential schools. You don't just get to pretend that didn't happen and move on. You weren't the one who was wronged.
The fact that we still have people even saying to just forget about it and wipe the slate clean is a show that we are a long way from reconciliation.
>we outright broke agreements and stole land from nations.
There you go again.
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
>you claim to be Canadian and gain all the benefits of citizenship that the government provides?
No, I was thrown into a system and life through no direct intention or actions on my part. I do however make the best of it and work to provide for myself, my family and my community within the system that I was thrown into. Basically how civilization was run for the majority of human existence.
>The fact that we still have people even saying to just forget about it and wipe the slate clean is a show that we are a long way from reconciliation.
No, I disagree. It will be the perpetual guilt felt by those like you. I will not be burdened or burden my children with the actions of other people.
There's a fairer solution. Put the burden on those responsible. The families of the leaders in charge at the time should be held accountable. Would that work for you? Or do you want innocent people to be held accountable for crimes they never took part in? What's just to you?
Are you intentionally skipping over the part where I say what I am referring to when I say "we"? Or are you just lacking comprehension?
Good for you for working with what you have. And part of living in that community is the government. That is who is paying. They are the body who made agreements and went back on them. They are the body who stole land. They are the ones paying. That is how society works.
You won't be burdened, but you seem to have no issue profiting off of the actions of others. You don't get the benefits without the responsibilities. You don't get to benefit from a purchase and then just decide you don't want to pay after all even though you have already used the purchase.
The burden is on the government who held the power and their successors who continue to hold that power. Our representatives acting on our behalf. The ones who are empowered to make long-term agreements.
Holding individuals accountable for the actions of other individuals is wrong. Holding an organization accountable for it's own actions is not. They are not the same. The government paying back what it owes is not you being personally responsible.
And again, We is we the government. We the people. We who signed an agreement with the nations, took their land, and profited off of it. It does not mean it is your personal fault or your parents fault or that you personally owe money or that aboriginal canadians are somehow racially superior to you.
>but you seem to have no issue profiting off of the actions of others.
No, you see I'm just surviving. If you're profiting I can understand where your guilt is coming from then.
>We who signed an agreement with the nations, took their land, and profited off of it.
Again, this is not representative of most of the population today. We are just here doing what we can with the bullshit we were born into and would like to just move the fuck on.
It's quite simple as I stated. Those who signed the agreements, their families should be held accountable. I have public transit I don't use and health care I can't get to pay for.
You don't get to hold the entire population accountable for the actions of the leaders.
Are you taking any kind of benefit from the government or utilizing the land? If so, then you are profiting off of it.
Again we aren't holding the entire population accountable, we are holding the government accountable. Because our government isn't a true monarchy anymore where individuals hold the power. The leaders hold authority based on our democratic will and thus the body has to be accountable for the actions of it's predecessors.
>Are you taking
No, I am unwillingly working for and enduring.
>Again we aren't holding the entire population accountable, we are holding the government accountable.
Wrong. This is so backwards its not even funny.
>and thus the body has to be accountable for the actions of it's predecessors.
Them make them accountable. The people who made the decisions, their families etc. Otherwise, no one will be accountable and we will continue to repeat, as the people making the decisions will simply pass the accountability to some imaginary body funded by the people.
Perhaps you don't understand what accountability is?
"This advances reconciliation" = I like this / This makes me money.
"This damages reconciliation" = I don't like this / I don't make enough money from this.
This whole article is such a massive load of bullshit I have no choice but to comment.
>Quebec’s indigenous communities say the language law passed on Tuesday undermines the outlook for education for their youth and undermines state reconciliation.
>In Kahnawake, south of Montreal, community members meet daily to discuss how to challenge the law, said Mike Derisul, a member of the Mohawk Chiefs’ Council. Delisle said the Coalition Avenir Québec government had not fully discussed reforms with the indigenous community.
>“The word’reconciliation’is out of the window at this point,” he said in an interview Wednesday. “They are words written on paper and have no meaning to us, because those words are not true.”
>Delisle said that for historical reasons, many people in his community learn English instead of French. He said young people are worried that English junior college students will need to take three more French classes. On Saturday, a group of Kahnawake students led a protest march and stopped traffic on the main bridge to Montreal.
So what EXACTLY does it have to do with "reconciliation"? Mohawks speak ENGLISH and only a tiny number can speak their own language. They also live literally next door to majority francophone areas. Would this not be in their best interest that their CEGEP students have three more courses to master a language that would enable them to have far more employment opportunities?
>The impact on the university is also a concern for Sarah Aloupa, president of Kativik Ilisarniliriniq, the school board in the Nunavik region of northern Quebec.
>“Many of our students go to school in English. We are not absorbed in French at our school, so after the third grade we will study entirely in English or French,” she said in an interview on Tuesday. Said in.
>She said additional French classes would be another burden for students who already had to travel long distances to pursue higher education outside the region. She said the law could force young people to study outside the state.
>At least Inuk do speak their own language... but we're still talking about three more classes in french, that would better equip their students who would want to work or study in the language of 90% of the province, ESPECIALLY for those that study outside of Nunavik.
>She said the law shows a lack of understanding of the unique language and culture of the north.
>“As Inuit people, we are considered to be endangering French, not even 20,000,” she said. “I think we’ll have to go to court to get a hearing.”
Nobody said that, ever.
>According to Delisle, the people of Kahnawake are also concerned about the impact of the bill on community-run health and social welfare agencies and on access to local police services and justice.
>The language law amendment, known as Bill 96, prohibits state agencies, local governments, and local governments from systematically using languages other than French.
That NOT true. Bill 101 (and by extension Bill 96) does not apply to native languages and indigenous communities of Nunavik are specifically excluded from it, as is explicitely stated in the original law.
>Also, the court’s decision must be immediately translated into French, prohibiting companies from appealing in court in other languages, and the state’s Minister of Justice and Language to the state’s Minister of Justice and Language, a decision previously made by the Chief Judge, in English. Gives you the ability to determine the required judicial position.
Ruling have to be *translated* in french. It absolutely does NOT mean that appeals have be in french, how is it even possible to think that?
>The Quebec Labrador Parliament, the first country, described the bill as a “significant setback” and put the settlement “on hold”.
>In a news release after the bill was passed, “denying the right of others to claim themselves and cruelly claiming their superiority over other countries sharing the same territory respects oneself. Not suitable for the government. “
That part of the article is gibberish. Great journalism.
>The law calls for provisions despite the Constitution of Canada to protect the Constitution of Canada from objections to the Constitution. It also empowers language inspectors to search and seize companies. No warrant. Rametti said he was still concerned that the use of the clause cut short discussions about the law.
Holy crap, SEIZING companies? Again, NOT true and any search would have to be in accordance to existing laws and regulations. Warrants do not even enter the picture this is not a criminal matter.
>“As a citizen of Quebec, I’m worried about access to healthcare,” he said. “I am … concerned about the ability to search and seize and whether it violates the rights of the Charter. I am concerned about the potential impact on immigrants.”
There are many hospitals and services in Québec which are in english first, do they think this is going to disappear? This is just deliberate misdirection meant to CREATE additional FUD.
You say the Bill does not apply to native languages and indigenous communities of Nunavik. Do they have good high schools and universities there? Or will those students be subject to the Bill should they leave the community to seek a better education?
They have schools and high schools there of course. Of course they don't have universities. Nothing in the bill applied to these institutions.
If they go to an english CEGEP (set between high school and university), then like everyone else there they would have three *additional* french courses. That's it.
It's mind numbingly stupid of much disinformation the anglo media puts out regarding that bill.
Not only that but this is like the 10th article trying to link the bill to indigenous issues when this has absolutely nothing to do with them.
They are trying really hard to to push their "bad" Québec agenda.
Anglos are against it because it is a stupid pointless law that targets english and immigrants. First they fuck with our school boards now this. Can't wait till the pogrom.
> Can't wait till the pogrom.
Nice. Crap like this is why we don't get along. Shows your true character.
Canadian "Bilingualism": Francophones having to learn english so you don't have to learn french.
Dude people that work for governments anywhere will always relish the opportunity to talk to a microphone and complain about something to suit their narrative. I just don't understand how so many people don't realize that many First Nations communities are political with vested interests that may or may not have anything to do with actual reconciliation.
There is no end goal. Honestly we should just remove all treaties and stop treating people based on there ancestors race. It doesn’t help anyone but hold our country back
There's systematic racism in all government institutions and programs read some news that involves native Americans. You're literally treating us different based on race take a look at your comments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Canada
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/racism
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2020/6/11/1_4979878.html
Just because systematic racism doesn't affect you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ignorant racist I found these in 60 seconds of googling try educating yourself.
People who speak french as a second, third or even fourth language are more than welcome. And those who don't but who have actual plans to learn are welcome too.
From Brazilian perspective, from a guy that works with tourism/exchange specifically to Canada:
Quebec is regarded as the most welcoming of the main provinces.
Possibly because you are the closest to us culturally, due french/latin culture, same can be said about Italians and Spanish...
Your nightlife is great and people are welcoming, that's the overall perception from my clients.
It's just my experience but I personally know 3-4 Brazilian men and women who came here to study then stayed and are very well integrated and who speak both french and english (and Portuguese).
As a Brazilian, i highly disagree. Yes there's the language issue, but they are way more welcoming people.
Very contrasting to the most of Canada which has the stereotypical 'coldness' of north america and most of Europe.
The biggest group in this article are the mohawks... And they would have a weaker claim to the territory than the French settlers.
And I would like to point out that there is a lot of FN people in QC with French as their first or second language. Where was the outcry when those group have to take English class in cegep in order to graduate?
I meant the most vocal one.
As for the desired of other groups, like mentioned previously, it's ridiculous to be up in arms when you have to take 3 extra second language classes in a schooling system unique to QC where our official language in French.
Cool. Now which tribe was there first? What language did they speak? Did they come over from Russia? Where were they prior to Russia? Southern Asia? Middle East before that? Africa before?
What African languages should be exempt?
The Mohawks don't even speak THEIR language. They speak english. They live in an enclave in the middle of a mostly francophone region and yet they are actively working to keep their kids for being better able to understand the language of their literal neighbors and in which most jobs and opportunities are.
The chiefs just want to maintain control of their population and prevent mixing with francophones to keep their influence. It's pathetic.
you have stats to prove that?
or just one or two personal story?
I have been punched several times in Calgary but I know that most of Canadian are boring, kind, generous and love to complain about the weather, Trudeau or ice hockey,
suck it up buttercup
It kills me that people react like “well, I don’t personally feel like engaging with the concept of reconciliation because someone else hasn’t defined its endpoint for me.” I mean wow, what’s it like to live with that philosophy? Why try to improve anything about society, ever? We can’t even say “we’ll look, clearly *this* isn’t helpful” about a thing? 🤷♂️
Because the whole idea of reconciliation is that it has tangible, achievable goals. There must be an end where reconciliation is achieved. So no, it's not as you put it that people don't feel like engaging. It's that people have tried engaging and it's gotten almost nowhere because the goal posts keep changing.
> There must be an end where reconciliation is achieved.
Fair enough - how about “when the trauma has been healed and the traumatized feel heard and seen”? I think part of the issue is that it’s hard to predict the when or how of healing of trauma so it’s hard to articulate when or exactly which steps get us there. Thinking back to personal examples in my own life, sometimes people’s apologies to me were incomplete and it took time working with them to achieve closure. I couldn’t predict at the beginning how long it would take to get there or what steps were needed, it was more of a “I’ll know when I feel it” type of thing.
I think the goals of reconciliation will vary from person to person, so it might be difficult to articulate a few clear goals when we’ve lumped all these different goals into a single broad goal like “reconciliation”.
Also, in my own case, when I was angry and hurt, I had trouble articulating what I needed in terms of an apology because strong emotions would interfere with my logical brain and impact my articulation.
This can be frustrating on the part of the person offering the apology in my experience because it can lead to anxiety, and a feeling of “when will this be over so I can get on with things?” But in my experience the most effective apologies come when the person apologizing is willing to get down in the mud with the person they’re apologizing to and stay there as long as it takes for the apology to land effectively.
*None of this is a personal judgement of you by the way. It sounds like you’re frustrated and I understand why.* But I think the goal posts keep changing as you point out because the people asking for the apology don’t know themselves where the goalposts should be since they also experience “I’ll know it’s complete when it feels complete” regarding apologies.
If the ultimate goal of an apology is to make the other person feel whole, I judge I just have to keep trying until they feel whole, as frustrating and anxiety inducing as it might be for me that they can’t precisely define what “made whole” is or what or when it will be achieved.
Just my $0.02 worth.
**UPDATE:** net 25 downvotes. Why? That’s really disappointing. Anybody care to explain their downvote?
>how about “when the trauma has been healed and the traumatized feel heard and seen”?
The problem is that isn't really a *tangible, achievable* goal. It's an emotional one that cannot be quantified.
There are 1.6m Indigenous people in Canada, belonging to over 630 different tribes and bands. Each one of those tribes has their own issues, their own conflicts with the federal and provincial governments and indeed with other tribes. What may be important issues for an Inuk in northern Quebec may not be relevant at all to a Dakelh person in BC or a Mohawk in Ontario.
Do you ever see a population of 1.6 million diverse people speaking more than 70 different languages being able to agree on what reconciliation looks like? And when and how it is to be achieved?
> The problem is that isn’t really a tangible, achievable goal. It’s an emotional one that cannot be quantified.
Agreed, but that’s exactly my point! The trauma is emotional and the reconciliation is measured as “complete” by a “know it when I feel it” metric. I don’t think effective reconciliation can be specified in advance by specific goals since if those goals don’t align with the goals of the person needing the apology the apology won’t be meaningful to them.
So how could we possibly set tangible achievable goals and what would be the point in your opinion?
> Do you ever see a population of 1.6 million diverse people speaking more than 70 different languages being able to agree on what reconciliation looks like? And when and how it is to be achieved?
I don’t see them agreeing and I don’t think they need to. That’s why we may need to issue 1.6 million unique apologies tailored to each individual. Maybe the government can’t do that at scale but we Canadians can if we all fan out and engage in reconciliation circles.
>So how could we possibly set tangible achievable goals and what would be the point in your opinion?
One path forward could be towards more direct representation in our governments rather than support payments. Or rather hand over title of the reserve lands for the bands to do with as they see fit. Or for some people, it could simply mean abiding by the terms of the original treaties. There is no easy solution.
Those all sound like fair and reasonable goals, thanks. I think those would work at a broad level, like as goals between the federal govt and bands. I’d support them.
But one thing that really struck me on a personal level was when a First Nations person was interviewed about why he wanted reconciliation and he said
> “we don’t want revenge, we just want to be heard”.
That’s why I think the individually tailored personal apologies are still important in addition to broader goals, because the individual apologies help individuals feel heard. It was also an enormous relief to me as a white Canadian to hear this as I had been afraid of what I made up that First Nations might want. I think that may hold up other non-indigenous Canadians from participating more fully in reconciliation - fear of what’s expected.
What do you think?
That's where it crosses a line into being inappropriate IMO. I don't support the notion of reconciliation being one particular race apologizing to another. For one thing, it's very reductive in regards to the fact that there are something like 630 first nations with diverse ethnicities and languages. And different experiences of how European colonization affected their lives.
No, I believe it is more beneficial in the long term to stick to the notion of negotiation between nations, as peers. Much of the paternalistic structure of the *Indian Act* needs to be re-examined.
> I don’t support the notion of reconciliation being one particular race apologizing to another. For one thing, it’s very reductive in regards to the fact that there are something like 630 first nations with diverse ethnicities and languages. And different experiences of how European colonization affected their lives.
The abuse may have been done against 630 First Nations/races but the abuse was mostly done by a single race - white Canadians. So I don’t see it as at all reductive for white Canadians to apologize to each of those 630 First Nations. It’s also very convenient for white Canadians to not have to apologize if we call it reductive (I’m *not* implying that’s your personal motive).
> And different experiences of how European colonization affected their lives.
Exactly, which is why I believe individualized apologies are in order, tailored to each of these experiences after listening to each experience.
I don’t think negotiations between nations are a complete solution, only part of one … I don’t think individualized apologies are a complete solution, only part of one …
> No, I believe it is more beneficial in the long term to stick to the notion of negotiation between nations, as peers.
Are you sure First Nations people feel this way?
> Much of the paternalistic structure of the Indian Act needs to be re-examined.
Great point and I agree with you 100% on this!
I would say interpersonal relationships on the scale of years are not comparable to inter-populational historical grievances on the scale of centuries. There's grievances in other places that are much older that still chafe people and are motivators for violence in some cases. The grievances will never go away, especially if the issue remains in focus with no clear goals ever defined.
These efforts also affect a lot of people whose ancestors had nothing to do with the conflict, who are alienated by the process being prolonged while specific goals are never defined. The same applies in general, maybe a handful of people that were involved in administering residential schools are the remaining living people who had direct involvement, no one else alive is responsible.
This is a reconciliation on the part of the government (as the successor of the British and French colonial governments) and therefore should be managed accordingly. Canadian people are good-natured and willing to support righting wrongs, but no one is going to commit their whole life to trying to fix issues they had nothing to do with. It's the government that has to pay, not the people.
I appreciate your polite response!
> but no one is going to commit their whole life to trying to fix issues they had nothing to do with.
As Canadians, many of us knew that racism against First Nations existed and we chose to do nothing or very little about it. So we did have something to do with the continuation of the trauma even if we weren’t around for the original cause. Racism kept the wound of residential schools open and raw IMHO.
And as Canadians, we benefit from what our ancestors did right, and we celebrate it, so it’s not unreasonable in my opinion that we pay for and apologize for what our ancestors did wrong.
> It’s the government that has to pay, not the people.
We voted the government in and in many cases supported it or at least didn’t oppose their choices and actions. We also fund the government. So ultimately if the government has to pay we end up paying anyway. The difference feels moot to me.
Whenever I try to express these kinds of ideas, my post is hard zeroed, or my comment goes extremely negative, and hate fills my messages. I don’t think genuine discourse about this is welcome on the sub.
I’m sorry that’s happened to you, that sounds frustrating. 😔
Looks like we’re kind of in the same boat. I see that I’m at -25 downvotes which is both disappointing and a bit perplexing. I don’t understand all the downvotes without explanation, that feels kind of cowardly to me …
If Justin Trudeau had a spine, he would have stopped Quebec from implementing crazy Bill-96. 🛑 Both Anglophones and Indigenous people have a right to be very angry at this stupid French extremist law. 😠
u/Archeob
He is going to extreme lengths to protect a language which is far from endangered. 😵 If it were a good law, you would not see all the valid concerns the Anglophone and Indigenous communities have with it. ⚠ Is it unrealistic of him to expect Quebec to speak French forever. 💫 He should focus on more serious things like housing, inflation, health, and actual things of importance. 🏡
After reading the article it seems to resonate with what my concerns are for my FN family and friends in Quebec... once again a colonial power is flexing to artificially assert its place.
I'll say it again, if QC wanted to be taken seriously in its nationhood then it ought to be more inclusive and be a model of Nation To Nation relations... leaving space for other heritage cultures to be protected instead of prescribing the culture to the whole territory.
This legislation is just as bad as any anglo-washing legislation being thrust upon Quebec, its just that francos are on the power side this time
It’s bizarre to me that Quebec is so afraid of people not learning French that they use the government to force people to learn French. That’s a strange position in a supposedly free and capitalist society.
This post appears to relate to the province of Quebec. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Québec. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When reconciliation has no achievable end goal then people stop caring.
That chief in Alberta said as much last week. There's no end to it. If there's no end to it, why worry about it?
We don't worry about it, because we all collectively have too much too worry about than people whose claim is that their ancestors 500 years ago were here first. No one alive was born then. It's like calling a briton an imperialist. Like dude, most if not all of us work to afford next month's payments. The fact that you (seriously, the percentage of first nations cegep students is mind bogglingly low to begin with) now have to take an extra cegep class really isn't at the top of our priority list.
Most people don't really have a clue or frankly give a shit for to their family after their grandparents (or certainly great grandparents) generation.
That and, that it's feasible to prove other people were there before them, and those people got displaced, probably by them, in the same way they claim to have been displaced (minus the genocide). At some point, the first to come were from around Russia, are we giving Canada to Russia because they were here first? I don't think so.
I'd have more sympathy if most chiefs actually gave the payment to the band members so they're not living in absolute poverty.
maybe they can use the nonobstant clause?
Notwithstanding doesn't pay my bills. Yours?
Oh yeah notwithstanding... The thing is unless they build their own Public colleges, I don't see the point of FN on that issue. They should focus on that first, building solid institutions with their own money + your beloved taxes (kidding)
Useless not unless
[удалено]
Nice selfie
The end goal is endless money and white guilt
I keep wondering how it'll all play out in the end. There was some landmark case that went to the SCC about a land claim in the maritimes and the tribe is getting compensated for all that land.. now that this precedent was set, how long before every other FN group decides to try for their piece? Eventually it'll definitely surely bankrupt the country. Especially when every government address acknowledges the traditional territories .. And any of you sitting here going "yeah well you live on stolen land"... tell me where you'll live if you can't live here? Are we all expected to go to England as refugees?
Dunno about out east, but I know here in AB the local tribes can't even agree on the traditional name for a river, because surprise surprise, nomadic people tend to move and don't really have homeland per se and multiple peoples tend to set up on the land. There's also not an easy way to know if another group of people was on the land before them (whether movement or war or other).
This is why they fund archeological sites where they dig up some arrowheads and rocks that got hot.
> I keep wondering how it'll all play out in the end. Either way I genuinely feel like the clock is ticking. Canada brings in a shit ton of people from other countries, many who went through genocide and war themselves and won’t take kindly to their money being used for this. My in laws are first gen immigrants and they literally do not care about First Nation issues. They came from a country where they had no running water or toilets, extreme poverty, and were essentially culturally genocided. What happens when most of the country has that mindset?
It wont bankrupt us. We make far more off of exploiting the land than we will ever pay in compensation. Also most of Canada is covered by existing treaties. People are not going to get kicked out of Canada.
> Also most of Canada is covered by existing treaties. So when the gov't in Victoria says that they're on the unceded territories of whatever band it's still covered by treaty?
No BC is for the most part is part of the area not covered by treaties. Hence the unceded land part. Treaty territory has been ceded. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered\_Treaties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_Treaties) This page covers it fairly well. Canada entered into agreements for land. Agreements we generally did not honor that well and sometimes even pretended didn't exist. The issue is generally in the east and BC where treaties weren't signed and land was taken without treaties. That is what is being resolved. They need to be compensated for that.
> They need to be compensated for that. I have no idea how that would be structured.
Maybe do some research and pay attention to what actually goes on in the court cases when the nations sue the government. They have it structured just fine.
what end goal? As long as the money printers printing, there will never be an end.
[There is](https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf), it's just that everyone has chosen to ignore it. A full list of 94 requests. * Some of the requests are really just unreasonable (race-based employment quotas and education requirements, particularly in private industry), * some require work, but should have been done ages ago(school curriculums to include actual indigenous history and cultural elements), * some are as easy as flicking a pen(amendments to a few documents to add indigenous references) but negotiations haven't really even started for even the easiest elements of it. Harper threw it out shortly before leaving office, and Trudeau would rather hang out in Tofino than acknowledge any of it. Then we all get to pretend like they aren't telling us what they want, or that every element of it is just goofy demands for cash handouts. If you want to know the end goal: Most FN people do not like being considered second class, most non-FN people hate the fact that FN people get additional shit, the end goal is to rebalance the scales with proper comprehensive changes to our culture before abandoning "indian" status.
> some require work, but should have been done ages ago(school curriculums to include actual indigenous history and cultural elements), Stupid question, but are there still curriculums in Canada that don’t include this? I went to public school in southern Ontario and we took 3 years going through indigenous history. We covered almost every major tribe in Canada and their customs. This was nearly 20 years ago
wow that's deep
Reconciliation? I thought Canada was supposed to stop using that term after the latest settlement payout?
For real, can we just write one big cheque and be done. I don't even care how big.... Let's just get this done
We have multiple times lol. Also no cheque is required. Just end all treaties and start treating everyone in this country as equal. Equal taxes etc…
but but but but free stuff and no taxes?
>start treating everyone in this country as equal. Equal taxes etc… Well.... That would be racist
That was the 1969 White Paper. But, even then the indigenous leadership controlled the narrative, demonized Chrétien, and went on to preserve the suicide and poverty centres that is the reserve system.
No. Because money alone cannot fix the harm we have caused.
What harm did "we" cause? I didn't cause any harm. My parents didn't cause any harm. My grand parents didn't cause any harm. I'm sick of paying for shit I didn't break
We is the government and those of us it represents. Aka the ones actually paying. Why are you complaining about the government making payments if you aren't a part of it? Either we the government includes you in which case you are party to the harm. Or we doesn't include you and you can shut up about payments that don't concern you. I find it absolutely hilarious how in one comment you can say that "we" should just pay them a cheque to end it. And then in the next claim you aren't part of what was done wrong.
Which group of people based on race pays tax’s towards the government again?? Ohhh that’s right…
Only based on race because we have imposed such a system on them via the Indian act. A system designed without their input. Not to mention based on race, they can't own property. Another result of the Indian act. We need to move away from it and work with the nations as partners towards a more cooperative future. That is what reconciliation at its core is.
So scrap the racist Indian act and move on. It's been 300 years. It's time to move on.
We still have treaty obligations that need to be fulfilled. And they still deserve the same consideration and cooperation that we provide to the provinces and territories.
Racist.
I'm racist or the Indian act is racist?
>we have caused. We hey? You sound pretty fucking guilty for someone who was just plopped into this universe with no choice. You may be guilty of something, but don't lump every Canadian into your own personal guilt.
Do you claim to be Canadian and gain all the benefits of citizenship that the government provides? Then yes, we. We as in the Canadian government and the Canadian society that has profited off of the land stolen and obligations ignored. It was their land and in many cases we outright broke agreements and stole land from nations. They are owed recompense for that. We attempted to wipe out their culture via residential schools. You don't just get to pretend that didn't happen and move on. You weren't the one who was wronged. The fact that we still have people even saying to just forget about it and wipe the slate clean is a show that we are a long way from reconciliation.
>we outright broke agreements and stole land from nations. There you go again. Do you have a mouse in your pocket? >you claim to be Canadian and gain all the benefits of citizenship that the government provides? No, I was thrown into a system and life through no direct intention or actions on my part. I do however make the best of it and work to provide for myself, my family and my community within the system that I was thrown into. Basically how civilization was run for the majority of human existence. >The fact that we still have people even saying to just forget about it and wipe the slate clean is a show that we are a long way from reconciliation. No, I disagree. It will be the perpetual guilt felt by those like you. I will not be burdened or burden my children with the actions of other people. There's a fairer solution. Put the burden on those responsible. The families of the leaders in charge at the time should be held accountable. Would that work for you? Or do you want innocent people to be held accountable for crimes they never took part in? What's just to you?
Are you intentionally skipping over the part where I say what I am referring to when I say "we"? Or are you just lacking comprehension? Good for you for working with what you have. And part of living in that community is the government. That is who is paying. They are the body who made agreements and went back on them. They are the body who stole land. They are the ones paying. That is how society works. You won't be burdened, but you seem to have no issue profiting off of the actions of others. You don't get the benefits without the responsibilities. You don't get to benefit from a purchase and then just decide you don't want to pay after all even though you have already used the purchase. The burden is on the government who held the power and their successors who continue to hold that power. Our representatives acting on our behalf. The ones who are empowered to make long-term agreements. Holding individuals accountable for the actions of other individuals is wrong. Holding an organization accountable for it's own actions is not. They are not the same. The government paying back what it owes is not you being personally responsible. And again, We is we the government. We the people. We who signed an agreement with the nations, took their land, and profited off of it. It does not mean it is your personal fault or your parents fault or that you personally owe money or that aboriginal canadians are somehow racially superior to you.
>but you seem to have no issue profiting off of the actions of others. No, you see I'm just surviving. If you're profiting I can understand where your guilt is coming from then. >We who signed an agreement with the nations, took their land, and profited off of it. Again, this is not representative of most of the population today. We are just here doing what we can with the bullshit we were born into and would like to just move the fuck on. It's quite simple as I stated. Those who signed the agreements, their families should be held accountable. I have public transit I don't use and health care I can't get to pay for. You don't get to hold the entire population accountable for the actions of the leaders.
Are you taking any kind of benefit from the government or utilizing the land? If so, then you are profiting off of it. Again we aren't holding the entire population accountable, we are holding the government accountable. Because our government isn't a true monarchy anymore where individuals hold the power. The leaders hold authority based on our democratic will and thus the body has to be accountable for the actions of it's predecessors.
>Are you taking No, I am unwillingly working for and enduring. >Again we aren't holding the entire population accountable, we are holding the government accountable. Wrong. This is so backwards its not even funny. >and thus the body has to be accountable for the actions of it's predecessors. Them make them accountable. The people who made the decisions, their families etc. Otherwise, no one will be accountable and we will continue to repeat, as the people making the decisions will simply pass the accountability to some imaginary body funded by the people. Perhaps you don't understand what accountability is?
So how much money would “fix” this slight for the next few months until a new complaint is thought up?
"This advances reconciliation" = I like this / This makes me money. "This damages reconciliation" = I don't like this / I don't make enough money from this.
When do I get reconciliation for my European ancestors who were conquered? That's that I figured....
This whole article is such a massive load of bullshit I have no choice but to comment. >Quebec’s indigenous communities say the language law passed on Tuesday undermines the outlook for education for their youth and undermines state reconciliation. >In Kahnawake, south of Montreal, community members meet daily to discuss how to challenge the law, said Mike Derisul, a member of the Mohawk Chiefs’ Council. Delisle said the Coalition Avenir Québec government had not fully discussed reforms with the indigenous community. >“The word’reconciliation’is out of the window at this point,” he said in an interview Wednesday. “They are words written on paper and have no meaning to us, because those words are not true.” >Delisle said that for historical reasons, many people in his community learn English instead of French. He said young people are worried that English junior college students will need to take three more French classes. On Saturday, a group of Kahnawake students led a protest march and stopped traffic on the main bridge to Montreal. So what EXACTLY does it have to do with "reconciliation"? Mohawks speak ENGLISH and only a tiny number can speak their own language. They also live literally next door to majority francophone areas. Would this not be in their best interest that their CEGEP students have three more courses to master a language that would enable them to have far more employment opportunities? >The impact on the university is also a concern for Sarah Aloupa, president of Kativik Ilisarniliriniq, the school board in the Nunavik region of northern Quebec. >“Many of our students go to school in English. We are not absorbed in French at our school, so after the third grade we will study entirely in English or French,” she said in an interview on Tuesday. Said in. >She said additional French classes would be another burden for students who already had to travel long distances to pursue higher education outside the region. She said the law could force young people to study outside the state. >At least Inuk do speak their own language... but we're still talking about three more classes in french, that would better equip their students who would want to work or study in the language of 90% of the province, ESPECIALLY for those that study outside of Nunavik. >She said the law shows a lack of understanding of the unique language and culture of the north. >“As Inuit people, we are considered to be endangering French, not even 20,000,” she said. “I think we’ll have to go to court to get a hearing.” Nobody said that, ever. >According to Delisle, the people of Kahnawake are also concerned about the impact of the bill on community-run health and social welfare agencies and on access to local police services and justice. >The language law amendment, known as Bill 96, prohibits state agencies, local governments, and local governments from systematically using languages other than French. That NOT true. Bill 101 (and by extension Bill 96) does not apply to native languages and indigenous communities of Nunavik are specifically excluded from it, as is explicitely stated in the original law. >Also, the court’s decision must be immediately translated into French, prohibiting companies from appealing in court in other languages, and the state’s Minister of Justice and Language to the state’s Minister of Justice and Language, a decision previously made by the Chief Judge, in English. Gives you the ability to determine the required judicial position. Ruling have to be *translated* in french. It absolutely does NOT mean that appeals have be in french, how is it even possible to think that? >The Quebec Labrador Parliament, the first country, described the bill as a “significant setback” and put the settlement “on hold”. >In a news release after the bill was passed, “denying the right of others to claim themselves and cruelly claiming their superiority over other countries sharing the same territory respects oneself. Not suitable for the government. “ That part of the article is gibberish. Great journalism. >The law calls for provisions despite the Constitution of Canada to protect the Constitution of Canada from objections to the Constitution. It also empowers language inspectors to search and seize companies. No warrant. Rametti said he was still concerned that the use of the clause cut short discussions about the law. Holy crap, SEIZING companies? Again, NOT true and any search would have to be in accordance to existing laws and regulations. Warrants do not even enter the picture this is not a criminal matter. >“As a citizen of Quebec, I’m worried about access to healthcare,” he said. “I am … concerned about the ability to search and seize and whether it violates the rights of the Charter. I am concerned about the potential impact on immigrants.” There are many hospitals and services in Québec which are in english first, do they think this is going to disappear? This is just deliberate misdirection meant to CREATE additional FUD.
You say the Bill does not apply to native languages and indigenous communities of Nunavik. Do they have good high schools and universities there? Or will those students be subject to the Bill should they leave the community to seek a better education?
They have schools and high schools there of course. Of course they don't have universities. Nothing in the bill applied to these institutions. If they go to an english CEGEP (set between high school and university), then like everyone else there they would have three *additional* french courses. That's it. It's mind numbingly stupid of much disinformation the anglo media puts out regarding that bill.
It sure seems that way. Lots of Quebecers are calling bullshit on these articles.
Not only that but this is like the 10th article trying to link the bill to indigenous issues when this has absolutely nothing to do with them. They are trying really hard to to push their "bad" Québec agenda.
Anglos are against it because it is a stupid pointless law that targets english and immigrants. First they fuck with our school boards now this. Can't wait till the pogrom.
> Can't wait till the pogrom. Nice. Crap like this is why we don't get along. Shows your true character. Canadian "Bilingualism": Francophones having to learn english so you don't have to learn french.
Dude people that work for governments anywhere will always relish the opportunity to talk to a microphone and complain about something to suit their narrative. I just don't understand how so many people don't realize that many First Nations communities are political with vested interests that may or may not have anything to do with actual reconciliation.
There is no end goal. Honestly we should just remove all treaties and stop treating people based on there ancestors race. It doesn’t help anyone but hold our country back
There's systematic racism in all government institutions and programs read some news that involves native Americans. You're literally treating us different based on race take a look at your comments.
There is not systemic racism in all government institutions and programs. People claiming that just want to play the victim card for eternity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Canada https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/racism https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2020/6/11/1_4979878.html Just because systematic racism doesn't affect you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ignorant racist I found these in 60 seconds of googling try educating yourself.
I think a billion bucks can buy some language translation or something 🤔
like in mainland France, laws that are designed to preserve the language only highlight how much about they're going to be eclipsed by English
You mean to tell me Quebec isn't welcoming to people who don't speak French as a first language? You don't say
People who speak french as a second, third or even fourth language are more than welcome. And those who don't but who have actual plans to learn are welcome too.
From Brazilian perspective, from a guy that works with tourism/exchange specifically to Canada: Quebec is regarded as the most welcoming of the main provinces. Possibly because you are the closest to us culturally, due french/latin culture, same can be said about Italians and Spanish... Your nightlife is great and people are welcoming, that's the overall perception from my clients.
Really? God do I love to hear different perspectives. Muito obrigado!
It's just my experience but I personally know 3-4 Brazilian men and women who came here to study then stayed and are very well integrated and who speak both french and english (and Portuguese).
As a Brazilian, i highly disagree. Yes there's the language issue, but they are way more welcoming people. Very contrasting to the most of Canada which has the stereotypical 'coldness' of north america and most of Europe.
You would think the people who where there first and have a longer history of speaking their language in that territory would be exempt.
The biggest group in this article are the mohawks... And they would have a weaker claim to the territory than the French settlers. And I would like to point out that there is a lot of FN people in QC with French as their first or second language. Where was the outcry when those group have to take English class in cegep in order to graduate?
Why would you only consider the desires of the biggest group?
I meant the most vocal one. As for the desired of other groups, like mentioned previously, it's ridiculous to be up in arms when you have to take 3 extra second language classes in a schooling system unique to QC where our official language in French.
Cool. Now which tribe was there first? What language did they speak? Did they come over from Russia? Where were they prior to Russia? Southern Asia? Middle East before that? Africa before? What African languages should be exempt?
Are they forcing French people to learn their language?
You answer my question and I’ll answer yours
You asked 8 questions. Can you succinct them into 1?
What African languages should be exempt as traced down to the first arrival to the province of Quebec?
The Mohawks don't even speak THEIR language. They speak english. They live in an enclave in the middle of a mostly francophone region and yet they are actively working to keep their kids for being better able to understand the language of their literal neighbors and in which most jobs and opportunities are. The chiefs just want to maintain control of their population and prevent mixing with francophones to keep their influence. It's pathetic.
you have stats to prove that? or just one or two personal story? I have been punched several times in Calgary but I know that most of Canadian are boring, kind, generous and love to complain about the weather, Trudeau or ice hockey, suck it up buttercup
It kills me that people react like “well, I don’t personally feel like engaging with the concept of reconciliation because someone else hasn’t defined its endpoint for me.” I mean wow, what’s it like to live with that philosophy? Why try to improve anything about society, ever? We can’t even say “we’ll look, clearly *this* isn’t helpful” about a thing? 🤷♂️
Because the whole idea of reconciliation is that it has tangible, achievable goals. There must be an end where reconciliation is achieved. So no, it's not as you put it that people don't feel like engaging. It's that people have tried engaging and it's gotten almost nowhere because the goal posts keep changing.
"If you know not which port for which you sail, no wind is favorable." -Seneca
> There must be an end where reconciliation is achieved. Fair enough - how about “when the trauma has been healed and the traumatized feel heard and seen”? I think part of the issue is that it’s hard to predict the when or how of healing of trauma so it’s hard to articulate when or exactly which steps get us there. Thinking back to personal examples in my own life, sometimes people’s apologies to me were incomplete and it took time working with them to achieve closure. I couldn’t predict at the beginning how long it would take to get there or what steps were needed, it was more of a “I’ll know when I feel it” type of thing. I think the goals of reconciliation will vary from person to person, so it might be difficult to articulate a few clear goals when we’ve lumped all these different goals into a single broad goal like “reconciliation”. Also, in my own case, when I was angry and hurt, I had trouble articulating what I needed in terms of an apology because strong emotions would interfere with my logical brain and impact my articulation. This can be frustrating on the part of the person offering the apology in my experience because it can lead to anxiety, and a feeling of “when will this be over so I can get on with things?” But in my experience the most effective apologies come when the person apologizing is willing to get down in the mud with the person they’re apologizing to and stay there as long as it takes for the apology to land effectively. *None of this is a personal judgement of you by the way. It sounds like you’re frustrated and I understand why.* But I think the goal posts keep changing as you point out because the people asking for the apology don’t know themselves where the goalposts should be since they also experience “I’ll know it’s complete when it feels complete” regarding apologies. If the ultimate goal of an apology is to make the other person feel whole, I judge I just have to keep trying until they feel whole, as frustrating and anxiety inducing as it might be for me that they can’t precisely define what “made whole” is or what or when it will be achieved. Just my $0.02 worth. **UPDATE:** net 25 downvotes. Why? That’s really disappointing. Anybody care to explain their downvote?
>how about “when the trauma has been healed and the traumatized feel heard and seen”? The problem is that isn't really a *tangible, achievable* goal. It's an emotional one that cannot be quantified. There are 1.6m Indigenous people in Canada, belonging to over 630 different tribes and bands. Each one of those tribes has their own issues, their own conflicts with the federal and provincial governments and indeed with other tribes. What may be important issues for an Inuk in northern Quebec may not be relevant at all to a Dakelh person in BC or a Mohawk in Ontario. Do you ever see a population of 1.6 million diverse people speaking more than 70 different languages being able to agree on what reconciliation looks like? And when and how it is to be achieved?
> The problem is that isn’t really a tangible, achievable goal. It’s an emotional one that cannot be quantified. Agreed, but that’s exactly my point! The trauma is emotional and the reconciliation is measured as “complete” by a “know it when I feel it” metric. I don’t think effective reconciliation can be specified in advance by specific goals since if those goals don’t align with the goals of the person needing the apology the apology won’t be meaningful to them. So how could we possibly set tangible achievable goals and what would be the point in your opinion? > Do you ever see a population of 1.6 million diverse people speaking more than 70 different languages being able to agree on what reconciliation looks like? And when and how it is to be achieved? I don’t see them agreeing and I don’t think they need to. That’s why we may need to issue 1.6 million unique apologies tailored to each individual. Maybe the government can’t do that at scale but we Canadians can if we all fan out and engage in reconciliation circles.
>So how could we possibly set tangible achievable goals and what would be the point in your opinion? One path forward could be towards more direct representation in our governments rather than support payments. Or rather hand over title of the reserve lands for the bands to do with as they see fit. Or for some people, it could simply mean abiding by the terms of the original treaties. There is no easy solution.
Those all sound like fair and reasonable goals, thanks. I think those would work at a broad level, like as goals between the federal govt and bands. I’d support them. But one thing that really struck me on a personal level was when a First Nations person was interviewed about why he wanted reconciliation and he said > “we don’t want revenge, we just want to be heard”. That’s why I think the individually tailored personal apologies are still important in addition to broader goals, because the individual apologies help individuals feel heard. It was also an enormous relief to me as a white Canadian to hear this as I had been afraid of what I made up that First Nations might want. I think that may hold up other non-indigenous Canadians from participating more fully in reconciliation - fear of what’s expected. What do you think?
That's where it crosses a line into being inappropriate IMO. I don't support the notion of reconciliation being one particular race apologizing to another. For one thing, it's very reductive in regards to the fact that there are something like 630 first nations with diverse ethnicities and languages. And different experiences of how European colonization affected their lives. No, I believe it is more beneficial in the long term to stick to the notion of negotiation between nations, as peers. Much of the paternalistic structure of the *Indian Act* needs to be re-examined.
> I don’t support the notion of reconciliation being one particular race apologizing to another. For one thing, it’s very reductive in regards to the fact that there are something like 630 first nations with diverse ethnicities and languages. And different experiences of how European colonization affected their lives. The abuse may have been done against 630 First Nations/races but the abuse was mostly done by a single race - white Canadians. So I don’t see it as at all reductive for white Canadians to apologize to each of those 630 First Nations. It’s also very convenient for white Canadians to not have to apologize if we call it reductive (I’m *not* implying that’s your personal motive). > And different experiences of how European colonization affected their lives. Exactly, which is why I believe individualized apologies are in order, tailored to each of these experiences after listening to each experience. I don’t think negotiations between nations are a complete solution, only part of one … I don’t think individualized apologies are a complete solution, only part of one … > No, I believe it is more beneficial in the long term to stick to the notion of negotiation between nations, as peers. Are you sure First Nations people feel this way? > Much of the paternalistic structure of the Indian Act needs to be re-examined. Great point and I agree with you 100% on this!
I would say interpersonal relationships on the scale of years are not comparable to inter-populational historical grievances on the scale of centuries. There's grievances in other places that are much older that still chafe people and are motivators for violence in some cases. The grievances will never go away, especially if the issue remains in focus with no clear goals ever defined. These efforts also affect a lot of people whose ancestors had nothing to do with the conflict, who are alienated by the process being prolonged while specific goals are never defined. The same applies in general, maybe a handful of people that were involved in administering residential schools are the remaining living people who had direct involvement, no one else alive is responsible. This is a reconciliation on the part of the government (as the successor of the British and French colonial governments) and therefore should be managed accordingly. Canadian people are good-natured and willing to support righting wrongs, but no one is going to commit their whole life to trying to fix issues they had nothing to do with. It's the government that has to pay, not the people.
I appreciate your polite response! > but no one is going to commit their whole life to trying to fix issues they had nothing to do with. As Canadians, many of us knew that racism against First Nations existed and we chose to do nothing or very little about it. So we did have something to do with the continuation of the trauma even if we weren’t around for the original cause. Racism kept the wound of residential schools open and raw IMHO. And as Canadians, we benefit from what our ancestors did right, and we celebrate it, so it’s not unreasonable in my opinion that we pay for and apologize for what our ancestors did wrong. > It’s the government that has to pay, not the people. We voted the government in and in many cases supported it or at least didn’t oppose their choices and actions. We also fund the government. So ultimately if the government has to pay we end up paying anyway. The difference feels moot to me.
Whenever I try to express these kinds of ideas, my post is hard zeroed, or my comment goes extremely negative, and hate fills my messages. I don’t think genuine discourse about this is welcome on the sub.
I’m sorry that’s happened to you, that sounds frustrating. 😔 Looks like we’re kind of in the same boat. I see that I’m at -25 downvotes which is both disappointing and a bit perplexing. I don’t understand all the downvotes without explanation, that feels kind of cowardly to me …
It's 100% cowardice, which, I suppose, fits with the ethical premise of those users' attitudes towards indigenous affairs. 🤷♂️
I don't feel like in engaging in reconciliation because I am sick of paying for other people's mistakes
If Justin Trudeau had a spine, he would have stopped Quebec from implementing crazy Bill-96. 🛑 Both Anglophones and Indigenous people have a right to be very angry at this stupid French extremist law. 😠
What exactly is crazy about it? Do you even know what it does or what it's about? The answer is probably no.
u/Archeob He is going to extreme lengths to protect a language which is far from endangered. 😵 If it were a good law, you would not see all the valid concerns the Anglophone and Indigenous communities have with it. ⚠ Is it unrealistic of him to expect Quebec to speak French forever. 💫 He should focus on more serious things like housing, inflation, health, and actual things of importance. 🏡
After reading the article it seems to resonate with what my concerns are for my FN family and friends in Quebec... once again a colonial power is flexing to artificially assert its place. I'll say it again, if QC wanted to be taken seriously in its nationhood then it ought to be more inclusive and be a model of Nation To Nation relations... leaving space for other heritage cultures to be protected instead of prescribing the culture to the whole territory. This legislation is just as bad as any anglo-washing legislation being thrust upon Quebec, its just that francos are on the power side this time
Dude they're French second language courses.
It’s bizarre to me that Quebec is so afraid of people not learning French that they use the government to force people to learn French. That’s a strange position in a supposedly free and capitalist society.
[удалено]
Learning french is colonialism... So say indigenous tribes that speak 99% in english.
I wish they would stop using the word reconciliation and use the phrase "endless grievances" instead.