4 ms·

I have no idea if we agree given how little you've said. The simple and brief assertion that the Indian Act needs to be removed, given the history of such stat

I have no idea if we agree given how little you've said. The simple and brief assertion that the Indian Act needs to be removed, given the history of such statements, and where they come from (ie. white paper), is begging to being misunderstood in the worst way.

neom 5y ago
So the Indian act should or shouldn't be removed? Natives I've discussed with this have said it should categorically be removed. I'm not saying it shouldn't be replaced, I'm say it should be removed. Edit: Look, I'm sorry for being so aggressive on this point, and I hear what you're saying. You're not wrong. I am not a Trudeau, I'm not from that era, and I disagree with a lot of how we've approached these conversation, with a blunt assertion such as I made. I say remove the indian act because I've talked with dozens and dozens of Natives who have always started from that position. I've read Bob, I don't totally believe his reality reflects that of the majority of Natives, but I don't know. I take my queues from the positions of those directly impacted, and my conversations have brought me to the belief that the indian act has done more harm than good. I'll even go as far as to admit that "removing" it might simply be symbolic, but that symbolism, similar to the issues with Ryerson, or Mcdonald, or the street named "Colonization Road" that is currently a very hotly contested renaming issue in Fort Frances, Ontario, if these are the wishes of those that we displaced, they should be seriously considered in genuine consultation and partnership, something the Trudeau Sr government clearly did not undertake.
- Tiktaalik 5y ago
  The Indian act needs to go away, as it's a racist, sexist and discriminatory document with a terrible history of much worse genocidal things, but it needs to be dismantled in a structured way that doesn't also erode the current rights of First Nations. I have no doubt that indigenous persons you've talked to have expressed that the Indian Act needs to be removed and I expect they're speaking to the awful and discriminatory reasons I've mentioned. The big problem is that there's another group of people that will similarly express that the Indian Act needs to be repealed, and that group contains racists and people that don't care at all about First Nations rights. They express a desire to end the Indian Act so that the indigenous persons in this country will lose all rights, will be assimilated, and the Canadian government will then no longer need to spend any more money and time on this issue. While the white paper was from decades ago, the colonial assimilationist sentiment behind it has lingered around. So the statement that the Indian Act needs to be repealed while generally true in a very high level sense, can be an inflammatory statement depending on the context.
  - neom 5y ago
    I would hope that the assertions I made after my first firmly planted me in the former category. I think we're in total agreement. I wasn't going to spell the whole thing out, but I appreciate that you did. Your final point is well taken.

neom 5y ago

So the Indian act should or shouldn't be removed? Natives I've discussed with this have said it should categorically be removed. I'm not saying it shouldn't be replaced, I'm say it should be removed. Edit: Look, I'm sorry for being so aggressive on this point, and I hear what you're saying. You're not wrong. I am not a Trudeau, I'm not from that era, and I disagree with a lot of how we've approached these conversation, with a blunt assertion such as I made. I say remove the indian act because I've talked with dozens and dozens of Natives who have always started from that position. I've read Bob, I don't totally believe his reality reflects that of the majority of Natives, but I don't know. I take my queues from the positions of those directly impacted, and my conversations have brought me to the belief that the indian act has done more harm than good. I'll even go as far as to admit that "removing" it might simply be symbolic, but that symbolism, similar to the issues with Ryerson, or Mcdonald, or the street named "Colonization Road" that is currently a very hotly contested renaming issue in Fort Frances, Ontario, if these are the wishes of those that we displaced, they should be seriously considered in genuine consultation and partnership, something the Trudeau Sr government clearly did not undertake.

Tiktaalik 5y ago
The Indian act needs to go away, as it's a racist, sexist and discriminatory document with a terrible history of much worse genocidal things, but it needs to be dismantled in a structured way that doesn't also erode the current rights of First Nations. I have no doubt that indigenous persons you've talked to have expressed that the Indian Act needs to be removed and I expect they're speaking to the awful and discriminatory reasons I've mentioned. The big problem is that there's another group of people that will similarly express that the Indian Act needs to be repealed, and that group contains racists and people that don't care at all about First Nations rights. They express a desire to end the Indian Act so that the indigenous persons in this country will lose all rights, will be assimilated, and the Canadian government will then no longer need to spend any more money and time on this issue. While the white paper was from decades ago, the colonial assimilationist sentiment behind it has lingered around. So the statement that the Indian Act needs to be repealed while generally true in a very high level sense, can be an inflammatory statement depending on the context.
- neom 5y ago
  I would hope that the assertions I made after my first firmly planted me in the former category. I think we're in total agreement. I wasn't going to spell the whole thing out, but I appreciate that you did. Your final point is well taken.