• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Urban Elites, Natives and Settlers....

I'm a sticks and stones guy. My perspective on this kind of word usage is simple.

They are only as powerful, insulting and damaging as you allow them to be.

Like the word racist, the more they are overused/ misused, the less impactful they become.

A smile or chuckle is the best defence.
 
As someone who has Sicanian ancestry, Phonecians and Carthagenians are colonizers and settlers. Same with Greeks, Romans, Moors, Bourbons, Italians and the like.

That's how ridiculous it sounds to call people settlers or colonizers when centuries have elapsed since major human migrations have occured. Indigenous peoples here are unique in that there wasn't a massive extermination/subjugation event along with the colonization/conquering of North America.
 
As someone who has Sicanian ancestry, Phonecians and Carthagenians are colonizers and settlers. Same with Greeks, Romans, Moors, Bourbons, Italians and the like.

That's how ridiculous it sounds to call people settlers or colonizers when centuries have elapsed since major human migrations have occured. Indigenous peoples here are unique in that there wasn't a massive extermination/subjugation event along with the colonization/conquering of North America.
All hail the Aurignacians!

😁
 
As someone who has Sicanian ancestry, Phonecians and Carthagenians are colonizers and settlers. Same with Greeks, Romans, Moors, Bourbons, Italians and the like.

That's how ridiculous it sounds to call people settlers or colonizers when centuries have elapsed since major human migrations have occured. Indigenous peoples here are unique in that there wasn't a massive extermination/subjugation event along with the colonization/conquering of North America.
As my Iranian friend asked; "How many times have they been invaded?" My ancestors can count at least 4 times.....
 
This is from 2021 but still makes sense to me. Progressives really like to slot people into identifiable groups. I guess it just makes it easier to set up death camps and gulags once the movement reaches its apex.


There's been a trend for the past few years in Canada where people introduce themselves as "settlers." Friends I have talked to refer to it as the fancy way of calling themselves white. Is white taboo now?

Opening a conversation with the preface that you are a settler focuses on the past and creates a division right off the bat. It's like saying you're on the winning team — like a Toronto Maple Leafs Fan introducing themselves as the 1967 Stanley Cup champions.
(I think he's very funny with that analogy because 1967 is the only thing that Toronto seems to care about)

Who introduces themselves like that ?

I cant imagine the feelings one must have about them self to make that a core identifying factor, to the level that it must be part of an initial introduction.
 
There are probably some non-settlers who don't like "Indians".

Basically, what everyone wants others to call them is usually some variation of "you special people".

And in other areas they are offended when referred to anything but indian.
 
And in other areas they are offended when referred to anything but indian.
There really is a range of self-reference preference out there. In my limited experience, many seem OK with "Indigenous" or "Aboriginal" (although some literalists say the A word may be more applicable to the first people of Australia), others with a reference to their specific native language term or geographical sub-grouping, while a small, but far from zero, minority say they're Indian because, after all, it's still called the ...

And let's not forget the same federal department has used the terms "Indian", "Indigenous" (with INAC coming up twice in the rotation, once with the former term, the second time with the latter) and "Aboriginal" in its various names over the past 25 years or so :)
 
There really is a range of self-reference preference out there. In my limited experience, many seem OK with "Indigenous" or "Aboriginal" (although some literalists say the A word may be more applicable to the first people of Australia), others with a reference to their specific native language term or geographical sub-grouping, while a small, but far from zero, minority say they're Indian because, after all, it's still called the ...

And let's not forget the same federal department has used the terms "Indian", "Indigenous" (with INAC coming up twice in the rotation, once with the former term, the second time with the latter) and "Aboriginal" in its various names over the past 25 years or so :)


If only the government had a means to change legislation…
 
More than one government has had the chance - both colour teams - so like VAC, if it was easy & cheap to fix, someone would have done it easily & cheaply ;) That’s why the department name changed instead …
So what is wrong with the term Indian? Apart from the fact that it labels the entire group as belonging on another continent, it is at least as good a name as indigenous. We don't generally refer to folks from India as Indians at least I don't think so. Our folks seem to have hijacked the term for themselves.
 
So what is wrong with the term Indian? Apart from the fact that it labels the entire group as belonging on another continent, it is at least as good a name as indigenous. We don't generally refer to folks from India as Indians at least I don't think so. Our folks seem to have hijacked the term for themselves.
Also, from a practical point of view, of all the complaints re: what needs doing in a concrete way to improve living conditions for Canada’s Indigenous people, changing the name of the act is pretty low on the usual lists.
 
Meanwhile: A bit more on them "Mass graves and burying kids at night"

An inconvenient (for the LPC's gaslighting purposes) truth...


Terry Glavin: Kamloops First Nation puts even more distance from 'mass grave' claim​


In the summer of 2022, Casimir’s office was presented with an independent site-inspection report that strongly suggested that whatever “anomalies” were detected in the original GPR survey, they were likely the result of ground disturbances going back decades, from irrigation ditches and backhoe trenches to utility lines, water lines and even earlier archeological digs. By then, 14 leading Tk’emlúps families had already told Casimir that an excavation of some kind was necessary to clear things up.

No excavation has occurred, and none is planned. Even so, the covenant grants all Canadians a degree of mercy for their absurd histrionics over the residential-school alarms. The Catholic clergy, Manny Jules and Phil Fontaine and the Tk’emlúps community should be thanked for their interventions, perhaps especially by Indigenous Catholics who have had their faith and their church traduced and assaulted in an outbreak of mass panic the Trudeau government was only too happy to incubate, nurture and finance.

 
We don't generally refer to folks from India as Indians at least I don't think so. Our folks seem to have hijacked the term for themselves.
We don’t? That news to me.

Sometimes I hear “East Indian” but that’s also to differentiate from “West Indian” (Caribbean). But I’ve heard “Indian” plenty, referring to folks from India.

I say “Indigenous” when referring to…well, Indigenous folks so I don’t cause any confusion.
 
Back
Top