Stuff like this and the “base” he has created give off pretty harsh trump vibes.
Here is a link confirming for those wanting one. Sorry I did not include it originally.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.712106
Native & Canadian, not a history expert but my understanding is that on avg the US government was much more violent and aggressive with their colonization than Canada, even if Canada was pretty fucked too
It’s probably that the USA has committed so many atrocities that some get lost in all the chaos. Canada has done fewer atrocities, so they’re just kinda upfront & plainly visible. That’s my hunch at least.
Last I checked, half of Canadians were Christian, and more than half of those are Roman Catholic. This particular flavor of Christianity was very, very dominant in Canada. The US has a lot more denominations. Maybe that has something to do? We basically have “the Church”, they had many to “dilute” the abjectness?
This man says hard work while looking like he wouldn’t last 3 days without all the technology that the natives used to survive without. Bruh, we know what hard work is & how to do it, we just don’t give much of a fuck about doing it on your behalf.
So long as you’re still calling them “aboriginals” instead of I dunno like “The First Canadians,” then you’re making it crystal clear that you don’t care about them & you’re just mad that they aren’t letting you use, abuse, or manipulate them.
i’ve been raised as a Gen Z to learn “first nations”, though aboriginal (from the root word aborigine) also means the exact same thing, so i personally don’t comprehend how someone can find offense in using that word.
maybe they are used to seeing aboriginals to describe aussi natives? still, it essentially means “first of the region”, or in other words, “first of the nation”.
Yes, that’s why First Nations refers to the folks directly decended from Native Canadians (culturally anyway), and not the Métis/Inuit.
Ad. Yes, the Inuit are Native Canadian but they prefer Inuit, and they’re very culturally distinct. (Not that the array of first nations cultures aren’t)
This quote is from 2008… that’s 15 years ago. Back then calling them aboriginals was a politically correct term. This “first nation”/“first Canadian” trend is incredibly recent and it still isn’t widely accepted.
indigenous, aboriginal, and aborigine, mean exactly the same thing. anyone getting offended at any of these word usages probably doesn’t know the definiton.
Aboriginal should be same as indigenous, but “aborigine” is a racist term (due to historical usage) for the original peoples of Australia. I’ve never heard of it being used for anyone outside Australia.
The etymology or aboriginal is basically “comes from away”; kind of Eurocentric. Indigenous means “comes from within a place” etymologically so while it is kind of semantic it’s obvious which one is the better choice. Many indigenous people however prefer ‘Indian’ because it’s how First Nations people are referred to in the Indian Act.
“Aborigine” is not “comes from away”. I don’t know where you’re getting your etymology from, but it comes from the Latin “ab origine” which means “from the source” or, in context, you know, THE ORIGINALS. (First used, incidentally, to refer to the people living in what is now Italy before the Romans took it all over.)
Uh, no, many of us prefer to be called by the nation we belong to. Some of the younger ones would be really offended at being called Indian, especially by white people. Indigenous, First Nations, and native are fine - better than Indian at least.
Aboriginal is “ab origio”, literally “from/since the origin/beginning”. Already the Romans used it in the sense of “there from the very beginning”.
Indigenious is “indu gignere”, “begot within”. The “place” part is implicit. More of a “native” thing as in “natively born American” but the meaning shifted from the original Latin.
Practically, nowadays, they’re synonymous. Over here we use “autochthon”, literally “self earth/soil”. Also used in geology and biology. The constitution speaks about “national minorities and ethnic groups”, going by the last recent arrivals 600 years of living here as an ethnic group suffices for autochthone minority status. Though in our case there’s no settler-colonials which of course changes the equation.
@doleo@Ulrich_the_Old
It is a concept that supposedly is needed in order for us to succeed. As a concept, it is used to bury the fact that many of our “successful” citizens (read rich) actually inherited their monies or “knew someone”. It is also used to explain poverty…. That is, if you are not successful, it is your own fault because you did not work hard enough.
To people like him, it’s valuable for people to get used to being submissive, learn the futility of questioning authority, and earn just enough to shut up and not be a “financial burden” on the country.
It was common for european colonizers to say this about indigenous people, basically meaning that they don’t participate in the world economy. Or, said another way, they’re not being exploited for profits by said european colonizers, which is obviously bad.
I knew it as the opposite of lazy. it did not mean you were overworked, just that you were self motivated. But I think that terminooogy has changed a lot with corporate expectationa
It’s also ridiculous that there is an idea among the white ruling class that Indigenous peoples merely need financial compensation for genocide. How do you compensate for that? They need decolonisation, namely ending of discrimination, recognition of their rights and sovereignty as Indigenous peoples, and work to repair the long-lasting damage that was done, such as the massive issues with mental health, addiction, crime and abuse within Indigenous communities that arose as a direct result of residential schools. Things that require deep rooted changes to society and will take generations, not just an apology and some hush money before never bringing it up again.
If the right does what it always does here and votes C no matter what, the Cons won’t form another government for a generation. If they seriously elect a racist populist like this guy, from a party that voted to not admit climate change exists, Millennials and Gen Z will become ABC voters for life.
So if you need some kind of (very long term) silver lining, there’s that.
The problem is they’ll make housing worse, peoples rights worse, and 2SLGBTQ+ lives much worse, and cause even more climate crises than we have now. Not to mention absolutely gutting our healthcare.
He’s been going hard on the idea that removing red tape for developers will solve the housing crisis, rather than developers turning the maximum profit they can because demand is so high. He thinks the market that’s destroyed affordability will also solve it, if only the public has less say in what/where is allowed to be developed. NDP want to convert underutilized federal buildings in to social housing and focus on affordability rather than developer profits.
Why would it need to be more than “I think I belong there”? Do we genuinely need a “line”? What impact do you think it has if everyone doesn’t include the same groups in there, from both personal or societal POVs?
Except we also see Gen Z becoming increasingly polarized around issues such as gender roles, education, opportunities for social and economic progression, and other issues that are right in the fascists’ wheelhouse.
The Conservatives the lie about their platform and agenda forever, so long as they have these social coals that they can blow on and stoke in the background over and over.
We can’t rely on people running away from the Conservatives over and over again. We need to give them something to run toward, and no major political party in this country is doing that.
and no major political party in this country is doing that.
I’d say the NDP are doing a pretty damn good job. We got higher CERB payments, and we got dental (partially) added to our medical. That’s impressive especially from 3rd place, not even the official opposition. Obviously having a non-white leader causes them a lot of problems, but their policies are extremely popular, especially among youth.
I can’t find the poll, but back in 2022 a poll was done on voters by age for federal voting intentions.
Seniors were about 15% NDP
40-55 were about 25% NDP
30-under were about 40% NDP
So while the Cons are making strides forward, sadly, it’s because they’re lying about what they’ll do. And the generations coming up are very into a more left-wing swing. If you look even with the CPC in first, it’s like 36% of voters. Nearly 2/3rds of voters are left wing in Canada, and eventually that’s going to tip too far for even a big-tent Con party.
If they take power when things start getting really shit climate-change wise, and they still haven’t even admitted it existed, those voters will shy away forever. Not to mention the CPC constantly using the same companies to help their ‘image’/policies as Trump and other hard Right parties; Gen Z are going to live through that, and say never again.
They’ve done a very good job at shifting progressively more to the right year over year, decade over decade, abandoning any sense that they’re here to actually institute real change – and abandoning their founding principles in the process. All in the name of electability, while failing to break out of 3rd place. Like the Liberals, they’ve been chasing the Overton Window right for 30+ years.
Yes, they’ve managed to strongarm the Liberals into actually engaging in harm reduction here and there, and that’s really great, but they never do anything when and where they’re in power to actually show that they’re in any way different from the others. When push comes to shove, they’re just another neoliberal political party.
They’ve done a very good job at shifting progressively more to the right year over year, decade over decade, abandoning any sense that they’re here to actually institute real change
Yes, they’ve managed to strongarm the Liberals into actually engaging in harm reduction here and there
Which of these is true? Because only one can be, those are self-defeating statements.
All in the name of electability, while failing to break out of 3rd place … but they never do anything when and where they’re in power to actually show that they’re in any way different from the others.
So again, which is it? Are they never breaking out of third place, or are they in power?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
removed by mod
Canada has always watched everything their southern neighbor did to the native people and said “that’s a great start, now hold my beer”
Native & Canadian, not a history expert but my understanding is that on avg the US government was much more violent and aggressive with their colonization than Canada, even if Canada was pretty fucked too
It’s probably that the USA has committed so many atrocities that some get lost in all the chaos. Canada has done fewer atrocities, so they’re just kinda upfront & plainly visible. That’s my hunch at least.
Last I checked, half of Canadians were Christian, and more than half of those are Roman Catholic. This particular flavor of Christianity was very, very dominant in Canada. The US has a lot more denominations. Maybe that has something to do? We basically have “the Church”, they had many to “dilute” the abjectness?
https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/be2234f5-922c-44d7-a193-c11380bdfa00.jpeg
This man says hard work while looking like he wouldn’t last 3 days without all the technology that the natives used to survive without. Bruh, we know what hard work is & how to do it, we just don’t give much of a fuck about doing it on your behalf.
So long as you’re still calling them “aboriginals” instead of I dunno like “The First Canadians,” then you’re making it crystal clear that you don’t care about them & you’re just mad that they aren’t letting you use, abuse, or manipulate them.
Just to be clear it is “The First Canadians” now?
I just made that up but maybe? lol I dunno
i’ve been raised as a Gen Z to learn “first nations”, though aboriginal (from the root word aborigine) also means the exact same thing, so i personally don’t comprehend how someone can find offense in using that word.
maybe they are used to seeing aboriginals to describe aussi natives? still, it essentially means “first of the region”, or in other words, “first of the nation”.
Yeah, it’s not offensive, but technically “First Nations” is a subgroup; Inuit and Métis being the other two.
How can the Métis be “first” anything? They’re the product of intermarriage between native Canadians and European traders (mostly the French).
Yes, that’s why First Nations refers to the folks directly decended from Native Canadians (culturally anyway), and not the Métis/Inuit.
Ad. Yes, the Inuit are Native Canadian but they prefer Inuit, and they’re very culturally distinct. (Not that the array of first nations cultures aren’t)
Ah. I’d misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were including the Métis among the First Nations. My bad.
He has never held a job outside politics so that is the reason he looks as though he has never done a days work.
This quote is from 2008… that’s 15 years ago. Back then calling them aboriginals was a politically correct term. This “first nation”/“first Canadian” trend is incredibly recent and it still isn’t widely accepted.
Is indigenous frowned upon too? I don’t want to be rude, but I can’t keep up.
indigenous, aboriginal, and aborigine, mean exactly the same thing. anyone getting offended at any of these word usages probably doesn’t know the definiton.
Aboriginal should be same as indigenous, but “aborigine” is a racist term (due to historical usage) for the original peoples of Australia. I’ve never heard of it being used for anyone outside Australia.
The etymology or aboriginal is basically “comes from away”; kind of Eurocentric. Indigenous means “comes from within a place” etymologically so while it is kind of semantic it’s obvious which one is the better choice. Many indigenous people however prefer ‘Indian’ because it’s how First Nations people are referred to in the Indian Act.
“Aborigine” is not “comes from away”. I don’t know where you’re getting your etymology from, but it comes from the Latin “ab origine” which means “from the source” or, in context, you know, THE ORIGINALS. (First used, incidentally, to refer to the people living in what is now Italy before the Romans took it all over.)
deleted by creator
Uh, no, many of us prefer to be called by the nation we belong to. Some of the younger ones would be really offended at being called Indian, especially by white people. Indigenous, First Nations, and native are fine - better than Indian at least.
Aboriginal is “ab origio”, literally “from/since the origin/beginning”. Already the Romans used it in the sense of “there from the very beginning”.
Indigenious is “indu gignere”, “begot within”. The “place” part is implicit. More of a “native” thing as in “natively born American” but the meaning shifted from the original Latin.
Practically, nowadays, they’re synonymous. Over here we use “autochthon”, literally “self earth/soil”. Also used in geology and biology. The constitution speaks about “national minorities and ethnic groups”, going by the last recent arrivals 600 years of living here as an ethnic group suffices for autochthone minority status. Though in our case there’s no settler-colonials which of course changes the equation.
Why do all these fuckheads think everyone has to he subjected to Calvinism?
If you’ve paid any attention to Canadian politics at all, it’s pretty obvious.
You don’t need a PhD in political science to see Poilievre has been riding the Trump wave north of the border for the last 5-6 years.
The opposite of wheeee.
‘eeeeeeewwwwww’
Fuck that work ethic bullshit. Let’s live like cats.
Dang! He sounds like one of ours.
Serious question: what actually is the value of hard work?
It’s Calvinism.
https://youtu.be/JvJTUZaivCI?si=tLmbK60d8jrC8qxI
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/JvJTUZaivCI?si=tLmbK60d8jrC8qxI
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It all ties in that neoliberal belief that pure meritocracy is real and desirable.
Explain pierre and meritocracy? You will never ever make me believe his rise to leader of the conservative party was due to merit…
Re-read my comment, you may have misinterpreted me 👍
You’re looking at it backwards, he’s the head of the party so he must have worked very hard.
@doleo @Ulrich_the_Old
It is a concept that supposedly is needed in order for us to succeed. As a concept, it is used to bury the fact that many of our “successful” citizens (read rich) actually inherited their monies or “knew someone”. It is also used to explain poverty…. That is, if you are not successful, it is your own fault because you did not work hard enough.
Basically victim blaming and on the flip side of the coin pretending that the presence of wealth proves that they deserve what they own.
It’s not victim blaming to say something is your fault for choosing the wrong parents to be born to! Sheesh!
To people like him, it’s valuable for people to get used to being submissive, learn the futility of questioning authority, and earn just enough to shut up and not be a “financial burden” on the country.
It was common for european colonizers to say this about indigenous people, basically meaning that they don’t participate in the world economy. Or, said another way, they’re not being exploited for profits by said european colonizers, which is obviously bad.
They mean the willingness to work.
And that fucking clown is obviously a racist, just ignore him.
Your hard work makes rich people richer.
A ruined body probably
I knew it as the opposite of lazy. it did not mean you were overworked, just that you were self motivated. But I think that terminooogy has changed a lot with corporate expectationa
Here is the non-AMP version of the link from OP’s submission:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/conservative-mp-apologizes-for-hurtful-comments-on-aboriginal-people-1.712106
You don’t even need to go that far, just chopping out the amp part works: https://www.cbc.ca/1.712106
I like the full slug, but I appreciate your short link
The full link is better, but it’s much easier to just chop up the link you have.
It’s also ridiculous that there is an idea among the white ruling class that Indigenous peoples merely need financial compensation for genocide. How do you compensate for that? They need decolonisation, namely ending of discrimination, recognition of their rights and sovereignty as Indigenous peoples, and work to repair the long-lasting damage that was done, such as the massive issues with mental health, addiction, crime and abuse within Indigenous communities that arose as a direct result of residential schools. Things that require deep rooted changes to society and will take generations, not just an apology and some hush money before never bringing it up again.
Source?
I amended my post to include the proof.
If the right does what it always does here and votes C no matter what, the Cons won’t form another government for a generation. If they seriously elect a racist populist like this guy, from a party that voted to not admit climate change exists, Millennials and Gen Z will become ABC voters for life.
So if you need some kind of (very long term) silver lining, there’s that.
The problem is they’ll make housing worse, peoples rights worse, and 2SLGBTQ+ lives much worse, and cause even more climate crises than we have now. Not to mention absolutely gutting our healthcare.
But again, they’ll only do it once.
He’s been going hard on the idea that removing red tape for developers will solve the housing crisis, rather than developers turning the maximum profit they can because demand is so high. He thinks the market that’s destroyed affordability will also solve it, if only the public has less say in what/where is allowed to be developed. NDP want to convert underutilized federal buildings in to social housing and focus on affordability rather than developer profits.
So where do y’all draw the line on who is covered by +?
Why does 2S make the cut but not I or A?
Is that seriously the most important thing you are concerned about?
Idk about most important, but I am curious.
Usually i see LGBT or LGBT+ or LQBTQIA, I even saw LGBTQIA2S+ one time, that’s how I know what 2S even means.
The plus is bread, pepper, salt, mayo.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
The plus is bread, pepper, salt, mayo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Why would it need to be more than “I think I belong there”? Do we genuinely need a “line”? What impact do you think it has if everyone doesn’t include the same groups in there, from both personal or societal POVs?
Except we also see Gen Z becoming increasingly polarized around issues such as gender roles, education, opportunities for social and economic progression, and other issues that are right in the fascists’ wheelhouse.
The Conservatives the lie about their platform and agenda forever, so long as they have these social coals that they can blow on and stoke in the background over and over.
We can’t rely on people running away from the Conservatives over and over again. We need to give them something to run toward, and no major political party in this country is doing that.
Electoral reform was the promise that swayed me to vote Liberal.
Obviously they just dropped that shit like a hot potato, as they all do. Why change what got you voted in?
I’d say the NDP are doing a pretty damn good job. We got higher CERB payments, and we got dental (partially) added to our medical. That’s impressive especially from 3rd place, not even the official opposition. Obviously having a non-white leader causes them a lot of problems, but their policies are extremely popular, especially among youth.
I can’t find the poll, but back in 2022 a poll was done on voters by age for federal voting intentions.
Seniors were about 15% NDP 40-55 were about 25% NDP 30-under were about 40% NDP
So while the Cons are making strides forward, sadly, it’s because they’re lying about what they’ll do. And the generations coming up are very into a more left-wing swing. If you look even with the CPC in first, it’s like 36% of voters. Nearly 2/3rds of voters are left wing in Canada, and eventually that’s going to tip too far for even a big-tent Con party.
If they take power when things start getting really shit climate-change wise, and they still haven’t even admitted it existed, those voters will shy away forever. Not to mention the CPC constantly using the same companies to help their ‘image’/policies as Trump and other hard Right parties; Gen Z are going to live through that, and say never again.
They’ve done a very good job at shifting progressively more to the right year over year, decade over decade, abandoning any sense that they’re here to actually institute real change – and abandoning their founding principles in the process. All in the name of electability, while failing to break out of 3rd place. Like the Liberals, they’ve been chasing the Overton Window right for 30+ years.
Yes, they’ve managed to strongarm the Liberals into actually engaging in harm reduction here and there, and that’s really great, but they never do anything when and where they’re in power to actually show that they’re in any way different from the others. When push comes to shove, they’re just another neoliberal political party.
I’m confused:
Which of these is true? Because only one can be, those are self-defeating statements.
So again, which is it? Are they never breaking out of third place, or are they in power?
So you haven’t noticed the huge swing towards populism and fascism in the younger generations these last ten years?
2008 … wasn’t Trudeau still in blackface back then?
deleted by creator