i actually agree that this is unhelpful. trying to cut emissions is one thing. coming up with a new argument for reparations for colonialism (and, canada was a colony in this period, not a colonial power - send the bill to the uk) is an issue of some importance, but not the issue at hand.

i hope that the focus on reparations by this group was not made at the expense of hiding other obfuscations made by our delegation.

i mean, if we're going to talk about reparations, the target should be our indigenous groups.

this is a broader argument, though, that i've had frequently with activists.

canada does not belong in a list of historical colonial powers like the uk, usa and france. rather, it belongs in a list of colonized areas like india and south africa. and, we have sometimes aligned with these blocs.

our indigenous peoples have the same entitlements for reparations that indigenous peoples do in other parts of the world. there's a lot of things we can do internally, sure. but we should also be lining up with india to push for reparations from europe.

but, people get confused for various ethnic and linguistic reasons.

we were never at the top of an empire. we were always a subjugated colony. we fought back a few times (consider the conscription crisis, for example). but, wealth never flowed into canada. it always flowed out of canada. if the basis of reparations is the righting the wrong that was the theft of resource wealth by force, we were always on the receiving end of this.

fighting for reparations from the uk is not exactly something i'd consider pressing. and, i'm not suggesting we should use this argument to resist contributing to the various funds. but, the truth is what it is.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-climate-cop21-mckenna-wednesday-1.3356882

wyly
you make a number of good points...but we do have colonialism in our past, we did join the UK in an imperialistic war to subjugate the south african free states...

jessica murray
the question of reparations is to reverse the theft of resource wealth. i'm aware that canadians made up a part of the british forces in the boer war, but it didn't materially benefit us - there was no flow of stolen resources from africa to canada. rather, canadian soldiers were used as muscle to facilitate the flow of stolen resources to europe.

i mean, they sent indian soldiers, too. it's not really a relevant point.

as far as i know, it never happened. but, it's not outside historical plausibility to suggest that the british could have deployed indian, african or arabic troops to quell an uprising in quebec. had we gotten into a big fight with the americans, it would have likely happened.

london didn't see us in any kind of special capacity. we were just a source of certain raw materials, like any other imperial holding.

in fact, i looked it up and there were actually indian (as in from india) troops in the british contingent during the american revolutionary war.

wyly
interesting, I had no idea...I guess we shouldn't be surprised the Brits also used German troops in the Revolutionary war...if we were to dig deeper there likely others involved as well...

we could debate who "us" are...if at that time canada saw it self as part of the empire then we were benefiting ourselves even if the cash flow went to corporate head office/england...

jessica murray
although i may disagree, i might at least accept that this is a reasonable tory perspective. but, then, who are we repaying?

i mean, if we accept that canada was a part of the empire and benefited from it, surely we should accept that india and egypt were as well, and did, too. so, who does britain need to remunerate, then?

the problem with this whole line of thinking is that it attempts to interpret history through the constructs of a contrived theory (white supremacism) rather than through a rigorous process of historical fact. we conclude that canada has the same reparation responsibilities because it is white, rather than because of the need for any legitimate historical redress. the only way to construct any kind of argument here is "because of white guilt".

this focus on theory, and subsequent rejection of empiricism, has been a constant problem on the left for the last two-hundred years or so.