(deleted post about how natives are lazy)
deathtokoolas
did it cross your mind that your obsession with a monetized economy is a part of the problem? on the level of polluting the water? on the level of enforcing an outside system? on the level of that enforcement requiring a response that may require force - yes, that horrific word 'violence' that the media has turned into a brain-suspending trigger?
you show up in a foreign land, you force your economy on them, then you blame them for not cooperating. no. take responsibility for your own violence.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
lol. this guy doesn't know the difference between work and wage slavery.
what a moron.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
any respectable theory of law has a democratic mechanism of some sort, and a moral imperative to fight against unjust laws that were enforced without consultation. pick your favourite legal philosopher, from aquinas to locke to fucking gandhi. if you can strip away any racism they may have had, none of them would have accepted the colonial rule of law due to it’s totalitarian, undemocratic nature.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
in most cases they did just "take the land anyways". a third of canada was declared crown land in 1763. no land treaties, there. a third is up north or very far to the west. some treaties so far, some being worked on. the rest was in the prairies, and this is the only area where there were really any land treaties. the level of coercion and dishonesty on the british side was staggering - take the crumbs we offer you, or starve and/or be slaughtered by the americans.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i don't think you remotely understood what i typed. try again.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
you're a moron. the violence originates with the state's exploitation. the reaction you're seeing is only violent on a surface level. what the government does to them on a daily basis - with your worthless fucking 'taxpayer dollars' - is incomparably more violent.
every action has a reaction. every oppression has a resistance. violence is the expected reaction to imperialism. it is the only reaction. expect it, it's justice.
your ancestors would have agreed with me; you're nothing like them.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
fracking works by flushing chemicals into rocks. those chemicals then find their way into the water table. water treatment plants are of limited value.
this is a list of some of the chemicals that are used:
http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
you can google search them to learn that many are carcinogenic.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
and under what supposition does the state claim the right to control the natives? the answer is under the decree of long dead monarchs. it's interesting. canadians are pretty uniformly opposed to interference from britain, and yet their sole source of claim to control over indigenous people, resources and land is a unilateral declaration by that monarch. we speak so highly of democracy and human rights, yet show no interest in actually following through with that rhetoric.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
generally, english law respects the right to use force to evict uninvited people from your property. if somebody breaks into your house, you have the right to use force against them. why wouldn't you extend that right to indigenous people?
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
you know, for all the rhetoric you hear about values from conservatives, it's amazing how morally bankrupt they are. you sound like a fucking stalinist.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i *do* 'whine' about that. i don't like the foreign slave labour used to produce the goods, either. but, the real world doesn't exist in black and white, and grown-ups understand that market logic is not going to change the world.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
under their natural right to self-determination? due to the reality that (in the area being discussed) they've never agreed to be governed? you could take a lot of approaches to this. social contract theory. natural rights. democratic self-determinacy. even basic christian decency. your imperial logic is rooted in a sort of nihilism that claims that those with the most guns have the right to make the laws.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
no, this is very flawed market logic. changes in production don't occur as a result of consumer pressure. consumers make choices in a controlled context, which includes monetary pressure driven by costing issues. there needs to be union movements in asia to fight for better conditions. that's something that's out of my control, as a consumer across the world. there are lifestyle changes that i can make, but they have very minimal consequences. real change has to come through direct action.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
regarding energy, we can talk about divestment, investment in better sources, etc. but those actions need to follow from complex pressures. some of it might be in the form of laws, ideally, but that's hard to carry through with in a political system that is controlled by lobbyists. any way you look at it, those complex pressures are ultimately a political issue, and they have to be driven by some kind of activism.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
ugh.
the "treaty" in this area stems from an agreement reached in 1760 at the conclusion of the seven years war between france and england. it discusses trade. it does not discuss land ownership.
the british claim to "crown ownership" of the land is from a declaration in 1763 by the crazy british king that is based on the flawed logic that defeat of the french implied ownership of the land that they had exclusive trade agreements with.
the french did not sign land treaties, either.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
if i were to personally refrain from buying certain goods (and, fwiw, i tend to purchase goods second-hand, that's about the best any of us could realistically do), that would not prevent others from doing so. my carbon footprint is already very small. meaningful changes in production could either come from the top (through investment/divestment strategies, or advances in technology) or through workers seizing the means of production and converting factories. both require political activism.
however, suppose i were to convince others to boycott. the economy would grind to a halt. that would both lead to large layoffs and flood the market with goods, which would lead to a decrease in prices. any competition that exists with better productive processes would not be able to compete with the collapsed prices. the boycott would collapse. market theory works *against* changes in production.
something systemic has to happen, at a higher level of abstraction. activism is a step, not an end.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
buying locally can help in certain ways, but it's complicated by a lot of the factors of production. there are large classes of goods that are not produced locally at all. the key thing to point out is that you or i buying locally does not eliminate the reality that offshore production is cheaper/more profitable. only unions can fight that.
also, we don't all have the financial means required to get ourselves off the grid. one way or the other, we need to work together to convert to renewables.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
yeah. that's a nice idea. but, so long as we're discussing colonialism, we should not forget that hoarding resources is a type of exploitation and that trade is a better option than war. producing some things locally may be more sustainable, but that's not true about everything. if worker conditions were more comparable, and transportation were less harmful, ricardo would have a very good argument.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
yeah, i wouldn't consider wood heating to be sustainable. in the long run, it's arguably worse.
going off grid, to me, means solar panels, primarily. and that's bloody expensive. let alone impractical for renters.
i have more hope in *converting* the grid. but a diversity of tactics can be valuable.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i find their cuteness infuriating.
they're also, actually, quite vicious. if their metabolism wasn't so slow, they'd be vicious predators.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
there were things i wanted to do today....
nobody is arguing against production. you might only see it that way in your black-or-white reality of "illegal v legal", "violence v non-violence", "industry v nature", etc. but, it's a very simplistic way to analyze things.
what people are arguing for is *sustainable* production using renewable energy sources, recycling and, just, generally, *science*.
the irony is that you're the one that is arguing against science and progress.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i'd generally argue that liberals are worse than conservatives because they can get away with more without people reacting. same goes for democrats.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
harper didn't create that system, but it *is* a relic of colonialism, and his proposed solutions (like property rights on reserve) are entirely deaf to aboriginal culture. a better idea lies in the nisgaa agreement.
one of the tactics that the british used was to buy off aboriginal leadership. the entire system of chiefs, the assembly of first nations, etc is a colonial construction that was created. to the extent that you're half right, it is canada's fault.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
...but the one and only thing i'm likely to agree with you about is that a real solution to aboriginal poverty can only come from aboriginal people rising up and tearing down the hierarchy that was put in place to govern them. if that ever happens, don't be surprised to see the state come down and intervene on behalf of the system they created.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
one of the intriguing things about racists is their lack of historical context. there's a lot of ways to approach this. i'm not sure if this guy sounds more like a viking, a nazi or a roman. certainly, it's a mindset that was foreign to british imperialism, which was rooted in a sort of benevolent racism, not some kind of master morality.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
let me ask you this: would you draw the same conclusions regarding the turkish invasions of eastern europe? that the asiatic turks were superior to the white europeans? that arabs were superior to romans? that mongols were superior to russians?
those primitive, warring tribes in europe received a few scares over the years. but, again, racists tend to lack context.