CRRF Presentation Final Presentation

Copyright 2016 by Kim P.
Weaver and Coalition Against Racism in Mainstream Media

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any mean, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any other information
storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher.
Published in 2015 by Coalition Against Racism in Mainstream Media
and
Kim P. Weaver (Thohahente)
Presented by
The Coalition against Racism in

Mainstream Media
Aboriginal people are Canadian/

not sovereign.

not sovereign.
Example One:

not sovereign.
Example One:

not sovereign.
Example One:
Modern Indigenous Reality:

!
The post intends to deflect and disable an

argument against the aggregation of
Indigenous People into the Canadian
collective
The writer asserts Indigenous Sovereignty
does not exist because they do not choose to
accept that it does.
To not accept the concept denies Inherent
Indigenous Rights and history (never
surrendered or were conquered as Nations)
The powers that be means the colonial
government. This assumes that Canada has
the right to decide issues of Treaty partners
terms of existence.
Denies the terms of the UNDRIP
UNDRIP Document

not sovereign.
Example Two:

not sovereign.
Example Two:

not sovereign.
Example Two:

!
This poster is commenting on a post clarifying that

Mohawks are not Canadian they are Mohawks.
Denies the Nation to Nation Treaty relationship
Makes Indigenous issues an Indigenous problem
because they view the treaties as Nation to Nation
(supported by the UNDRIP)
Uses the right to be distinct to mean better than
everyone (assumes they means Canadians) thus
aggregating Indigenous back into the collective
Assumes sovereignty means a free ride
Threatens violence of war.
Fear , threats and violence to deny Indigenous rights

to be who they are and to deny our existence as
Nations in the face of both history and international
covenants

not sovereign.
Example Three:

not sovereign.
Example Three:

not sovereign.
Example Three:
!
Exhibits anger
A rant based on personal beliefs and not
facts
Declares omnipotence by saying there is
no other argument - case closed
Assimilate or else is the message
Indigenous Men are responsible for

Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women.

Women.
Example One:

Women.
Example One:

Women.
Example One:

!
Claims to be right thus absolving any need

for supportive citations. It appears to be a
claim based on only FN men are on reserves
Suspecting a state of affairs implies lack of
knowledge . Makes previous comment
suspect
Tries to establish validity of the first
paragraph by assuming all agree with them
then leaps to conclusion that causes are
Indigenous because symptoms are
Indigenous
Ignores the findings of 58 current pieces of
credible research that root causes are
systemic institutional racism within
Canadian society and governments

Women.
Example One:
!
Ignores findings of RCAP 1996. Assumes

symptoms are synonymous with root causes.
Accepts the simplistic argument that MMIW
is an issue of criminality and not sociological
in the face of all the evidence summarized
by LEAF Summary of Research Report
Conflates Indigenous desire for autonomy
with need to self-finance an inquiry
All available research into the causative
issues points to colonialism yet this is
ignored and we are compelled to accept the
posters theory as ultimate authority on their
word alone

Women.
Example Two:

Women.
Example Two:

Women.
Example Two:

!
Makes a statement without citing the source for the

statement
Seems to be based on the RCMP report. Does not
realize their argument is void and nullified by their
own words.
How can missing Native women be murdered by
Native men if they are a) missing and b) no proof of
crime exists
The RCMP report is quite clear that the majority of
MMIW events are off reserve so the last claim is
untrue
Nothing has been proven. Lack of evidence and lack
of citations
This type of speculative damaging commentary is
allowed to stand in spite of comment guidelines/.

Women.
Example Three:

Women.
Example Three:

Women.
Example Three:

!
Again a claim based on the RCMP Report on

MMIW 2014/2015 update
RCMP MMIW Report 2015 Update
Does not indicate any critical thinking went
on before blindly accepting the RCMP report
as truth.
Uses this as an excuse to blame Indigenous
men while not really knowing how the
report was assembled.
The report actually does not make the
finding this person alleges.
There are good critical analyses of the report
to provide some balance
Pam Palmater Analysis of RCMP MMIW
Report
Indigenous people are

[pejorative].

[pejorative].
Example One:

[pejorative].
Example One:

[pejorative].
Example One:

!
Menacing and racist says,

Indians to quit crying and keep
dying. Accepted and posted on
CBC.
Indians are all drunk all the time.
Also cited here as the reason for
#MMIW.
Hostile, belligerent racist and
scary.
This post passed CBC moderation
and was up for hours

[pejorative].
Example Two:

[pejorative].
Example Two:

[pejorative].
Example Two:

!
The comment implies Morley people

(Stoney Nakoda) do not love their land
and are environmentally irresponsible
without supporting citations (libel)
Asserts all residents live off
government handouts ignoring the
benefit to settlers thru land use and
resource extraction provided by treaty
Suggests they are immature as the
reason for the initial generalization
ignoring the societal impacts of the IRS
and 150 years of colonization
Implies Morley Indians are drunks and
criminals without foundation as a
racist stereotype

[pejorative].
Example Three:

[pejorative].
Example Three:

[pejorative].
Example Three:
A racist slur suggesting alcohol was the

objective with no supporting citations or
knowledge

[pejorative].
Example Four:

[pejorative].
Example Four:

[pejorative].
Example Four:

!
Opening remark implies Chief Theresa

Spence is a bad person without citation
& ignores the findings of a Deloittes
audit to the contrary
Second point asserts the people were
offered jobs but refused work while
destroying their home again no
citations and libellous in intent
Third comment implies government
spend billions and the present policy
doesnt work. No citations and no
context. It is simply a gratuitous racist
remark
Aboriginal people benefit from

free (insert a stereotype).

free stuff.
Example One:

free stuff.
Example One:

free stuff.
Example One:

!
This comment blames all Indian issues on the Indians

and their Stone Age society. There is no
acknowledgement that for 500 years the white man
has disrupted Indigenous culture and in the last 150
years has almost destroyed it with the IRS and the
Indian Act.
NAHO Inter-generational Trauma Research
Native Social Work Journal IRS Intergenerational
Trauma
LEAF Report Aggregating Reasearch on MMIW
The poster ducks blame saying it is because we dont

assimilate. No mention of the benefits or sacrifices
assimilation would involve.
Without a study or citation to support his words he
says Indians want everything for free. No definition
of everything. No mention of legitimate treaty
obligations or the role of the Indian Act in creating
wards of the state fiduciary responsibilities.
Aboriginal people benefit from free

education and preferential treatment.
Example Two:

Example Two:

Example Two:

!
This is a common dodge. Unable to

comment on a specific story, they go
off topic in another thread in order to
exhibit their biases.
The issue he raises is the Diversity
Policy for priority Aboriginal
admissions. He alleges they get special
rights and privileges, although its
unclear what they are. No effort to
show how this is prejudicial to
Canadians.
He does imply that there must be
lower standards for Aboriginals. No
citations to prove his point. This is
demeaning and colonial; it is racist.

rides to positions of importance..
Example Three:

rides to positions of importance.
Example Three:

rides to positions of importance..
Example Three:

!
This poster alleges that Dr. Pam

Palmater must have gotten a free
ride by Ryerson to get where she
is.
No citations, an allegation that her
accreditation is proclaimed .
The suggestion that there is
special treatment based on her
race.
Slanderous in the context of the
story it was posted under.
Aboriginal people should

assimilate.

assimilate.
Example One:

assimilate.
Example One:

assimilate.
Example One:

!
More misinformed, racism-based rhetoric via the

National Post.
In response to a story on Indigenous schooling, this
poster takes the urban Native example and
normalizes his Aboriginal friends. He assimilates
them by saying they got a Canadian education. I
wonder if his Aboriginal friends actually agree
with this or if they even exist?
The lie he puts to all this is the belief Indigenous
segregate themselves on reserves. White men took
our rights and put us on reserves courtesy of the
Indian Act.
Indigenous People living and making careers in
Toronto have friendship centres and other facilities to
socialize
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?
vgnextoid=7b7964445c780410VgnVCM10000071d60f
89RCRD&vgnextchannel=5e018fb738780410VgnVC
M10000071d60f89RCRD

assimilate.
Example Two:

assimilate.
Example Two:

assimilate.
Example Two:
!
Starts with a somewhat interesting

analysis of First Nations in Manitoba and
has some assumptions on negotiating
with individual communities or the
totality in Manitoba. It is unclear what
the negotiations would be for.
In most cases historically, it can be shown
that negotiations means what will the
Indians give up?

assimilate.
Example Two:

!
Next he talks about a plan to build

something. It is unclear what is
meant except First Nations
students would learn a trade. The
objective being to get them to
leave their reserves. The final goal
to close half the reserves. Closing
reserves would open up the land
so more resource extraction and
hydro infrastructure could happen
and less would be spent
administering the Indian Act. At
no point is the desire of the First
Nations considered. Paternalism,
colonialism and racism.

assimilate.
Example Three:

assimilate.
Example Three:

assimilate.
Example Three:

!
Unsupported by any studies or

citations, this poster decides what
is best for First Nations education.
Racist and paternalistic. Offering
education with Indigenous
content is somehow watered
down. No citations or studies
offered to support this contention.
Finally a slight about the noble
savage and what matters is what
white people think. Make a
change we like and by the way
show up for work. Stereotypes,
demeaning, paternalistic.
Aboriginal People should get off

of reserves/out of remote areas.

Example One:

Example One:

Example One:

!
The opening If makes this comment

suspect. He doesnt live in a place with big
issues and poor living positions. As a settler,
he has no connection with the land, unlike
Indigenous People on the same land for
hundreds of years or more.
An easy statement while lacking any
firsthand experience and with no ties to the
land.
Now we start to get to the meat of the post.
Overcrowding - Indigenous families are too
big if there is overcrowding. He mentions
nothing of the 8500 to 10,500 housing unit
shortages due to AANDC incompetence,
(
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/
English/oss_20140205_e_39080.html).

Example One:

!
Finally we get to the crux of this posters

racism: We as a country should not
maintain people in perpetuity in remote
areas. Canada chose the reserve sites in the
overwhelming number of cases and decided
where bands would go so as not to interfere
with white settlement. Now they are home
and the people are connected to the land.
Canada made treaty over large areas for
access to the land. The treaties extend in
perpetuity. Thats the deal.
The remaining part of the comment deals
with what the issue really is: he obviously
likes the perks of being where there are no
problems and his living conditions are good
from having $600 billion of revenue virtually
for free from unceded Indian land annually
washing through the economy. It is not okay
in his mind that there be a cost for this.
Whole Nations and communities should
leave their homes so he can save a few bucks.

Example Two:

Example Two:

Example Two:

!
Exaggeration on the age of the treaties to sound hard

done by. No citations to prove treaties are being
upheld contrary to readily available evidence via
citations.
Implies Indians dont pay taxes. (
http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/
special/sg0612_aboriginal_myth.pdf)
Indians are lazy and need to get to work leaving their
homes where the white man sent them. Sounds like
a set-up.
Indians wait for jobs to come to them. No, not really.
The land base is insufficient considering resource
activities to support the bands with traditional food
sources. Why have a job and move from where you
are connected to all that matters to you if you can
hunt, fish, trap and farm to support yourself.
No citations to support his opinions. Just bashing
Indians hoping for a tax break with the Indian taking
all the risk and making all the changes.
Aboriginal people must get over

the past.

the past.
Example One:

the past.
Example One:

the past.
Example One:

!
Semi-acknowledges that Indigenous

Peoples within Canada have been
oppressed with the caveat of, but so
have lots of other people.
Denies First Nations the right to justice
by saying they deserve compassion
rather than justice. As if you cannot
have both? On what grounds would
justice be denied? White privilege.
The analogy of the life sentence being
passed onto the next generation as a
justification to avoid accountability
and responsibility as a nation for the
IRS, the Sixties Scoop and for Treaty
obligations is a case of white privilege
and bad logic.

the past.
Example One:

!
Being a citizen of a nation where you

directly and indirectly benefit from the
fruits of oppression of your ancestors
carries a responsibility to seek restorative
justice.
If the same forms of oppression exist in
the present, the onus is direct to remedy.

the past.
Example Two:

the past.
Example Two:

the past.
Example Two:

!
This one is convoluted racist spew

that covers multiple stereotypes.
On commenting on recent toll
blockade in Morley - first point is
hard to understand. It might be
implying the majority of
Indigenous behave badly and that
wont change until democracy?
Majority? Make it change if you
want change.

the past.
Example Two:
!
'Indians live in the past'. No citations for

claim. Simply an obviously biased opinion;
"
Acknowledges suffering the past by Indigenous

people. Says get over it, everyones ancestors
have suffered. Poster does not acknowledge
oppression continues today with racist
government policies, boil water advisories,
inadequate housing, poor health, chronic
poverty, sub-standard education, high rates of
suicide and violence etc.
"
Everybody has to deal with the past and if they

want a decent present. Hardly considers the
past IS the present for Indigenous in Canada.
"
Compares her past with Indigenous.

Conveniently ignores the Treaties and the
obligations of the Indian Act.

the past.
Example Two:

!
Stereotypes are: Indians get free

handouts, Indian rely on Canada to
protect them after invading our
land, Indians whine and cry when they
dont get what they want.
Somehow she sees Morley reserve as
an embarrassment. No explanation.
Talks about a wonderful reserve
outside Salmon Arm with no name,
but sounds suspiciously like the
Oosoyoos Band in Penticton. No
citations for this telling us we are not
all bad.
Plumbing the depth by saying They
grow good wine.

the past.
Example Three:

the past.
Example Three:

the past.
Example Three:

!
A single Indigenous person collected tolls for crossing

reserve land at Morley. This underscores the typical rant
of rhetoric and stereotypes.
First the commenter suggests that '"Certain" people seize
every opportunity to spoil things for others. No proof, no
citations. Its a fact because he said so. He also kindly
suggests those others are "good people" as if that
backhanded compliment erases the bigotry contained in
his comment.
Wishes for a government that would make the Indians
knuckle under and admit the past was the past, (although
reality says it is also the present).
Conflated the action of the man in Morley with some vague
reference to amends for some undefined past something
into a need to stand on our own 2 feet. Implications are
that we dont stand on our own and that we want some
undefined thing.
White privilege I know some Indians and they arent like
these other Indians. (Because they know you?) No
rationale.
Canadians owe nothing to anybody is a denial of Inherent/
Treaty rights. You get the benefit you pay the price.

the past.
Example Three:

!
No acknowledgement of the Morley Bands right to

decide who enters their land. Says no harm rerouting
traffic although the area (reserve?), which is not
properly maintained (no citations), so take his word
for it. Intimation - Indians are lazy?
Agrees with another poster that an opportunity to
bridge a gap was missed. White privilege because the
advantage is in settlers favour to drive through the
reserve. No indications what the benefit is to Morley
except more traffic and an unthankful public because
the area is not properly maintained land.
Out of nowhere and totally disconnect from the
article and everything else, the poster says
Aboriginals get their own awards shows then goes on
to say there would be outrage if there was a
Caucasian Awards show. Isnt that one called the
Oscars?
Last statement calls on undefined people to say
enough is enough. Is he talking about the Oscars?

the past.
Example Four:

the past.
Example Four:

the past.
Example Four:

!
The opening comment to someone raising the issues

of the TRC and the dysfunction caused by the
residential schools positions the issue as a 1700s
kind of problem. The last school closed in 1996.
Typical racist deflection, not my problem, it
happened long ago.
Next comment says Indigenous need to reconcile to
Canada. Wait! Didnt the TRC say it was the other
way around? And, its all about Canadas future,
totally ignoring what Indigenous might want out of
the relationship.
Reconciliation means dropping grudges, (treaty
rights, restitution for colonialism, fair treatment are
grudges)?
White privilege working towards common goals.
What are these common goals?. Most consist of
Indians giving up something. Canadas goal is still
assimilation to get the remaining land and resources.
The American were bad to Indians. The British
werent as bad, but they did stupid stuff. No
explanation and no citations.

the past.
Example Four:

!
Canada took over and there will still be some bad

things, but Canadians own Aboriginals, (the new
slavery) and want them to join a better Canada. To
heck with what the Indians want. Complete denial of
Indigenous rights and Indigenous aspirations.
Next a convoluted threat. Use of the aggressive term
uprising and saying they will suffer. How, if not
violence. Settlers do everything else to us including
starvation, dispossession.
We will miss some unspecified opportunity if we
stand up for our rights. What? More oppression?
White men hate Indian Chiefs because they are
greedy, (stereotype #9 the chiefs stole the money).
Chiefs dont improve the plight of the people. This
may be true in some cases. However, the Chiefs
cannot change the Indian Act, the legislation of
settler state, and other root causes of subjugation and
oppression.

the past.
Example Four:
!
Suggests First Nations will be

indulging in domestic terrorism with
no examples, no citations. It appears
to be related to standing up for
Treaties and changes to the Indian Act.
Issue the threat that the response to
any uprising would be scrapping the
Indian Act, making the British Treaties
(apparently not Canadian Treaties)
null and void and stopping funding as
potential election issues if Indians
misbehave. (Referendum?)
Nothing new about threatening us with
more colonialism.
Traditional indigenous ways cannot

be reconciled with the modern world.
Traditional indigenous ways cannot be

reconciled with the modern world.
Example One:

Example One:

Example One:

!
Arguing against compulsory Indigenous history

classes at University of Winnipeg.
The racist theory built on Terra Nullius and the
Doctrine of Discovery exhibited. There was nothing
there until the white man came denies thousands of
year of history and cultural development.
This poster argues that there is no obligation to First
Nations because the white man has brought us all
this civilized stuff. He fails to acknowledge they also
brought deadly diseases, oppression, cultural
disintegration, pollution, and racism.
No acknowledgement of Indigenous contributions to
the world.
Focuses very clearly on how settlers value things
and that is the litmus test of having value.

Example One:
!
Equates traditional with living in tents and

trapping and not having things.
Dismisses Indigenous values of connection
to the land, family, spirituality food
sovereignty, sovereignty of the land.
Resolves the conflict between settler reality
and Indigenous by demeaning anything not
about stuff. White privilege.
Embodies the belief that traditional means
stone age living conditions rather than a
system of values tied to Indigenous ways of
being.
Presumes Indigenous would have otherwise
lived in isolation and therefore incapable of
participation in modern history.

Example Two:

Example Two:

Example Two:

!
The Indigenous person quoted (Gallagher) identifies

the impacts of colonialism on traditional Indigenous
values and states they have not transitioned from the
devastation caused by colonization to where they
need to be as rejuvenated or restored Peoples.
Embodies the belief that traditional means stoneage living conditions rather than a system of values
tied to Indigenous ways of being. Ignores the fact
traditional Indians can be traditional and work and
live in urban environments.
Uses the statement by Gallagher as a club to convince
the reader of the benefits of assimilation while never
explaining how it is good for Indigenous People.
He denies colonization is happening in the 21st
century when attributing the fight to the 19th century.
This ignores Bills C-38, C-45, C-10, C-27, the Indian
Act, the Comprehensive Land Claims policy and the
First Nations self-government policy. All are
recognized as racist and colonial legislation
unilaterally imposed.

Example Three:

Example Three:

Example Three:

!
This comment serves to show the

incomprehensible lack of
understanding of what traditional
means in an Indigenous context. There
are plenty of citations, but racists
rarely fail to let facts get in the way of a
preferred story.
Conflates owning or using modern
items and conveniences with a view
that traditional is the antithesis of the
meaning of a traditional Indigenous
world view. Thoroughly mixes up the
two discrete notions of traditional
and traditional way of being.
Has the audacity to tell someone what
beliefs or values that one can or cannot
have as in his definition of traditions.

Example Four:

Example Four:

Example Four:

!
Interesting leaps of logic, especially in

talking about First Nations using
banned methods. The important
question is, banned by whom? Banned
by the settler state is the answer.
Historically bans are done to
advantage the commercial fisheries at
the cost of First Nations harvests.
The poster argues if you use one
traditional method then you need to
use all traditional methods as if it were
some universal law of equilibrium.
What the poster does not identify is the
waters are unceded Indigenous
territory. It is theirs to harvest.

Example Four:

!
Studies on west coast salmon fisheries

indicate commercial open ocean
fishing is a big factor in declining fish
stocks; not Indigenous harvests.
He provides no citations to support his
contention natives attack commercial
fishery and no explanations of why
this might happen.
Cannot reconcile the right of First
Nations to use any method they want
because it is their territory and their
fishery and his white privilege in
getting to tell them what they can or
cannot do.
All the Aboriginal people were

conquered; there are no more
Aboriginal peoples.

Aboriginal peoples.
Example One:

Aboriginal peoples.
Example One:

Aboriginal peoples.
Example One:

The CBC Censors the Truth one thread at a time
!
Poster tries to deny the Treaty agreements

(all, both pre and post confederation) saying
it was a charade to prevent bloodshed.
Implies First Nations should be grateful we
werent annihilated.
Uses these two arguments to escape
responsibility for honouring the treaties thus
keeping Indigenous marginalized.
References to Zulus, England, and Africa are
immaterial and have no bearing on the First
Nations experience on Turtle Island.

Aboriginal peoples.
Example One:

KB97
!
Be grateful we didnt wipe you out is

the argument for not honouring the
treaties.
Implies we are somehow conquered by
making Nation to Nation treaties.

Aboriginal peoples.
Example Two:

Aboriginal peoples.
Example Two:

Aboriginal peoples.
Example Two:

!
Applies thats life theory for not

honouring the treaties and
sovereignty.
States Indigenous conquered
because it is a law of nature,
ignoring that it is really a case of
Treaty law and Inherent Rights.
Those who promote the ideas of
Treaty Rights and Sovereignty are
history revisionists.

Aboriginal peoples.
Example Two:
!
Moral relativism is the view that moral

judgments are true or false only relative
to some particular standpoint (for
instance, that of a culture or a historical
period) and that no standpoint is
uniquely privileged over all others.
Fails to connect how moral relativism
has anything to do with Treaty Rights and
Sovereignty except possibly to say that
was then and this is now and morals have
changed to make it OK for your Treaty
rights to be denied.
Pretty hard argument to maintain since it
commits settlers to the moral abyss.
"But the literal interpretation of

the treaties says..."

Example One:

Example One:

Example One:

!
Makes the case that if it were Muslims rather

than First Nations as treaty partners, then
the treaties would be honoured. Ignores the
obvious mistake that the former is a religion
and the latter is a Nation.
This poster has been advised multiple times
by multiple readers with supporting citations
that literal readings, especially of the
numbered treaties is inconsistent with the
body of law because it ignores oral history of
Indigenous yet once again. Uses a literal
reading to support her white privilege.
Why does CBC allow persistent and
malicious racist practices like this?

Example One:

!
On the false basis she argues only Treaty 9

applies to all treaties when it comes to
education.
Reserves the right to honour treaties at her
sole discretion of correct interpretation.
Argues that English treatment of Irish and
her inability to make a claim should govern
First Nations claims for their land. Laws in
Ireland and England have nothing to do with
Indigenous Treaty and Inherent Rights on
Turtle Island.
Because she chooses not to complain
means Indians should shut up and preserve
her white privilege.
What does it matter what she wants to do?
Should that determine whether First Nations
fight for their rights?

Example Two:

Example Two:

Example Two:
Baiting comment by feigning lack

of understanding of a literal
reading of a treaty to resolve his
dislike for the accepted legal
interpretation of the Treaties.
Ignores that treaties were
negotiated prior to the Indian Act
that then demanded mandatory
elected chiefs and councils.
Quote provided appears to be an
interpretation of a source
document, with no citation
provided.
Ignores the body of law.

Example Three:

Example Three:

Example Three:

!
Literal reading of the treaty as a generalization and

no citation.
Inflation pressures led to requests for more money.
Again unsubstantiated claim-which bands, when,
what were terms?
Alleging the government made a deal to give more
money with proof of need for more money (FNTA)
without citation or references.
Stating both sides agreed is an outright lie. It was
never negotiated. It was unilaterally imposed.
Another exaggeration of the truth. Bands dont want
to show very specific types of items, as noted in the
article. Ignore the truth to marginalize.
Last comment denies the fiduciary responsibility of
the government that trumps every other objection to
restrict payments.

Example Four:

Example Four:

Example Four:
continued

Example Four:
!
His failure to do research

underscores a willingness to
deceive to make a point.
I found the following credible
citations with one query in 2
minutes:
http://www2.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/
aboriginal/
5J_COL2011TreatyEducation.pdf
http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/
aboriginal_education_policy.html

Example Four:

!
His failure to do research

underscores a willingness to
deceive to make a point.
I found the following credible
citations with one query in 2
minutes:
http://www2.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/
aboriginal/
5J_COL2011TreatyEducation.pdf
http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/
aboriginal_education_policy.html
Aboriginal people are supported by

Canadian taxpayers/do not pay taxes.

Example One:

Example One:

Example One:
Makes the assumption of two things:

o
Band does not understand the funding rules
that apply to them.
o
Assumes taxpayers are all non-Indian and
all monies are from tax revenues.
Standing up for First Nations rights by taking
action = punitive action will be taken =
colonialism.
Implies First Nations dont take economic
responsibility; ignores the moose in the room
reserve system/Indian Act restraints/revenue
contributions from unceded lands.

Example One:
Is the reverse true Canadians suck First Nations

teat?
Ignores the fact that courts awards costs with
decision. If settler government wins = tax
dollars/if settler government losses = tax dollars
just more.
Ignores Trust Fund mystery.

Example Two:

Example Two:

Example Two:
Best argument for

https://www.psychologytoday.com/
blog/millennial-media/201304/doracism-conservatism-and-low-iq-gohand-in-hand.
First part is incoherent likely
indicating extreme anger suppressing
ability to articulate thoughts
coherently. One wonders how this
made it past moderation.
Indicates treaty obligations are
generational/one-sided. I will keep
my benefits of the treaty (and those
from ignoring the treaty) and
disenfranchise you from your treaty
rights.

Example Two:
The standard First

Nations dont work and
dont pay taxes statement.
(
http://www.td.com/
document/PDF/
economics/special/
sg0612_aboriginal_myth.
pdf)
Makes the false
declaration that his
income goes to First
Nations.

Example Three:

Example Three:

Example Three:
Questions the rights of First Nations to

control access to their reserve land.
(Check AANDC rules re settlers
entering reserve lands).
Toll charge as a protest against
unfettered access to reserve lands in
spite of signage.
Denies rights to control of reserve
lands due to tax dollars transferred.
Doesnt understand First Nations
funding and Fed/Provincial
responsibility.
Conflates government funding with
ownership to deny rights.

Example Four:

Example Four:

Example Four:
Sales tax treaty-based exemption

off reserve with income varies
province to province. May have
paid partial taxes. Denial of treaty
rights.
Implies without citation that
natives off reserve get
mysterious claw backs on income
tax.
Privilege of treaty based sales tax
exemption ignores the benefits of
land usage and resource access.

Example Five:

Example Five:

Example Five:
Bullying tactics of Settler toward a

First Nations person stating their
Indian Act and Treaty rights to tax
exemptions.
Denies benefits held by Canadians thru
access to unceded land and resources
and resources on treaty lands.
Treaty rights associated with access to

land called extortion. White privilege.
Outright lie that tax rate is 50% and it

all goes to Indians.
Their Crap lives are Natives fault.

Example Five:
Assimilate and it will make everything

better, but dont ask me what I am
prepared to give up. White privilege.
Lets be buddies, but you need to give
up your beliefs because they irritate
me. No tradeoffs required for the
white side.
Insisting on respect for Inherent and
Treaty rights is bitter foot stomping.
Repressing Indigenous People is okay
as long as my white privilege remains
as is and I get tax relief.
Your subjugation = my tax benefit.
Residential schools were

beneficial to indigenous peoples.

Example One:
Residential schools were non-harmful/

Example One:

Example One:
The poster first devalues the

Weaver comment by
inferring prior knowledge of
Weaver - assuming neither
one of us actually attended a
residential school...
He or she attempts to
establish the necessity of
having to rely solely on
witness testimony, but then
discredits such testimony as
only the written
remembrance of an admitted
alcoholic.

Example One:
This would appear to be a reference to

Edmund Metatawabins book, book Up
Ghost River, reviewed in the story on
which these comments are based.
Metatawabin suffered from alcoholism
as coping mechanism for dealing with
the trauma he experienced while in an
Indian Residential School. This would
seem to be a circular argument in that
the poster refuses to believe
Metatawabins story of being
traumatized by the residential school
experience because he is a drunk,
when it was this very trauma that led to
his being a drunk.

Example One:
The poster ignores the overwhelming

evidence of the processes and protocols
in place in the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, nor does
he understand that compensation is a
by-product of survivors realization of
holding Canada and the churches
accountable for their actions.
Furthermore, the poster uses no
citations while suggestion that one
agree with his point of view by merit of
his or her own authority. Thus, he or
she essentially gives him or herself
permission to come to a judgment.

Example Two:

Example Two:

Example Two:
Self-supporting opinion without citations to

support the understand.
o
Contrary to the TRC Executive Summary
o
Contrary to the lawsuits claims
Assumes the schools had curriculum and
normalcy when TRC Exec Summary says
otherwise was the case.
Assumes an assimilated future is what the
students wanted.
Assumes assimilation is better.
Fails to acknowledge the life they were taken
from was already dysfunctional due to
colonialism /trauma/cultural destruction/
previous IRS students as parents.

Example Three:

Example Three:

Example Three:

!
!
Racist sanctioning racist.

In the face of factual evidence of
cultural genocide being the intention,
claim it an opportunity- sanitization,
denial.
Assimilation = opportunity denies
basic rights of mutual co-existence.
UNDRIP.
Assimilate and get the rest of the
Indians land and resources.
Touts success without a citation to
support the claim.
Possibly writing this stuff just to have
fun. Does CBC condone racism as a
leisure sport?

Example Four:

Example Four:

Example Four:
Unsubstantiated claim no one

talked of abuse. White privilege
silences the abused.
No citations; self-serving story
telling.
Denies TRC executive summary,
Metatawabin, and heinous
discipline noted such as electric
chair and sodomy.
Unsubstantiated claims of
undescribed fun times by students
meant to diminish cases of rape,
isolation, slave labour.

Example Four:
Deliberate lies for which the CBC

is being used for leisure sport of
demeaning IRS survivors.
Associates uncovering the truth of
the IRS with compensation.
Claims stories are made up for
financial benefit. Defies reason
and ignores the TRC.
So bad it begs the question
whether this is some form of
entertainment for Canuck47.
All people should be equal in

Canada.

Canada.
Example One:

Canada.
Example One:

Canada.
Example One:
This comment simply denies the

existence of colonialism in the modern
Settler State, where colonialism is defined
as the policy or practice of acquiring full
or partial political control over another
country, occupying it with settlers, and
exploiting it economically. (Oxford
Dictionary)
This policy, which denies any and all
treaty relationships, was employed by
both the French and English states dating
from 1534, and remain in effect via the
Canadian state and its agents through the
present day. Examples include The
Indian Act (1876), the Comprehensive
Land Claims Policy (1986), the First
Nations Self-Government Policy (Bill
S-212 died on the order paper), and the
First Nations Transparency Act (2014).

Canada.
Example Two:

Canada.
Example Two:

Canada.
Example Two:
The first poster, Walleye1, demonstrates very clearly

the phenomenon of white fragility, defined by
DiAngelo, R. (2011). White Fragility. International
Journal of Critical Pedagogy. He equates total
silence on the issue of racism to its cure, suggesting
that the receipt of government handouts by one
group of people is at the root of the problem of
racism in that this act creates inequality. In
actuality, it is the denial of Inherent and Treaty
Rights which has resulted in this inequality.
Furthermore, the statement everyone contribute to
this great country of ours would imply that the
poster does not believe that indigenous peoples
have made any contributions to Canada, a
statement which entirely ignores the existence of
revenues from unceded indigenous lands, trust
funds which are used extensively for the sustenance
of the Canadian economy, and the very origin of the
countrys name.

Canada.
Example Two:
In the end, this is an argument for assimilation in

that racism will only die because there will simply
not be diversity.
The second poster similarly diverts responsibility
for racism to activists and to indigenous peoples;
the use of Chretiens quotation blames the victims of
racism for their own discrimination, insinuating
that the fight for Inherent and Treaty Rights and
against assimilation is the cause for this
discrimination.
Slavko:
Chretien quote codifies all people should be equal in

Canada. Indigenous Inherent Rights and Treaty
right as the cause for settler racism to Indigenous.

Canada.
Example Two:
Slavko seeks to protect racist commentary by neutralizing it.
Dog whistle what he really means is Having made true equality based
on Inherent and Treaty Rights the greatest good, the activists have made
the case for settlers to deny them to maintain power base and social
advantages.
Its the activists fault settlers dont honour Indigenous rights.
Walleye1
Equates not talking about racism to curing racism as a social ill.
White fragility only settlers get peeved when settler racism is exposed.
Indians get free handouts = inequality.
Make everyone equal = denial of Inherent and Treaty Rights UNDRIP

therefore = inequality.
Implying everyone contributed to Canada except the Indigenous without

considering:
o
o
o
Trust Funds
Revenues from unceded lands
Canadas existence (Cdn flag red on two ends)
Take away Indigenous Rights and racism dies code for: Indians gone at
last.
More respect when youre dead or assimilated so you remain

marginalized and silenced.

Canada.
Example Three:

Canada.
Example Three:

Canada.
Example Three:
Treaty farce = Equity is irrelevant as long as I

keep my privilege
Most people is code for white people (the real
power base)/settlers. Excludes Indigenous
on the basis of their legal Inherent and
Treaty rights
Conflates Indigenous Inherent Rights and
Treaty Rights as Nation to Nation with the
Indian Act that racializes Indigenous Nations
to make the false statement that Indigenous
rights are race based = Tittler argument
Makes an oppressed minority (Indigenous)
racist for standing up for their rights.
Demonizes the opponents of settler racism.
Meaning of racism distorted

Canada.
Example Four:

Canada.
Example Four:

Canada.
Example Four:

!
Hes right. if he is restricting his comment to

Canada generally excluding First Nations.
I make this declaration on behalf of Canada,
therefore it must be done.
Equality for white settler = still oppressed
Indigenous.
It is not modern thinking to concede rights to
Indians.
Tear up the Indian Act conflates racist law
with Inherent/Treaty Rights = special status.
No understanding of the Treaties and
Inherent Rights.
Assimilation equals equality conflict with
Inherent/Treaty Rights.

Canada.
Example Four:
!
The personal story appeal to accept his bogus

statement Native Canadians. Settler need
to define people = blood quantum,
assimilation by suggestion
Proud as a Canadian because he mentally
stripped these people of their rights.
Claims he speaks for all Canadians
common racist form of inclusion.
Emphasizes anger as a threat to those
standing up for their rights.
Equates: Tax dollars = sodomy; whiners =

First Nations.
Ignores truth from Auditors General.
The Coalition against Racism in Mainstream Media

Louise Gadd
Robyn Lawson
Sandy MacDonald
Rachel Ann Snow
Kim Weaver
Copyright 2016 by Kim P. Weaver and Coalition Against Racism in Mainstream Media
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any mean, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any other information
storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher.
Published in 2015 by Coalition Against Racism in Mainstream Media
and
Kim P. Weaver (Thohahente)

CRRF Presentation Final Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRRF Presentation Final Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright 2016 by Kim P.

Weaver and Coalition Against Racism in Mainstream Media

The Coalition against Racism in

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Modern Indigenous Reality:

The post intends to deflect and disable an

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Modern Indigenous Reality:

This poster is commenting on a post clarifying that

Assumes sovereignty means a free ride

Threatens violence of war.

Fear , threats and violence to deny Indigenous rights

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Aboriginal people are Canadian/

Modern Indigenous Reality:

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Modern Indigenous Reality:

Claims to be right thus absolving any need

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Modern Indigenous Reality:

Ignores findings of RCAP 1996. Assumes

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Modern Indigenous Reality:

Makes a statement without citing the source for the

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Indigenous Men are responsible for

Modern Indigenous Reality:

Again a claim based on the RCMP Report on

Indigenous people are

Indigenous people are

Indigenous people are

Indigenous people are

Modern Indigenous Reality:

Menacing and racist says,

Indigenous people are

Indigenous people are

Indigenous people are

Modern Indigenous Reality:

The comment implies Morley people

Indigenous people are

Indigenous people are

Indigenous people are

Modern Indigenous Reality:

A racist slur suggesting alcohol was the

Indigenous people are

Indigenous people are

Indigenous people are

Modern Indigenous Reality:

Opening remark implies Chief Theresa

Aboriginal people benefit from

Aboriginal people benefit from

Aboriginal people benefit from