There is a narrative, incorrect but not uncommon, that says a) First Nations came over the Bering Strait, therefore, have no claims on land, & b) residential schools weren't all that bad, therefore First Nations deserve no special treatment. It is greed speaking here. 1/10
It is a travesty that the treaty relationships were not taught in our schools. This has allowed the belief to grow that the government just gives First Nations people money and they are a drain on the system, and even that our taxes could be lower if we could just get them 2/10
Off reliance on the government. That isn't how it works. Treaties were made. Contracts signed. Effectively, we are paying rent for the use of the land (to put it in the most basic of terms). People who understand this try to undermine it by claiming First Nations are... 3/10
As much immigrants as the rest of us, therefore they don't have any claims to the land, and we should not be bound by the treaties. But we are bound and they receive money to which they are entitled, legally. And less than they should receive because white people are greedy. 4/10
The residential schools were an attempt to integrate Indigenous Peoples into our society, as was the 60s scoop. The thinking seems to have been that if we can assimilate them, we will no longer have to honour the treaties or make accommodations. 5/10
Those who maintain the residential schools were well-intentioned, or that they weren't all bad, are saying "We don't want to have to compensate people or give them any special allowances or position in society because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable and costly." 6/10
The same sort of people may well think Jews should just "get over" the Holocaust, or even deny that it happened. There is a stubborn refusal to accept psychological damage as real (in much the same way the UCP is trying to push people off AISH, and deny PTSD care to 7/10
Front line health care workers and first responders - there is no real belief that this is an actual thing and not just someone trying to rip them off, and this attitude extends to addicts and people deemed not mentally responsible for crimes). 8/10
Effectively, O'Toole is dog-whistling to his base who apparently don't like brown people very much; really don't like people they feel are inferior getting any sort of recognition or status; and really, really hate the fact that money is being paid for treaties/past wrongs. 9/10
There seems to be an ideology that people should work hard, break a sweat, in order to get money. Which is actually funny, because a lot of these people have spent their whole working lives enriching guys who wear $10,000 suits and have people to do most things for them. 10/10

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr Norlaine Thomas

Dr Norlaine Thomas Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Norlaine

17 Dec
Ahem. I have some things to say that may come as news to a lot of Canadians. Pay attention. There is a test. It's called "Life".
1. Canada is a sovereign nation. We are not part of the United States.
1/? #cdnpoli
2. We have different laws in Canada. For example, we do NOT have the right to bear arms. That is American. Gun ownership in Canada is a privilege and subject to reasonable restrictions. You know, so we don't go around killing each other. 2/?
3. In Canada we have Freedom of Expression, not Free Speech. There is a difference. Your freedom of expression ends where what you are expressing may hurt or endanger others. There are consequences for hate speech, for example. 3/?
Read 27 tweets
16 Dec
Stupid argument from US right-wingers who want to put down Jill Biden: "She shouldn't have Dr in front of her name because she's not a REAL doctor. She doesn't deliver babies or anything." Some history: the word "Doctor" is derived from the Latin verb "docere", which means 1/5
"To teach". A PhD, short for Philosophiae Doctor (Doctor of Philosophy), is awarded to individuals who are highly educated and have the qualifications to be outstanding teachers. Medical practitioners were not referred to as "doctors" until fairly recently. 2/5
They are more properly called "Physicians", unless they have the advanced education, beyond an MD, which makes them a PhD. A degree to practice medicine is a professional degree, but it is not a doctorate. The shift to calling physicians "doctor" in English-speaking countries 3/5
Read 5 tweets
16 Dec
People in other provinces might not know, but the new curriculum recommendations from Kenney's hand-picked advisors indicate there will be no mention of residential schools before jr high, if then. This is not just O'Toole, this is official conservative policy. 1/4 #ResignOToole
Let's not forget Lynn Beyak, a Harper=appointed senator, who insisted residential schools were good for some kids. 2/4

cbc.ca/news/politics/…
Andrew Scheer must have been under intense pressure for him to excommunicate Beyak. He showed his own racist streak while leader of the CPC. 3/4
Read 4 tweets
21 Oct
This argument that "Alberta has fossil fuel gunk in the ground so we have to dig it up and ship it out" is weird. It's like saying you have to keep eating a cake even after you start to feel sick and are having regrets... Because there's still cake... 1/6
It's like saying "you've spent an hour at this party and you're having a bad time, but you have to stay until the end because the party is going on..." 2/6
It's like saying "we haven't caught all the fish in the sea yet, so we have to keep fishing. We have to build more, bigger boats and huger drag nets, we have to grow and expand until there is no life in the oceans...." 3/6
Read 6 tweets
20 Oct
Conservatives like to talk about "corruption". A lot. But do they mean the same thing most people mean by the word? I think many people would consider a political party doing something that does not benefit the people, but rewards their friends as corruption. 1/22
#cdnpoli
Say, for example, a Minister of the Crown who passes legislation liable to directly benefit a family member or themself, to the detriment of the public good. That seems like corruption.
pressprogress.ca/albertas-healt…
2/22
Or a government that invents panels & advisory positions for friends & donors & arranges for these panels and advisors to return reports and recommendations that mirror what the governing party wants to do, but with the guise of "research" and "impartiality". Seems corrupt.
3/22
Read 22 tweets
17 Oct
In 1955, the US Supreme Court issued its second Brown v. Board of Education ruling. They called for dismantling of segregation in public schools, across the US, "with all deliberate speed". #cndpoli
Now, some people in Virginia, including the president of the University of Virginia, Colgate Whitehead Darden Jr, were appalled by this. They felt it seriously over-reached into "states' rights".
Any state, they felt, should be able to discriminate against any people they felt were inferior, because of race, religion, gender, or whatever damn thing they chose. They saw it as a deliberate attack on the cherished values and way of life of southern Americans.
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!