multiculturism | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

multiculturism

we should have annexed the Turks and Caicos Islands...but then there's the problem with Chinese again...

In the Turks and Caicos Islands, support for a "special relationship" with Canada was at 90% in the 1990s, while in 2003 support for the relationship stood at around 60%. Goldring, an MP from Edmonton, has championed the cause of integrating the Turks and Caicos Islands as a Canadian territory for security benefits, as well as increasing Canada's influence in Central and Southern America with regard to counterterrorism, trade and combating encroaching Chinese influence in several small Caribbean islands, such as St. Lucia.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what annexed means but I'd go along with that. And then we could play beach volleyball.
 
What you wrote makes no sense... so I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Can you try again and elaborate?
Immigration means moving into a foreign country. There was no country in the continent when natives arrived, it was the real "new world", so there were no immigrants at the time. It would be like the first inhabitants of Mars being called immigrants. Immigrating into what? There's nothing there. They correct term would be settlers, or founders.

Of course in complete disregard for the existence of first nations, the immigrants that came after Columbus called themselves settlers and founders of the new world! It's completely backwards.
 
This evening the role of fastar1 will be played by Miss Spain
and the role of Caboose will be played by Miss Uganda

[video=youtube;k00ZWkdzpoY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k00ZWkdzpoY[/video]
 
What you wrote makes no sense... so I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Can you try again and elaborate?

Immigration means moving into a foreign country. There was no country in the continent when natives arrived, it was the real "new world", so there were no immigrants at the time. It would be like the first inhabitants of Mars being called immigrants. Immigrating into what? There's nothing there. They correct term would be settlers, or founders.

Of course in complete disregard for the existence of first nations, the immigrants called themselves settlers and founders of the new world! It's completely backwards.

Ok, I think I got what he is trying to say. It's one of those moments where it makes sense.

Let me try it this way:
1. new land- no people living there
2. type 1 people come to new land and inhabit it
3. type 2 people come to same land later and claim that they have discovered this new land and call it their new world
4. problem with item #3, the type 1 people were already living there
......
5. so I guess type 3 people can come to Canada and declare it as their new found land to their homeland (people)

Yet another human fallacy, we all originated from the same place (Africa or if in dispute Earth) and for damn sure that you will all die in the same damn place...Earth.

It amazes me given all of the technology we have (photos from space) that we have wars and argue about who is the best...one small piece of space rock will exterminate all of us in the blink of an eye or torture us slowly into oblivion.

We are competing for dirt...and we are supposed to be the apex animals on the planet...lol

How much more enjoyable would life be to wonder a planet free of war and borders? All of the cool places to see, food to eat, music to hear and the best part the different types of yummy women to tell about the vibrational energy of the universe manifestations etc...
Isn't that freedom.
 
Last edited:
Immigration means moving into a foreign country. There was no country in the continent when natives arrived, it was the real "new world", so there were no immigrants at the time. It would be like the first inhabitants of Mars being called immigrants. Immigrating into what? There's nothing there. They correct term would be settlers, or founders.

Of course in complete disregard for the existence of first nations, the immigrants that came after Columbus called themselves settlers and founders of the new world! It's completely backwards.

So what country did we immigrate to when Europeans came here?
 
Immigration means moving into a foreign country. There was no country in the continent when natives arrived, it was the real "new world", so there were no immigrants at the time. It would be like the first inhabitants of Mars being called immigrants. Immigrating into what? There's nothing there. They correct term would be settlers, or founders.

Of course in complete disregard for the existence of first nations, the immigrants that came after Columbus called themselves settlers and founders of the new world! It's completely backwards.

Oh ok, so my relatives "moved to" this area before Canada existed. So I'm of native descent?

Don't answer that, I am being sarcastic.

Any people who are not indigenous to North America would have immigrated, and there are no people who were indigenous to North America... so we all immigrated. The natives just happened to be descendants of the first peoples who immigrated to North American via Siberia many tens of thousands of years ago.
 
Let's just all agree that we all roamed around from one area to another area on the planet.
yay!

I claim the oceans.
 
Oh ok, so my relatives "moved to" this area before Canada existed. So I'm of native descent?

Don't answer that, I am being sarcastic.

Any people who are not indigenous to North America would have immigrated, and there are no people who were indigenous to North America... so we all immigrated. The natives just happened to be descendants of the first peoples who immigrated to North American via Siberia many tens of thousands of years ago.

How conveniently you state that, "yeah it was just many tens of thousands of years ago". That "many tens of thousands of years ago" means that they were the legitimate inhabitants/owners of the North American territory, until the new settlers came, invaded their territory, took over and made them second class citizens...

According to your reasoning you can invade any place in the world, and claim to be right.
 
How conveniently you state that, "yeah it was just many tens of thousands of years ago". That "many tens of thousands of years ago" means that they were the legitimate inhabitants/owners of the North American territory, until the new settlers came, invaded their territory, took over and made them second class citizens...

According to your reasoning you can invade any place in the world, and claim to be right.

Nope, never wrote that and trying to put those words in my mouth is idiotic. All I'm talking about is how people came to North America.

I'm not claiming that it's right but that's how the world has worked for thousands of years and not just North America either. Do you really want to talk about who has conquered who, who has displaced who, and who has taken land from who through the course of world-wide human history?
 
I'm not claiming that it's right but that's how the world has worked for thousands of years and not just North America either. Do you really want to talk about who has conquered who, who has displaced who, and who has taken land from who through the course of world-wide human history?

No crap eh. Where certain people have lived has constantly been changed by wars and immigration. And it will keep being changed.
 
No crap eh. Where certain people have lived has constantly been changed by wars and immigration. And it will keep being changed.

Yes, and multiculturalism is a relatively new concept in human history. Only time will tell us whether or not it works. Maybe we'll all get over our issues and live and let live.. or maybe we'll all conclude that certain cultures don't mix.
 
Yes, and multiculturalism is a relatively new concept in human history. Only time will tell us whether or not it works. Maybe we'll all get over our issues and live and let live.. or maybe we'll all conclude that certain cultures don't mix.

If suspicion and paranoia (shelves of law books attest to this) are the backbone of any meaningful relationship I don't see how a vast difference in religion and skin tone could possibly sweeten the deal. I'm still on the fence.
 
If suspicion and paranoia (shelves of law books attest to this) are the backbone of any meaningful relationship I don't see how a vast difference in religion and skin tone could possibly sweeten the deal. I'm still on the fence.

You were warned about that once already.
 

Back
Top Bottom