I find it odd how positive his attitude is when describing how invasive species are so dominant that they now have little choice but to eat each other since they've eaten all the natives.

Nice fish though.

I'm an atheist and will always be one of the first in line to suggest that religions should be subject to criticism and the rule of law just like any other organization.

That being said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that congregations are complicit in the misdeeds of the institution itself, whether or not they are aware of verified instances of misdeeds. ...Pretty slippery slope.

Expand that to, say, nations. In the history of the US, the government has committed some pretty indefensible atrocities. Genocide, mass relocation, and other offenses against Native Americans in the name of "manifest destiny". Enslavement of a race of people based on skin color, with disenfranchisement and continued abuse well after slavery was abolished, with elements that certainly persist to this day. Funding and supplying extremist organizations because they happen to have a short-term enemy that coincides with ours, which frequently comes back to bite us in the ass later. Using underhanded tricks including false-flag operations to justify wars and other offensive actions. Attempting to assassinate democratically elected leaders of foreign governments. And on and on.

Are all US citizens complicit in those misdeeds, merely by an accident of birth? But those things were in the past, you might argue. Given the depth of dirt you can find on our past with a little digging, I'd say it is reasonable to expect that there's things that the government is doing now that we may or may not be aware of that would be similarly difficult to defend.

Many/most Catholics can either remain intentionally blissfully ignorant about these problems, or will be able to go to great lengths to rationalize their way around them. Just like most US citizens don't lose much sleep over our government's past and present misdeeds. In either case, indoctrination puts the blinders on -- and can be incredibly difficult to escape.

For the religious, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is an oft-repeated phrase. As an atheist outraged by these scandals and the decades/centuries of intentional cover-ups by the Church itself, I might be tempted to turn that on its head. "Accept the religious, hate the religion." By all means, be outraged towards the institution itself. By all means, fight to end the protections that have allowed this kind of abuse to go unchecked. But perhaps try to keep some (Christian?) empathy for the average Catholic congregation members who have been brainwashedindoctrinated their whole lives and are likely in too deep to escape. Reserve that hatred for the clergy that abused their positions of power and control to commit these crimes, and the organizational system that systematically allowed it to happen while covering it up. They deserve every bit of hate you throw their way.

I don't disagree, and we have much the same thing in practice if not by law with our native people's, they even have their own separate tribal police, courts, and laws. They are in many ways a different country inside our borders.
I agree, removing the disparities in lower education is far more desirable....but at least here we're doing the opposite, defunding public schools and programs that offer assistance like breakfast and lunch while also making it easier for affluent people to use public funds to pay for private schools, effectively defunding the public schools even farther.
That leaves us trying things like affirmative action in admissions to try to mitigate the continuing unfair, unequal opportunities lower income students face. Far from ideal, but better than another poke in the eye with a sharp stick, as my wife used to say....and she ought to know! ;-)

They might put the argument in different terms. Which do you prefer....giving admission advantages to aboriginal students in recognition of the piss poor opportunities they've had educationally, or give sentencing advantages to aboriginal criminals in recognition of the across the board piss poor opportunities they've had, recognizing that neither approach addresses the underlying problems, only the results of those long standing issues that simply are not being addressed at all.
What doesn't work is ignoring their lack of opportunities and expecting them to perform on par with other, non disadvantaged kids. That just gets you uneducated, pissed off adults with a chip on their shoulder and no prospects for improvement.

So.....until we actually get to work improving their overall situation, easier said than done, it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for themselves....no? Otherwise we're likely just perpetuating a cycle of criminality that hurts us all.

Not all. I'm a well armed Texas native who doesn't.

Good video, also good chant. Much better than the racist native american ones at my high school in oklahoma

I live 2 hours out of Winnipeg.

Without seeing anything about the location of the video, not even seeing it was in Canada, my first thought on seeing this was "Hey, that looks like Winnipeg"

Funny as the politeness is, this is just sad to me.

Winnipeg has a reputation for being one of the most racist places in Canada. As often as not when someone in the province hears about a crime near them, you'll hear them guess the description of the suspect will include "native in appearance". Sadder still, it's because as my instinct hit while watching the video, it too often ends up being the case.

Canada has a huge race relations problem. Our native population is grossly over represented in the prison system, which you can talk about now. The fact that stems from them being grossly over represented in committing crimes is NOT supposed to be talked about. Which means you nobody gets to talk about the roots of WHY that over representation exists, let alone talking about solutions to the awful conditions that aboriginal youth are disproportionately growing up in.

Honestly, I really don't care what the beliefs of any church are.

If a church wants to take the stance that gays are evil and people with green eyes are demons... well, they're idiots, but as long as they don't do anything illegal, they're entitled to their stupid beliefs.

But religious beliefs shouldn't grant you any special privileges under the law. Basically, I believe you should be free to have whatever religion you want, as long as it's within the confines of the law that applies to everyone. No special exemptions.

So, no, a baker doesn't get to decide whether they can refuse service to a gay couple because of their religious beliefs. They can potentially refuse service if the LAW says they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, but religion shouldn't enter into it.

Why should a religious bigot get some special treatment that a regular bigot doesn't?

Now, after all that, the question of forcing businesses to provide service under the law is a tricky one as you and @newtboy have discussed. But generally, there are specific "protected classes" (not sure about the exact term), that you are not allowed discriminate on (i.e. gender, ethnicity, disability, religion, etc). I would be in favour of adding sexual orientation to that list.

So yes, you can refuse a nazi or a cop or a pedophile, but you can't refuse a native american lesbian in a wheelchair.

I take all that to heart.

In my native language and for me any woman under my age is a girl AND any man or woman taking part in sports and games is a boy or girl. They would be greeted and befriended in a much less formal manner than, for example during an opera performance intermission in the theatre hallway or in a workplace setting. For me girls running around on skis with guns are girls, I dont think of them as world class athletes but as ordinary people doing something enjoyable and rewarding.

I have trouble being entirely serene in the face of political correctness, so do feel free to correct my errors if I am found wanting in this area, even if I sometimes may appear to not take things seriously. Just a disclaimer.

"Edit this video" is now hidden in a menu that appears when you hover over your name above your video (Eric told me). Thanks.

Stuff like this still happens at New York gas stations near the New York / New Jersey border (New Jersey gas stations are "full serve" and many natives are completely clueless when they are forced to pump their own gas).

It sounded like a provocation of the dowtrodden displaced natives and their allies every time to me.
It also sounded like the end of middle east peace process, which is the reason all previous presidents didn't follow through. I guess all that nonsense about Iran being months from a nuke was just that, nonsense, or they wouldn't consider this unless they want Israel to be nuked.

Edit: chances are, he won't follow through because his advisors will explain what a horrible idea it is, and what a giveaway of a major bargaining chip for absolutely nothing in return but trouble.
Nobody knew middle east peace was so complicated!

He is an idiot when it comes to being President, but he is an absolute genius when it comes to tearing apart potential contenders in elections. He knows there is a strong chance that Senator Warren will run against him in 2020, so he is always going to hit her in what is, admittedly, a huge weak spot for her.

I would still vote for her against him, but she needs to realize and be prepared should she run that this is something she is going to have to finally answer. It doesn't even have to be a difficult one, just say that she made a mistake based on bad family anecdotes which led her to believe she might have been part Native American. People will forgive a mistake if you are clear about it, but if you leave it vague (which she unfortunately has), then Trump WILL exploit it.

You can't possibly argue that the Pocahontas thing while at an event intending to honor Native Americans is acceptable behavior. If he thinks Warren is lying about her heritage, fine. Say she's lying about it some other time. Nobody put a gun to Trump's head and said he has to call her that. And on top of all that, at least have the courtesy to not do it at that event. Honoring World War II Native American veterans has jack shit nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren.

Even if you happen to think that there's nothing wrong with the Washington Redskins name, do you think it would be appropriate for the President of the United States to bust through the wall Kool Aid man style dressed head to toe in Redskins garb doing the Tomahawk Chop at an event intended to honor Native Americans? FFS!

What next? Meet with a Chinese delegation and walk in doing slant eyes and the ol' "Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees, *lift shirt* LOOK AT THESE!!!"

All he had to do was turn his "be a dick" switch off for a few hours to honor war veterans. Is that so hard? Apparently, it's impossible for him.

Watching this guy as President is just astounding to me. Every damn day seemingly he finds new ways to be a total dick when he completely doesn't have to be. Elizabeth Warren is going to be fine, I don't care he insulted her. But acting like an ass clown in a way that's very likely to offend actual war heroes in the process?! Zero justification, zero excuses.

Being President isn't supposed to be a 24/7 reality TV show where everything revolves around petty partisan/personal vendettas, including disregarding basic tenets of acting like a mature adult.

Cassowary attacks

Cassowaries have a reputation in folklore for being dangerous to people and domestic animals. During World War II American and Australian troops stationed in New Guinea were warned to steer clear of them. In his book Living Birds of the World from 1958, ornithologist Ernest Thomas Gilliard wrote:

The inner or second of the three toes is fitted with a long, straight, murderous nail which can sever an arm or eviscerate an abdomen with ease. There are many records of natives being killed by this bird.

This assessment of the danger posed by cassowaries has been repeated in print by authors including Gregory S. Paul (1988) and Jared Diamond (1997). A 2003 historical study of 221 cassowary attacks showed that 150 had been against humans. 75% of these had been from cassowaries that had been fed by people. 71% of the time the bird had chased or charged the victim. 15% of the time they kicked. Of the attacks, 73% involved the birds expecting or snatching food, 5% involved defending natural food sources, 15% involved defending themselves from attack, and 7% involved defending their chicks or eggs. The 150 attacks included only one human death.

The one documented human death was caused by a cassowary on 6 April 1926. 16-year-old Phillip McClean and his brother, aged 13, came across a cassowary on their property and decided to try to kill it by striking it with clubs. The bird kicked the younger boy, who fell and ran away as his older brother struck the bird. The older McClean then tripped and fell to the ground. While he was on the ground the cassowary kicked him in the neck, opening a 1.25 cm (0.49 in) wound which may have severed his jugular vein. The boy died of his injuries shortly afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary

As a Canadian I can answer the question on use of the term 'Eskimo', and it is absolutely considered offensive in many circles, Inuit being the proper language to use. You can learn more about all the lengths your language to be 'proper'(for now) here:
http://dragonflycanada.ca/resources/aboriginal-peoples-terminology/

As an added reference, I'm still surprised to here the repeated use of Indian to describe Native American peoples from US television talk shows and such. In Canada using 'Indian' that way is approaching parity with using the N word.