Re: NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations
Originally Posted by
jassmine
Why is it garbage?
What about all the other journals articles that I've linked to like BMC Health (found it), The Lancet, Western journal of nursing research etc etc. I take no issue with The lancet or WJNR.
Regardless of the journal you will say the same thing and disregard the findings because you haven't even reviewed any of the articles.
Now you are just putting words in my mouth.
You readily admit that people are treated differentially and support studies of such (despite that article not being experimental at all)
I didn't say that it was experimental, I was using it to prove a point that natives aren't the only people that are singled out in the medical system. In general I find that people get butt hurt about natives being treated unfairly and act as if the rest of society isn't also treated unfairly in some respect.
yet continue to state that the multiple streams of data and different research articles that I've link to demonstrating FN are treated differently are invalid without having ever read any of them?
My main issue with what you've posted is that you included two articles from questionable sources (Canadian Woman Studies, and Ethnicity and Health) and treated it as if it was gospel. Don't cite poor sources and I'll take you seriously.
Getting back to the topic at hand, how does any of this justify restricting land access to people? The matter at hand is whether or not NStQ first nations should be granted title to a large tract of land, and further, if they should be allowed to tell Joe public that they aren't welcome on that land. I will clarify that this land is currently available for use by all, equally, without fee.
Last edited by Livewire322; 08-09-2018 at 08:01 PM.
If it cant be done with one shot, it shouldn't be done.
"grab large claw hammer - put against butt cheek , pry head out of ass with claws...then go back to school..."