Unfortunately Ralph, I am not addressing you so much as others who may be open to listen, read, make decisions for themselves, and thus critically analyze information and decide for themselves.
While not a regular contributer, I have followed various one sided posts and lines of reasoning you have used on the forum to realize there is no real "debate" with you. For me, a post like this it is about suggesting different lines of thought around the same polarizing issues that seem to divide us, and looking to see if there are grounds for people on this forum to question and re-evaluate their assumptions and believe about such issues.
Unfortunately, I am not able to see or read what you posted before deciding there was a craftier way to say whatever you wished to say, and try to discount what I said as useless and unrelated. If I thought it was important enough, I could use Wayback Machine to try to see what was originally said, but that would be five minutes of my life I would not get back, so it is not worth my time.
As I remember it, the contention was that the changes Euro-Canadian culture brought to North America are responsible for greed, and thus we are in the current situation, and thus, I hate to place it in words this way, but it is our fault, as non-indigenous peoples. This is a simplistic take on "us and them" and one I do not agree with.
For example, if I was simplistic, I could make a suggestion that Indigenous peoples of North America introduced Europeans, and thus, future citizens of Canada and the United states to smoking. To back up my rather interesting assertion, I could then go on to post a link like this:
https://www.lib.umn.edu/bell/tradeproducts/tobaccoI could then go on to contend that First Nations people are responsible for the introduction of tobacco, addicting countless generations to smoking, and are responsible for, I do not know, millions of cancer related deaths? I could go on to contend maybe they should be held responsible due to the historical context and the damage their introduced product has inflicted.
I used the word patronizing, which it seems you took offense to, and have had a few thoughts and ways to reply, according to editing. In my understanding of things, Indigenous peoples are complex, educated, citizens, city dwellers, urban dwellers, elders, doctors, lawyers, street people, homeless, have status, have no status, live on reserve, live off reserve, voters, politicians, mayors, chiefs, elders, mothers, fathers, and share many of the qualities as other Canadians. Can I dare to say they are us and are just as much of the Canadian mosaic as you and I, and therefore, should not be defined or made into a stereotypical definition anymore. In my eyes, to do so is to patronize who Indigenous people are and how they are a valued component of our multi-cultural society.
For those who may be interested, a good read on such things is Thomas King and his book "The Inconvenient Indian". I am currently reading it for the second time. The first time, I read the original edition and it was not illustrated. I am reading the newest edition with illustrations, and it is much better, for the illustrations add to the level of appreciation and understanding of Mr. King's message. Mr. King looks at our current situation with regards to, for lack of a better term, "The Indian Question" with both humour, logic, and common sense that I feel the average reader can appreciate. Here is a link to Thomas King's book as he explains the goal of his book in 2 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3XfYNvjee4For a taste on who Thomas King is, and his take on things, which I hope will lead to others questioning their values, understandings, and maybe stereotypes of First Nations peoples, that they may still hold without knowing, I leave you with this video:
https://www.nsi-canada.ca/2012/03/im-not-the-indian-you-had-in-mind/If you liked Corner Gas, you will appreciate one of the key individuals narrating the video.
Dano