No Olympics on Stolen Land

Verbena-19 reposts an article on her blog:

“By them choosing to have the Olympics here, it’s opening up our land, our sacred sites, our medicine grounds,” says Kanahus Pellkey. “We want investors to know our land is not for sale.” Pre-Olympic fever occupies the province of BC, and the economic excitement has massively accelerated gentrification and the building of highways, resorts, and condos. The construction of infrastructure for the 2010 Olympics itself is adding to extensive destruction of traditional homelands of the local Indigenous peoples.

This entry was posted in Race, racism and related issues, Syndicated feeds. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to No Olympics on Stolen Land

  1. Robert says:

    Irony alert [trimmed for space and to make the point clearer]:

    For further information on this cause please visit:
    nooneisillegal.org

    ————————–

    MONTREAL – Kanahus Pellkey says if aboriginals have their way, the 2010 Winter Olympics will not be all fun and games.

    “The world is not welcome to our territories,” Pellkey told reporters during a news conference held at the Olympic Stadium, the main site of the 1976 Summer Games.

    Stay out, you racist excluders!

  2. pheeno says:

    From the website

    “No One is Illegal (Toronto) is a group of immigrants, refugees and allies who fight for the rights of all migrants to live with dignity and respect. We believe that granting citizenship to a privileged few is part of a racist immigration and border policy designed to exploit and marginalize migrants. We work to oppose these policies, as well as the international economic policies that create the conditions of poverty and war that force migration. At the same time, we also work to support and build alliances with our Indigenous brothers and sisters in their fight against colonialism, displacement and the ongoing occupation of their land.”

    Last I checked, it’s not been immigrants or Indigenous people who go around murdering and stealing land.

    I wouldn’t want my people’s murders destroying more of our land they killed us (and still are) to steal.

    Maybe if they had been allowed to live with diginity and respect, they’d be more open to the Olympics.

  3. Robert says:

    Last I checked, it’s not been immigrants or Indigenous people who go around murdering and stealing land.

    Last time I checked, it was white immigrants who stole North America from its indigenous population. That’s a story of bloodshed and oppression not locally matched unless you look at the indigenous people of the Mesoamerican civilizations, who went around murdering and stealing land.

    Admittedly, the Mesoamericans were doing it to people who looked more or less like them. I guess that makes it OK. Or at least, conveniently forgettable.

  4. pheeno says:

    And I guess that makes it ok for the Canadian (and US) governments to continue genocide, and add insult to injury by hosting their activities on sacred land.

    You do know it’s *still* going on right?

  5. Radfem says:

    Of course it does! After all, slavery in this continent is often downplayed by saying, “but the Africans (assuming of course, there is one Africa) did it too”.

  6. Sailorman says:

    pheeno Writes:
    February 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am
    And I guess that makes it ok for the Canadian (and US) governments to continue genocide, and add insult to injury by hosting their activities on sacred land.
    You do know it’s *still* going on right?

    What definition of genocide are you using, or does “it” refer to something else?

  7. pheeno says:

    The deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. Such as killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

  8. Sailorman says:

    Ah, OK, you’re using the U.N. definition and not the common-language one. That makes more sense and I’ll not side track this further into the (fascinating to me, anyway) semantic issues.

Comments are closed.