What do natives want?

[Rue]

There seems to be a reoccuring theme by non natives when responding to natives that seems to suggest its unfair for natives to persist on bring up past history as a basis to argue their current legal rights.

I am sure a lot of non natives would love to simply forget about the plethora of treaties that have been violated and start fresh. The fact is however, natives are not stupid and understand the law and their rights and they are trying to enforce those treaties that have been breached or continue to be violated and its unrealistic to think they will roll over.

I also find it interesting when non natives lecture natives on conservation. It is just a tad bit hippocritical given what we have done to the planet.

I do agree that native people must take care not to engage in violence or in depleting limited resources but if you take the time to read what they write or sit and listen and talk with them you would know they feel the same way. I think it has been proven that most of the stories about natives over-fishing or over-hunting have been proven to be malicious and untrue and unsubstantiated. I also think non natives need to stop lecturing and listen a lot more before they can understand why some natives feel pushed into doing what they do.

In any event natives do not need me to defend them but I would say you would be suprised what will happen if instead of fearing natives you sit and talk with them and try understand the treaties they are simply trying to enforce.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Okay Rue, I will buy into that arguement. Lets pick a problematic treaty and see where we can take it to? You go ahead and choose one, and give me a chance to look into it please.

[Riverwind]

I am sure a lot of non natives would love to simply forget about the plethora of treaties that have been violated and start fresh. The fact is however, natives are not stupid and understand the law and their rights and they are trying to enforce those treaties that have been breached or continue to be violated and its unrealistic to think they will roll over.

Gov't have the power to break any signed contract between parties if it is not in the public interest to uphold that contract. In some cases, compensation is owed but in others the gov't can limit compensation. For example, when the BC Liberals came to power they tore up the collective agreements signed by the NDP and the public sector unions. The unions were not happy about that but that but they could not stop the gov't from doing it.

That is why the text of historical native treaties are irrelevant and why the question is political. If natives want these treaty rights honoured then they must make a rational case why society as a whole will benefit. Running to the courts will do nothing since the majority can always override the court decisions if they want to.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ouch! But I suppose its true isn't it?

[Kindred]

BC Liberals broke all kinds of contracts with teachers etc. No problem there, Governments do have the power to throw out everything that has gone before ... the wording of the original treaties if adherred to would not be of much benefit to the Aboriginal people. In place of free medical and dental each band would receive a fully equipped "medicine bag", for example.

The question then arises, which treaty is the preferred treaty? They have been written and rewritten, originally based on a very tiny population in what was unsettled areas of Canada, ie Vancouver - all of the Northern area, before resource exploration and development. Do we or can we proceed as if there has been NO progress since the original treaties were signed? Do we look at Canada as it was THEN compared to how it is NOW - That would be ridiculous -

[gened]

If i were a native I would not complain. I would make the most of the situation. Native get special rights, money, tax free work, highered to jobs they are not qualifed.for. If i were a native I would rest assured that no matter how little I do to contribute to society my kids will still get a university education and then get hired over a more qualifed "white" person when they get out.

The height of hypocricy is natives who complain they do not get enough. If they had any initiative they would all be millionaires.

[Riverwind]

Fact = There is no such thing as as Native "Nations". You can not have a nation that is 100% dependent on another.

The word nation has two definitions: one means a group of people that share a culture. the other describes a sovereign state. Native groups fit into the first definition of 'nation'.

Fact = A country which separates rights and responsibilities based on race is following a system of apartheid.

The patchwork collection of treaties and aboriginal rights that we currently have cannot really be described as 'apartheid'. However, many native activists openly advocate an apartheid system where aboriginals would have sovereignty over large tracts of lands and non-natives living on those lands would have no rights. They are asking that we introduce an aparthied system and we should oppose it.

Fact = There is no such thing as "original" peoples to north america.

There is a huge time period between the original migration of native peoples and the arrival of the Europeans. I don't think we need to quibble about who was here first - that much is historical fact. The only question is whether descents of the 'originals' should have special rights.

Realistically there is no native people anymore. When the last racist remnants of the system[treaties, "self" governance] are removed only then while those descendants because product and valuable members of our society.

I really disagree here. Native people have a distinct culture and heritage and have many reasons to be proud of that heritage. Furthermore, 'self-governance' is one of the principals of our federal system and I think it is more that reasonable to allow native groups to govern themselves. The only issue is whether allowing that self-government will disenfranchise non-native peoples living in the same area. However, there are many ways to ensure that does not happen.

If someone does believe that Canada does not belong to the citizens of this country, then they should leave instead of advocate giving Canada away to the descendants of failed civilizations.

I would classify a 'failed' civilization as a civilization that collapsed upon itself. Ancient Rome is an example of a failed civilization. Natives are a civilization that was destroyed by disease brought by outsiders. Their civilization likely would have lasted for long time if that had not happened.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Rights must apply to all citizens unless you wish to re-create a class structured society where privileges take precedence. That is not a likely sale in the eyes of a majority of the public, therefore there should never be either an individual or a group that has any legal entitlement to anything that any other individual or group is not entitled to.

Anthing else is folly and flys in the face of democracy.

[gc1765]

If i were a native I would not complain. I would make the most of the situation. Native get special rights, money, tax free work, highered to jobs they are not qualifed.for. If i were a native I would rest assured that no matter how little I do to contribute to society my kids will still get a university education and then get hired over a more qualifed "white" person when they get out.

The height of hypocricy is natives who complain they do not get enough. If they had any initiative they would all be millionaires.

Natives get free health care, and some Natives get free education. They do not receive money simply for being Native and they DO pay taxes (off reserve). Please give me examples where Native people were hired over more qualified "white" people.

[Kindred]

Well actually I could do that, but it would involve revealing person information about other people and that isnt allowed - let me just say when a native person with a grade seven education is hired as the Education Coordinator of a school, or when a native person with no education or experience was hired for a Marketing postion rather than a person with a degree in Marketing and five years of relevant experience ... and when you see employment ads in the paper that read "Preference given to persons of Aboriginal descent".. well that pretty much spells if out doesnt it?

[saga]

how many people need to tell you that the rights they are exercising are not based on race, but are based on treaty signed echanging the land we call Canada for these rights.

How many times do you have to be told that exchanging 'rights' for property not a legitimate thing to do in a multi-ethnic democratic society. If natives need to be compensated for giving up land in the past then they should be compensated with assets (cash or land). Compensating natives with race based rights simply ensures that the cycle of racism with continue forever.

To illustrate consider two hypothetical scenarios:

1) Natives groups in BC own 80% of the commercial fishing licenses on the Fraser River which they were given as part of a treaty settlement. These licenses are exactly the same as a non-native licences, however, since natives own most of them natives get most of the benefits from this resource.

2) Native groups in BC are given a right to native only commercial fishery which allows them to catch 80% of the available quota.

In both scenarios the natives receive the same benefit from 80% of the fishery. However, in Scenario 1) natives are equal participants in society. In Scenario 2) natives are beneficiaries of a clearly racist gov't policy. Some people will grumble about both scenarios, however, scenario 2) simply perpetuates the cycle of racism.

Riv ... I despair of your condescending tone, and shock politics ... but we understand that you are doing your job here, polluting peoples heads with twisted party lines.

You do not convince people by condescending and shocking them with faulty logic ... tsk.

AGAIN ... a race can make a choice of how to live ... It is not racism if it is a choice and a benefit and a community.

Your party line is a twisted sister !

I will take your point while rejecting your manner ... Visible differences - like not paying sales tax and reclaiming land ... do increase racial tensions among bellicose ignorant and greedy whites, I have noticed in Caledonia. But why would they ... only to apply to get it back ... Now thats a boondoggle!

Let them smile at the cash ... its been their only advantage for a long time, and a long history of imposed disadvantages.

Open your mind to the inevitability ... otherwise you are choosing perpetual angst ...

And stop with the apartheid, racist crapola talk. It is their choice. Advantage for attempt at balance (!not!)

is equity, not racism. Their choice to live together is community, not apartheid ... but I see you have not used that here yet.

However, it is neccessary to understand that one size or style does not fit all contexts, and that their choices are the choices of the people. Imposing a standard (equal) practice does not assure achieving equity of outcomes. Rigidity is a flaw when it can only tolerate a one size solution ... thats just inputs ... focus on results ... fairness and equity are the key to longlasting peace, and are not achieved through imposed standard practices, or imposed anything.

MYOB.

There is a more credible way to present your opinion ... less whining would help.

[Riverwind]

And stop with the apartheid, racist crapola talk. It is their choice. Advantage for attempt at balance (!not!)

is equity, not racism. Their choice to live together is community, not apartheid ... but I see you have not used that here yet.

You seem to think that aboriginal rights are simply an affirmative action program intended to help a disadvantaged group. Your thinking is not only wrong - it is dangerously naive. Aboriginal rights are _permenant_ entitlements that would be extremely difficult to get rid off even if aboriginals become the wealthiest group in our society. That is why it is necessary to oppose aboriginal rights in any form.

You have expressed concerns that corporations do no pay their share of taxes to pay for social services. Today you have the choice of voting for an MP or MLA who has the power to increase these taxes - your vote may not be enough to change the policy but at least you have that vote. However, if 1/3 or more of Canada is turned over to 'sovereign' aboriginal bands that are exempt from taxes then you would see businesses locating on these reserves to avoid paying Canadian taxes. Is that a future that you really want? In that future do you honestly believe that racism directed at natives would be limited to a few thugs from the local bar? Racial conflict will infect all stratas of society if such injustices are allowed exist.

Native posters on this forum have made it clear that they want to re-create a feudal society where only aboriginals would own the land and everyone else would be a leaseholder. Do you really want to live in that kind of country? Do you honestly believe that future is a good future for this country?

It is clear from your posts that you care a lot about plight of aboriginal peoples today and that you are appalled by how they have been hurt by past gov't policies whether it is the Indian act or residential schools. We, as society, need to come to terms with this history but we must do it in a way that does not create injustice and racism for future generations.

[saga]

And stop with the apartheid, racist crapola talk. It is their choice. Advantage for attempt at balance (!not!)

is equity, not racism. Their choice to live together is community, not apartheid.

You seem to think that aboriginal rights are simply an affirmative action program intended to help a disadvantaged group. Your thinking is not only wrong - it is dangerously naive. Aboriginal rights are _permenant_ entitlements that would be extremely difficult to get rid off even if aboriginals become the wealthiest group in our society. That is why it is necessary to oppose aboriginal rights in any form.

You have expressed concerns that corporations do no pay their share of taxes to pay for social services. Today you have the choice of voting for an MP or MLA who has the power to increase these taxes - your vote may not be enough to change the policy but at least you have that vote. However, if 1/3 or more of Canada is turned over to 'sovereign' aboriginal bands that are exempt from taxes then you would see businesses locating on these reserves to avoid paying Canadian taxes. Is that a future that you really want? In that future do you honestly believe that racism directed at natives would be limited to a few thugs from the local bar? Racial conflict will infect all stratas of society if such injustices are allowed exist.

Native posters on this forum have made it clear that they want to re-create a feudal society where only aboriginals would own the land and everyone else would be a leaseholder. Do you really want to live in that kind of country? Do you honestly believe that future is a good future for this country?

It is clear from your posts that you care a lot about plight of aboriginal peoples today and that you are appalled by how they have been hurt by past gov't policies whether it is the Indian act or residential schools. We, as society, need to come to terms with this history but we must do it in a way that does not create injustice and racism for future generations.

Well, I see you have toned down the rhetoric and I appreciate that. You were a little too obvious in revealing your cparty-paid agenda.

Fact is, the Indigenous people are not imposing anything on anybody. They are simply reclaiming title to lands unlawfully taken from them without proper compensation by the government of Canada. If the government wants to compensate them for occupied properties on their lands, then there likely is no issue. If the government refuses to compensate them, however, then the people occupying these properties will have a new Indigenous government. It is up to the government. It is only in cases where the government refuses to pay proper compensation that these issues will arise.

... and the Haudenosaunee are a SOVEREIGN NATION because that is their lawful agreement with Canada.

It is not the end of the world ... but the beginning of a new world.

... a new world ... where we are entitled to know how much money is paid to our governments in corporate taxes for the right to profit from our resources ... have you got that information yet... it is necessary to figure out the cost of land claims settlements ton each Canadian ... I would like to finish that conversation ... because I suspect that the companies NOW doing business on Indigenous land ... stripping the trees and levelling the mountains for mines ... I SUSPECT from your failure to answer my question that they do not pay taxes either!

I would much rather see the land in the hands of Indigenous people who care for the land and do not pay taxes than in the hands of corporations who rape and destroy the land and do not pay taxes.

I do want an answer if you have one, Riverwind.

If corporations are paying no Canadian taxes on our resources ... then how are we benefitting at all from our own resources that are shipped south every day... HOW do we benefit ...!!!

At present, we are seeing a lot of posturing on both sides: The government saying we cannot compensate you for people living on your land ... Six Nations saying then they will pay their taxes to us and we will provide their services ... so the government sends people like you here to convince Canadians that there is something sinister about this ... blah blah blah ... it is just negotiation ... and posturing.

But do tell: How much does the federal government take in every year in corporate taxes...

[saga]

Aboriginal rights are _permenant_ entitlements that would be extremely difficult to get rid off even if aboriginals become the wealthiest group in our society. That is why it is necessary to oppose aboriginal rights in any form.

Just for clarity for other readers ... Riverwind is talking about a need to reopen the constitutional debate to take aboriginal rights and titles out of the Canadian Constitution.

HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE ... :angry:

[saga]

Well actually I could do that, but it would involve revealing person information about other people and that isnt allowed - let me just say when a native person with a grade seven education is hired as the Education Coordinator of a school, or when a native person with no education or experience was hired for a Marketing postion rather than a person with a degree in Marketing and five years of relevant experience ... and when you see employment ads in the paper that read "Preference given to persons of Aboriginal descent".. well that pretty much spells if out doesnt it?

We see ads that say preference is given to people with disabilities when the job pertains to that. Big stinkin deal.

Visible minorities, disabled people, immigrants and others are UNDEREMPLOYED in our country. This helps improve the balance.

It is not an Indigenous conspiracy

[Figleaf]

[.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[Riverwind]

Aboriginal rights flow from agreements between the British/Canadian crown and various aboriginal nations and as such are not within the pure purview of the government to change as it sees fit.

The gov't has the power to recind any contract or agreement that is not in the public interest - this includes any treaty with any foriegn nation. Doing so will always have political re-percussions which means no gov't should make such a move lightly. However, the gov't always has the power to do it. The only question is whether it is possible to honour these archiac treaties without imposing huge burdens on the non-aboriginal population. If the answer to that question is no then the gov't has all the power it needs to repudiate them.

While it may be inefficient, and incongruous with our broader principles to have special entitlements hinging on racial membership, such is the contextual legacy under which we must conduct ourselves.

Would you make that argument if the descendents of the orginal white settlers had special rights?

[Riverwind]

Just for clarity for other readers ... Riverwind is talking about a need to reopen the constitutional debate to take aboriginal rights and titles out of the Canadian Constitution.

There is no need to re-open that debate right now, however, it would be very worthwhile to remind any natives who are making rediculous demands that the gov't has that power and that the legalities of the issue will mean nothing in the end if public opinion is against them.

[saga]

Hmm. You appear to think that aboriginal rights are something our past government have unilaterally extended to aboriginal peoples and which can accordingly be rescinded by fiat. That is, however, an incorrect view. Aboriginal rights flow from agreements between the British/Canadian crown and various aboriginal nations and as such are not within the pure purview of the government to change as it sees fit. Furthermore, historically these agreements have been badly violated against the interests of native peoples simply because they lacked the power or influence to obtain redress.

While it may be inefficient, and incongruous with our broader principles to have special entitlements hinging on racial membership, such is the contextual legacy under which we must conduct ourselves.

Absolutely true. Even if His Harpiness wants to change the Constitution of Canada (good luck!), that does not change the treaties and royal proclamations and other legsal agreements that continue to stand on their own. Canada can refuse to recognize aboriginal title and rights ... but they will still legally exist ...

SO I rephrase my question: WHO WANTS TO REOPEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE WHEN IT CAN ACCOMPLISH EXACTLY NOTHING !!!

... but of course, there is the possibility of some sleazy legislation or other which attempts to define aboriginal rights as ... nothing

...wait for it ... it is coming!!

... and I hope His Harpiness has a backup plan for his career because it WILL be a confidence vote.

[saga]

Just for clarity for other readers ... Riverwind is talking about a need to reopen the constitutional debate to take aboriginal rights and titles out of the Canadian Constitution.

There is no need to re-open that debate right now, however, it would be very worthwhile to remind any natives who are making rediculous demands that the gov't has that power and that the legalities of the issue will mean nothing in the end if public opinion is against them.

By ridiculous I assume you mean they are demanding what they are legally entitled to ... please clarify.

And NO the government does not have the power to reopen that debate unilaterally. If Canadians do not agree, it would not be in their best political interests which is all they care about.

[Riverwind]

By ridiculous I assume you mean they are demanding what they are legally entitled to ...

Yes. The are many times when what is right and ethical is different that what is legal. An american company sued the Canadian gov't for losses caused by environmental regulations banning the MMT additive. The company was legally entitled to compensation but many people felt the the company was ethically and morally entitled to nothing. Native land claims are the same - the fact that they might have legal basis does not make them right, just or fair.

[Figleaf]

[.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[saga]

While it may be inefficient, and incongruous with our broader principles to have special entitlements hinging on racial membership, such is the contextual legacy under which we must conduct ourselves.

Would you make that argument if the descendents of the orginal white settlers had special rights?

Irelevant red herring, Riv.

The current situation arises because ...

The land belonged to the Indigenous people who occupied it for thousands of years and developed a sophisticated civilization and a large scale participatory democracy that we can only envy. They allied with us helped us survive and helped our country become a country instead of a US state. So ... we stole their land, outlawed their religion and democracy and killed and abused their children for over a century.

How ... and why ...

Because we had guns and we wanted their land ... power and greed.

There are no other reasons... and there still are no reasons except power and greed for us to deny them their rights ... again.

[jdobbin]

There are no other reasons... and there still are no reasons except power and greed for us to deny them their rights ... again.

I think that anything to help First Nations in Canada to break the cycle of poverty is good.

I do worry about land claims that are on land where the majority of people are non-Native.

All of Winnipeg is under claim. And while I don't think the Metis will evict people from the land if they win their case in the Supreme Court, they could still basically end Winnipeg and Manitoba as a city and a province.

[Riverwind]

--