Accountability Now

I've been down this path many times with you on various other threads and it all ends up the same. I show you the loose interpretation and your only response is "we'll let the courts decide" Not interested in showing you something that you have zero interest or capability to understand

It's hilarious that you actually think these 'interpretations' are done fairly and without bias. The natives struck a raw deal to save their lives but as I said our society is now built to reward the loser. What do you think would happen if these exact same circumstances existed in a civil dispute? If you and I had a written contract and my intent was exactly as what was written....do you think the judge would care if had a different understanding?? Nope! But in this case we can't be the bad guy and actually do what both sides agreed to. It actually reminds me of how I had to treat my nephew....when he was 3 that is!

I have zero problems with accepting that treaties are made and we should honor them but to the intent of the written text that was signed by both parties. Not by some made up, pretend oral version that has become the new course of action. The intent of the Canadian government has always been to honor the treaties by those texts no matter how much you rant about it. Again...by the text! Our society is now poised to reward the loser. We don't give out first place medals but rather participation medals for all. Elementary schools won't give out poor grades or sometimes grades at all for fear of hurting kids feelings. There is less accountability out there and our society as a whole is suffering. This is no different in the case with the natives as they did lose the battle for these lands. They took home the consolation prize of being stuck on reserves with little rights whereas the Canada took home the gold being given the land and rights without a fight. It was the only option for the natives other than certain death. You know this and any denial of this fact would be pure delusion. The beauty of course is that any native can become a winner in this situation at any time as they too are Canadians and benefit from what this country offers. They just have to buy in which many natives have and succeeded. However some choose to play the victim role and live the victim life with us enabling them by rewarding the loser. Unfortunately this will continue because we enable it to happen.

Don't mind that at all.

My brother got his Metis card and we are like 1/64th native. Once you prove you have some lineage and are willing to identify as Metis then you are in. I haven't fully gone that route yet but may just do it if this native push continues. Under the new court ruling, Metis are entitled to the same rights as FN. This really pissed off the band leaders as they know there would be people like me who are now taking from their pot!

So if the UN sees it all as Genocide then why haven't they stated this as a genocide. Perhaps....just maybe...your side embellishes a tad? Lol. Yet the UN doesn't use the term. Interesting. The TRC didn't use this term to make it more palatable, they used to to make it more severe. They also knew they would not be taken serious in the least if they went for the full genocide tag. That is why you should stop using it. At least there is opportunity for discussion when you use cultural genocide.

That's what I was saying. If this definition is used as loosely as they want then it would be just as easy to say the Natives committed genocide on the Brits and/or French. After all they did (a) kill members of those groups and (b) cause serious bodily harm....maybe even more.

And where again does the UN recognize 'cultural genocide'?

I also see the word 'cult' in there which would explain your misplaced admiration for this topic. Having said that, letters make up words and words make up phrases which can and do ultimately mean different things. That's how the English language works, Cultural genocide is not genocide. So stop using them interchangeably as you are intentionally misleading and sensationalizing your point.

Jacce....just to be clear. You commented about a bunch of grumpy white guys complaining, so I asked if being Metis counts....as in its ok that I complain because I'm Metis. Are you saying its ok for a Metis person to complain but not a white person even though they have the same argument? And is the TRC some new ruling body? Does the UN recognize this cultural genocide? Does any other legal jurisdiction recognize it? You should stop at this point and ask yourself why you are quoting the UN definition for genocide when the UN has never come close to calling it a genocide. Your loosey goosey interpretation is what fails you. By this definition, any war would fit into the category of genocide. Did any natives ever kill white people. Oh...that would be genocide as per part (a). Did any native ever cause any serious bodily harm to white person. That would be genocide. There are reasons that people who aren't just google lawyers like yourself actually make these decisions and interpretations as to what is and isn't genocide. So again....you saying something happened doesn't make it so. Do you think it hasn't been asked yet? Or discussed? And what have they said up to this point? NOTHING because it wasn't genocide. Even the TRC steered away from calling it that and carefully chose 'cultural genocide' as that was as close as they could possibly get. So please....contact the international courts and let me know how that works for you. They can protest all they want. My point is that when the point of their protest is to emphasize how rotten Canada is and how they want to distance themselves from us then they should not be surprised when we actually do distance ourselves from them.

This is actually not true. Although the large majority of funds do come from the general tax pool, a smaller part does come from money generated from 'Indian Band Funds'. With that said, the total trust account is at ~900 Million and not trillions of dollars as many deluded individuals claim. As you correctly pointed out, they make this claim insinuating they own all of this land and that we should have paid that much to them by this point. Its troubling there are so many First Nation mouth pieces that continue to purport these lies as it only confuses an already confusing issue.

I agree but I have yet to see a hint of forward progress on either side. The problem lies in the fact there are over 600 First Nations so you are never really dealing with one point of contact but rather a moving target. Some want more money, some want more rights where as some are happy the way things are. The Feds continue to make promises for election purposes but then get into office and realize its a no win situation so they play the same game of delay and sit on decisions with the occasional calming of a few fires with a few extra dollars. So what is something realistic? We know that full sovereignty is not possible within Canada. So what about going the other way? Could it be a one time buyout? Maybe but what would that price tag be? And what are the legal possibilities of having this go through? Or is the actual game plan the most plausible...which is for the Feds to continue to drag their feet and create a situation where grass roots indigenous people start suggesting realistic changes. I think that was the chord struck with the Transparency Act. Not an easy situation but what makes it worse is all the false rhetoric that you see in the media and by various members on this forum.

I'm Metis. Does that count? There was no genocide. Stop using that term. The UN doesn't recognize it as such and even the TRC doesn't go that far. What efforts have the natives put in other than the protests for more money? You state it needs to be collaborative but yet all I hear from that side is constant denouncing of Canada and how they are not a part of it. If they want to distance themselves then we will continue to treat them distant.

I agree. The reserve system is this ironic carrot that keeps certain natives wanting to stay part of the messed up system. The minute they leave the reserve they don't get the small benefits that were given to them in the treaties so they stay.

Or when they try to use their First Nation passport when going to England.

Much like no one admitted to voting NDP....publicly that is.

The NHL sees no benefit in being in Korea. The last number of Olympic events (especially in Canada, Russia and the US) there were intrinsic benefits to having the NHL players there. There are no players from Korea and no real interest to marketing there either which is why the NHL is shying away. Now...fast forward to the next Winter Olympics in Beijing. The NHL will be playing a couple preseason games in China next season and is clearly trying to market to there. I think the NHL would be interested in rejoining for that event however the IOC certainly would not be interested in having a flip flop situation. You are either in or out. Now for a crazy idea, somewhat loonie in fact. Do you think there is any doubt in having the NHL go due to growing tensions with North Korea? I hate to think this way but if that "Crazy Fat Kid from Korea' (as John McCain put it) were to do something, don't you think it would be good timing on his part to do it with the whole world watching. Maybe I've seen too many movies but I certainly would have no interest in going to South Korea if tensions keep up with North Korea.

I will admit, the treaty and native issue in BC is unlike anywhere else in Canada and as such brings in things that make it more difficult. I trust the Feds walk a fine line with things like commercial fishing as there is a sustainability factor but on the other side, any limitations imposed on natives would cause an issue. Personally, I still hold strong on the fact that we are all Canadian and rules put forth on a national level need to apply to all especially when the issue pertains to a multi jurisdictional event such as fishing.

This example in particular is not final, rather it is at Stage 4 of the treaty process where the bulk of the negotiations begin. I would assume they negotiate in the manner where they come out asking for high and settle lower? Considering they made this amended Statement of Intent 13 years ago, I would assume this isn't exactly a slam dunk that they will get it. Of the finalized treaties that I saw, most had land sizes of a few thousand to ten thousand hectares. The Maa' Nulth seemed to be considerable chunk at 24,500 ha but I seriously doubt any of these would start up their own country especially considering all of the agreements have an expropriation clause for Canada to take lands back under certain conditions. I assume those conditions would be quickly met if leaving was planned. On a side note, I was fishing up in Tahsis a few years back and noticed that of the 20 or so houses that I saw in town, about half were for sale. Was this due to the economy or due to the negotiations happening? I'm really not following what you are saying here. Are you stating that the First Nations are the ones being given the opportunities and that the government is to blame for your lack of opportunity? I know you have commented in the past on how the Feds had messed up the local fisheries. Is this what you mean?

Yes there are some that still believe they are real nations because the word is in their description. Some even have passports...and some of those even tried to use them once. Despite what they think, they are not nations recognized as such. They can be but they won't. Citation request please. The only territory that matters in the end is Canada. The government will continue to give to the 'poor Indian' as long as the status quo remains that Canada has the overall advantage which has been and will be a large advantage. If that changes then another shift will happen back to Canada's favor. Laws will be made and people will vote in governments that will promote Canada. You think that sort of nationalism can't happen here? The natives do...that's why they push, then retreat....push, then retreat. They know how to get what they want but not piss too many people off

Natives did away with their own nationalism many years ago. They are entitled to have it back anytime they want much like Quebec or Cascadia or any other group that wants to separate. However much like those other groups, there is just too much to gain by sticking with us rotten Canucks! So no...I don't have to worry about preventing anything. What Canada does need to worry about is finalizing the transition of First Nations into Canada and do away with the reserve system Its not nearly the same amount of time that you waste talking about your Earthling philosophy which will certainly not happen.

Start talking about it??? They have been talking about it forever and nothing. Natives talk about being nations until the idea of being totally self sufficient comes into play. I have zero concerns about natives drive for nationalism.

I'm all for nationalism but your Earthling thing is comical.

What are you talking about?? I love the Earthlings comment...makes me laugh every time!