Accountability Now

Perhaps I wasn't clear. They can have their own autonomy as in their own countries if they want to separate....just like Quebec could do the same. But when it comes down to it they won't separate because that would mean giving up a heck of a lot. But I'm guessing that's not what you mean by saying "settle for any less"....or is it?

They have every right to their own autonomy just like Quebec does. Of course they don't really want that do they?

What I want and what I need are two different things. Lots of money has been thrown and First Nations and even billions towards residential schools and that hasn't solved anything. The system is broken and pouring money in a broken system will not fix the system.

It seems like as always...money is the answer. As per your Globe and Mail article, Perry Bellegarde says the following: Its hard to take them serious about truth and reconciliation when it really sounds like its just a cash call. I will say this, I agree that a significant cash transfer should be involved however not just a hand out. It should be a one time settlement that will buyout all the land from the reserves from each person living on the reserves. At that point they can join the rest of Canadian society and really turn the next chapter. Not only will they have cash in hand to do so, but also it will be reversing the apartheid nature of reserves that many are claiming caused many issues back in the day. If they want, they can even stay on the reserves and own their own property thus forming a municipality subject to the same taxation and laws as the rest of Canada. We could finally put this apartheid behind us. Of course....that's not what they want. They want to be separate. They want to be seen as their own nation equal to Canada. That is the truth.

Do tell

So you being native don't have to worry about the rules?

I asked the same thing in post #83. No one answered.

So are you allowed to ignore those rules (ie they don't apply) or are you just ignoring them?

Do these same people your talking about pay taxes, vote, stop at traffic lights, etc?

Again with your apples to orange comparisons.

You continue to equate what happened to the First Nations to be equal to what happened to the Jews. Not even close. For starters...look up the definition of holocaust. Second....they have coined the term "cultural genocide" because that is as close to the actual term they will ever get. The Jews went through way worse and have moved on.

There was no First Nations Holocaust. Remember, it was "cultural genocide" they are claiming. You can't even keep track of your own claims now! With that said, the Canadian government has offered an official apology for its part in the residential schools. It has also compensated many in the amount of billions of dollars with most likely more to come. As a part of the settlement it also mandated the Truth and Reconcilliation committee. What more would you like Omar?

Or aboriginal. Again this isn't about whether you or I or the Canadian government views them as citizens. This is about First Nations not viewing themselves as citizens. With that said, even the right to vote doesn't make your claim that they receive the same benefits as all Canadians true. Any Indian living under the Indian Act does not have the same rights. The Assembly of First Nations has called it a form of apartheid. Yet they continue to cling to it as it's what they view as the one piece that acknowledges their constitutional rights. So they take the good with the bad knowing it's not equal. http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/the-indian-act.html "The Indian Act is a very controversial piece of legislation. The Assembly of First Nations describes it as a form of apartheid.9 Amnesty International, the United Nations, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission have continually criticized it as a human rights abuse. These groups claim that the Canadian government does not have the right to unilaterally extinguish Aboriginal rightssomething the government could legally do to status Indians up until 1985 through the process of enfranchisement, and can still control through status. Yet despite controversy, the Indian Act is historically and legally significant for Aboriginal peoples. It acknowledges and affirms the unique historical and constitutional relationship Aboriginal peoples have with Canada. For this reason, despite its problematic nature, efforts to outright abolish the Indian Act have been met with widespread resistance. (See, for example, the White Paper, 1969). As Harold Cardinal explained in 1969, We do not want the Indian Act retained because it is a good piece of legislation. It isnt. It is discriminatory from start to finish. But it is a lever in our hands and an embarrassment to the government, as it should be. No just society and no society with even pretensions to being just can long tolerate such a piece of legislation, but we would rather continue to live in bondage under the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights. Any time the government wants to honour its obligations to us we are more than happy to help devise new Indian legislation."

It's not an illusion. It's something people work for everyday. Some days it's harder than others but it's still there. Running away and putting your head in the sand accomplishes nothing

No...as usual, you're not following. This isn't a versus type situation. As an individual you decide if you're a victim personality or responsible personality. Responsible people accept consequences for their actions and don't blame others for choices they make. Victims will blame everything on everyone else even choices they thremselves make. Even when bad stuff happens the responsible person realizes they have to learn from it and move on....not dwell on the incident and let it drag you down. The Jews were victims of genocide and have moved on to better things due to their responsible personalities. Let's just say other groups who claim have had a genocide against them have not moved on the same way.

That's the funny part though....there is no 'The Man'. It's just a term made up by victims so they can blame so one else for their own problems.

Keep dreamin pal. I'm sure you'll beat the Man some day

Just fine. I prefer living in civilized society.

You don't understand your own link. Prior to 1960 they had to become a Canadian citizen to vote. Now they don't. They can remain a registered Indian and still vote....meaning they don't have to become a Canadian citizen. With that said, giving someone the right to vote does not mean they have all the same rights. By law they are still to adhere to the Indian Act.

Sounds like a fun ride. Look me up when you get back to reality land.

Genocide??? Lmfao. Is that your go to line? As I've already shown you three times. Treaties provide natives those benefits. No treaty, no benefits. Of course no treaties also mean they get to strong arm the government on development.

I'm guessing you've never seen anything outside of BC never mind the future!

Oops....did I forget to put the sarcasm emoticon in there? My bad

Yes yes....we're all earthlings. I get it

Why is my assumption that BC natives may be reconsidering talks about a BC pipeline that will generate billions of dollars for BC First Nations especially after the Feds pulled funding for said BC First Nations? Notice how many times BC was used and not Edmonton or Winnipeg? It's clear there are two sides to the First Nation decision on the LNG pipeline and my only assumption is that the loss in social funding may add fuel to that fire and cause some of those sitting on the fence to swing to the pro-LNG side. Not a large assumption by any stretch