Aboriginal Self-Government

[charter.rights]

Thank you for proving my point. Nativer feel they own and are entitled to the entire country. Pathetic.

I have nothing against self government. Just lose the idea the rest of the damn country owes you something.

They did take action. Perhaps not on what was said to me directly but the posters were removed after only a short stay. as for a link, yuou can waste your own time searching through site. I believe it is in Provincial Potlitics.

BS. I have heard the natives talk about the "whiteman" so don't give me any of your garbage. ANd yes, it is "White-man" technology, if you are so upset about our society then go and live in a bloody tipi and hunt with your bow and arrow. Quit sucking tax dollars out of my pocket and then tell me how terrible this country is to you.

Hmmmm.... programs which are put in place on the reserves. Employees who are there to service natives, and budgets which spend all their money on only native innitiatives. Education grants no one esle is entitled to. Tax free status. C'mon, wake up.

The laws are not equal. A native can fish and hunt when I would get arrested. How the hell is that equal? See you yourself call them "pre-existing rights". If they had rights before everyoneelse, how is that equality?

They are a group of militants who are using violent occupation to further a political agenda.

Call BS all you want, doesn't change the fact it is true. I have heard first hand details of natives blocking access to a reserve during a police pursuit. I talked to one of the guys in the car being chased. The cops stopped at the edge of the reserve and would not enter.

Really? So the lawsuit my acquaintance has been telling me about for years, that he is spearheading, is just a figment of his imagination.

See, there are all your myths wrapped up into one word: "Nativer(sic) feel they own and are entitled to the entire country. Pathetic."

You want to talk about "feelings". I presented a legal argument. You lose.

[WIP]

Herein lies the problem:

"The native activists are ignoring the obvious fact that for all of their grievances, they were living a stone-age existence when those evil Europeans arrived and started developing the land."

This kind of ignorance automatically defeats your argument. The FACT is that Native people had complex democratic government systems, advance agricultural practices and were far advanced of the ignorant, uneducated refugees that escaped here from oppressive monarchies, aristocracies and oligarchies of 16th and 17th century Europe. Most of the Europeans only bathed once a year while personal hygiene was a daily occurrence among the natives. And while it is true that natives did not have iron production, archeology has proven that natives were smelting metals about 2000 years before the practice developed in Europe. It is a fact that Native people didn't need the implements made by smelters that heavily contaminated the earth and choked the air with soot.

First Nations people were traders, developers and merchants long before Europeans arrived.

The British made deals with the natives and had they paid up when the deals were made and properly managed the trusts that were part of the deals we would not be in the predicament tht we are in. The fact remains that WE OWE natives for those fair and reasonable agreements and the Supreme Court has ruled that compounded interest is now required to be paid WITH the original consideration. Unfortunately, $15,000 in 1800 dollars now amounts to over $1 billion and since the original amounts agree upon were well over hundreds of millions of dollars, we are on the hook for well over $1 trillion. Our only hope is to be able to either negotiate for a lessor amount in exchange for some other consideration, or arrange a payment plan that will span over centuries. The difficulty is that our position in negotiations is starting at a deficit and natives hold the upper hand.

My point was not to denigrate native cultures but to show that the First Nations have gained monetary benefits as a result of the European invasion, and these benefits of modern living should be mentioned in the same arguments about who owns the land. Also, I have done a little bit of reading about Aboriginal societies, and the point should be made that you can't speak uniformly of every tribe when you're talking about cultural values. There was huge diversity among the groups of North American Indians. They had different religious and spiritual beliefs. Some like the Plains Indians were warrior cultures that put skill in warfare ahead of everything, others were pacifists and abandoned their territories to avoid conflicts. Many were simple hunter/gatherers while others were developing agriculture (though none raised livestock). But even the most advanced societies were not developing the infrastructure to build the technologies that we depend on today. It's one thing to ramble on about how the Europeans came and ruined everything, but how far would the First Nations have developed if we never arrived? Would there be cities? Would you have doctors and hospitals, or would you be stuck with shamans and medicine men? Would there be paved roads with cars? Electronic gadgets from radios, TV's to computers?

So my question is now that you've informed us about how much you think your land is worth to us, how much of the modern way of life that we brought here and continue to develop, is worth to you? I don't see many hardline native activists willing to part with their guns, ATV's and health cards!

[charter.rights]

My point was not to denigrate native cultures but to show that the First Nations have gained monetary benefits as a result of the European invasion, and these benefits of modern living should be mentioned in the same arguments about who owns the land. Also, I have done a little bit of reading about Aboriginal societies, and the point should be made that you can't speak uniformly of every tribe when you're talking about cultural values. There was huge diversity among the groups of North American Indians. They had different religious and spiritual beliefs. Some like the Plains Indians were warrior cultures that put skill in warfare ahead of everything, others were pacifists and abandoned their territories to avoid conflicts. Many were simple hunter/gatherers while others were developing agriculture (though none raised livestock). But even the most advanced societies were not developing the infrastructure to build the technologies that we depend on today. It's one thing to ramble on about how the Europeans came and ruined everything, but how far would the First Nations have developed if we never arrived? Would there be cities? Would you have doctors and hospitals, or would you be stuck with shamans and medicine men? Would there be paved roads with cars? Electronic gadgets from radios, TV's to computers?

So my question is now that you've informed us about how much you think your land is worth to us, how much of the modern way of life that we brought here and continue to develop, is worth to you? I don't see many hardline native activists willing to part with their guns, ATV's and health cards!

While regarding individual aboriginal cultures and societies could be important to an academic argument, your attempts to refine your point is still full of generalizations, and as such is useless to this otherwise general discussion.

Further, you are attempting to speculate based on an incomplete and biased view of First Nations people based on 17th and 18th century ignorance. Your speculations that Native have gained by imperialism is terribly myopic. First Nations have no more gained monetarily than East Indians did on the British take over if India; or the Aborigines did in Australia; or the Africans upon the invasion of the Dutch. All indigenous people ever got was apartheid, and genocidal policies and laws determined to displace then and steal land and resources. I wouldn't call struggling to maintain third world living conditions to be a gain by any stretch of the imagination.

If as you say the invasion of imperialists were a benefit to First Nations they you would have to think that natives would be rich, given that they had possession of the lands and some those lands and riches were traded with the British, some for paltry amounts and others where the British never paid anything. In essence WE benefit from the crookedness of British dealings and WE benefit from stolen land and resources. Had the British or Canada been honest in their dealings and not instituted genocide when they complained, I have no doubt that First Nations would be in a far better state than they actually are.

It is also very naive to think that technological evolution would not have occurred amongst native people had they been left alone. The fact is that no country in the world can operate in a vacuum, or apart from the global influence. The only question that could be postulated is whether or not slower technological advancements would have had a lessor impact on our environment and cities as a result. We could speculate on that but in the end all we would have is a disagreement about nothing. However, based on the egalitarian society models some First Nations used, their democratic government systems and their advance agricultural societies it is probable that they would have had a universal social system that took care of everyone far and beyond the pathetic corporate models in place today.

I would also suggest that you take an honest look at cities and tell me if you think they are really good things? The Inca and Mayans in their time had vast cities and agricultural support systems wealth and infrastructure. Yet they are no more because the institutions of their civilizations fell apart and people choose migration over death and destruction. One need only look at the failures of our institutions to see that our civilization is failing too and cities would be the first to experience mass hysteria if they should collapse completely. The fact is that cities depend on rural support far more than people are willing to admit. Food does not grow in asphalt and sanitary waste, nor does clean water come from sewers.

The spoils of a modern society are not gifts from the Europeans but global advancements owned, invented and devloped by everyone. You need to remember that the next time you eat corn, or potatoes or any of the thousands of other vegetables and fruits that originated here. You might also consider it when your doctor prescribes medicine derived from the medicinal knowledge of plants and roots that were carried for thousands of years before first contact. Without indigenous tools and knowledge North America would not have supported explorers and settlers from the old world. There is no exclusivity in the global marketplace. Not here. Not in Australia or in India.

In the history of the world, the Europeans were not the discoverers or benevolent caretakers that you try to impart. They were scavengers and looters of world technology, industry and wealth, no less than land pirates stealing in the names of their Monarchies. And don't forget that per-contact Europeans were oppressed and had to drink beer and wine because they contaminated their own environment the water was unfit to drink and death from contamination based disease was rampant. Most Europeans escaped to the Americas. They didn't come here to support the regime.

[White Doors]

Herein lies the problem:

"The native activists are ignoring the obvious fact that for all of their grievances, they were living a stone-age existence when those evil Europeans arrived and started developing the land."

This kind of ignorance automatically defeats your argument. The FACT is that Native people had complex democratic government systems, advance agricultural practices and were far advanced of the ignorant, uneducated refugees that escaped here from oppressive monarchies, aristocracies and oligarchies of 16th and 17th century Europe. Most of the Europeans only bathed once a year while personal hygiene was a daily occurrence among the natives. And while it is true that natives did not have iron production, archeology has proven that natives were smelting metals about 2000 years before the practice developed in Europe. It is a fact that Native people didn't need the implements made by smelters that heavily contaminated the earth and choked the air with soot.

First Nations people were traders, developers and merchants long before Europeans arrived.

The British made deals with the natives and had they paid up when the deals were made and properly managed the trusts that were part of the deals we would not be in the predicament tht we are in. The fact remains that WE OWE natives for those fair and reasonable agreements and the Supreme Court has ruled that compounded interest is now required to be paid WITH the original consideration. Unfortunately, $15,000 in 1800 dollars now amounts to over $1 billion and since the original amounts agree upon were well over hundreds of millions of dollars, we are on the hook for well over $1 trillion. Our only hope is to be able to either negotiate for a lessor amount in exchange for some other consideration, or arrange a payment plan that will span over centuries. The difficulty is that our position in negotiations is starting at a deficit and natives hold the upper hand.

But they didn't have the wheel.. oops. or the horses.. oops! hunted the North American horse to extinction.. oops!

[charter.rights]

But they didn't have the wheel.. oops. or the horses.. oops! hunted the North American horse to extinction.. oops!

There's ignorance again. Another Albertan perhaps?

Natives had the wheel. They just couldn't see the sense in creating a mechanical connection that frequently broke down and without lubrication would have fallen apart completely. You do realize that those early wagon settlers used bear grease for their axles, right? Instead natives saw the wheel as a decoration and icon to represent other things.

Most natives didn't rely upon horses - another of your big fat myths. Only a few in the mid-west and south adopted them. Most of the natives got around by walking or canoes. When they did need to haul something they used dogs since dogs require a lot less upkeep during stationary times, made great domestic pets and could be eaten if the food supplies were down. That is efficient thinking.

Edited March 25, 2008 by charter.rights

[M.Dancer]

There's ignorance again. Another Albertan perhaps?

Natives had the wheel.

No they didn't. They had circles. Wheels are tools, machines even, used by cultures who have advanced past the neolithic stage.

[M.Dancer]

Most of the natives got around by walking or canoes. When they did need to haul something they used dogs since dogs require a lot less upkeep during stationary times, made great domestic pets and could be eaten if the food supplies were down. That is efficient thinking.

Whereas horses and mules could not be used to till the soil to ensure that there is food during lean times? Dogs eat meat and compete with humans during lean times. Horses eat fodder.

You are mistaking efficient for backwards.

[charter.rights]

Whereas horses and mules could not be used to till the soil to ensure that there is food during lean times? Dogs eat meat and compete with humans during lean times. Horses eat fodder.

You are mistaking efficient for backwards.

Dogs are omnivorous. They eat vegetables just as well as meat. What do you think dried dog food is made out of?

Crop failures occurred from time to time. Those that were hunter-gathers starved because the Europeans wiped out their bison herds out of greed for hides. Sometimes it was necessary to eat your dog. I guess that is better than eating your friends....like the Donnelly's or the Dalmer's eh? Um where where they from, I wonder.....?

Edited March 25, 2008 by charter.rights

[White Doors]

There's ignorance again. Another Albertan perhaps?

Natives had the wheel. They just couldn't see the sense in creating a mechanical connection that frequently broke down and without lubrication would have fallen apart completely. You do realize that those early wagon settlers used bear grease for their axles, right? Instead natives saw the wheel as a decoration and icon to represent other things.

Most natives didn't rely upon horses - another of your big fat myths. Only a few in the mid-west and south adopted them. Most of the natives got around by walking or canoes. When they did need to haul something they used dogs since dogs require a lot less upkeep during stationary times, made great domestic pets and could be eaten if the food supplies were down. That is efficient thinking.

They didn't domesticate the horse, in part because the hunted them to extinction. So that blows away two myths, one that natives treated the environment any differently than anyone else and two, that they were an advance culture.

They didn't use the wheel because they didn't see the efficiency of it? lol

That shows that you are plainly not an honest poster.

Edited March 25, 2008 by White Doors

[M.Dancer]

Dogs are omnivorous. They eat vegetables just as well as meat. What do you think dried dog food is made out of?

That would be true if the indians .....grew vegetables or if wild dogs hunted salads in winter.

[M.Dancer]

Those that were hunter-gathers starved because the Europeans wiped out their bison herds out of greed for hides.

They were starving long before the Whites came. There short brutal lives were plagued by the misfortune of nature...if the bison came late or came by a different trail.....if they missed the herd they starved as they often did.

[Drea]

North American horses were extinct long before any settlers arrived...

Natives obviously didn't think of the horse as a helper, but as food.

History -- horses

...suddenly, no one is absolutely certain why, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, Equus disappeared from North and South America. Various theories have been advanced including destruction by drought, disease, or extinction as a result of hunting by growing human populations.

...the horse was not seen again on its native continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century.

[AngusThermopyle]

Man! The crap is really flying now, why bother with reality when you can change it by thinking something different.

The Natives had the wheel, bullshit!

The Natives were advanced farmers, bullshit!

The Natives had horses, bullshit!

The Natives simultaneously evolved, bullshit!

It really isn't worth the waste of time trying to discuss with those who are fanatical and refuse to stick to reality. Fantasy doesn't count in this context.

[DangerMouse]

No they didn't. They had circles. Wheels are tools, machines even, used by cultures who have advanced past the neolithic stage.

There was also the elaborate fish traps and weirs on the westcoast for salmon fishing and there was fishwheels Mr Dancer...hmmmh another "Lightbulb" moment from a "super-bright" poster

[charter.rights]

Man! The crap is really flying now, why bother with reality when you can change it by thinking something different.

The Natives had the wheel, bullshit!

The Natives were advanced farmers, bullshit!

The Natives had horses, bullshit!

The Natives simultaneously evolved, bullshit!

It really isn't worth the waste of time trying to discuss with those who are fanatical and refuse to stick to reality. Fantasy doesn't count in this context.

That explains why you have relegated yourself to troll status.

[White Doors]

North American horses were extinct long before any settlers arrived...

Natives obviously didn't think of the horse as a helper, but as food.

History -- horses

Thanks for making my point Drea!

[M.Dancer]

There was also the elaborate fish traps and weirs on the westcoast for salmon fishing and there was fishwheels Mr Dancer...hmmmh another "Lightbulb" moment from a "super-bright" poster

Hmmm...someone who fell asleep during the grade 3 class on simple machines and therefore doesn't know what a wheel is

Thank goodness he knows what fonts are....

[AngusThermopyle]

That explains why you have relegated yourself to troll status.

As I said in another thread, why try to discuss with someone who is totally disconnected from reality?

There was also the elaborate fish traps and weirs on the westcoast

Fish traps and wiers really don't support any argument you are making DM as they have been in use by various peoples around the world for millenia. As a matter of fact they are amongst the oldest and most basic methods for fishing that mankind has ever developed.

Edited March 25, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[DangerMouse]

As I said in another thread, why try to discuss with someone who is totally disconnected from reality?

Fish traps and wiers really don't support any argument you are making DM as they have been in use by various peoples around the world for millenia. As a matter of fact they are amongst the oldest and most basic methods for fishing that mankind has ever developed.

Traps, weirs, and fish-wheels were being used here and some of the earliest explorers were facinated by them as they were used in rivers with strong currents like the Fraser and Skeena River. Who knows where technological advancements may have went had the boats of Europe not arrived?

In NZ, Abel Tasman observed the Polynesians using huge driftnets that were made of fabrics from a plant called flax.

[M.Dancer]

Traps, weirs, and fish-wheels were being used here and some of the earliest explorers were facinated by them as they were used in rivers with strong currents like the Fraser and Skeena River. Who knows where technological advancements may have went had the boats of Europe not arrived?

Probably no where. If their technology was unchanged for 5000 years, there is no reason to believe the would have discovered the plow before they discovered crop rotation.

[Rue]

I am going to respond to Who's Doing What's comments;

"Nativer feel they own and are entitled to the entire country. Pathetic. "

No what is pathetic is you make no effort to find out what the basis of their legal claims are to understand them or make an effort to understand they don't feel they "own" the entire country or land. If you don't make an effort to understand just what it is they believe and just what it is their legal claims are based on, you will continue to make the above statement which does nothing but reflect your own ignorance.

" BS. I have heard the natives talk about the "whiteman" so don't give me any of your garbage."

The only B.S. is you trying to suggest you know what all aboriginals think and feel and you can then generalize as to all of their opinions and thoughts, and then lecture others to engage in the same generalizations you engage in.

From your first comment it is evident you have never spoken to an aboriginal in your life. I doubt you heard anything. Even if you did "hear" just what did you hear and what makes you think that gives you the right to assume all aboriginals think and feel the exact same way as what you think you "heard"?

"ANd yes, it is "White-man" technology, if you are so upset about our society then go and live in a bloody tipi and hunt with your bow and arrow."

Now you lower yourself to ignorant bigoted slurs. Once again you have no clue what aboriginals speak about and engage in racist stereotypes based on what-pathetic hollywood movies, the extent of your exposure to the subject you think you speak of. Chances are from the words you use, there are very many aboriginals far superior to you in many things and not just technology.

" Quit sucking tax dollars out of my pocket and then tell me how terrible this country is to you. "

Do you even work? I doubt it. You sound like yet another unemployed, marginalized person who blames others for your lack of success. You also painfully demonstrate you have no idea where your tax money actually goes-but somehow I doubt you pay taxes in the first place. Do you?

" Hmmmm.... programs which are put in place on the reserves."

Again you show your ignorance as to what is actually on reserves. Programs? What programs? Care to share what these programs are?

"Employees who are there to service natives, and budgets which spend all their money on only native innitiatives."

Again you engage in simplistic stereotyping and generalization as to what the federal Ministry of Indian Affairs actually does. You evidence you haven't a clue what it does otherwise you would not make the above comments. More to the point, explain to us all why the government doesn't service you and in fact more then it does any aboriginal. Are you capable of grasping what how money is collected through revenue and what it is spent on?

"Education grants no one esle is entitled to. Tax free status. C'mon, wake up. "

Woe is me. Aboriginals get things you think you want. Isn't that the whole point of all your comments-its not fair, aboriginals have things you want but don't have. Now that is pathetic. You have no idea what it is aboriginals actually have for if you did you would not whine like some spoiled child who thinks the child next to him has more cookies.

"The laws are not equal. A native can fish and hunt when I would get arrested. How the hell is that equal?"

You make a statement, then give an example that contradicts your statement, then ask a question that you would not need to ask if you made an effort to read and understand what it is you talk about before you come on this post to engage in racial slurs against natives.

Laws are neither equal or unequal. They are inanimate. The issue is, how do we apply laws fairly. What you are oblivious to is the f act that the legal rights that entitle aboriginals to access to land to hunt and fish preceded confederation and were inherited by the legal system in Canada and are recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada and enshrined in all our laws and simply recognize not anything extra or special, just existing laws we always agreed to.

"See you yourself call them "pre-existing rights". If they had rights before everyoneelse, how is that equality?"

Why don't you try make an effort to find out how that equalizes things. Have you a clue what we did after 1867? Have you any clue of how we took hundreds of thousands of aboriginals and forced them against their will off their land and took that land illegally and to this day owe them compensation for it but won't compensate them?

Have you any clue as to the number of agreements were entered into then deliberately violated? Have you any clue as to the treaties we signed and then broke? How is asking us to honour aboriginals as equals as we promised in our treaties asking to be treated unequally? Sound logical to you? If I entered into a contract with you and then breached it and you sued me to enforce it, how would you feel if I then said, its not fair you are asking the contract be enforced, that makes you more equal then me. What kind of bullshit reasoning is that?

"They are a group of militants who are using violent occupation to further a political agenda."

Is is possible for someone who engages in negative racist slurs to not use the word "they'? How about you. What would you say if I referred to you as a "they" and stated all white people are racist and ignorant because of what you say?

"Call BS all you want, doesn't change the fact it is true."

You have not provided one fact to base your comments. That is a fact.

"I have heard first hand details of natives blocking access to a reserve during a police pursuit."

Again you seem to base all your beliefs on what you hear. So how does anyone know what you heard or if you even heard anything? Do you hear voices in your head or just one aboriginal voice? Do you drink when you hear these things? Unless you have seen it with your own eyes, all you do is engage in unsubstantiated gossip. You are no better then some giggly teenager speculating on what so and so said about so and so. At least teenagers make no pretenses as to the fact that they engage in trash talk.

"I talked to one of the guys in the car being chased. The cops stopped at the edge of the reserve and would not enter."

Well then you have it all figured out. You are a real field reporter. How do you know there was a pursuit? Did you see it? Did you speak to the police? How do we know you even spoke to anyone in any car?

What I can tell you is your story makes zero sense. If someone was committing a crime, t hey don't magically become saved as soon as they go into a reservation. That sounds like something you have invented based on your misconception of how criminal law and federal law pertaining to aboriginals on reservations works.

You stated.

"Really? So the lawsuit my acquaintance has been telling me about for years, that he is spearheading, is just a figment of his imagination."

Yes it is. "Aquaintance"? Is that anything like the good friend who always serves as a source for the information in the National Inquirer for the inside scoop on Britanny Spear's sexual practices?

For anyone who wants to deal with reality and not your slurred racist remarks they can go to

http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/brintro.htm

to get specific responses to each and every point the above person stated to find out why he is absolutely wrong in everything he has stated and in my personal opinion sounds like he has made it up based on the amount of beer he drank before he wrote it.

[WIP]

While regarding individual aboriginal cultures and societies could be important to an academic argument, your attempts to refine your point is still full of generalizations, and as such is useless to this otherwise general discussion.

It is also very naive to think that technological evolution would not have occurred amoFurther, you are attempting to speculate based on an incomplete and biased view of First Nations people based on 17th and 18th century ignorance. Your speculations that Native have gained by imperialism is terribly myopic. First Nations have no more gained monetarily than East Indians did on the British take over if India; or the Aborigines did in Australia; or the Africans upon the invasion of the Dutch.

Stop right there! Without realizing it, you are making my point....at least regarding India! The Aborigines were small in number, and lived in largely inhospitable deserts, so developing technology was out of the question. It's a similar situation in much of Africa: even today, Africa is a cauldron of lethal diseases that drastically shorten lifespans compared with more temperate climates of the world. There have been African civilizations (mainly in East Africa), and they followed the same pattern of conquest that Europeans did. The Zulu tribes used their knowledge of metal forging to design and make superior weapons and expand their empire along East Africa and into South Africa. When the Dutch arrived, they drove them off their newly acquired lands because they had the better weapons (guns). I still contend that your case that Europeans are immoral plunderers is baseless since cultures in Africa, Asia, and the Americas were just as ruthless as Europeans when they had a chance to drive out or enslave other tribes. The only difference is that the Whites had the better weapons!

But I digress; back to India, even though a few South Asians I've talked with speak with contempt of the British occupation and plundering of their resources, they can't deny that the same British occupation created the infrastructure of the modern state of India and has given them a chance to become a world power. India had developed high levels of learning in philosophy and mathematics, but was stagnating because of a rigid caste system that prevented any advance above feudalism. There was no national identity and no unifying language. The British created the political structure of modern India - the parliamentary system; they built railways that provided the necessary transportation links to create a nation; and strangely enough, they provided the unifying language since cultural rivalries prevented the indigenous languages from becoming truly national languages. This has provided an unexpected windfall in the last 20 years or so since it's that army of English-speaking Indians that have attracted the high tech companies and call centers to set up shop.

In short, the Indians may have a lot to complain about, but they never would have become a nation without the British occupation!

All indigenous people ever got was apartheid, and genocidal policies and laws determined to displace then and steal land and resources. I wouldn't call struggling to maintain third world living conditions to be a gain by any stretch of the imagination.

If as you say the invasion of imperialists were a benefit to First Nations they you would have to think that natives would be rich, given that they had possession of the lands and some those lands and riches were traded with the British, some for paltry amounts and others where the British never paid anything. In essence WE benefit from the crookedness of British dealings and WE benefit from stolen land and resources. Had the British or Canada been honest in their dealings and not instituted genocide when they complained, I have no doubt that First Nations would be in a far better state than they actually are.

Keep in mind, that good news stories don't make the news. Natives that have become successful do not become the focus of the story. My father was a structural steel ironworker and most of the men he worked with were Six Nations Indians. There were some deadbeats and alcoholics, but most of them were at the top of their trade and made good livings working at one of the highest paid bluecollar trades. Many retired to start their own businesses, but their success stories never seemed to make the news. Only the Indians getting arrested in Caledonia or living at the homeless shelter seem to be featured in the newspaper.

The fact is that no country in the world can operate in a vacuum, or apart from the global influence. The only question that could be postulated is whether or not slower technological advancements would have had a lessor impact on our environment and cities as a result. We could speculate on that but in the end all we would have is a disagreement about nothing. However, based on the egalitarian society models some First Nations used, their democratic government systems and their advance agricultural societies it is probable that they would have had a universal social system that took care of everyone far and beyond the pathetic corporate models in place today.

But once again, the technologically backward cultures are doomed to be dominated by ones with advanced weapons and other inventions. If you're saying that the New World would have received technology anyway, that's true! But it still would have been at the point of a gun!

The problem is that developing a technological society needs an infrastructure to allow the accumulation and organization of new knowledge. First, you need a written language. The tribes of North America only had simple record-keeping forms such as wampum belts. This would be of no value to record sophisticated ideas. It wouldn't be any help for Plato and Aristotle, and all of their great ideas would have died with them and everyone else would have to begin again from scratch. It's the ability to record and pass on new information that made modern civilization possible.

Even the pictograph writing of the Aztecs and Mayans wouldn't advance learning, because the writing systems were too difficult to use for everyday use. The ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians had the tools in place to advance civilization. The biggest impediment to improving technologies invented by Archimedes and others was that the slave-based economies of the time made labour-saving devices unimportant to the average Greek citizen.

I would also suggest that you take an honest look at cities and tell me if you think they are really good things? The Inca and Mayans in their time had vast cities and agricultural support systems wealth and infrastructure. Yet they are no more because the institutions of their civilizations fell apart and people choose migration over death and destruction. One need only look at the failures of our institutions to see that our civilization is failing too and cities would be the first to experience mass hysteria if they should collapse completely. The fact is that cities depend on rural support far more than people are willing to admit. Food does not grow in asphalt and sanitary waste, nor does clean water come from sewers.

The spoils of a modern society are not gifts from the Europeans but global advancements owned, invented and devloped by everyone. You need to remember that the next time you eat corn, or potatoes or any of the thousands of other vegetables and fruits that originated here. You might also consider it when your doctor prescribes medicine derived from the medicinal knowledge of plants and roots that were carried for thousands of years before first contact. Without indigenous tools and knowledge North America would not have supported explorers and settlers from the old world. There is no exclusivity in the global marketplace. Not here. Not in Australia or in India.

In the history of the world, the Europeans were not the discoverers or benevolent caretakers that you try to impart. They were scavengers and looters of world technology, industry and wealth, no less than land pirates stealing in the names of their Monarchies. And don't forget that per-contact Europeans were oppressed and had to drink beer and wine because they contaminated their own environment the water was unfit to drink and death from contamination based disease was rampant. Most Europeans escaped to the Americas. They didn't come here to support the regime.

And in the opening paragraph you've blown apart the argument that Natives take care of the land! The Mayan civilization collapsed before the Spanish arrived because they used up the local resources and ruined the land through intensive agriculture. Even the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs and Incas is overblown. They were slave-based societies that like many civilizations, expanded their territories too far and were busy fighting enemies on all sides. So, they were bound to fall as well.

As for today, I would rather see civilization continue and develop, rather than go back to the forest like the Mayans had to do. The earth right now is too over-populated to allow going back to the old ways.

[soowas]

Hello everyone,

I am writing an essay on aboriginal self government in Canada and I just wanted to know everyone's take on the issue. Rest assured that I will not plagerize any of your comments, I just would like to see what others think. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Puck

Puck:

Told ya.

Sorry, thats all I can post in response to the posts to your original question.

Hope your path is clear on your endeavors.

[Who's Doing What?]

I am going to respond to Who's Doing What's comments;

No what is pathetic is you make no effort to find out what the basis of their legal claims are to understand them or make an effort to understand they don't feel they "own" the entire country or land. If you don't make an effort to understand just what it is they believe and just what it is their legal claims are based on, you will continue to make the above statement which does nothing but reflect your own ignorance.

Funny I have a "legal claim" to my property. It is called a deed. Not some tworow wampum or some 300 year old treaty with the king of France.

The only B.S. is you trying to suggest you know what all aboriginals think and feel and you can then generalize as to all of their opinions and thoughts, and then lecture others to engage in the same generalizations you engage in.

From your first comment it is evident you have never spoken to an aboriginal in your life. I doubt you heard anything. Even if you did "hear" just what did you hear and what makes you think that gives you the right to assume all aboriginals think and feel the exact same way as what you think you "heard"?

I know what they think from what they have said while in my presence. As for speaking to one, I had about 15 of them in my house last November. Had dinner with some two weeks ago. Went to school with a couple of dozen. I talk to a survivor of the boarding schools several times a year, and usually bring him tobacco as is the custom.

Now you lower yourself to ignorant bigoted slurs. Once again you have no clue what aboriginals speak about and engage in racist stereotypes based on what-pathetic hollywood movies, the extent of your exposure to the subject you think you speak of. Chances are from the words you use, there are very many aboriginals far superior to you in many things and not just technology.

Hey I have listened to natives rail on about the evils of the "White man" and how "the red path is the right path". Nothing I have said comes without having experienced it myself to some degree.

Do you even work? I doubt it. You sound like yet another unemployed, marginalized person who blames others for your lack of success. You also painfully demonstrate you have no idea where your tax money actually goes-but somehow I doubt you pay taxes in the first place. Do you?

Well I only make about 40K a year but I have a killer benifits and pension package.

I know billions are budgeted every year. It can be found on govt websites.

Again you show your ignorance as to what is actually on reserves. Programs? What programs? Care to share what these programs are?

How about education and schools for one. Healthcare, housing shall I go on?

Again you engage in simplistic stereotyping and generalization as to what the federal Ministry of Indian Affairs actually does. You evidence you haven't a clue what it does otherwise you would not make the above comments. More to the point, explain to us all why the government doesn't service you and in fact more then it does any aboriginal. Are you capable of grasping what how money is collected through revenue and what it is spent on?

Woe is me. Aboriginals get things you think you want. Isn't that the whole point of all your comments-its not fair, aboriginals have things you want but don't have. Now that is pathetic. You have no idea what it is aboriginals actually have for if you did you would not whine like some spoiled child who thinks the child next to him has more cookies.

All am doing is pointing out the inequality. If a Native wants to get his/her arse off the reserve and get a real job they could have everything every other Canadian has. Can any Canadian move to a reserve and be treated to the same things a native would get?

You make a statement, then give an example that contradicts your statement, then ask a question that you would not need to ask if you made an effort to read and understand what it is you talk about before you come on this post to engage in racial slurs against natives.

Please show a racist slur. I am not responsible for your own personal lack of comprehension.

Laws are neither equal or unequal. They are inanimate. The issue is, how do we apply laws fairly. What you are oblivious to is the f act that the legal rights that entitle aboriginals to access to land to hunt and fish preceded confederation and were inherited by the legal system in Canada and are recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada and enshrined in all our laws and simply recognize not anything extra or special, just existing laws we always agreed to.

No, the issue is that there are laws in this country that apply to some people but not to others. IS that simple enough for you?

Why don't you try make an effort to find out how that equalizes things. Have you a clue what we did after 1867? Have you any clue of how we took hundreds of thousands of aboriginals and forced them against their will off their land and took that land illegally and to this day owe them compensation for it but won't compensate them?

Right, so the billions a year is not compensation for anything. F*ck I hope the govt. steals my land and provides for me the rest of my life.

Have you any clue as to the number of agreements were entered into then deliberately violated? Have you any clue as to the treaties we signed and then broke? How is asking us to honour aboriginals as equals as we promised in our treaties asking to be treated unequally? Sound logical to you? If I entered into a contract with you and then breached it and you sued me to enforce it, how would you feel if I then said, its not fair you are asking the contract be enforced, that makes you more equal then me. What kind of bullshit reasoning is that?

Like the agreement made with the King of France 300 years ago. Sorry means about as much as a square of toilet paper to me.

Is is possible for someone who engages in negative racist slurs to not use the word "they'? How about you. What would you say if I referred to you as a "they" and stated all white people are racist and ignorant because of what you say?

"They" is a racial slur now. Get real. A bit freaking sensitive aren't we.

You have not provided one fact to base your comments. That is a fact.

So the Govt. does not budget billions for the Dept of northern and indian affairs?

Natives are not allowed to hunt and fish while others can't or must buy permits?

Again you seem to base all your beliefs on what you hear. So how does anyone know what you heard or if you even heard anything? Do you hear voices in your head or just one aboriginal voice? Do you drink when you hear these things? Unless you have seen it with your own eyes, all you do is engage in unsubstantiated gossip. You are no better then some giggly teenager speculating on what so and so said about so and so. At least teenagers make no pretenses as to the fact that they engage in trash talk.

Well then you have it all figured out. You are a real field reporter. How do you know there was a pursuit? Did you see it? Did you speak to the police? How do we know you even spoke to anyone in any car?

I figure the guy in the back seat was a credible witness. Since they were smuggling booze and later they got ratted out by one of their cousins there should be a record of the activity and arrests if not the incident he told me about itself in some police report.

What I can tell you is your story makes zero sense. If someone was committing a crime, t hey don't magically become saved as soon as they go into a reservation. That sounds like something you have invented based on your misconception of how criminal law and federal law pertaining to aboriginals on reservations works.

No there was nothing magical about it. As I said the police were afraid to enter the reserve. I think the warriors with guns may have had something to do about it. If you want to look into it it was the Mohawk tribe. There should be records.

You stated.

"Really? So the lawsuit my acquaintance has been telling me about for years, that he is spearheading, is just a figment of his imagination."

Yes it is. "Aquaintance"? Is that anything like the good friend who always serves as a source for the information in the National Inquirer for the inside scoop on Britanny Spear's sexual practices?

For anyone who wants to deal with reality and not your slurred racist remarks they can go to

http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/brintro.htm

to get specific responses to each and every point the above person stated to find out why he is absolutely wrong in everything he has stated and in my personal opinion sounds like he has made it up based on the amount of beer he drank before he wrote it.

Again with your racist slurs accusation. Not once have I used one. You are just saying that because you have no real arguement.

As for the aquaintance comment, OK fine he is a relative through marriage. He has told me on several occassions that when he and his tribe win his family will be reciving a lot of money, and that everyone in the tribe who has filled out some govt. form will be given land.

For someone who is apparently so sensitive you sure are quick to insult and insinuate. It's ok though, the world needs all kinds even people like you.

[Who's Doing What?]

WDW...who claimed 100% of the country for free in 1867? Pathetic. Without the land or the resources you wouldn't have tax money....simple as that...so quit whining about something you should be grateful for...if you don't like it here...jump on your boat and go back to Europe. It's not your technology...it was the guy who invented it! I find it interesting how you won't accept certain actions of your ancestors--murder, rape, child molestation, arson, all that negative stuff, but for something like technology you'll say our "whiteman technology" from the past--how convenient--your argumenst are feable.

You still missed the point that many non-aboriginals spend that huge DIA budget and that many aboriginal people are tax-payers that do not live on reserves. Your argument about hunting and fishing, the only thing I can say is why do lightbulb thinkers like you give natives heck over the laws that were written by whiteman? That's pretty dozy! What are you on? GO smoke another one, or really look at all the fine details before you blabber your yap off on a childlike rant So yes, yo and your buddy are just figments of your imagination

Who claimed the land for free 14000 years ago? It doesn't matter. Too late sorry.

Non of my ancestors did any of those things you speak of. Well maybe a few did, we have been here since the 1700's. I wasn't around to stop them, so don't lay it at my feet.

You missed the point. The point is even though some of the employees are not native there is still billions set aside to provide for them and deal with them.

Why is it all you Native Rights defenders are so ignorant and insulting? Do you have no real points to make? Oh right the hundreds of years old treaties and and some hand-me-down fairy tales.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Who's Doing What?