Study on native drug users brings elder to tears

[eyeball]

You entirely missed the point: Europeans are not the inventors of slavery, genocide, or other nasty human traits that non-Europeans never seem to get blamed for. He was pointing out a double standard.

No, you missed the point, I asked why do so many think that natives would want revert to these?

re·vert

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈvərt\

Function: intransitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French revertir, from Latin revertere, v.t., to turn back & reverti, v.i., to return, come back, from re- + vertere, verti to turn — more at worth

Date: 15th century

1 : to come or go back (as to a former condition, period, or subject)

2 : to return to the proprietor or his or her heirs at the end of a reversion

3 : to return to an ancestral type

As I mentioned in the case of hunting whales, many non-native people were outraged that natives would use a modern 50 caliber rifle instead of reverting to using their old fashioned harpoons instead - as if native rights should only be expressed using a ancestral type of expression. I honestly think a lot of white people are just as outraged when natives use modern justice systems and laws as a means to taking responsibility for their condition. Perhaps you'd prefer they revert to scalping us instead. I suppose that would make it easier to continue treating them like poor savages who didn't know any better.

[eyeball]

I do believe Redjacket, Seneca Sachem had it right when he said this in 1802:

"If you wish us well, then leave us alone."

AH, but most of you closet racists really don't wish them well now do you......

No European descended government has proven capable of leaving people alone. Right left and center, all of them celebrate the state's intrusion into people's lives and business. Unless its their own of course.

[eyeball]

Perhaps you'd prefer they revert to scalping us instead.

I probably should have used a different term than scalping, as it just occured to me that scalping was a practice that I understand Europeans introduced to some parts of North America. Go figure.

Edited May 19, 2008 by eyeball

[Remiel]

The problem I see particularly with blockades of major traditing routes, from the broader standpoint of absolving the issues, is that they in fact hurt the ability of society to pay for land settlements. Which, you would think, to some degree, decreases the likelihood that an offer can be made, or at least the amount that can be offered. I do not see, logically, how that is good for either side.

[DogOnPorch]

No, you missed the point, I asked why do so many think that natives would want revert to these?

re·vert

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈvərt\

Function: intransitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French revertir, from Latin revertere, v.t., to turn back & reverti, v.i., to return, come back, from re- + vertere, verti to turn — more at worth

Date: 15th century

1 : to come or go back (as to a former condition, period, or subject)

2 : to return to the proprietor or his or her heirs at the end of a reversion

3 : to return to an ancestral type

As I mentioned in the case of hunting whales, many non-native people were outraged that natives would use a modern 50 caliber rifle instead of reverting to using their old fashioned harpoons instead - as if native rights should only be expressed using a ancestral type of expression. I honestly think a lot of white people are just as outraged when natives use modern justice systems and laws as a means to taking responsibility for their condition. Perhaps you'd prefer they revert to scalping us instead. I suppose that would make it easier to continue treating them like poor savages who didn't know any better.

Fair enough...but my post wasn't about that at all. I merely pointed out that slavery in North and South America wasn't the singular responsibility of the Europeans. Check out the Kings of Dahomey...

As for your question re: "why do so many think that natives would want revert to these (older technologies)."

Where are your sources for this conclusion of 'so many'? Someone here or just are you just stereotyping 'white men' in general?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Emancipation, will strike at the heart of the rebellion.

---Abraham Lincoln

[CANADIEN]

If we were to transport Seneca Sachem to the present and show him the state of the world, I am sure that he would be wise enough to realize that splendid isolation is no longer even possible. Engagement with the rest of the world is the only option.

I think he would say the same thing... Indeed First nations should be left alone - not cut from any contact, but free from unwanted intrusions into their own business from people who claim they know what they need better than they do themselves.

[DangerMouse]

The problem I see particularly with blockades of major traditing routes, from the broader standpoint of absolving the issues, is that they in fact hurt the ability of society to pay for land settlements. Which, you would think, to some degree, decreases the likelihood that an offer can be made, or at least the amount that can be offered. I do not see, logically, how that is good for either side.

There are many natives who do not agree with blockades, yet, when one happens it effects all the natives through nastiness. You should've seen the reaction when Gustafsen Lake, OKa, and the Eastcoast fishery happened. I think I mentioned it here before, but there was this one native guy hitching a ride to Burns Lake and some white screeched his car, jumped out and started screaming at him over the fishery, then jumped in his vehicle and sped off. As far as I am concerned, it is guys like that the cops should check out for other acts of hatred in this part of the world.

But on the other hand, some natives resort to blockades because they see it as the only way to get the attention to the issue because when you really look at it from a legal standpoint, the governments are in the wrong--plain and simple

[Remiel]

Looking at the quote, Canadien, I did not interpret it in the way you have when I made my comment. I think that he literally meant that it would be better off if there was as little contact as possible, not merely non-interference. Maybe your interpretation is right, maybe mine is.

[eyeball]

I merely pointed out that slavery in North and South America wasn't the singular responsibility of the Europeans.

So what? Europeans are still every bit as responsible for what they did do.

As for your question re: "why do so many think that natives would want revert to these (older technologies)."

Where are your sources for this conclusion of 'so many'? Someone here or just are you just stereotyping 'white men' in general?

Conversations with numerous non-natives who live and visit here, especially in regards to how we should "allow" native people to hunt whales - or give expression to other rights, that and references in this thread to natives going back to living with cholera, and starvation etc.

You'd be amazed at how disappointed some people feel when they discover that local native carvers often use chain saws to make the totem poles and canoes they ship abroad. You're certainly right about non-native people holding onto some very romantic notions and expectations about how native people should live or behave.

Edited May 19, 2008 by eyeball

[Remiel]

What is the totality of what you mean by a " legal " standpoint, DangerMouse? I am of the opinion that the only way that both sides can reach a resolution is to operate on a principle of what is fair, to the people alive today. Implicit in that is my recognition is that the status quo is, for almost all native people, tremendously unfair. But also implicit is my recognition that some of the demands based on legal arguments that no longer reflect the demographic realities of Canada must be compromised, because the only other alternatives are that no settlement for those claims is ever reached, or an outbreak of violence between unhappy parties.

In your example of the crazy fellow who thought it was a bright idea to unload his anger on the native who was minding his own business, you illustrate my reasoning. Crazy people exist, or will be created on both sides. You cannot simply round them all up and tidily move them out of the way. No better example of this exists than that of Israel and Palestine.

Of course, if by legal you are merely referring to government stalling and inaction, and not the actual content of the disputes, I apologize for bringing up more argumentation than is required. I am definately behind putting the necessary resources into negotiations so that we can get more settlements now rather than later.

[charter.rights]

The problem I see particularly with blockades of major traditing routes, from the broader standpoint of absolving the issues, is that they in fact hurt the ability of society to pay for land settlements. Which, you would think, to some degree, decreases the likelihood that an offer can be made, or at least the amount that can be offered. I do not see, logically, how that is good for either side.

Hogwash. Blocking and diverting traffic has absolutely no effect on the actual payouts. Neither does the hundreds of millions government spends on lawyers to deny and defend claims that amount to 1/10 of what the actual settlements come to. In fact blockades increase the possibility, the amplitude of and the urgency of negotiating a settlement, not the opposite. By placing an inconvenience on the general public they become involved and the government is more apt to respond to the general taxpayer than they are any native over a claim. The economic hardship often incurred by business over the blockades cause business to complain to government and threaten to hold back donations to the party in power. By creating economic disruption by the blockading of railways and major highways, there is media attention as well that brings a voice to the injustices.

While being sent to jail is not a course of action anyone wants, it is nonetheless attention grabbing and martyrs those sentenced for standing up for their rights. The point is that action speaks louder than pussy foot negotiations because the government doesn't listen any other time. They ignore what they can get away with, stall what they can't and negotiate in bad faith when their backs are to the wall. All this spends far more of our money than even the most simple claim does in the end. You don't suppose that is because the lands claims process is an industry, do you? Lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians get rich through the process while the natives get pennies on the dollar.

[CANADIEN]

Breaking the law is breaking the law, especially if there is a potential for violence. That being said, fact is that waiting for good faith or a legal (court) resolution to land claim issues is not something that has worked that well in the past for First Nations.

[Remiel]

Yes, it does have an effect on the actual payouts, in terms of penalties for late deliveries, productivity lost while workers and machinery sit inactive while they are waiting for the materials they need to do their job, and similar considerations.

I am aware that there is what may be called an industry around settlement claims, but what is the alternatives to negotiators and lawyers? Some people claim that Canada owes natives trillions of dollars. Even if they do spend hundreds of millions on lawyers, it is a damn sight cheaper that the thirteen figure alternative. But there is no alternative to involving the lawyers, because as we see with the case that was posted, it was as much a legal settlement as a monetary one. Unfortunately, legal documents today do not write themselves.

[DogOnPorch]

So what? Europeans are still every bit as responsible for what they did do.

So what, indeed. Slavery knows no race or creed.

Conversations with numerous non-natives who live and visit here, especially in regards to how we should "allow" native people to hunt whales - or give expression to other rights, that and references in this thread to natives going back to living with cholera, and starvation etc.

Ah...so your single opinion is sufficient to judge the many by talking to a few. Mr Spock would be upset.

You'd be amazed at how disappointed some people feel when they discover that local native carvers often use chain saws to make the totem poles and canoes they ship abroad.

Why would I be amazed? I live in Canada and so-called "First-Nations" are just another face in the multi-ethnic crowd. I wish some of them would stop acting like a bunch of babies. If I had an armed uprising like Oka I'd expect to be shot out-of-hand like a rabid dog in the street. Some folks are just more equal than others...I guess.

You're certainly right about non-native people holding onto some very romantic notions and expectations about how native people should live or behave.

I said no such thing.

--------------------------------------------------

Remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird.

---Harper Lee

[eyeball]

Hogwash. Blocking and diverting traffic has absolutely no effect on the actual payouts. Neither does the hundreds of millions government spends on lawyers to deny and defend claims that amount to 1/10 of what the actual settlements come to. In fact blockades increase the possibility, the amplitude of and the urgency of negotiating a settlement, not the opposite. By placing an inconvenience on the general public they become involved and the government is more apt to respond to the general taxpayer than they are any native over a claim. The economic hardship often incurred by business over the blockades cause business to complain to government and threaten to hold back donations to the party in power. By creating economic disruption by the blockading of railways and major highways, there is media attention as well that brings a voice to the injustices.

While being sent to jail is not a course of action anyone wants, it is nonetheless attention grabbing and martyrs those sentenced for standing up for their rights. The point is that action speaks louder than pussy foot negotiations because the government doesn't listen any other time. They ignore what they can get away with, stall what they can't and negotiate in bad faith when their backs are to the wall. All this spends far more of our money than even the most simple claim does in the end. You don't suppose that is because the lands claims process is an industry, do you? Lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians get rich through the process while the natives get pennies on the dollar.

While I agree with everything else your very last point was a little off mark, some natives I know in my region have done very well by the process. There are always a few who do on the side that's being conquored. Convieniently enough these also function as lighting rods that attract attention away from the dividers, in the directions some in this thread have wnadered. Slavery and other forms of geo-political mayhem and vandalism notwithstanding I can't think of anyone that has perfected the art of machination better than some Europeans.

[g_bambino]

No, you missed the point, I asked why do so many think that natives would want revert to these?

re·vert

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈvərt\

Function: intransitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French revertir, from Latin revertere, v.t., to turn back & reverti, v.i., to return, come back, from re- + vertere, verti to turn — more at worth

Date: 15th century

1 : to come or go back (as to a former condition, period, or subject)

2 : to return to the proprietor or his or her heirs at the end of a reversion

3 : to return to an ancestral type

As I mentioned in the case of hunting whales, many non-native people were outraged that natives would use a modern 50 caliber rifle instead of reverting to using their old fashioned harpoons instead - as if native rights should only be expressed using a ancestral type of expression. I honestly think a lot of white people are just as outraged when natives use modern justice systems and laws as a means to taking responsibility for their condition. Perhaps you'd prefer they revert to scalping us instead. I suppose that would make it easier to continue treating them like poor savages who didn't know any better.

It would seem you're getting more and more confused. You did ask that question, but it had nothing to do with the statement it was supposed to be in response to, which itself was addressing your claim of "It wouldn't surprise me however to learn that Europeans have been in league with some of the world's worst bastards for a long long time."

[bk59]

Hogwash. Blocking and diverting traffic has absolutely no effect on the actual payouts. Neither does the hundreds of millions government spends on lawyers to deny and defend claims that amount to 1/10 of what the actual settlements come to. In fact blockades increase the possibility, the amplitude of and the urgency of negotiating a settlement, not the opposite. By placing an inconvenience on the general public they become involved and the government is more apt to respond to the general taxpayer than they are any native over a claim. The economic hardship often incurred by business over the blockades cause business to complain to government and threaten to hold back donations to the party in power. By creating economic disruption by the blockading of railways and major highways, there is media attention as well that brings a voice to the injustices.

But these actions are a double-edged sword. Yes, they attract media attention. But you are also right to say that governments respond to the general taxpayer. And more often than not, the general taxpayer gets pissed off by blockades, etc., and demand that nothing be given to the Aboriginals involved. The economic hardship on businesses does not just affect party donations, it causes people to lobby the government to not settle with Aboriginal peoples. In many ways these actions hurt the Aboriginals involved as much as it helps them.

The point is that action speaks louder than pussy foot negotiations because the government doesn't listen any other time. They ignore what they can get away with, stall what they can't and negotiate in bad faith when their backs are to the wall. All this spends far more of our money than even the most simple claim does in the end. You don't suppose that is because the lands claims process is an industry, do you? Lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians get rich through the process while the natives get pennies on the dollar.

Action speaks louder than pussy foot negotiations? This perspective is what makes the entire process that much harder to engage in. The two treaties that were mentioned above in this thread are clearly beneficial to the Aboriginal communities involved. Seems to me like the negotiations spoke much louder than anything else that has been tried.

As Canadians we obviously need to speed up the process of land claims negotiations and work together to get these issues resolved. This means putting more resources into the process. And it also means avoiding the unnecessary stalling. But to say that government always negotiates in bad faith is misleading and only serves to increase the distrust between the government and Aboriginal communities.

When you complain about government spending money on lawyers and defending against the claims you imply that the Aboriginal claims are automatically correct and should simply be agreed to. This is not the reality we live in. Many claims are not successful. This is not because the government stalled, or was simply acting like an a**hole. It was because the claims had no merit based on the historical treaties between the community in question and Canada. It is necessary to defend these claims to ensure that the settlement is fair to everyone. And that really is the key: we must have a system that is fair to everyone. For too long it has been unfair to Aboriginal peoples. That does not mean that we should now go the other way and allow criminal activity to go unpunished, or assume that everything the government does is underhanded and in bad faith.

[eyeball]

So what, indeed. Slavery knows no race or creed.

Yes we've been over this a few times now. So what? I have to acknowledge it? Okay, I personally know native people who don't associate with each other because of their families history as either being slaves or enslavers. Now, what does this have to do with taking responsibility for the rape, theft and abuse of people that was done in our country's name for our country's benefit?

Conversations with numerous non-natives who live and visit here, especially in regards to how we should "allow" native people to hunt whales - or give expression to other rights, that and references in this thread to natives going back to living with cholera, and starvation etc.

Ah...so your single opinion is sufficient to judge the many by talking to a few. Mr Spock would be upset.

What single opinion? I was talking about the numerous opinions (numbering several dozen if not a few hundred) that I've heard expressed over the years. These seem more than sufficient to me.

numerous

–adjective 1. very many; being or existing in great quantity

few

–adjective 1. not many but more than one:

You're certainly right about non-native people holding onto some very romantic notions and expectations about how native people should live or behave.

I said no such thing.

You said as much.

It's quaint though to imagine an idealic pre-Columbus North and South America where everyone danced in a field hand-in-hand.

post #58

What's quaint is your capacity to imagine that all our responsibility can be wiped out by claiming we're only human. Its just too bad we also go about proclaiming how humane we are because now we're being called on our bluff.

[eyeball]

It would seem you're getting more and more confused. You did ask that question, but it had nothing to do with the statement it was supposed to be in response to, which itself was addressing your claim of "It wouldn't surprise me however to learn that Europeans have been in league with some of the world's worst bastards for a long long time."

You're right, my question had nothing to do with DOP declaring that Europeans were not the inventors of slavery, genocide, or other nasty human traits...

My...claim...as you put it was actually a question to jbq's answer to his own question...

And the Europeans were the worst imperialists? Hardly.

Post 28

Over here they were. It wouldn't surprise me however to learn that Europeans have been in league with some of the world's worst bastards for a long long time, but as long as they were our bastards eh?

I'm confused...why did you turn my question into a claim? At the time jbq was trying to reach even farther into the past for some absolution for the pink man's irresponsibility, by bringing up Muslim imperialism no less. By the way you're not denying that some of Europe's descendents, some would even say the world's most enlightened people, have been in league with some of the world's worst bastards are you?

So...over here the pink people were the worst imperialists. Now we have to take responsibility for that. Why is this point lost on so many pinkies?

Edited May 19, 2008 by eyeball

[charter.rights]

But these actions are a double-edged sword. Yes, they attract media attention. But you are also right to say that governments respond to the general taxpayer. And more often than not, the general taxpayer gets pissed off by blockades, etc., and demand that nothing be given to the Aboriginals involved. The economic hardship on businesses does not just affect party donations, it causes people to lobby the government to not settle with Aboriginal peoples. In many ways these actions hurt the Aboriginals involved as much as it helps them.

Action speaks louder than pussy foot negotiations? This perspective is what makes the entire process that much harder to engage in. The two treaties that were mentioned above in this thread are clearly beneficial to the Aboriginal communities involved. Seems to me like the negotiations spoke much louder than anything else that has been tried.

As Canadians we obviously need to speed up the process of land claims negotiations and work together to get these issues resolved. This means putting more resources into the process. And it also means avoiding the unnecessary stalling. But to say that government always negotiates in bad faith is misleading and only serves to increase the distrust between the government and Aboriginal communities.

When you complain about government spending money on lawyers and defending against the claims you imply that the Aboriginal claims are automatically correct and should simply be agreed to. This is not the reality we live in. Many claims are not successful. This is not because the government stalled, or was simply acting like an a**hole. It was because the claims had no merit based on the historical treaties between the community in question and Canada. It is necessary to defend these claims to ensure that the settlement is fair to everyone. And that really is the key: we must have a system that is fair to everyone. For too long it has been unfair to Aboriginal peoples. That does not mean that we should now go the other way and allow criminal activity to go unpunished, or assume that everything the government does is underhanded and in bad faith.

Government doesn't look to us for solutions. All they care about is whether or not they will get elected in their next term. So complaining that we shouldn't give natives what they want falls on deaf ears. However, once negotiations start, the government gets caught in a trap where they must follow the law AND ensure that justice prevails. Getting to negotiation is the hard part and that is why natives block roads and cause economic disruption.

May 29 is National Protest Day. I wouldn't expect anyone moving too far out of town without getting caught in the web. Native leaders are claiming it will be 10 times more disruptive than it was last year.....

[Borg]

Government doesn't look to us for solutions. All they care about is whether or not they will get elected in their next term. So complaining that we shouldn't give natives what they want falls on deaf ears. However, once negotiations start, the government gets caught in a trap where they must follow the law AND ensure that justice prevails. Getting to negotiation is the hard part and that is why natives block roads and cause economic disruption.

May 29 is National Protest Day. I wouldn't expect anyone moving too far out of town without getting caught in the web. Native leaders are claiming it will be 10 times more disruptive than it was last year.....

Must be nice to have all those tax dollars available to sue - win - win for you.

Borg

[DangerMouse]

Must be nice to have all those tax dollars available to sue - win - win for you.

Borg

Borg! You're such a dork but there is hope. Do you realize what you just said? Look at it deeply and you may just see it...feds and aboriginal people are under the same jurisdiction....federal tax...aboriginal people in same jurisdiction...to lightbulbs like you it may look like tax free but they just fall under same category bozo.... there's hope for idiots like you yet good luck in youre evolution past puberty scotty

[DogOnPorch]

Yes we've been over this a few times now. So what? I have to acknowledge it? Okay, I personally know native people who don't associate with each other because of their families history as either being slaves or enslavers. Now, what does this have to do with taking responsibility for the rape, theft and abuse of people that was done in our country's name for our country's benefit?

Can you detail some of the theft, rape and abuse? When it comes to residential schools and such, it seems it's kind of like hippies claiming they were at Woodstock or every Frenchman you meet had an uncle in the Resistance rather than the Vichy. How about you? Do you claim abuse...or that you've been robbed? By whom exactly?

Conversations with numerous non-natives who live and visit here, especially in regards to how we should "allow" native people to hunt whales - or give expression to other rights, that and references in this thread to natives going back to living with cholera, and starvation etc.

Fact is the Europeans arrived here in large numbers at the dawn of their Rennisance. They were a Pre-Industrial Age culture(s) colliding with a Late-Stone Age to Early-Copper Age culture(s). It's simply the history that brought us to where we are today. Hanging onto the past puts one in the role of victim and as we can see with the 'Palestinian' Arabs, doesn't pan out so well. It's akin to my 'tribe' going back to Russia and telling them to hand over Volga Germany...I'd expect chuckles. So should you. I'm not going to get back that so-called land of mine...it would be folly even to try. It's simply not worth the effort and being Canadian rather than something from the past is a far better plan.

What single opinion? I was talking about the numerous opinions (numbering several dozen if not a few hundred) that I've heard expressed over the years. These seem more than sufficient to me.

numerous

–adjective 1. very many; being or existing in great quantity

few

–adjective 1. not many but more than one:

It's still just your say-so without much of anything to back it up that myself or others can look at.

You're certainly right about non-native people holding onto some very romantic notions and expectations about how native people should live or behave.

You said as much.

No, I didn't.

What's quaint is your capacity to imagine that all our responsibility can be wiped out by claiming we're only human. Its just too bad we also go about proclaiming how humane we are because now we're being called on our bluff.

We are all just human animals. The end result of several billion years of evolution. The rest of your statement makes little sense. Could you rephrase it?

---------------------------------------------------------------

A great wind is blowing, and that gives you either imagination or a headache.

---Catherine the Great

[jbg]

What about this recent treaty with the Tsawwassen First Nations, described in the April 2008 Canadian Geographic (link, excerpts below):

Now 37 and the mother of two young children, she has just won approvals from the Tsawwassen and the provincial government for a treaty that is revolutionary in its potential impact and influence on Canada’s future relationship with aboriginal people.

Among other things, the treaty, one of British Columbia’s first such agreements in 150 years, will create a new form of geographic tenure in Canada. The reserve will disappear, and for the first time, provincial land-use laws will apply to territory governed by a First Nation. Also for the first time, a First Nation government — not an Indian Act band, but a new form of democratic self-governing body — will have the kind of control over its own land use that municipalities currently enjoy.

I highly recommend this article to anyone with a serious interest and would like thoughts, especially from charter.rights and Danger Mouse.

You'll notice that the slence of charter.rights and Danger Mouse is defeaning.

This treaty and the Nisga'a Treaty are good examples of how we need to address Aboriginal issues. Work with the communities to try to find what works best for everyone. None of these treaties can be used as templates for other communities though. As hard as it may be, we must deal with each community separately.

The examples of self-government found in the Nisga'a Treaty are good ideas though. It sets out where the Aboriginal leadership has jurisdiction and where provincial or federal laws apply. I think that these self-government deals are the way of the future.

Thanks for recognizing my post, even though we generally disagree thoroughly about almost everything.

[eyeball]

The rest of your statement makes little sense. Could you rephrase it?

Probably not.

By the way I thought your comment about hanging onto the past was hilarious.