Pay up or leave

[tango]

This is the first time I've seen it put so bluntly, and I can't say I disagree.

Pay up or leave: our duty to the Aboriginal people

Peter Adam; 12/8/09;

Peter Adam is principal of Ridley College, an Anglican theological college in Victoria. This is an edited extract from a lecture delivered on Monday.

Australia is a particularly clear example of the continuity of indigenous ownership and possession of the land. While European nations returned African land to indigenous ownership, that has not happened in Australia, New Zealand the United States or Canada. The British left India, the Dutch left Indonesia. Why has it not happened here?

The practical answer is that the indigenous Indians, Africans and Indonesians were clearly in the majority, whereas in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US, they are not. However, that is to say that genocide is to be rewarded. It would in fact be possible, even if very difficult and complicated for Europeans and others to leave Australia. I am not sure where we would go, but that would be our problem.

more ...

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/pay-up-or-le...uv.html?page=-1

At this point in time in Canada, the issue is front and centre: Our Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that our governments have a duty to consult and accommodate the rights of Indigenous Peoples on all of their traditional land - ie, all of Canada.

Before responding, please google "duty to consult, Aboriginal" for Canada. If you are not aware of this issue, then you may be shocked and shaken by the implications. It's huge.

IMO, it's a very good thing, because at present only Aboriginal people have the legal power to stop developments, landfills, mines, etc that are destroying our environment and us.

Dump site 41 is a current example. (See thread in 'Local')

[M.Dancer]

We paid, they can leave.

[bush_cheney2004]

....IMO, it's a very good thing, because at present only Aboriginal people have the legal power to stop developments, landfills, mines, etc that are destroying our environment and us.

Dump site 41 is a current example. (See thread in 'Local')

While I doubt that to be true, is that the main interest here....using "Aboriginal" rights as a tactic for a different agenda?

Have you considered that "Aboriginals" also have the power to develop, build, and mine...and have done so?

[Shady]

We paid, they can leave.

I have to agree.

[tango]

We paid, they can leave.

That's an uninformed response. Obviously you haven't informed yourself of the law and have no clue about the relevant economics either.

About time you did.

Edited August 13, 2009 by tango

[tango]

While I doubt that to be true, is that the main interest here....using "Aboriginal" rights as a tactic for a different agenda?

Have you considered that "Aboriginals" also have the power to develop, build, and mine...and have done so?

I'm talking about Canadian law, bc. I don't know your context so won't comment, and I'd prefer to stick with Canada because we have a particular issue coming to a head here that requires education of the public.

[Shady]

That's an uninformed response. Obviously you haven't informed yourself of the law and have no clue about the relevant economics either.

About time you did.

Nonsense. This issue is tantamount to reparations, but on steroids. I'd actually be inclined to some sort of compromise, when they actually start paying taxes, and stop using expensive social services for free.

[g_bambino]

It would in fact be possible, even if very difficult and complicated for Europeans and others to leave Australia.

Yes, yes; and the aboriginals here can leave and go back to Siberia where they came from. It would, in fact, be possible.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm talking about Canadian law, bc. I don't know your context so won't comment, and I'd prefer to stick with Canada because we have a particular issue coming to a head here that requires education of the public.

So am I....I am challenging your claim that only "Aboriginals" can block a development, if only because Federal, Provincial, and Local government regulation, zoning, land use planning, and permits impact such things...even in Canada.

As for your pet cause (Dump Site 41)....good luck stopping that!

[M.Dancer]

That's an uninformed response. Obviously you haven't informed yourself of the law and have no clue about the relevant economics either.

About time you did.

I believe the economic are this. They are a huge drain, contribute next to nothing and want hand outs in perpetuity. I frankly don't know why they stay here. Surely the hunting grounds are better in russia?

[Keepitsimple]

We paid, they can leave.

and paid, and paid, and paid.....and are paying, paying, paying. The aboriginal population in Canada is about 1.2 million and about 46% or 552,000 live on reserves. In addition to their ability to live off the land, hold off reserve jobs, and not pay any taxes, Canada contributes $9 billion every year - over $16,000 per on-reserve aboriginal each year. There are 198 different "bands" in British Columbia - each with their own chief. While BC has the most bands of any province, there are hundreds more throughout Canada. Surely with all the money that's available, there can be some aboriginal leadership to break the traditional malaise that prevents a blending of similar bands into larger, more productive, self sustaining communities. I know it's complicated but there has to be a defining moment for an aboriginal leader to really make a difference and bring some grass roots cohesion to these scattered, proud people.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I know it's complicated but there has to be a defining moment for an aboriginal leader to really make a difference and bring some grass roots cohesion to these scattered, proud people.

A fine thought...but when will they get be cohesive as "Canadians"?

[CANADIEN]

Interesting, isn't it? It took only a few postings to see the two ill-informed bigoted sides of the coins.

Like it or not, this is 2009. which means that the descendants of the immigrants from Europe or elsewhere in the World are not going anywhere. This is our land too, and why justice and simple common sense demands respect for the historical rights of the descendants of the first inhabitants, the notion that non-Aboriginal Canadians should consider themselves as ppertual renters or jst leve is wrong-headed and, quite frankly, racist.

Even more so, however, is the idea that Aboriginals should just pack and leave. Last time I checked, this was their homeland. Funny though, that some of the people who advocate this non-sense are also the ones who cry out "this is the country our ancestors built" when whining about recent (non-white/non-Christian) immigrants.

Now, sure there are those who will say "they should just pay the same taxes as the rest of us and be treated the same way as the rest of us". Fine, and I agree... as long as they are actually treated like everyone else. First step should be to bring legitimate land ownership claims to a fair and rapid conclusion - "the rest of us" usually do not have to negociate for decades for onwership of our property to be acknowledged. Second step would be to give Aboriginal communities the tools to develop their own solutions to their problems - too often, "we" claim they should be on their own, then we treat them as if they were not able to do it.

[Riverwind]

At this point in time in Canada, the issue is front and centre: Our Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that our governments have a duty to consult and accommodate the rights of Indigenous Peoples on all of their traditional land - ie, all of Canada.

The SCC has also made it clear that a 'duty to consult' is not a 'right to veto'. All it really means is some aboriginals can make good money offering 'consulting services'.

IMO, it's a very good thing, because at present only Aboriginal people have the legal power to stop developments, landfills, mines, etc that are destroying our environment and us.

They have a right to be heard and in some cases ask for accomodation which usually means bribes must be paid. There is no blanket veto and unreasonable demands can and will be ignored by the government.

The duty to consult is another example of a well meaning attempt by the court to address a wrong (e.g. the Cree finding out that that their lands would be flooded in a newspaper) which has been corrupted by people who see it as a money making opportunity.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Riverwind

[CANADIEN]

There are 198 different "bands" in British Columbia - each with their own chief. While BC has the most bands of any province, there are hundreds more throughout Canada. Surely with all the money that's available, there can be some aboriginal leadership to break the traditional malaise that prevents a blending of similar bands into larger, more productive, self sustaining communities. I know it's complicated but there has to be a defining moment for an aboriginal leader to really make a difference and bring some grass roots cohesion to these scattered, proud people.

Aboriginal leadership is indeed needed to bring communities together to develop and implement solutions. That being said, First nations are exactly that, NationS, with an emphasis on the plural. Any "solution" that starts from the premise they should stop thinking of themselves as invididual entities is even more doomed to failure than piecemeal approaches.

[Riverwind]

Even more so, however, is the idea that Aboriginals should just pack and leave. Last time I checked, this was their homeland.

Depends on how far you go back. The latest DNA evidence suggests the aboriginals immigrated to the Americas in waves over the last 30K years and that each wave likely displaced and/or assimilated the existing inhabitants.

[CANADIEN]

Depends on how far you go back. The latest DNA evidence suggests the aboriginals immigrated to the Americas in waves over the last 30K years and that each wave likely displaced and/or assimilated the existing inhabitants.

Let's put it this way. If 4th generation Canadians can say that this is their homeland (and they're right), people whose ancestors were here 20, 100, 1000 generations ago can most certainly make the same claim.

[Riverwind]

Let's put it this way. If 4th generation Canadians can say that this is their homeland (and they're right), people whose ancestors were here 20, 100, 1000 generations ago can most certainly make the same claim.

I think the point was that if a 4th generation Canadian can be told to 'go home' then the same thing can be said to 100 or 1000th generation immigrants (i.e. Aboriginals). I personally think it is morally wrong to make any distinction between people based on when their ancestors arrived. Edited August 13, 2009 by Riverwind

[M.Dancer]

Last time I checked, this was their homeland.

What I have learned here on this forum is that natives don't consider themselves Canadian.

If they are not Canadian, then Canada is not their homeland.

Personaly I would like to see the end of the Indian affairs ministry. I think a time table should be given, something generous, say 20 years to get their affairs in order. They can incorporate, assimilate or even segregate. After that though, they are on their own just like everyone else.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, yes; and the aboriginals here can leave and go back to Siberia where they came from. It would, in fact, be possible.

That's not an accurate comparison. There was nobody in Canada when the aboriginals came from Siberia, so they were the 1st owners (unless you count the vikings).

What we did to the natives was wrong. However, much of the wars on this planet has been fought over land ownership. Europeans basically went to war with the natives and won, thus taking control of the land.

I feel bad for the natives that were slaughtered, but it can't be undone. I don't know enough about the current state of aboriginals in Canada to comment further.

[CANADIEN]

I think the point was that if a 4th generation Canadian can be told to 'go home' then the same thing can be said to 100 or 1000th generation immigrants (i.e. Aboriginals). I personally think it is morally wrong to make any distinction between people based on when their ancestors arrived.

Agreed absolutely. This will not prevent some morons from arguing "this is my land, my great-grand-father came in from Birmingham 100 years ago, so all the non-white and the Indians can leave".

[bush_cheney2004]

That's not an accurate comparison. There was nobody in Canada when the aboriginals came from Siberia, so they were the 1st owners (unless you count the vikings).

That really doesn't work because the Eurocentric definition and context of "owner". The concept is not universal. Natives did not buy and sell land like used cars.

What we did to the natives was wrong. However, much of the wars on this planet has been fought over land ownership. Europeans basically went to war with the natives and won, thus taking control of the land.

Yes and no....it's more complicated than that. Sometimes they lost. In the end, nobody has the right to land, just the right to defend possession.

I feel bad for the natives that were slaughtered, but it can't be undone. I don't know enough about the current state of aboriginals in Canada to comment further.

Agreed....but it is curious that "multicultural" Canada still can't figure this out.

[CANADIEN]

What I have learned here on this forum is that natives don't consider themselves Canadian.

If they are not Canadian, then Canada is not their homeland.

A bit simplistic, I am afraid.

A Mohawk who rejects the auhority of the Canadian government does not consider himself/herself a Canadian, and from that sense that person is not a Canadian. That person certainly cannot claim the whole of Canada as hi/her homeland.

But land inhabited by the Mohawk NATION and legally owned by that nation is that person's homeland. The right of Aboriginals to hold land and to consider it to be their homeland, the place they come from, was not abolished by European conquest, and has been implicitly recognized From the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to recent Supreme Court decisions.

That being said, as far as I am concerned, any First Nation who claim they are not subject to Canadian laws is welcome to mandatory third-party arbitration on their land claims, followed by them paying for patrolling THEIR side of the BORDER - yep, let's treat them as any other foreign country.

[Riverwind]

That's not an accurate comparison. There was nobody in Canada when the aboriginals came from Siberia, so they were the 1st owners (unless you count the vikings).

Your information is out of date. The current science suggests that there were many waves of immigrants from Asia which means the later waves would have been moving into territory previously occupied by earlier waves.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your information is out of date. The current science suggests that there were many waves of immigrants from Asia which means the later waves would have been moving into territory previously occupied by earlier waves.

Agreed...but there is no "ownership".....just possession. This works for fauna or flora of any kind.

I used to have a neighbor who would proudly claim "ownership" of a very old oak tree....one day it decided to fall on his house, which he really did own.