Pay up or leave

[CANADIEN]

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.

[g_bambino]

That's not an accurate comparison. There was nobody in Canada when the aboriginals came from Siberia.

Then allow me to rephrase my earlier words: Yes, yes; and the aboriginals here not descended from the original trans-Bering settlers can leave and go back to Siberia where they came from.

[g_bambino]

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.

Yes, but don't forget that the same proclamaion puts all First Nations' land squarely within the sovereignty of the Crown. First Nations may have an element of independence from the government of Canada, but they are not themselves sovereign entities.

[CANADIEN]

Yes, but don't forget that the same proclamaion puts all First Nations' land squarely within the sovereignty of the Crown. First Nations may have an element of independence from the government of Canada, but they are not themselves sovereign entities.

Agreed, for the most part. By signing treaties, Aboriginal nations accepted all that came with it, including British (and now Canadian) sovereignty.

[M.Dancer]

But land inhabited by the Mohawk NATION and legally owned by that nation is that person's homeland.

Now that is simplistic. Which land and by who authority is it legally owned?

The land they occupied 1000BC, 1000 AD or 1900 AD? Does that include the land they conquered from their less bloodthirsty neighbours? Or land that was given to them fro0m the Crown?

Now have you ever wonderd why the aboriginal inhabitants of Alcase Lorraine don't receive exrta ordinary payments from France?

[Topaz]

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.

IF the First Nation didn't consider themselves Canadians, then why did they sign up in the WW2 to fight for England and Canada?? Why are First Nation fighting right now? The First Nation would be on the own, if OUR ancestors didn't come here and then forgot to go home! There's no reason why we all can't live here together, except for people who have a radical opinion of certain groups within the country.

[Bonam]

There's no reason why we all can't live here together, except for people who have a radical opinion of certain groups within the country.

Yeah, those people that hold unapproved opinions better be shipped off somewhere.

[M.Dancer]

There's no reason why we all can't live here together, except for people who have a radical opinion of certain groups within the country.

Are you saying that people who hate conservatives should leave?

[Machjo]

I haven't read the entire thread, but here's may take on it:

To try to get the government to respect Aboriginal rights is next to a lost cause. The government must listen to the will of the majority, and the majority in Canada is racist to varying degrees.

I've concluded that a better solution would be for me personally to go out and learn their language and culture. But lo and behold, I've looked on Amazon.ca, Chapters.ca, even the AFN, and no decent self-instruction book is available for these languages! Where has all the government's money gone? If the government were serious in promoting First Nations' cultures, all it would have had to do would have been to produce such self-instruction materials. The fact that even those don't exist suggest a clear intent on the part of the government not only to not help the Aboriginal cultures, but even to hinder their development by ensuring that those like myself cannot participate at the grassroots in the learning of their cultures.

It truly is shameful that such books don't even exist.

[Riverwind]

To try to get the government to respect Aboriginal rights is next to a lost cause. The government must listen to the will of the majority, and the majority in Canada is racist to varying degrees.

I am really getting sick this owellian nonsense from aborignal rights activists. A couple facts:

1) Asking that all citizens be treated the same regardless of the ancestors is an anti-racist position. The only racists in this discussion are the people who think that aboriginals deserve more rights because of their ancestors.

2) The only rights that aborignals have today are those that the majority chooses to give them. This is true even if the rights are in the consititution because the constitution can be changed by a majority. That is the nature of a democracy.

It truly is shameful that such books don't even exist.

They don't exist because there is no market. There is nothing shameful about that.

[Machjo]

I am really getting sick this owellian nonsense from aborignal rights activists. A couple facts:

1) Asking that all citizens be treated the same regardless of the ancestors is an anti-racist position. The only racists in this discussion are the people who think that aboriginals deserve more rights because of their ancestors.

2) The only rights that aborignals have today are those that the majority chooses to give them. This is true even if the rights are in the consititution because the constitution can be changed by a majority. That is the nature of a democracy.

They don't exist because there is no market. There is nothing shameful about that.

The treateis are international treaties. As such, we and Aboriginals are just as equal as Americans and Canadians. We each have different rights on the lands. Unless we dont' respect treaties?

[CANADIEN]

Then allow me to rephrase my earlier words: Yes, yes; and the aboriginals here not descended from the original trans-Bering settlers can leave and go back to Siberia where they came from.

Let me help you pack so you can move back to Europe then.

Find that statement of mine ridiculous? So do I. But then, I am only following your logic.

[Riverwind]

The treateis are international treaties. As such, we and Aboriginals are just as equal as Americans and Canadians. We each have different rights on the lands. Unless we dont' respect treaties?

Again - nonsense. Canada is the sovereign state and treaties are only enforcable under Canadian law. There is no higher authority and aboriginal groups are NOT sovereign states by any sensible definition of the term. There are, at most, cultural minorities that have some self government entitlements. Edited August 13, 2009 by Riverwind

[CANADIEN]

Now that is simplistic. Which land and by who authority is it legally owned?

The land they occupied 1000BC, 1000 AD or 1900 AD? Does that include the land they conquered from their less bloodthirsty neighbours? Or land that was given to them fro0m the Crown?

Now, now, now. I would be the last one to claim that determining the validatty of Aboriginal land claims is an easy process. Unless the key criiteria is "How can we scr*w the Injuns?".

Now have you ever wonderd why the aboriginal inhabitants of Alcase Lorraine don't receive exrta ordinary payments from France?

One word. Treaties. Now, you are not suggesting the Government reneges on its word, right?

Edited August 13, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Machjo]

Treaties, wheaties; contracts, schmontracts. What do you think we are? Honourable?

[Riverwind]

One word. Treaties. Now, you are not suggesting the Government reneges on its word, right?

Times change. Laws change. Treaties are just laws. There used to be a law in the united states that allowed someone to own a slave. The US government decided to rip up those legal contracts and most people today agree that was moral thing to do. Aboriginal treatries are legacies of a 19th century British feudal mindset which are inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian democracies.

[Riverwind]

Treaties, wheaties; contracts, schmontracts. What do you think we are? Honourable?

Demanding special rights because of your race is hardly honourable. An honourable person would recognize that such rights are inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian democracy and understand that they must be given up. Edited August 13, 2009 by Riverwind

[CANADIEN]

I am really getting sick this owellian nonsense from aborignal rights activists.

Yet, you feel free to substitute your own non-sense. As in

1) Asking that all citizens be treated the same regardless of the ancestors is an anti-racist position. The only racists in this discussion are the people who think that aboriginals deserve more rights because of their ancestors.

The treaties were signed between (theorically) equal parties, and the Crown (that is the Government) is honor-bound by them. The claim that honouring treaty commitments is some sort of unequal treatment is ignorant at best.

2) The only rights that aborignals have today are those that the majority chooses to give them. This is true even if the rights are in the consititution because the constitution can be changed by a majority. That is the nature of a democracy.

Actually, denial of the rights of members of minority groups is nothing democratic. It's nothing more than a dictatorship by the majority. By your definition, pre-desgregation Southern US was a model of democracy, and Quebec language laws are a model of democratic law-making... not by mine.

[CANADIEN]

Times change. Laws change. Treaties are just laws. There used to be a law in the united states that allowed someone to own a slave. The US government decided to rip up those legal contracts and most people today agree that was moral thing to do. Aboriginal treatries are legacies of a 19th century British feudal mindset which are inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian democracies.

I have seen co-outs, but that one is for the ages. Comparing treaties with First Nations with slavery? As for your statement that those treaties are incompatbile with an egalitarian democracy... that's just too precious coming from someone who has just argued that democracies means that the rights of members of minority groups are only those granted by the majority.

Edited August 13, 2009 by CANADIEN

[bush_cheney2004]

Treaties, wheaties*; contracts, schmontracts. What do you think we are? Honourable?

* Wheaties is a Registered Trademark of General Mills Inc.

[CANADIEN]

Demanding special rights because of your race is hardly honourable. An honourable person would recognize that such rights are inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian democracy and understand that they must be given up.

The dishonour is in the argument that contracts signed in good faith can just be discarded as a whim under the false pretense that it creates an unequal relationship.

There was no protest when treaties and their provisions were used (and abused, and ignored) in order tp create a state of dependency among Aboriginals and to destroy their societies and cultures. Paying "Injuns" a pitance for their lands was fine then, living up to the terms of those agreements now suddenly becomes wrong.

Unless of course the sense of justice exhibited by some here extends to re-opening all clauses of the treaties, including those effecting land tansfers. After all, if the agreed upon price can be rennnnnnegotiated, so can everything else, right?

[Riverwind]

---

Edited August 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

--

Edited August 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

The dishonour is in the argument that contracts signed in good faith can just be discarded as a whim under the false pretense that it creates an unequal relationship.

The state has no problems over turning separation contracts if they are not in the best interest of the children. Contracts that grant special rights based on one's ascentry are not legitimate contracts just like contracts which grant ownership of people.

Unless of course the sense of justice exhibited by some here extends to re-opening all clauses of the treaties, including those effecting land transfers. After all, if the agreed upon price can be rennnnnnegotiated, so can everything else, right?

There is no negotiation if the government decides it needs to expropriate your property. They offer a price and you have to accept it. Same goes for treaties. I would expect to see some compensation if the treaties were revoked but the compensation would be based on what makes sense for the majority.

Obviously, a negotiated end to all racist aspects of treaties would be a preferable option. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen as long as aboriginals insist that they deserve such race based privileges.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[CANADIEN]

Slaves were bought and sold. People had legal contracts that proved who had ownership of of a slave. If you want to argue that contracts must be honoured no matter how objectionable they may be then you must also agree that they contracts granting ownership of slaves should have been honoured. If you want to argue that contracts are subject to re-interpretation as society changes then you cannot argument that treaties must be upheld no matter what.

Nice try. Ownership of land is not the same as ownership of people. But thank you for confirming that you have no valid argument to rely upon.