Pay up or leave

[Riverwind]

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.

There was no difference between owning a slave and owning land when slavery was legal. You only think it is different because you apply your modern value system. I am doing the same with aboriginal treaties. These treaties are as immoral as slavery contracts because they grant special rights such as tax exemptions to people based on their ancestry. Change these treaties into something based on fee-simple ownership then I would not object. Edited August 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[CANADIEN]

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.

Not based on a fair market assessment of the value of the land, as is the case with most expropriations. Guess equality only goes so far...

Obviously, a negotiated end to all racist aspects of treaties would be a preferable option.

Excellent idea. Let's start wit clauses that made Aboriginals wards of the states, and denied them the rights to manage their own affairs the way they see fit. Oh, but I gorgot, that's not what we are talking about. That's not racist enough.

Unfortunately, that is not going to happen as long as aboriginals insist that they deserve such race based privileges.

Priviledges indeed. Aboriginals in this country live shorter lives, are poorer, are more likely to end up in jail, live in far worse sanitary conditions, than other Canadians. I hate to see how things would be if they didn't enjoy all those Privileges.

Edited August 14, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

There was no difference between owning a slave and owning land when slavery was legal. You only think it is different because you apply your modern value system. I am doing the same with aboriginal treaties.

Keep digging yourself in a hole.

These treaties are as immoral as slavery contracts because they grant special rights such as tax exemptions to people based on their ancestry. Change these treaties into something based on fee-simple ownership then I would not object.

As long as we found a way not to pay far value for land err I mean as long as the "interests of the majority" were respected, right?

A payment is still a payment, and nothing more, whether it's paid in one installment pr in perpetuity, whether it is a cash payment or in the form of a tax exemption.

[Riverwind]

Not based on a fair market assessment of the value of the land, as is the case with most expropriations. Guess equality only goes so far...

The fair maket assessment is often much less that the value of the property to the owner. If it was a fair price they would have sold it without expropriation.

Excellent idea. Let's start wit clauses that made Aboriginals wards of the states, and denied them the rights to manage their own affairs the way they see fit. Oh, but I gorgot, that's not what we are talking about. That's not racist enough.

I have no issue with self-government provided it conforms to democratic prinicipals and treats all people living in the terroritory equally whether they happen to belong to the aboriginal group in question or not.

Priviledges indeed. Aboriginals in this country live shorter lives, are poorer, are more likely to end up in jail, live in far worse sanitary conditions, than other Canadians. I hate to see how things would be if they didn't enjoy all those priledges.

So? Those things are an argument for social problems designed to assist them. It is not an argument that justifies the granting of race based rights.

[Riverwind]

Keep digging yourself in a hole.

Enjoy your denial. When slavery was legal people were property like land. The fact that you cannot see that explains why you are blind to the racist nature of aboriginal treaties.

As long as we found a way not to pay far value for land err I mean as long as the "interests of the majority" were respected, right?

Well that is the problem. We live in a democracy and the majority is not going to accept punitive measures to settle treaties signed 100+ years ago by people long dead. Making demands that the majority will never accept simply ensures that nothing changes.

[Machjo]

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.

Nothing to do with race, but nationality. Just like a treaty between Canada and another nation. The Treaties were between the British Crown and the First Nations. Had the crown considered them subjects, it would never have written the treaties. Thus the simple existence of treaties stands testimony to status indians essentially having their own nationality, even if not officially recognized at the international level.

So I ask you (though I know you'll avoid this at all costs), why did the Crown sign treaties with its own subjects if they were indeed subjects of the Crown?

Nothing to do with racism. If the Canadian government should treat a Zambian differently from a white Canadian, it woudl have nothing to do with race, but legal status. Or are you suggesting that we should scrap the outdated idea of nationality and just say we're world citizens? If so, I could agree. If not, then all historical records prove that it is an international treaty between the Crown and the First Nations.

[Riverwind]

The Treaties were between the British Crown and the First Nations. Had the crown considered them subjects, it would never have written the treaties.

The crown claimed soveriegnty over all lands and the aboriginals were residents of lands subject to their authority. This is clear is documents like the 1763 proclaimation.

Thus the simple existence of treaties stands testimony to status Indians essentially having their own nationality, even if not officially recognized at the international level.

It means the crown viewed aboriginals differently from the European subjects. That does not mean they viewed the treaties as international agreements equivalent to one it signed with a country like France.

So I ask you (though I know you'll avoid this at all costs), why did the Crown sign treaties with its own subjects if they were indeed subjects of the Crown?

The crown signs contracts with its subjects all of time. There is no conceptual difference between a grant of a land to European settler and a treaty. The main issue is the treaties include terms and conditions which are unacceptable by today's standards.

Nothing to do with racism. If the Canadian government should treat a Zambian differently from a white Canadian, it would have nothing to do with race, but legal status.

A Zambian that was also a Canadian would have to treated the same. Natives in Canada are Canadian citizens. This means granting them rights that other Canadians do not have is inherently immoral. Edited August 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Machjo]

There is the British perspective. But the First Nations in many cases have never relinquished their lands and reject claims that they are Canadian, beyond practical considerations out of necessity for survival under current circumstances.

I've met a few First Nations, and I remember one from the AFN claiming that the Harper government was trying to pressure the First Nations to 'become Canadian' (her words, not mine), but that the First Nations would never accept that.

Seems to me that though the British claimed those lands, the First Nations never relinquished them, or at least the Algonquin didn't anyway. This essentially means that in their eyes, it's occupied territory. So, waht do we do? Exterminate them?

[Riverwind]

There is the British perspective. But the First Nations in many cases have never relinquished their lands and reject claims that they are Canadian, beyond practical considerations out of necessity for survival under current circumstances.

So? They demand services from the Canadian governments. More importantly, they are legally Canadian citizens whether they like it or not.

I've met a few First Nations, and I remember one from the AFN claiming that the Harper government was trying to pressure the First Nations to 'become Canadian' (her words, not mine), but that the First Nations would never accept that.

I am not asking any native to assimilate. All I am saying is there are terms in the treaties that are unacceptable by today's standards and those terms need to go.

Seems to me that though the British claimed those lands, the First Nations never relinquished them, or at least the Algonquin didn't anyway. This essentially means that in their eyes, it's occupied territory. So, waht do we do? Exterminate them?

Possession is 9/10ths of the law when it comes to sovereignty. If the Algonquin don't want to be part of Canada then they should organize a referendum and use the result to negotiate separation. What has to end is this nonsense that aboriginals should be entitled to special rights like tax exemptions while they demand services from the Canadian government.

[CANADIEN]

The fair maket assessment is often much less that the value of the property to the owner. If it was a fair price they would have sold it without expropriation.

You (conveniently?) forget that First Nations were and are still forbidden by law from selling land to anyone but the Government.

So? Those things are an argument for social problems designed to assist them. It is not an argument that justifies the granting of race based rights.

Payment as per the terms of a contract is not a set of special rights, not by any stretch of the imagination.

BTW, you know of course that Aboriginals pay taxes on goods they purchase off-reserve and (in most cases) on work they do off-reserve, right? And that non-status Aboriginals (that is those not covered by treaties), Metis and Inuits do not have any tax-exemption status? And that Aboriginals do not even have ownership of their own on-reserve houses? And that recent treaties with BC First Nations call for the phasing-out of any tax exempt status and the phasing in of taxation by First Nations on the reserves?

[CANADIEN]

Enjoy your denial. When slavery was legal people were property like land. The fact that you cannot see that explains why you are blind to the racist nature of aboriginal treaties.

Indeed. I DO of course enjoy denying things that do not exist, like the so-called similitude between slavery and payments as per legal land transactions... or absurd claims that sych payments are punitive when in fact the sum does not even reprent one hundredth of one per cent of the value of the land in question.

[Riverwind]

Payment as per the terms of a contract is not a set of special rights, not by any stretch of the imagination.

There are some contracts terms that are unacceptable no matter what the parties agreed to. The contract terms that allowed people to buy and sell humans are good example. The terms of the treaties that grant special rights to anyone with the correct DNA are morally repugnant do not deserve to be upheld anymore than the slavery contracts.

In any case, the issue is not whether you agree with my view. The issue is that the "morality" of treaties is not a universally held opinion just like the morality of abortion or the afghan war is not a universal point of agreement. In a democracy we try to resolve such values conflicts by leaving the choice to the individual or the majority simply imposes their will on the minority. It is not possible to leave this to individual in the case of aboriginal treaties which impose obligations on non-natives so ultimately the majority will decide. Lecturing people on how natives 'own' everything and that the non-natives have no say in this matter is a good way to persude people that there is something inherently wrong with the moral basis for aboriginal rights.

BTW, you know of course that Aboriginals pay taxes on goods they purchase off-reserve

So? The tax exemption still exists.

And that Aboriginals do not even have ownership of their own on-reserve houses?

I would like to see the department of indian affairs closed down and 100% control given to the native bands. The trouble is the chiefs don't want that.

And that recent treaties with BC First Nations call for the phasing-out of any tax exempt status and the phasing in of taxation by First Nations on the reserves?

Only in BC and only 2-3 bands have signed onto deals with those terms. Edited August 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Craig1]

I think i sit in the same boat as a Native I think that I have been here first and that my family has built and payed this country I should be entitled to a education first and when I see some immigrant walk in and take my education from me that my family worked hard for building the shools and infastructure saddens me makes me wonder what this country has become. I really dont care if people come here and get educated but dont do it off the backs of my parents when they need to send me some place else for a education.

[Wilber]

Treaties like everything else have their day and then it is time to move on to something else. I'm not sure what that is but there is one thing I am sure of, trying to stop the clock is a guaranteed route to extinction for any society.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The Government has to make good on their Treaties with the Natives if they don't that means they're basically aloud to go back on their word whenever they want.

[Riverwind]

The Government has to make good on their Treaties with the Natives if they don't that means they're basically aloud to go back on their word whenever they want.

I doubt you would argue that if there were treaties that granted tax free status to groups of white people. Edited August 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Craig1]

The Government has to make good on their Treaties with the Natives if they don't that means they're basically aloud to go back on their word whenever they want.

The fed can supercede contractual law whenever they deme fit unless its imbedded in the constitution but even then the constitution really does mean nothing in Canada its just dialogue.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Craig1

[g_bambino]

Nothing to do with race, but nationality. Just like a treaty between Canada and another nation. The Treaties were between the British Crown and the First Nations. Had the crown considered them subjects, it would never have written the treaties. Thus the simple existence of treaties stands testimony to status indians essentially having their own nationality, even if not officially recognized at the international level.

So I ask you (though I know you'll avoid this at all costs), why did the Crown sign treaties with its own subjects if they were indeed subjects of the Crown?

Not quite. Given the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the treaties were between different peoples under one Crown; all subjects, but divided into distinct, delineated jurisdictions. The treaties between the British colonial government in Canada and First Nations people are more akin to agreements between provinces, or the federal and a provincial government today: a legal contract between two semi-sovereign entities under the same monarchy.

_[sp.]

Edited August 14, 2009 by g_bambino

[Guest TrueMetis]

I doubt you would argue that if there were treaties that granted tax free status to groups of white people.

I would be tax exempt either way.

[Craig1]

I would be tax exempt either way.

well you aint True Meti then are ya brother

[Guest TrueMetis]

well you aint True Meti then are ya brother

A True Metis would be half French and half Cree but good luck finding someone who is now.

[Riverwind]

I would be tax exempt either way.

So your admiting that this has nothing to do with right or wrong and is only about ensuring you get an undeserved benefit at the expense of other Canadians?

[Guest TrueMetis]

So your admiting that this has nothing to do with right or wrong and is only about ensuring you get an undeserved benefit at the expense of other Canadians?

I could get tax exempt status but I don't I don't see the point. My point is the Treaties are Legal documents and I expect them to be honoured. The First Nations honour their side, the government should do the same. Ducking out of an Obligation is Wrong.

[Craig1]

A True Metis would be half French and half Cree but good luck finding someone who is now.

My buddy up in Cold Lake is Meti he showed me the apreciation of the Native culture every night he went out hunting and he fed his family on game, i just went allong to hold the spotlight and smoke weed lol but i know, i see the lifestyle and i got nothing against it its a self suficient lifestyle i wish more Canadians lived

Cause hes Meti he looks white also lol its funny when we go hunting and they try and kick us off the reserve lol

Edited August 14, 2009 by Craig1

[Machjo]

I doubt you would argue that if there were treaties that granted tax free status to groups of white people.

Nothing to do with race, but rather peoples. It's a treaty between distinct peoples.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Machjo