Why do we discuss Canada's attempted cultural genocide as it's

[tango]

Your response is a non sequitor. I guess that means you are out of sloagns.

You can't prove that at contact the indians were using the nation now known as Canada nor can you prove there was any intent to commit genocideand that it can be proven that the lands that are indian are indian by royal proclamation and that indians committing genocide was s.o.p

If you think that was a non sequiter, I rest my case about your intellectual capacity.

I don't have to prove it. The Supreme Court accepts it and I respect the law.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[g_bambino]

That's as of 1763, not 'contact'.

Irrelevant. "Contact" isn't a law, and isn't mentioned in the constitution as having any meaning, if its mentioned at all. The Proclamation of 1763 (regarded as the "Indian Magna Carta"), however, is a part of the constitution, and it says FNs don't have the right to all of Canada.

[M.Dancer]

If you think that was a non sequiter, I rest my case about your intellectual capacity.

I don't have to prove it. The Supreme Court accepts it and I respect the law.

Yet you are unable to prove what you think the supreme court accepts. I have already seen elsewhere you're inability to separate hard facts from tin foil fancy and your inflated perspective of what belongs to the Indians is no different. If the debate over what is owed to the indian rested on your palsied arguments, the supreme court would deliver a collective bill to the first nations for erradicating intertribal warfare , slavery and genocide from their stone age culture.

[g_bambino]

If you think that was a non sequiter, I rest my case about your intellectual capacity.

As it was indeed a non-sequiteur, you shouldn't be so quick to make smug comments about people's intelligence. He was asking how it was that, without technology other than canoes, pre-contact aboriginals could make it to every corner of the land mass that is today Canada? It's a good question.

_[copyed.]

Edited August 19, 2009 by g_bambino

[Bonam]

As it was indeed a non sequiteur, you shouldn't be so quick to make smug comments about people's intelligence. He was asking how it was that, without technology other than canoes, how could pre-contact aboriginals make it to every corner of the land mass that is today Canada? It's a good question.

I am not in agreement with Tango and certainly do not think that "all of Canada" belongs to the first nations, but you should know that it doesn't take "technology" to reach the vast majority of the places on a given continent, with the exception of extremely technical mountain summits. All you need is to get up and walk, know how to live off the land along the way, and you can get just about anywhere on the same landmass.

That is not to say that they did make it to "every corner" of Canada, or that even if they did at some point make it there that the land should belong to them, but it certainly would have been possible for natives to have visited just about everywhere in Canada throughout the thousands of years they were here.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

I am not in agreement with Tango and certainly do not think that "all of Canada" belongs to the first nations, but you should know that it doesn't take "technology" to reach the vast majority of the places on a given continent, with the exception of extremely technical mountain summits. All you need is to get up and walk, know how to live off the land along the way, and you can get just about anywhere on the same landmass.

That and the reason to do it. I don't argue that there wasn't a native Cabot or Cartier....but their habitations were limited, often contested and well known.

Another factor to consider is the population of North America at the time. The range is 1 million to 18 million. For arguments sake lets say 9 million in all of North America.

North America was virtually uninhabitated.

[tango]

Irrelevant. "Contact" isn't a law, and isn't mentioned in the constitution as having any meaning, if its mentioned at all. The Proclamation of 1763 (regarded as the "Indian Magna Carta"), however, is a part of the constitution, and it says FNs don't have the right to all of Canada.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. I defer to the SCC.

Here's a description:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...ams=A1SEC815558

Proof of Aboriginal Rights

For rights other than aboriginal title, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that claimants must demonstrate that the right was integral to their distinctive aboriginal societies and exercised at the time of first contact with Europeans. While these may be now exercised in a modern way, practices that arose from European influence are not protected. This paradox is often expressed in relation to commercial trade in furs or fish, which the courts have seen as the product of European contact rather than integral to aboriginal societies* prior to contact. Fishing for food, community or ceremonial purposes is, however, a protected aboriginal right and may be exercised in a modern way with modern fishing gear.

In order to prove an aboriginal title to traditional lands, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the important Delgamuukw case (1997) that such claims to title had to show exclusive occupation of the territory by a defined aboriginal society as of the time the British Crown asserted sovereignty over that territory. In the same case, the Court ruled that the oral histories of the aboriginal peoples were to be accepted as evidence proving historic use and occupation.

* commercial rights are being challenged, as Indigenous Peoples did engage in trade.

edited to add link

Edited August 20, 2009 by tango

[DogOnPorch]

I am not in agreement with Tango and certainly do not think that "all of Canada" belongs to the first nations, but you should know that it doesn't take "technology" to reach the vast majority of the places on a given continent, with the exception of extremely technical mountain summits. All you need is to get up and walk, know how to live off the land along the way, and you can get just about anywhere on the same landmass.

That is not to say that they did make it to "every corner" of Canada, or that even if they did at some point make it there that the land should belong to them, but it certainly would have been possible for natives to have visited just about everywhere in Canada throughout the thousands of years they were here.

My lot on my father's side come from a place called Volga Germany. It doesn't exist anymore. I imagine they were under the mistaken impression that the land they were farming was theirs as well. Stalin seemed to take offence with the place once the 'regular' Germans invaded. Those who hadn't already made the jump to North America or back to Germany faced a very uncertain fate...none, that we (my family) know of, survived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

[M.Dancer]

the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the important Delgamuukw case (1997) that such claims to title had to show exclusive occupation of the territory by a defined aboriginal society as of the time the British Crown asserted sovereignty over that territory. In the same case, the Court ruled that the oral histories of the aboriginal peoples were to be accepted as evidence proving historic use and occupation.

[/i]

You really haven't a clue about what that means do you?

1) you must prove it.

2) Oral history is accepted as proof ...but...

3) It is not definitive proof.

[Riverwind]

However, my point was that the Supreme Court of Canada does honour Aboriginal rights ... in law.

The current law. The law can be changed if that is what the majority wants.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That and the reason to do it. I don't argue that there wasn't a native Cabot or Cartier....but their habitations were limited, often contested and well known.

Another factor to consider is the population of North America at the time. The range is 1 million to 18 million. For arguments sake lets say 9 million in all of North America.

North America was virtually uninhabitated.

There is no agreement on Native American population before europeans arrived some estimates go up to 50-100 million.

[Riverwind]

There is no agreement on Native American population before europeans arrived some estimates go up to 50-100 million.

A lot depends on whether you include the Aztecs and the Incans.

I doubt that North American population was anything close to 100 million because there would be a lot more archeological evidence for large settlements/cities. To put things in perspective 100 million was the population of the US in 1920.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[g_bambino]

It doesn't take "technology" to reach the vast majority of the places on a given continent, with the exception of extremely technical mountain summits. All you need is to get up and walk, know how to live off the land along the way, and you can get just about anywhere on the same landmass.

Sure. I almost added "and their own two feet" when writing my previous post, but quickly realised that feet aren't technology. Still, I suppose technology doesn't really make any difference; the first European explorers journeyed across vast distances using the same methods the aboriginals did. Yet, the population of indigenous people was never enough to permit the exploration of every inch of the territory that is now Canada; even with 35 million people and advanced methods of travel, huge swaths of this country remain virtually untouched. The logic, based on numbers and the limitations of the human body, does call into question the claim that First Nations today can claim as theirs the country in its entirety.

_[copyed.]

Edited August 20, 2009 by g_bambino

[tango]

The current law. The law can be changed if that is what the majority wants.

So how's that working for you?

Get back to me on your progress in rounding up "the majority".

[g_bambino]

For rights other than aboriginal title

That renders the relevance of aboriginal rights to the following as nil.

In order to prove an aboriginal title to traditional lands, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled... that such claims to title had to show exclusive occupation of the territory by a defined aboriginal society as of the time the British Crown asserted sovereignty over that territory.

Uh huh; and? This does nothing to prove that an aboriginal group has the right to land just because they say so, and only affirms that the Crown has sovereignty over all territory in Canada.

[M.Dancer]

There is no agreement on Native American population before europeans arrived some estimates go up to 50-100 million.

There is certainly no scholarly agreement on such a large population. I doin't think there would be any mega fauna left alive with such a large population without mass agriculture at a iron age technological level, ie, the plow.

[Riverwind]

So how's that working for you?

The status quo is a situation where aboriginals make demands that the politicians can't possibly agree to. Both sides know going to court is a crap shoot and that they could lose so they talk and talk and talk but nothing changes.

How is that working for you?

Edited August 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

There is certainly no scholarly agreement on such a large population. I doin't think there would be any mega fauna left alive with such a large population without mass agriculture at a iron age technological level, ie, the plow.

There is no scholarly agreement on the population of North America before the Europeans arrivied.

Edited August 20, 2009 by TrueMetis

[M.Dancer]

There is no scholarly agreement on the population of North America before the Europeans arrivied.

No there are differing opinions based on different methodologies used to estimate the population. I don't know of any scholar positing 100 million. The only other place I have heard this fantastic claim is from Kevin Costner.

[tango]

I am not in agreement with Tango and certainly do not think that "all of Canada" belongs to the first nations,

Aboriginal rights apply to all of Canada, but that is not outright ownership as we know it: More like a shared interest. 'A say in development and a share in revenues', subject to negotiation.

Aboriginal Title is ownership and applies to 'reserves' and to lands retrieved through 'land claims', etc.

but you should know that it doesn't take "technology" to reach the vast majority of the places on a given continent, with the exception of extremely technical mountain summits. All you need is to get up and walk, know how to live off the land along the way, and you can get just about anywhere on the same landmass.

That is not to say that they did make it to "every corner" of Canada, or that even if they did at some point make it there that the land should belong to them, but it certainly would have been possible for natives to have visited just about everywhere in Canada throughout the thousands of years they were here.

Absolutely.

[bush_cheney2004]

Aboriginal rights apply to all of Canada, but that is not outright ownership as we know it: More like a shared interest. 'A say in development and a share in revenues', subject to negotiation.

Then what about the Oregon Territory? Please make up a good story to cover the Crown's honour when Canada no longer controls the land of "first contact".

I know you can do it.....

[tango]

The status quo is a situation where aboriginals make demands that the politicians can't possibly agree to. Both sides know going to court is a crap shoot and that they could lose so they talk and talk and talk but nothing changes.

How is that working for you?

As a non-Indigenous Canadian, right now I think it's working more fairly than ever in the past, and I'm relieved because it's a pretty disgusting history we have in our treatment of Indigenous peoples to date: Very difficult to be proud of Canada.

Even the provincial courts now know they have to consider Aboriginal rights.

The Mining Act is being revised to accommodate Aboriginal rights.

The province (ON) is developing a policy on 'duty to accommodate Aboriginal rights.

etc etc

Much better than in the past, though there are still plenty of challenges before we can ever claim to really respect the law and the rights of Indigenous Peoples of Canada.

Federal negotiations are still a sewer, though.

[DogOnPorch]

There is certainly no scholarly agreement on such a large population. I doin't think there would be any mega fauna left alive with such a large population without mass agriculture at a iron age technological level, ie, the plow.

It's highly unlikely that a population of 100,000,000 could be supported without advanced agriculture.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It's highly unlikely that a population of 100,000,000 could be supported without advanced agriculture.

Depends on the area they're being supported on an area the size of north America probably could. Although I prefer the low end of that estimate at more like 50 million.

[DogOnPorch]

Depends on the area they're being supported on an area the size of north America probably could. Although I prefer the low end of that estimate at more like 50 million.

The low end be lower than that me-hardy.