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

[M.Dancer]

Your racist colonial contempt is noted.

Do you not have anything of any intelligence to say?

Fine then....

10 hogsheads of tobbacy for the women folk

200 fine mirrors for the men

Traditional payment for traditional lands....

[M.Dancer]

Despite the slur Dancer that was REALLY funny! One of the funniest things I've read here so far.

What slur?

The HBC point blanket is the finest blanket in the world.

[Riverwind]

What slur?

No slur at all. A fair price for an item is what the buyer is willing to pay. I am sure the chinese get a real chuckle from all of the useless junk they sell us....

[tango]

What this means is people that live today are NOT responsible for injustices of the past - period, end, full stop. It is simply irrational to claim that they are.

... demanding that people who are innocent of the crime be made to pay for it.

The courts have found Canada liable for the abuses of the residential schools. Canada's internationally monitored Truth Commission is just starting. Over the five years it is in operation, Canadians will learn much more about the topic, and we will be held responsible.

The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly ruled that our governments must "consult, and accommodate" Aboriginal rights on all traditional lands.

We are responsible ... to our own courts.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[Riverwind]

The courts have found Canada liable for the abuses of the residential schools.

Compensation is being offered to living people that were directly harmed by the schools. Demanding compensation for past land grabs be given to relatives of long dead people is a completely different situtation.

Canada's internationally monitored Truth Commission is just starting. Over the five years it is in operation, Canadians will learn much more about the topic, and we will be held responsible.

Only in the minds of people have already made up their minds on the topic. Most people won't be paying attention and if they are it will just another government commision looking into bad things that happened in the past. Few people are going to feel personally responsible or ashamed for what happened because it had nothing to do with them.

The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly ruled that our governments must "consult, and accommodate" Aboriginal rights on all traditional lands.

Sure. But "consultation" does not imply that aboriginals control the lands or have an absolute right to veto government plans.

We are responsible ... to our own courts.

Courts who interpret laws that we write. Edited August 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[tango]

Compensation is being offered to living people that were directly harmed by the schools. Demanding compensation for past land grabs be given to relatives of long dead people is a completely different situtation.

Well, I see you acknowledge illegal "land grabs". I guess that's some progress.

Only in the minds of people have already made up their minds on the topic. Most people won't be paying attention and if they are it will just another government commision looking into bad things that happened in the past. Few people are going to feel personally responsible or ashamed for what happened because it had nothing to do with them.

It is relevant to all of us because it is being closely monitored by the international community, and one of the criteria of their evaluation is the involvement of Canadians.

Are you aware that this is a Truth Commission just like the South African Truth Commission?

Sure. But "consultation" does not imply that aboriginals control the lands or have an absolute right to veto government plans.

Obviously you are not well informed about this area of law.

As it stands at present, where Aboriginal rights are asserted via blockade of construction, no injunction against protesters can be granted until consultation and accommodation have occurred, to the satisfaction of the court. The Supreme Court requires "meaningful" consultation and "adequate" accommodation of Aboriginal rights.

Ask the Mayor of Brantford, currently ordered by the court to consult with Six Nations and accommodate their rights.

To return to the topic, here's a perspective from the UN agency monitoring Canada's Truth Commission:

As The Globe and Mail has reported, bodies of aboriginal children lie in unmarked graves across Canada, on the grounds of residential schools where the federal government sought for more than a century to extinguish aboriginal culture. Although the Truth and Reconciliation Commission investigating these schools has hit a roadblock, it remains the best chance the schools' survivors have to tell their stories - and the best chance Canada has to face its past.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinio...ticle719924.ece

While Canada's genocide may be seen by some to be in the past, telling the truth about it is very much in the present, and affects us all.

Because the land is still being taken, still being destroyed ... everyday.

And because it is only under court and international monitoring that Aboriginal people can tell the truth in Canada, without putting themselves in danger ... still.

In other words, the genocide continues, and we all continue to benefit from the theft and destruction of Indigenous land.

[Riverwind]

Well, I see you acknowledge illegal "land grabs". I guess that's some progress.

I never denied that natives got screwed in the past. I just don't think that entitles anyone living today special consideration because they happen to share some DNA with long dead people.

It is relevant to all of us because it is being closely monitored by the international community

It is closely monitored by the self-selected community of activists that have nothing better to do with their time.

Are you aware that this is a Truth Commission just like the South African Truth Commission?

I am aware the fact that aboriginal activists have long tried to score propoganda points by making parallels where there is none. The only parallel between canada and south africa are the racist provisions in treaties which grant special rights to people with the correct DNA.

The Supreme Court requires "meaningful" consultation and "adequate" accommodation of Aboriginal rights.

The SCC choose its words carefully. "meaningful consulation" and "adequate accomotion" does not mean the government has to do whatever the natives want. All it means it has to do is sincerely attempt to accomodate their concerns. Natives that engage in illegal protests and destruction of property will likely find that the court is less than sympathetic to their case. Edited August 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[tango]

I never denied that natives got screwed in the past. I just don't think that entitles anyone living today special consideration because they happen to share some DNA with long dead people.

It is closely monitored by the self-selected community of activists that have nothing better to do with their time.

I am aware the fact that aboriginal activists have long tried to score propoganda points by making parallels where there is none. The only parallel between canada and south africa are the racist provisions in treaties which grant special rights to people with the correct DNA.

The SCC choose its words carefully. "meaningful consulation" and "adequate accomotion" does not mean the government has to do whatever the natives want. All it means it has to do is sincerely attempt to accomodate their concerns. Natives that engage in illegal protests and destruction of property will likely find that the court is less than sympathetic to their case.

International Centre for Transitional Justice

http://www.ictj.org/en/index.html

The agreement includes provisions for financial compensation, a truth commission, and additional healing measures for IRS survivors, making it one of the first attempts to comprehensively address legacies of abuse in an established democracy.

Little known facts:

Until the 1950's, Indigenous people in Canada could not leave the 'reserve' without a pass, just like in South Africa. In fact, South Africa's apartheid system was modelled on Canada's 'reserves'.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[Riverwind]

Until the 1950's, Indigenous people in Canada could not leave the 'reserve' without a pass, just like in South Africa. In fact, South Africa's apartheid system was modelled on Canada's 'reserves'.

I am going call BS on that one. Do you have a credible source? The RCAP report would have covered this issue if it was anything close to what you suggest.

In any case, you are constantly going on about how aboriginals are seperate nations which means you *want* the government to put up customs booths and at the border of the reserves and require passports to cross so you can hardly complain if the government did that in the past.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[tango]

I am going call BS on that one. Do you have a credible source? The RCAP report would have covered this issue if it was anything close to what you suggest.

Word of mouth.

But I see it is also in the RCAP:

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarch.../sg25_e.html#90

The pass system should be read against the backdrop of other attempts to interfere with Indian cultural life, as it was intended not only to prevent Indian leaders and potential militants from conspiring with each other, but also to discourage parents from visiting their children in off-reserve residential schools and to give agents greater authority to prevent Indians from participating in banned ceremonies and dances on distant reserves.

And here ...

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/indian_polic...rve_period.html

The pass system was at first to be issued only to “Rebel Indians”; however, Macdonald insisted that the system should be applied to all First Nations. In early 1886, books of passes were issued to Indian agents, and subsequently First Nations people could not leave their reserve unless they had a pass signed by the Indian agent and describing when they could leave, where they could go, and when they had to return. The pass system, however, was never passed into legislation and as a result was never legal—although it was enforced well into the 1940s.

And here ...

http://www.purichpublishing.com/?module=sw...mp;productID=33

The story of life on reserves after treaty is a story of power: the power of Indian Affairs. Indian agents controlled every aspect of life on and off reserve - the dreaded pass system and permission slips needed to sell farm produce, or not as it suited the agents; the instructors whose job it was to transform Indian hunters into farmers; the residential school system, and the questionable surrender of reserve land.

tsk tsk ... you shoulda googled it first ...

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[Riverwind]

But I see it is also in the RCAP:

As I expected. More propoganda to suit your political agenda:

The notorious pass system was never part of the formal Indian Act regime. It began as a result of informal discussions among government officials in the early 1880s

...

Although the pass system was official policy on the prairies, there was never any legislative basis for it. It was therefore nothing more than an expedient policy that arose apparently from a suggestion by the deputy superintendent general of Indian affairs to Prime Minister Macdonald in 1885.99 It was maintained through the 1880s but had fallen into general disuse by the 1890s, although it was used occasionally in various parts of the prairies into the twentieth century. The RCMP disliked enforcing the pass system because of their fear that, if challenged, it would be found illegal by the courts and would bring their other law enforcement efforts into disrepute.

In practice the pass system was only partly effective in restricting Indian movement and was often ignored by Indians and by the agents themselves.

There is no comparison with the black homelands in South Africa.

[tango]

There is no comparison with the black homelands in South Africa.

See more references above, esp ...

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/indian_polic...rve_period.html

The pass system was at first to be issued only to “Rebel Indians”; however, Macdonald insisted that the system should be applied to all First Nations. In early 1886, books of passes were issued to Indian agents, and subsequently First Nations people could not leave their reserve unless they had a pass signed by the Indian agent and describing when they could leave, where they could go, and when they had to return. The pass system, however, was never passed into legislation and as a result was never legal—although it was enforced well into the 1940s.

The comparison is ... they were both forced apartheid systems.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[Machjo]

Until the 1950's, Indigenous people in Canada could not leave the 'reserve' without a pass, just like in South Africa.

Thanks. I was not aware of that.

In fact, South Africa's apartheid system was modelled on Canada's 'reserves'.

This I was aware of.

[Machjo]

As for the South African Apartheid system being based on the Canadian reservation system, I'd learnt that in high school years ago, and have read it in a few books since. If you google it, it's plastered all over the internet.

[charter.rights]

Thanks. I was not aware of that.

This I was aware of.

I believe that it was not until 1958 that Indians could not go into a bar and be served alcohol.

Edited August 19, 2009 by charter.rights

[Wild Bill]

As for the South African Apartheid system being based on the Canadian reservation system, I'd learnt that in high school years ago, and have read it in a few books since. If you google it, it's plastered all over the internet.

Has anyone yet seen an answer to Riverwind's point about how if aboriginals consider reserves sovereign nations they should expect the same customs checkpoints as any other foreign nation, such as the USA or at a border between any two sovereign countries?

Seems to me some folks want things both ways.

What else is new?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Has anyone yet seen an answer to Riverwind's point about how if aboriginals consider reserves sovereign nations they should expect the same customs checkpoints as any other foreign nation, such as the USA or at a border between any two sovereign countries?

Seems to me some folks want things both ways.

What else is new?

Hey I like the idea! Let the First Nations have their own little worlds to take care of. Now that is what I call self government, its what they have been saying they want, and I say we give it to them.

[Riverwind]

See more references above, esp ...

It was an unofficial policy put in place in Manitoba where there was a violent rebellion. It was widely ignored by the government agents who were supposed to enforce it and largely fell out of use by the 1890s. It is a trivial historical footnote that you are grossly exgerrating because its re-enforces the victim cult which seems to be central to your belief system.

The comparison is ... they were both forced apartheid systems.

The trouble is it goes both ways. If you want to complain that the reserve system is racist then you msut also acknowledge that the entire treaty system which grants special rights to natives is also racist.

You also have ignored the key point: if you really believe that natives are seperate nations then you are saying you think they should not be allowed to cross the "border" without a passport. Why is the unofficial policy used on 1880s in Manitoba any different that what you are demanding?

[DogOnPorch]

The comparison is ... they were both forced apartheid systems.

Screw that. There were just as many native indians on reserve as off when I was a kid in British Columbia. Seemed to affect one's tax situation...still does.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/brgnls/ndns-eng.html

[charter.rights]

Has anyone yet seen an answer to Riverwind's point about how if aboriginals consider reserves sovereign nations they should expect the same customs checkpoints as any other foreign nation, such as the USA or at a border between any two sovereign countries?

Seems to me some folks want things both ways.

What else is new?

Actually you wouldn't want that. It would mean that Canadians would have to pass one of more border checkpoints to move around. Most of the major highways pass through a First Nation territory. They might even ask you for money to get through.

Who is willing to pay?

[g_bambino]

In any case, you are constantly going on about how aboriginals are seperate nations which means you *want* the government to put up customs booths and at the border of the reserves and require passports to cross so you can hardly complain if the government did that in the past.

Precisely. And even if true, it fits within the original intent of the treaties going back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763: the First Nations on the land set aside for them by the Crown are not under the same governance as non-First Nations on the land set aside for them by the Crown. Requiring identification to cross from one legal jurisdiction into another is hardly unheard of.

[tango]

It was an unofficial policy put in place in Manitoba where there was a violent rebellion. It was widely ignored by the government agents who were supposed to enforce it and largely fell out of use by the 1890s. It is a trivial historical footnote that you are grossly exgerrating because its re-enforces the victim cult which seems to be central to your belief system.

I guess you missed this:

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/indian_polic...rve_period.html

The pass system was at first to be issued only to “Rebel Indians”; however, Macdonald insisted that the system should be applied to all First Nations. In early 1886, books of passes were issued to Indian agents, and subsequently First Nations people could not leave their reserve unless they had a pass signed by the Indian agent and describing when they could leave, where they could go, and when they had to return. The pass system, however, was never passed into legislation and as a result was never legal—although it was enforced well into the 1940s.

It was at the whim of the 'Indian' agents, and used to reward/punish as they chose. Many communities report it being used in that manner until the mid-20th century.

The trouble is it goes both ways. If you want to complain that the reserve system is racist then you msut also acknowledge that the entire treaty system which grants special rights to natives is also racist.

You also have ignored the key point: if you really believe that natives are seperate nations then you are saying you think they should not be allowed to cross the "border" without a passport. Why is the unofficial policy used on 1880s in Manitoba any different that what you are demanding?

I think it's incorrect to interpret "nation" as land-based: Nations are peoples - like Quebecois, Metis, Mohawk, Cree, etc ... are Nations.

Certainly Indigenous nations have a land base - land to which they hold outright title - reserve land and land obtained through 'land claims' settlement, for example.

However, Indigenous Nations also hold rights on all of their traditional territory, now recognized via the Crown's 'duty to consult and to accommodate' those rights on all lands held by a Nation at the time of 'contact'.

Thus it isn't as simple as drawing lines and arming border guards, and such confrontational approaches are never the best solutions.

I would suggest, instead, that we re-learn how to live together peacefully, in a country that properly respects the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of this land.

And that may include paying a price for the use of their traditional and title land.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[Riverwind]

It was at the whim of the 'Indian' agents, and used to reward/punish as they chose. Many communities report it being used in that manner until the mid-20th century.

Anecdotes that, even if true, did were not the result on any enforceable law passed by government. It is best described as harrassment by government officials that only affected a small minority of natives. There is no comparison to the black homelands in south africa.

Thus it isn't as simple as drawing lines and arming border guards, and such confrontational approaches are never the best solutions.

If you want to call yourself a nation that is "equal" to the government of Canada then you get border guards. If you want to insist that the Canadian government protect of your rights as defined by Canadian law then you are acknowledging that your are part of Canada and that your nation is nothing but a cultural group.

I am not advocating border guards. I am just pointing out how you change your tune whenever it suits you.

[tango]

Anecdotes that, even if true, did were not the result on any enforceable law passed by government. It is best described as harrassment by government officials that only affected a small minority of natives. There is no comparison to the black homelands in south africa.

If you want to call yourself a nation that is "equal" to the government of Canada then you get border guards. If you want to insist that the Canadian government protect of your rights as defined by Canadian law then you are acknowledging that your are part of Canada and that your nation is nothing but a cultural group.

I am not advocating border guards. I am just pointing out how you change your tune whenever it suits you.

First of all, I am not an Indigenous person, but I respect that the 'pass system' was extemely oppressive to them.

Secondly, Indigenous Nations are more that cultural groups since they have land rights on all of Canada.

We have to learn how to live peacefully with this reality that is newly defined in our laws as the 'duty to consult and to accommodate' Aboriginal rights.

I suggest that your confrontational and inflammatory approach is definitely the wrong way to go.

[Riverwind]

I suggest that your confrontational and inflammatory approach is definitely the wrong way to go.

I suggest that running around screaming "genocide" when no such thing occurred is not going to win many supporters.