An Indian Industry has emerged amid the wreckage

[Shwa]

An interesting article from the Star:

An Indian Industry has emerged amid the wreckage of many Canadian reserves

A management by consultant approach:

As the disparity between the First Nations and the rest of Canada grows, so does this Indian Industry built to combat it.

Take, for example, the federal department of Indian Affairs which, despite having had its funding to First Nations capped at a two per cent increase per year since 1996, has seen its full-time staff balloon from 3,300 employees in 1995 to 5,137 today.

Outside of Ottawa, the Indian Industry can best be spotted on the ground in 83 of the country’s most debt-laden First Nations, where consulting companies from across the country are being individually paid as much as $1 million a year — according to Marc Langlois, an Indian Affairs regional manager in Quebec — to either partially or completely take over the daily duties of the chiefs and councils.

Such firms include Lemieux Nolet of Quebec City, which — according to two former chiefs — gets about $600,000 a year to administer all government services for the 450 Algonquins living in Third World conditions on Barriere Lake reserve, 270 kilometres north of Ottawa.

Putting a band like Barriere Lake under third-party management is a controversial tactic which challenges the idea of self-governance on reserves, and which has placed more than 77,000 status Indians either completely or partially in the control of private consultants and accounting firms from across the country.

I have no doubt that many of those consultants, lawyers and bureaucrats are themselves Natives or have some FN community connections. But if not management by consultant, then what are some of the alternatives?

Rotting First Nation, wealthy chief

Of course, anyone familiar with the Indian Industry, will recognize such disparities as nothing new.

[G.P. Lehmann]

One might be able to make the argument that native self governance, that operates without adequate government intervention, has not been as successful as originally hoped.

[charter.rights]

An interesting article from the Star:

I have no doubt that many of those consultants, lawyers and bureaucrats are themselves Natives or have some FN community connections. But if not management by consultant, then what are some of the alternatives?

Of course, anyone familiar with the Indian Industry, will recognize such disparities as nothing new.

Most of the consultants are non-natives. The extent of expertise required to meet INAC criteria for funding often means FN have to shop away from their reserves for consultants.

You do understand that the use of consultants is not a FN prerogative? Indian Affairs is to blame for trying to micro-manage reserves from Ottawa.

On one reserve I deal with regularly, the school had been without potable water for 2 1/2 years because INAC required consultant after consultant to "study" the problem. IN the end the fix was under $5000. The cost of INAC appointed consultants (because schools are a direct INAC responsibility and not a Band responsibility) was about $75,000.

On the same reserve, INAC required a consultant to do energy audits on Band housing to consider upgrades. The cost of the non-native consultants was about $100k. The energy auditor recommended certain upgrades like changing windows and doors, which when put to tender amounted to about $800,000 for 100 houses (about $8k per house). Based on oil and gas prices, the net savings in energy for each of those house would be about $40 per year. INAC paid the whole shot, with no cost to the Band.

INAC programs are not controlled by FN. While the money flows through a Band they cannot divert it or amend the funding. They only have the choice of accepting it or refusing it,that's all.

Edited October 30, 2010 by charter.rights

[Michael Hardner]

This sounds like a nightmare. 5000 employees mismanaging affairs that they shouldn't be doing ?

Canadians appear to pay even less attention to this than to healthcare.

[Bryan]

What can we as Canadians really do though? If we interfere more, we aren't respecting self-government, if we stand back, we're somehow responsible for the results.

IMO, aboriginal groups need to be more clear when they define what self-government means. Either you sink or swim by your own decisions, OR you're beholden to the what the government tells you. This middle ground is just asking for everything to blow up in a way that results in a lot of finger pointing but no chance for solutions.

[ToadBrother]

One might be able to make the argument that native self governance, that operates without adequate government intervention, has not been as successful as originally hoped.

At best most reserves operate on a very limited self-governance model. The Federal Government still has its fingers in all the pies.

[G.P. Lehmann]

At best most reserves operate on a very limited self-governance model. The Federal Government still has its fingers in all the pies.

I was inferring the lack of state imposed authority on the reserves. There is a lack of structure which facilitates a reliance on an underground economy. This serves only to erode the social fabric of the first nations.

[G.P. Lehmann]

At best most reserves operate on a very limited self-governance model. The Federal Government still has its fingers in all the pies.

I was inferring the lack of state imposed authority on the reserves. There is a lack of structure which facilitates a reliance on an underground economy. This serves only to erode the social fabric of the first nations.

[charter.rights]

I was inferring the lack of state imposed authority on the reserves. There is a lack of structure which facilitates a reliance on an underground economy. This serves only to erode the social fabric of the first nations.

The state fully and arbitrarily imposes itself on reserves. It undermines self-government processes and interferes with decisions those at INAC disagree with.

The lack of structure and the underground economy are a result of the Indian Act which does not facilitate economic growth and interferes with self-reliance in the ways I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Self-government - real self-government - that FN are entitled to is not a government under Canada, but a sovereign government independent of Canada and sovereign over the lands we have no claim to....all those lands which have not been surrendered under the requirement of the Royal Proclamation 1763, and the fruits, and resources therein.

The Government of Canada holds a trust for Six Nations that amounts between $200billion and $1trillion in value. If the government were to pay the annual interest owed to Six Nations' trust directly that would amount to between $6 billion and $30 billion annually. What do you think that would do for the Six Nations people? And what do you think Six Nations would say about our constant interference in their affairs keeping in mind that the annual transfers to Six Nations amount to only $100million each year, and that most services are underfunded by over 50% of the costs we pay our cities and towns for the same service? The reality is that economic disruption and interference, poverty and housing underfunding is a weapon used to keep Six Nations people from fully asserting their right to kick out the industry in Southern Ontario and start taxing us for our homes on their land.

The reality is that the government won't recognize self-government because it would raise suspicions of the mythical authority they invented over Indians, in order to steal their lands and resources without resistance.

[Saipan]

On the same reserve, INAC required a consultant to do energy audits on Band housing to consider upgrades. The cost of the non-native consultants was about $100k. The energy auditor recommended certain upgrades like changing windows and doors, which when put to tender amounted to about $800,000 for 100 houses (about $8k per house). Based on oil and gas prices, the net savings in energy for each of those house would be about $40 per year. INAC paid the whole shot, with no cost to the Band.

While no one gives a shyte about my home, windows and heating.

[ToadBrother]

While no one gives a shyte about my home, windows and heating.

George III didn't sign a Proclamation binding His Government and and the governments of his descendants to treat you as a nation, that's why.

Edited October 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Wild Bill]

George III didn't sign a Proclamation binding His Government and and the governments of his descendants to treat you as a nation, that's why.

"Treat you as a nation"...just what does that mean? Should we then treat Six Nations as a totally sovereign nation?

What other nation on earth gives billions of dollars in perpetuity to another sovereign nation? Is that not tribute, by definition?

What other nation on earth can only survive on the "dole" from another nation?

Something just doesn't make sense here. The native position is obvious. They are sovereign when it suits them and if it means paying for something that's Canada's job.

I think we need clearer and more sensible definitions.

[charter.rights]

"Treat you as a nation"...just what does that mean? Should we then treat Six Nations as a totally sovereign nation?

Six Nations IS a sovereign independent nation, so yes we should get out of their business.

What other nation on earth gives billions of dollars in perpetuity to another sovereign nation? Is that not tribute, by definition?

We don't "give" Six Nations billion of dollars. WE OWE Six Nations hundreds of billions on their trust that we hold on their behalf. The fact is that just the interests alone on that trust amounts to more than the entire INAC budget.

What other nation on earth can only survive on the "dole" from another nation?

That's a good point. Hold long can Canada justify living off the avails of stolen land and resources and refuse to comply with the Supreme Law. The Canadian government is bound by the constitution and in fact the is the primary purpose of the constitution - to limit the tyranny of government. This government has ignored the law, and ignore the fact that we do no own the land.

Something just doesn't make sense here. The native position is obvious. They are sovereign when it suits them and if it means paying for something that's Canada's job.

Six Nations entire history has always recorded their assertion of sovereignty. The stark reality is they never ever gave up their nationhood, or submitted to Canada. And the assumption they did is nothing more than myth. BTW, that opinion comes from an Assistant Crown Attorney.

I think we need clearer and more sensible definitions.

Personally I think you need an education BUT being as obstinate as you are, an enema would been needed first to clear your mind.

[ToadBrother]

"Treat you as a nation"...just what does that mean? Should we then treat Six Nations as a totally sovereign nation?

What other nation on earth gives billions of dollars in perpetuity to another sovereign nation? Is that not tribute, by definition?

What other nation on earth can only survive on the "dole" from another nation?

Something just doesn't make sense here. The native position is obvious. They are sovereign when it suits them and if it means paying for something that's Canada's job.

I think we need clearer and more sensible definitions.

And what definition would you like? The one where we just simply ignore long-standing constitutional requirements on how we deal with these people?

It strikes me that those object to it come from two camps; either they don't know that our constitution leaves us no choice but to deal with the various native peoples as other than simply subjects or citizens, or those who don't care, who somehow believe that the native peoples have it good and the poor old white man has got the shaft.

The forebearers of the current Government and peoples of Canada violated direct commands from their Sovereign, did whatever they bloody well pleased in many cases, not just with the land but with the native peoples themselves. Now the courts have said "You know what, their title was never extinguished, you violated a direct command from His Majesty George III, not to mention other constitutional documents including the Constitution Act, 1982."

From there, yes, we all have to chart a new course. But it's no longer a course than the Government can simply do unilaterally. Now they're going to have to do in a lot of cases what they were supposed to have done over two hundred years ago.

[Saipan]

George III didn't sign a Proclamation binding His Government and and the governments of his descendants to treat you as a nation, that's why.

Why should I give a shyte about George Whatever. If we should care about old treaties I want my slaves, now.

[ToadBrother]

Why should I give a shyte about George Whatever. If we should care about old treaties I want my slaves, now.

The BC Government thought like you did, and got its ass kicked in the Supreme Court. So it doesn't matter whether you approve of it or not, it's the law and that's the end of the story.

And it wasn't a treaty, it was a Proclamation.

[Saipan]

those who don't care, who somehow believe that the native peoples have it good and the poor old white man has got the shaft.

Never mind white man. How about Vietnamese, Portuguese, Chinese and Hungarians?

Are they treated to tax free status? Can they hunt and fish as they please, having that inherited from their forefathers?

The forebearers of the current Government and peoples of Canada violated direct commands from their Sovereign, did whatever they bloody well pleased

Sovereign was friggin lucky here, not being run out of the country at gun point like South of the border

Last week I finished cutting free firewood and it felt good when I realized I'm stealing it from indians and the "sovereign". It warms my heart here in +26C

[charter.rights]

Never mind white man. How about Vietnamese, Portuguese, Chinese and Hungarians?

Are they treated to tax free status? Can they hunt and fish as they please, having that inherited from their forefathers?

Sovereign was friggin lucky here, not being run out of the country at gun point like South of the border

Last week I finished cutting free firewood and it felt good when I realized I'm stealing it from indians and the "sovereign". It warms my heart here in +26C

You are still too deep in the thicket to understand.

Tax free status is not given to them. The Crown and the government cannot impose taxes on them because our sovereign of the day, King George III guaranteed their independence and sovereignty from the Crown. Both the High Court of Great Britain and our Supreme Court have ruled that we are responsible to uphold those agreements AND the Proclamation forms a critical part of our constitution. Aboriginal people belong to independent nations we legally have no control over. They own outright or control 80% of the land base Canada lays claim to. In the case of taxes we can no more compel First Nations to pay tax to us - a foreign government - than we can compel American citizens to pay tax to us for the enjoyment of their homes and land. Nor can we control Americans or require permits and licenses when they hunt or fish in the US.

There are two streams of scholarly thought in attempting to understand how aboriginal people fit with Canada.

One considers that we must recognize their rights, comply with the law that allows them freedom and autonomy and allow them whatever government and structure they need to form parallel systems of law and order.

The second suggests that we must reconcile aboriginal rights and freedoms with ours such that we have to compromise our society to allow them their freedoms, and to negotiate new more modern treaties which provide a place for them under the Canadian constitutional framework. However, the problem in this school of thought is that we can not reconcile our differences unless and until we recognize their rights, freedoms and autonomy.

So no matter what we are stuck with having to recognize and educate the general public about the real history that took place in Canada - how Sir John A. McDonald assassinated aboriginal leaders and how the Family Compact movement lied, stole, forged history to suit their own nefarious purposes and set out laws and policies intended to destroy aboriginal people. And we must learn how those policies and laws were carried forward to today and remain relatively untouched both in intention and application. All Canadians must come to understand we have no choice in recognizing or accepting aboriginal rights because we are in their country, their nation and that the Crown and citizenship is only over us and not their land, and not their resources, and not their laws.

If we need to reconcile with aboriginal people (after recognition has fully commenced) then I suggest that we migrate to their customs, their forms of government and seek redress as equals under their laws and principles. We would have a far better future planned for us if we did, since their societies are more effective, forgiving and understanding, their government systems more democratic and their rights fully intact since first contact.

The government has continued over the decades and centuries to erode our rights and subvert our self-regulation that is a precept of common law, and according to the principles of peace, order, and good government. Our government has resorted to corruption and self-service over the public good. Our institutions are in perpetual failure, not working, poorly managed and grossly expensive and self-indulging. Our infrastructure is slowly eroding away with successive governments passing the buck onto some day in the future. Our corporations are lawless and corrupt stealing from us, and profiting at the expense of low-income and marginalized peoples.

The American Revolution, and the American Civil Wars were started for fewer reasons that we have today to toss out government and recreate ourselves as self-realized nation of people. We could accommodate aboriginal people on their terms if only we first understood what those terms were that were entrenched in the Section 25 and 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without having to wait 10 years for each case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling. Rather, if we simply asked aboriginal people what the treaties and agreements really meant and qualified it with the history and legal records the government refuses to show us or refuses to acknowledge even exist, I'm sure we could get to the bottom it. (Take for example the Royal Proclamation 1763, which was codification into British statute of all the terms of a number of treaties made with First Nations in the 100 years previous...)

There is an "Indian Industry" but neither are native people to blame for it or are they profiting from it. Rather it is an industry filled with colonial lawyers, some claiming to defend native rights and the others claiming to defend the interests of Canada dragging out disagreements that after $100s of millions spent end up at a Supreme Court who is so clouded in their own colonial bias that they will not recognize aboriginal people apart from Canada - using a legal magic to suggest that even though there is no evidence of sovereignty over them, the government and the Crown still hold them as subordinates to the constitution and laws of Canada.

So if anyone is going to become incensed, aim it at the government of the day and demand that we stop ignoring our legal duty and find ways to understand and negotiate with aboriginal people to a peaceful end. Because if we don't do that, then we can expect a very tumultuous future and as identified by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, we face a violent and economically disruptive future. [/~Rick Mercer~ styled rant]

[CANADIEN]

There are a number of myths that need to be put to rest:

a) First Nation don't pay taxes. Actually, they do on revenues earned off-reserve. And some do on revenues earned on reserve (mind you, I believe that taxation for local purposes on revenues earned on reserves would be a good idea). Some recent First Nation treaties included clauses stating that there would be taxation on on-reserve revenues

b - They're getting a free ride at taxpayers' expense. While there is no doubt that criminals and unscrupulous leaders benefit, the appalling conditions most reserves are in is not the definition of a free ride

c) The Government is not bound by treaties, because hey, it gives the First Nations a free ride. The government is clearly bound by the treaties. While the old treaty model (or more exactly, its abuse by government) is not suited to the 21st century, any change should be negotiated by both parties, not imposed.

d) The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognizes First Nations as fully independant sovereign naions. No, it does not. While the Proclamation clearly recognizes First Nation OWNERSHIP of land, it also makes very clear that the British Government of the time considered itself to be the sole sovereign power. To quote the exact text of the Proclamation:

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of OUR DOMINIONS AND TERRITORIES as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds

(...)

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our SOVEREIGNTY, PROTECTION, AND DOMINION, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories (...)

(emphasis mine)

While there may be arguments to the claim that First Nations are fully sovereign, they are not to be found in the Royal Proclamation

5) Abolishing the reserves is the solution to all problems that plague First Nations. In and by itself, it is not. Abolishing the reserves and forcing their inhabitants to move from poverty there to poverty in large urban centres will not move them out of poverty. Strategies to lift people out of poverty are needed.

6) Reserves must be maintained at any cost. No they must not. Many reserves are and will remain unsustainable. Models of cultural/educational self-governance that does not involve a territorial base may work better in the long run for some First Nations than a model anchored on land that is not suited for human settlement.

7) It's all the fault of the "Whites". Not when you have some resevations rolling in cash and other living in Third World conditions, not when you have the chief of one of the poorest reservation earning more than Provincial Premiers while the physical and social infrastructure is crumbling.

8) It's the fault of the First Nations themselves. There can be no denying that the paternalistic (to use a mild world) attitude of Governments towards First Nations for more than a century is a major contributing factor to the scandal that is the living conditions of most First Nations. Nor can one ignore that the bloated and inefficient Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is a breeding ground for corruption, lack of acountability and waste.

9) The solution is assimilation. One of the root cause of the problems is a sytem that was designed to force people into assimilation. While there is no doubt that one cannot expect to live in 2010 the way his/her ancestors live (in most cases anyway), any solution that would deprive First Nations of their cultural identity is bound to failure.

Edited October 31, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I wonder when we will elect a leader to solve this problem once and for all. Part of the resolution damned well ought to be a trip to an international court to sanction the document.

Both sides of this argument deserve a slap upside their heads. It needs to get done and quickly.

[Saipan]

You are still too deep in the thicket to understand.

The Crown and the government cannot impose taxes on them because our sovereign of the day, King George III guaranteed their independence

If they are independent why are they dependent on my money?

Now, if we can go back in history to signature of some king George, how about going back to agreements made before that? Say number of slave owned.

Both the High Court of Great Britain and our Supreme Court have ruled that we are responsible to uphold those agreements AND the Proclamation forms a critical part of our constitution.

We don't have constitution worth the paper it's written on. Maybe you don't realize but you don't even have right to property.

They own outright or control 80% of the land base Canada lays claim to.

I know, they also own 110% of BC

And Americans own the Moon.

In the case of taxes we can no more compel First Nations to pay tax to us

It's mutual.

[charter.rights]

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of OUR DOMINIONS AND TERRITORIES as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds

(...)

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our SOVEREIGNTY, PROTECTION, AND DOMINION, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories (...)

You make the same mistake most people make by trying to hang an opinion on snippets of the proclamation and not the entire proclamation.

The assertion of sovereignty, in the first part of your quote, hangs on the first paragraph of the Proclamation:

Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration the extensive and valuable Acquisitions in America, secured to our Crown by the late Definitive Treaty of Peace, concluded at Paris the 10th Day of February last; and being desirous that all Our loving Subjects, as well of our Kingdom as of our Colonies in America, may avail themselves with all convenient Speed, of the great Benefits and Advantages which must accrue therefrom to their Commerce, Manufactures, and Navigation, We have thought fit, with the Advice of our Privy Council.

to issue this our Royal Proclamation, hereby to publish and declare

to all our loving Subjects

, that we have, with the Advice of our Said Privy Council, granted our Letters Patent, under our Great Seal of Great Britain,

to erect, within the Countries and Islands ceded and confirmed to Us by the said Treaty,

Four distinct and separate Governments, styled and

called by the names of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada

,

and limited and bounded as follows

, viz.

[emphasis added]

So the Proclamation was an assertion of sovereignty only over subjects of Great Britain and only over the specific colonies of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada. The fact at the time was that even though the British were claiming sovereignty over those four colonies, much of the territory within them had still not been ceded by the Indians and so the Crown gave notice that Indians living and moving within those colonial territories "...not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds..." were free to move and hunt and fish without interference.

So for instance, the Royal Proclamation was not implying in this part that Indians or their lands in all of North America were subject to Great Britain's control or sovereignty.

In the second part of your quote:

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of

Our

said

Three

{notice the anomaly here...Three vs. Four in the first paragraph is likely because the surrender of Quebec was hastily added after the Proclamation was prepared}

new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

Also has its limitations. In order to understand what the British were saying here, especially the part "to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion", one must understand what led up to the the Royal Proclamation, mainly a series of Silver Covenant Chain Treaties which GB uses the sames kinds of language to address Six Nations' complaints of encroachment into their territories. What this particular part really implies is that the crown will use its "Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion" to guarantee that the lands will remain Indian lands, apart and separate from the Crown lands under the proclamation. To confirm this the Proclamation goes further in prohibiting all British subjects from occupancy or use:

And

We do

hereby

strictly forbid

, on Pain of our Displeasure,

all our

loving

Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession

of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And they also guarantee through the proclamation for the sake of those same Indians they are protecting that those who have moved onto their territories will be removed:

And We do

further strictly enjoin and

require all Persons

whatever

who have

either wilfully or inadvertently

seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described

. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith

to remove themselves from such Settlements.

and,

And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed

in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests. and

to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians

: In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and

to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent

,

We do

, with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and

require, that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians

,

within those parts of our Colonies

where We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians...

The limits of the Colonial to those 4 colonies also limit the jurisdiction of GB over N.A.. In 1757 GB created the Mitchell Map which identifies all the non-colonial lands as specific Indian tribes boundaries, and not that all of what is now Southern Ontario is Six Nations territory. The Royal Proclamation Maps, while less detailed, show the same things.

So the point all in all, is that the Crown did not take or hold sovereignty over Indians, or their lands.

And to adequately illustrate this I refer to Lord Denning of the High Court in 1982 (prior to repatriation of the Constitution) when he states that aboriginal title under the Royal Proclamation was a "plenum dominium" and "superior to all others".

As well, the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms that aboriginal people are sovereign, albeit in a round about way in Sect. 35

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Acknowledging this means that Indians had the independence, autonomy and sovereignty to make nation to nation treaties with the Crown for surrender of the "personal and usufructary" rights at their will. The SCoC further reinforces this when it ruled in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada, by extracting mandatory components that had to be present in order to determine whether they would consider if a surrender was valid. One of those prerequisites was that the First Nations and to fully desire and initiate a surrender on their own, without influence from the Indian agents, or any other party.

So there is no doubt that the Crown saw the Indians as separate and independent people apart from the sovereignty of the Crown.

Edited October 31, 2010 by charter.rights

[Saipan]

That same stodgy attitude got His Majesty out of American in 1776. And you don't know how late it is.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You do that. I also invite every other person to provide whatever it is they want as documentary proof of whatever the hell they want. So what?

A nation will not be torn up over this issue. It can and will get messy but that is it. So now is the time to solve these problems. All current claims and or titles should be put on the table. Each group of First Nations peoples ought to be able to have a say in determining their own destiny. Its time to put the chips on the table folks. Deal with ALL FN peoples one group at a time, chosen by lottery, and resolve the issues at hand permanently.

This will not be quick. This will not be easy. This will not be without much pain and anguish on all sides. This can be done.

[Saipan]

Deal with ALL FN peoples one group at a time, chosen by lottery, and resolve the issues at hand permanently.

Doing it their style? Like for example Ojibway exterminating Lakotas from the Red Lake area?