Natives have right too says Canada

[Shwa]

Thanks for the links. And no, I am certainly not familiar with these treaties to any degree. I never studied them at any level, academically or casually.

It might be worth your while to have a read of the link since the concept of how treaties work might answer many of y our questions beforehand.

[Shwa]

Apologies for the double post, computer lagged and ended up posting twice, if someone can delete this, would be appreciated.

Select your double post, click edit, and delete the content and replace it with the words "Double Post" the save. This happens all the time.

[charter.rights]

Just because Harper deferred to it doesn't mean it isn't a leftist document.

He hasn't "deferred" to it, he has endorsed it, as in making it his / ours.

You say that Canada does not control "indigenous" people, does Canada control non-indigenous people?

Through our social contract - The Charter - we control ourselves.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: "

If indigenous people are distinct and independent, then they do not belong to the Canadian nation, right?

That is correct. They are not by inherent right, Canadian.

Are they both Canadian and Aboriginal?

They can choose to be one or the other or both. They are self-determining....

Are non-indigenous Canadians, such as myself and 95% of Canadians, not entitled to sub-independence?

We are fully independent. We are called "Canadians" and operate under our own constitution. Many native nations also operate under their own constitutions and sets of laws.

Can the Chinese people of Canada become independent? What about the French?

No, and possibly.

Do you not see how it is silly to afford special protections and entitlements to "indigenous peoples" in a free country like Canada?

We have no choice...anymore than we have a choice to recognize that an American citizen is not subject to Canadian law while living in his own country. We don't give them their rights. They are theirs because they are inherent and inalienable.

Canada is virtually the freest country on earth, what could "indigenous people" possibly want emancipation from?

That is debatable. Canada is actually quite restrictive but only because we agree it to be that way.

Emancipation is not needed. We don't own them, nor are they citizens of Canada. We merely share a land base with them through treaty arrangements made over the centuries. And we comply with and recognize those treaties because:

Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Without they own country, which I'm quite certain we can all agree will never happen, the days of running around as savage nomads a la Dances With Wolves are over.

Really.... I would like to inform you that the days your kind of ignorance of the law and racism are what is really over. Time to grow up and join Canada as a 'free" country.

Why not simply take part in Canada, as they currently are able to, and thrive as so many other communities in beautiful Canada?

That is entirely up to them an is presently the subject of national scholarly debate. The crux of the discussion is that we cannot reconcile with aboriginal people until we recognize them, and recognition cannot be realized until there is struggle (under the way the government presently works) and conflict, and misidentification is corrected. If we want to invite any First Nation into the Canadian Constitutional order then we must first prove that we can treat them with equity and respect our responsibility under the rule of law. So far we're not doing a good job there. One need only read the daily newspapers for the inequity that permeates our nation.

What the Charter of Rights and Freedoms already guarantees is that 1. they get to decide how they want to exist inside or outside the framework of Canada, 2. that they have inequities under the current recognition that must be corrected before they decide, and 3. we cannot decide for them.

It is simple really.

“Brother! – If you wish us well then keep away; don’t disturb us.”

Red Jacket, Seneca Sachem May 1811

[CANADIEN]

Are you trying to suggest that those who you define as indigenous people (Aboriginals) in Canada have a right to independence and statehood? Are they entitled to autonomy within Canada? Are these indigenous people distinct from the vast majority of Canadians legally, do they have special rights separate from other Canadians (many of whom who are born here and have roots in this country going back many generations, who you have labelled as non-indigenous)?

As nations, they do indeed have a right of self-determination. As a reading of the UN Declaration would clearly indicate that this right is balanced by the right of States to their political and territorial integrity.

This is not granting First Nations (to take the Canadian context) any right that is not enjoyed by Canadians as a Nation. Unless you want to argue that Canada is not an independant nation which does not and cannot legally determine its future, determine how it will govern itself, pass laws regarding the control and use of its natural resources, etc. etc.

[Shwa]

Let's get right down to basics. Does Aboriginal independence and self-determination depend on statehood?

I don't think it does.

Can their desires be actualized within the existing Canadian framework?

I believe they can, yes.

We have many sub-communities who are distinct from the rest of Canadians living within Canada. Although not necessarily important, many of these sub-communities are significantly larger than the Aboriginal populations of Canada. Do French-Canadians deserve the same independence and autonomy? What about Canadians who identify themselves as Chinese? If not, you are affording special recognition, rights, and entitlements to Aboriginals over other Canadians (not that that is inherently bad, by the way). Let's at least be open and honest about it.

If we want to be open and honest about it, then we have to recognize that Aboriginals are not - and never were - sub-cultures of Canada - regardless of any acculturation that may have occurred over the past 400 years. This is a very key concept for Canadians to understand. I think once we can achieve a consensus on this view, then proper negotiations can be undertaken with clear understanding of the goals of either side of the table.

It just seems to me that the primary objective of independence and self-determination for a population is the preservation and continued development of a culture. Can this not be realized by Aboriginals within Canada as it is? In my view, I just can't see why anyone would want independence from Canada, a beautiful, wealthy, and free country. If it isn't beautiful, wealthy, or free enough for Aboriginals to realize their needs, however, that is something entirely different. I am not being sarcastic with that last statement, by the way.

I think it can for sure and I believe most Canadians and Aboriginals would agree with your view.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Shwa

[CANADIEN]

If they wanted to be on par with the rest of Canadians in terms of equality of rights, they would have signed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fact that they are the sole province in the country that is allowed to only provide service in one language is, imo, a form of higher status and far from equality of rights. I understand their meaning behind it, but there is always a balance.

Let's get some FACTS straigth, now shall we?

1) the Quebec government does not speak for all of French-speaking Canadians. Unless you want to discount Acadians, Fanco-Ontarians, etc.

2) although there is very limited (to say the least) provincial or municipal government services in English in Quebec, it is still more than the level of services provided in French by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador (none), Nova Scotia (no provision regarding French in provincial courts, unlike Quebec), Saskatchewan (right to use French in the Court, but not to be understood), Alberta (same as with Saskatchewan, with a lesser guarantee of services), British Columbia (see Newfoudland and Labrador).

[Bob]

As nations, they do indeed have a right of self-determination. As a reading of the UN Declaration would clearly indicate that this right is balanced by the right of States to their political and territorial integrity.

This is not granting First Nations (to take the Canadian context) any right that is not enjoyed by Canadians as a Nation. Unless you want to argue that Canada is not an independant nation which does not and cannot legally determine its future, determine how it will govern itself, pass laws regarding the control and use of its natural resources, etc. etc.

If Aboriginals are Canadians, then they are certainly being afforded special status above and beyond other Canadians, specifically above other Canadian groups (Catholic Canadians, French Canadians, Muslim Canadians, Chinese Canadians, etc). It seems to me that there is this middle ground being sat on, with Aboriginals enjoying the blessings of being Canadians while on the other hand requesting special rights and privileges based on them being "indigenous" to Canada (with 95% of Canadians not being "indigenous").

If Aboriginals are a part of the Canadian nation (aren't they?), then they are entitled to the same protections, opportunities, responsibilities, and liberties as all other Canadians: no more, no less. The sceptic in me feels like this whole Aboriginal dilemma is just a large and self-perpetuating cottage industry designed to funnel Canadian taxpayer dollars towards unworthy interests.

[CANADIEN]

Just because Harper deferred to it doesn't mean it isn't a leftist document. You say that Canada does not control "indigenous" people, does Canada control non-indigenous people? If indigenous people are distinct and independent, then they do not belong to the Canadian nation, right? Are they both Canadian and Aboriginal? Are non-indigenous Canadians, such as myself and 95% of Canadians, not entitled to sub-independence? Can the Chinese people of Canada become independent? What about the French?

Do you not see how it is silly(...)

The silliness is actually to deny that the First Nations are exactly that, Nation, then argue that"if there are nations, why not the Chinese?". Feel free to demonstate anytime that there is a Chinese-Canadian nation, with its own distinctive culture not found anywhere else. Either that, or start to make some sense.

Canada is virtually the freest country on earth, what could "indigenous people" possibly want emancipation from?

A legal framework that has proven to be a recipe for corruption, poverty, helplessness and hopelessness by denying them the right to manage their own affairs would be a good start.

[charter.rights]

I just can't see why anyone would want independence from Canada, a beautiful, wealthy, and free country.

From an aboriginal perspective, they are not wealthy or free despite us owing them trillions of dollars for their trust accounts, and us controlling them and their economies through the Indian Act. And I would say that we have let corporations destroy much of what was once beautiful and pristine, and for the most part that has occurred either on their unceded lands, or in many cases immediately adjacent to their communities. So from their perspective I would have to disagree with you.

If it isn't beautiful, wealthy, or free enough for Aboriginals to realize their needs, however, that is something entirely different. I am not being sarcastic with that last statement, by the way.

There are lots we can learn from aboriginal people about the care for this planet, and the fact that despite millions of trees we cut each month or the agricultural land we destroy in the name of development, we still can't eat money. There is absolutely no nutritional value in it.

As far as freedom, having studied the Iroquois Confederacy and their Constitution, I would suggest that they have a far superior democratic system, then we do. Why would they want to give that up, if they have a chance to fully restore it?

But the real point of the matter is "we can do better" and in order to convince aboriginal people that Canada can recognize and accommodate them under the Constitutional orders, we must do better. That would be the only way I think it would work out.

Edited November 14, 2010 by charter.rights

[Bob]

I don't think it does.

I believe they can, yes.

If we want to be open and honest about it, then we have to recognize that Aboriginals are not - and never were - sub-cultures of Canada - regardless of any acculturation that may have occurred over the past 400 years. This is a very key concept for Canadians to understand. I think once we can achieve a consensus on this view, then proper negotiations can be undertaken with clear understanding of the goals of either side of the table.

I think it can for sure and I believe most Canadians and Aboriginals would agree with your view.

Let's go along with your supposition that Aboriginal desires for self-determination and independence do not require statehood. Then what are we still debating over? Why don't we just integrate them into Canada and give them the same freedoms and opportunities that all other cultures receive in Canada via multiculturalism? Just as the Muslim community takes it upon itself to open and run Islamic schools, and the Chinese community to open up video rental locations, food stores, libraries, and organize Chinese cultural events in order to preserve their culture, why don't Aboriginals do the same? Why are their cultural interests not their own responsibility just as they are for the wide range of other sub-cultures within Canada (Muslim, Lebanese, Catholic, Chinese, Italian, Indian, etc)? This UN declaration clearly aims to legitimize preferential treatment (which I am not inherently opposed to). Let's be honest about this.

[CANADIEN]

If Aboriginals are Canadians, then they are certainly being afforded special status above and beyond other Canadians, specifically above other Canadian groups (Catholic Canadians, French Canadians, Muslim Canadians, Chinese Canadians, etc). It seems to me that there is this middle ground being sat on, with Aboriginals enjoying the blessings of being Canadians while on the other hand requesting special rights and privileges based on them being "indigenous" to Canada (with 95% of Canadians not being "indigenous").

If Aboriginals are a part of the Canadian nation (aren't they?), then they are entitled to the same protections, opportunities, responsibilities, and liberties as all other Canadians: no more, no less. The sceptic in me feels like this whole Aboriginal dilemma is just a large and self-perpetuating cottage industry designed to funnel Canadian taxpayer dollars towards unworthy interests.

If Aborignals were enjoying the blessings of being Canadians, and were indeed considered to be fully Canadians, there would not be a legal framework (the Indian Act) that was designed specifically to keep them in abject poverty and dependency like little children unable to manage their own affairs.

Like it or not, Aboriginal NATIONS are nations within Canada. As I said before, feel free to demonstrate the existence of a Chinese-Canadian nation, or a Muslim-Canadian nation, or start making some sense.

[Bob]

Your romanticization of the Aboriginals and description of them as living at one with nature (a la Avatar and Dances With Wolves) is entirely inaccurate, as is your suggestion that Canada is destroying its own environment recklessly where the Aboriginals kept it all pure and clean. Clearly contemporary Canadian culture has little (or nothing) to learn from traditional Aboriginal culture. If anything, the teaching would go the opposite way.

Look, charter.rights, I'll be completely straight-up with you. I don't really want to waste much of my time with your posts as I find you ideological and uninformed. That's as nice and polite as I can be.

[Bob]

If Aborignals were enjoying the blessings of being Canadians, and were indeed considered to be fully Canadians, there would not be a legal framework (the Indian Act) that was designed specifically to keep them in abject poverty and dependency like little children unable to manage their own affairs.

Like it or not, Aboriginal NATIONS are nations within Canada. As I said before, feel free to demonstrate the existence of a Chinese-Canadian nation, or a Muslim-Canadian nation, or start making some sense.

Aboriginals are free to succeed in Canada. If you can't make it in Canada, you can't make it anywhere. Don't Natives have access to free university education (provided they get accepted, of course)? There's the ultimate ladder for social mobility.

As far as the existence of other nations within Canada, I will not be presumptuous and speak on behalf of other groups of people. I can tell you this, though, that there are many large sub-cultures within Canada that have virtually all of the components of a nation. What this means is that the members of these subcultures share a distinct sense of unity rooted in one or more of the following: a shared sense of history and/or destiny, shared language(s), a common faith/religion, similar foods, common values and perspectives unique to them, special arts (music, singing, paintings, sculptures, dance, etc), or ethnicity/race. They only become a nation once they declare themselves to be one, I guess. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of these subcultures still identify themselves primarily as Canadian. Do Aboriginals do the same? My view is that Aboriginals should join Canada just as all other communities have joined the mosaic of Canada's society.

[charter.rights]

Your romanticization of the Aboriginals and description of them as living at one with nature (a la Avatar and Dances With Wolves) is entirely inaccurate, as is your suggestion that Canada is destroying its own environment recklessly where the Aboriginals kept it all pure and clean. Clearly contemporary Canadian culture has little (or nothing) to learn from traditional Aboriginal culture. If anything, the teaching would go the opposite way.

Look, charter.rights, I'll be completely straight-up with you. I don't really want to waste much of my time with your posts as I find you ideological and uninformed. That's as nice and polite as I can be.

Ha ha ha ha ha. No doubt that would be an attempt at an insult in not for the fact that you don't even know about the treaty relationships we have with First NATIONS

The modern destruction of the environment by aboriginal people in small isolated communities is a result of our impositions on them. FFS we are still sh*tting and pissing in our drinking water and when you push people into small rock formations called reserves and then tell them they MUST have indoor plumbing, what do you expect. The fact is that their agricultural communities and hunter-gatherer techniques were far less destructive and more sustainable than our modern practices. And in fact that is why we prescribe hunting and fishing laws that native people are exempt from - we cannot control ourselves and would destroy the resource before we even paid attention something was happening.

The early settlers learned those methods but later became dependent on manufactured methods to sow, cultivate and harvest. Yet the 2010 farmer is not wealthier in relative terms than the early 1700 farmers. They just own more stuff that sits idle most of the year. Nor do they have the time that early farmers once had. So the older aboriginal inspired farming practices were much more sustainable and as equitable as any technology we have thrown at it since.

[CANADIEN]

Clearly contemporary Canadian culture has little (or nothing) to learn from traditional Aboriginal culture. If anything, the teaching would go the opposite way.

What an arrogant view point. If anything, Aboriginal people could teach you what happens when entire societies are denied their identity and the basic rgith to govern themselves.

[charter.rights]

Aboriginals are free to succeed in Canada. If you can't make it in Canada, you can't make it anywhere. Don't Natives have access to free university education (provided they get accepted, of course)? There's the ultimate ladder for social mobility.

No they don't. The have bursaries and grants (just as we do) that are offered to them on a lottery based award system, but they are not guaranteed any post-secondary education, whatsoever.

As far as the existence of other nations within Canada, I will not be presumptuous and speak on behalf of other groups of people. I can tell you this, though, that there are many large sub-cultures within Canada that have virtually all of the components of a nation. What this means is that the members of these subcultures share a distinct sense of unity rooted in one or more of the following: a shared sense of history and/or destiny, shared language(s), a common faith/religion, similar foods, common values and perspectives unique to them, special arts (music, singing, paintings, sculptures, dance, etc), or ethnicity/race. They only become a nation once they declare themselves to be one, I guess. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of these subcultures still identify themselves primarily as Canadian.

Aboriginal people are not a sub-culture and therefore the rest of your argument falls apart.

Do Aboriginals do the same?

No. They declare regularly that they are sovereign and independent nations.

My view is that Aboriginals should join Canada just as all other communities have joined the mosaic of Canada's society.

Your view is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is their right to self-determination and right now most of them never want to be called Canadian. Period.

Edited November 14, 2010 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

Let's go along with your supposition that Aboriginal desires for self-determination and independence do not require statehood. Then what are we still debating over? Why don't we just integrate them into Canada and give them the same freedoms and opportunities that all other cultures receive in Canada via multiculturalism? Just as the Muslim community takes it upon itself to open and run Islamic schools, and the Chinese community to open up video rental locations, food stores, libraries, and organize Chinese cultural events in order to preserve their culture, why don't Aboriginals do the same? Why are their cultural interests not their own responsibility just as they are for the wide range of other sub-cultures within Canada (Muslim, Lebanese, Catholic, Chinese, Italian, Indian, etc)? This UN declaration clearly aims to legitimize preferential treatment (which I am not inherently opposed to). Let's be honest about this.

See here is the problem right here Bob, which I believe is your salient point:

Why don't we just integrate them...

The problems that have arisen is that "we" have been trying to "integrate them" for the past 200 years with policies of assimilation. Surely you are aware of the problems Residential Schools have caused? This is only one example of our attempts at "just" integration. A complete and utterly destructive attempt to wipe out their culture from childhood on. Do have some other, better ideas?

You references to Muslim, Chinese, Italian, etc. refer to sub-cultures of Canada, Aboriginals are not and never were sub-cultures of Canada. Italian-Canadians exist within Canada, Crees exist with Canada. There is a very large difference.

[CANADIEN]

Aboriginals are free to succeed in Canada. If you can't make it in Canada, you can't make it anywhere. Don't Natives have access to free university education (provided they get accepted, of course)? There's the ultimate ladder for social mobility.

Most Aboriginal children don't even make it pass the early high school years. Schools on the reservations (like other living conditions) would make many children in countries of the Global south feel lucky for what they have. And what faces Aboriginal children or adults when they move off-reserve is not much better either.

Aboriginals are free to succeed, you say. Yet by far and large they do not. And they will not until the current paternalistic system is removed and they are free to make their own decisions.

As far as the existence of other nations within Canada, I will not be presumptuous and speak on behalf of other groups of people. I can tell you this, though, that there are many large sub-cultures within Canada that have virtually all of the components of a nation. What this means is that the members of these subcultures share a distinct sense of unity rooted in one or more of the following: a shared sense of history and/or destiny, shared language(s), a common faith/religion, similar foods, common values and perspectives unique to them, special arts (music, singing, paintings, sculptures, dance, etc), or ethnicity/race. They only become a nation once they declare themselves to be one, I guess. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of these subcultures still identify themselves primarily as Canadian.

Perpetuating the culture and food and values from the "old country" does not make a group of people into a nation. What it takes to make a Nation is more than that, it takes creating something that is different from what was in the "old country". The Canadian society as a whole has done that and is a nation. The same argument can be made for Acadian and French-Canadian societies. But Chinese-Canadians, Italian-Canadians, Lebanese-Canadians? This is no insult to any of these groups and their contribution to this country to say they are not nations. It is an insult to common sense to say that if the Wendat, the Dene or the Inuit are nations, so are they.

As I said before, start making some sense.

[Bob]

See here is the problem right here Bob, which I believe is your salient point:

The problems that have arisen is that "we" have been trying to "integrate them" for the past 200 years with policies of assimilation. Surely you are aware of the problems Residential Schools have caused? This is only one example of our attempts at "just" integration. A complete and utterly destructive attempt to wipe out their culture from childhood on. Do have some other, better ideas?

You references to Muslim, Chinese, Italian, etc. refer to sub-cultures of Canada, Aboriginals are not and never were sub-cultures of Canada. Italian-Canadians exist within Canada, Crees exist with Canada. There is a very large difference.

When I recommended integration, did you seriously think I wanted to put them into schools that would abuse them and strip them of their culture? There are appropriate ways to integrate people where they become a part of Canada while preserving their culture. It's a difficult balancing act but it's done all the time.

I can give you a personal account. My parents emigrated to Canada from Russia two years before I was born, as refugees. I was later enrolled into a private Jewish school (which wasn't cheap, but which still was available to less wealthy Jewish children whose parents could demonstrate that they could not afford the education) in order to preserve and strengthen my connection to my heritage and culture. I also learned the language of my parents by enrolling in a weekend school that my father founded. We celebrated Jewish holidays with the Jewish community and stayed in touch with other Jewish families in order to preserve and strengthen our connection to our heritage. All the while, I received a strong practical education and graduated from a good program in a good Canadian university. Why am I sharing this story? Because it is just one story among million demonstrating that one can successfully integrate into Canadian culture while preserving one's way of life. Of course sacrifices have to made, compromises here and there, but nobody said it would be easy. This is the integration I'm talking about. Natives can do this, as well. What's so hard to understand about that?

[CANADIEN]

See here is the problem right here Bob, which I believe is your salient point:

The problems that have arisen is that "we" have been trying to "integrate them" for the past 200 years with policies of assimilation. Surely you are aware of the problems Residential Schools have caused? This is only one example of our attempts at "just" integration. A complete and utterly destructive attempt to wipe out their culture from childhood on. Do have some other, better ideas?

You references to Muslim, Chinese, Italian, etc. refer to sub-cultures of Canada, Aboriginals are not and never were sub-cultures of Canada. Italian-Canadians exist within Canada, Crees exist with Canada. There is a very large difference.

I agree entirely with you, except for the second last sentence.

[CANADIEN]

When I recommended integration, did you seriously think I wanted to put them into schools that would abuse them and strip them of their culture? There are appropriate ways to integrate people where they become a part of Canada while preserving their culture. It's a difficult balancing act but it's done all the time.

I can give you a personal account. My parents emigrated to Canada from Russia two years before I was born, as refugees. I was later enrolled into a private Jewish school (which wasn't cheap, but which still was available to less wealthy Jewish children whose parents could demonstrate that they could not afford the education) in order to preserve and strengthen my connection to my heritage and culture. I also learned the language of my parents by enrolling in a weekend school that my father founded. We celebrated Jewish holidays with the Jewish community and stayed in touch with other Jewish families in order to preserve and strengthen our connection to our heritage. All the while, I received a strong practical education and graduated from a good program in a good Canadian university. Why am I sharing this story? Because it is just one story among million demonstrating that one can successfully integrate into Canadian culture while preserving one's way of life. Of course sacrifices have to made, compromises here and there, but nobody said it would be easy. This is the integration I'm talking about. Natives can do this, as well. What's so hard to understand about that?

What is it so hard to comprehend that integration is a pipe dream until and unless the Aboriginals' identity as NATIONS is fully recognized? Integration is a pipe dream otherwise.

And btw, their cultures are already Canadian. Integration means recognizing that as well.

Edited November 14, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Bob]

Well, first of all I don't think it's a good idea to segregate aboriginals and place them on reservations. They should live among other Canadians just like the rest of us do. Go to public schools, get and education, and succeed. If they wish to, they can preserve their culture on their own as many other cultures in Canada have done and continue to do. It's not easy, but it's doable. It's also a far better idea than this segregation and life-support system where they are removed from most of the Canadian population and most opportunities.

As far as nationhood goes, you clearly have some problems grasping that concept. There is nothing insulting to any nation by bringing to attention the commonalities among members of subcultures in Canada that are compatible with nationhood. From a personal perspective, as much as I am a part of the Canadian nation, I am also part of the Jewish nation. Many people, like myself, have multifaceted identities. Aboriginals can do the same, and although I don't want to speak on their behalf, I think they would benefit from doing the same.

[Bob]

So if Aboriginals are a part of the Canadian nation, why do they need special recognition? If they do need special recognition, why not give special recognition to all other distinct and unique cultures within Canada? It just doesn't make sense.

[Shwa]

I agree entirely with you, except for the second last sentence.

Do tell...

[Melanie_]

Ha ha ha ha ha. No doubt that would be an attempt at an insult in not for the fact that you don't even know about the treaty relationships we have with First NATIONS

The modern destruction of the environment by aboriginal people in small isolated communities is a result of our impositions on them. FFS we are still sh*tting and pissing in our drinking water and when you push people into small rock formations called reserves and then tell them they MUST have indoor plumbing, what do you expect. The fact is that their agricultural communities and hunter-gatherer techniques were far less destructive and more sustainable than our modern practices. And in fact that is why we prescribe hunting and fishing laws that native people are exempt from - we cannot control ourselves and would destroy the resource before we even paid attention something was happening.

The early settlers learned those methods but later became dependent on manufactured methods to sow, cultivate and harvest. Yet the 2010 farmer is not wealthier in relative terms than the early 1700 farmers. They just own more stuff that sits idle most of the year. Nor do they have the time that early farmers once had. So the older aboriginal inspired farming practices were much more sustainable and as equitable as any technology we have thrown at it since.

Charter Rights, you sometimes let your romanticized view of Aboriginal people get in the way of reality. The early settlers may have used some of the aboriginal farming and hunting/gathering practices initially, but they quickly realized that they could transfer the agricultural techniques of Europe to Canada; this yielded far better results than what the natives were seeing. Aboriginals had not domesticated any animals other than dogs; when the Europeans arrived with domesticated cows, horses, sheep, pigs, and chickens, Aboriginals saw the value of raising animals for food rather than relying on hunting alone.

Watch Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Or even better, read the book. It is a fascinating look at the global environmental forces that influenced which groups would become colonizers, and which would become colonized (or eliminated). He takes race out of the equation right from the beginning, and simply looks at the environments different people found themselves in.