First Nations peoples are being eradicated by

[Shady]

The only definition that matters legally and in academic parlance is the one that is provided by the United Nations.

Why?

[eyeball]

I'm curious: Since when has cultural difference been a barrier against participation in economic life? Trade has gone on between disparate cultures around the world for millennia.

Contact between powerful and weaker cultures/societies/civilizations whatever you want to call them have also resulted in the disappearance and obliteration of the latter for millennia, like the Beothuk people from Newfoundland for example.

What's so special about First Nations in this regard?

They survived contact and are recovering during a period when the expansion of human and indigenous rights have accelerated.

I guess it must suck to be anyone who thinks this acceleration has gone too far. I guess it goes without saying I'd like to step on the gas and I have a lead foot.

[eyeball]

Does that Declaration contain any obligation to subsidize the "indigenous groups"?

The obligation is to compensate them.

[cybercoma]

Why?

Genocide is a legal term in international law.

[jacee]

I've been reading this thread and a number of posters have raised my hackles with the careless and casual use of the term 'genocide'. This term refers to the deliberate and systematic attempt by one group of people to destroy another, usually through sustained warfare or outright mass murder. This practice has too many examples from time immemorial, but the two most recent examples that come to mind are the Armenians in World War One, and the Jews in World War Two. That was genocide.

I challenge any posters using this term to supply even a single example in what is now Canada of Europeans practicing genocide on any group of Native peoples.

...

I know it is fashionable in some circles to use this term for shock effect and to score political points, but I find its use reprehensible. Its an insult to co-opt the term from those peoples who have been subjected to real genocide, and its an insult to Canada as a nation. And before someone pipes back with the term 'cultural genocide', the residential school system was a long drawn out tragedy, but that was forced assimillation, not genocide. There's a big difference, and if you can't see it you need to head down to your local library and start doing some reading.

I think you should study the UN definition of genocide before getting your hackles up. There are more ways to attempt to destroy cultures/peoples than outright murder.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: national, ethnical, racial or religious group, national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to preve births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Edited December 21, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

jacee,

if you edit your post there's a link at the bottom of the message window that says "configure post options." Within that linkn is a checkbox that says "Enable emoticons?" If you deselect this box, you won't get that stupid sunglasses guy in your post.

I don't think anyone is really aware of this because it always comes up when people try to type b, bracket. --->

[cybercoma]

Reconfigured post.

[jbg]

They survived contact and are recovering during a period when the expansion of human and indigenous rights have accelerated.

I guess it must suck to be anyone who thinks this acceleration has gone too far. I guess it goes without saying I'd like to step on the gas and I have a lead foot.

I don't mind their exercising their rights. Let them do so with their own income.

[Guest Manny]

Canada does not have to do anything at all, to solve its native "problem". All it needs to do is wait. And wait, and wait. Native populations will continue to decline into eventual oblivion.

This is the way the indigenous world ends,

this is the way the indigenous world ends,

this is the way the indigenous world ends,

not with a bang, but a whimper.

[olp1fan]

First Nations are more than welcome to live just like the rest of us

Take their hand outs away and let them become normal citizens

[charter.rights]

That's very enlightening info. Indians (some)also engaged in cannibalism and torture did they not?

No they did not.

That myth arises from the story of the Peacemaker who meets a man on the trail who was killing warriors from warring nations and eating their flesh to make sure they would never reincarnate. However, that does not make Aboriginal people cannibals any more than the Black Donnellys makes all Caucasian people cannibals.

[charter.rights]

Schwa and/or Charter.Rights may be the best ones to answer my question, and I don't mean this in a bad way even though we usually don't "play nicely". Why is there such a serious FN problem with alcohol, or is it just stereotype? I'll take an answer from anyone but would like the answer to be thoughtful and reflective, not bigoted.

There is a serious problem with everyone of any specified race or background when you live in poverty and have been abused and mistreated into hopeless despair. The Residential School legacy has created multi-generations of poor and hopeless people, lacking parenting skills or knowing their family histories.

It is well known that abuse creates abusers out of the victims.

[charter.rights]

I don't mind their exercising their rights. Let them do so with their own income.

The fact of the matter is, all the money First Nations receive come from the interest on the $2 trillion First Nations trust. That amounts to about $35 billion a year, of which Aboriginal Affairs uses half for the joint funding of First Nations and the bureaucracy. Canada uses the rest of the money they are supposed to be paying directly into the trust to fund the economy.

The Supreme Court has already ruled the First Nations are Constitutionally entitled to take their portion of the trust from the government and appoint their own trustees. The problem is the government refuses to hand over anything.

[charter.rights]

Canada does not have to do anything at all, to solve its native "problem". All it needs to do is wait. And wait, and wait. Native populations will continue to decline into eventual oblivion.

You'll be waiting a long time. First Nations are growing and expanding faster than any other group in Canada. IN fact most cultures are declining, but not First Nations.

[olp1fan]

IN fact most cultures are declining, but not First Nations.

Isn't a good percentage of native men in prison? pretty soon they'll be more in prisons due to Harpers marijuana and there goes the culture with it

[jbg]

There is a serious problem with everyone of any specified race or background when you live in poverty and have been abused and mistreated into hopeless despair. The Residential School legacy has created multi-generations of poor and hopeless people, lacking parenting skills or knowing their family histories.

It is well known that abuse creates abusers out of the victims.

My question is directed to the period prior to the abomination of the Residential Schools. Please answer why there was a "fire water" problem as early as the early 1800's.

[charter.rights]

First Nations are more than welcome to live just like the rest of us

Take their hand outs away and let them become normal citizens

First Nations are not Canadians and are not obligated to live as Canadians. Since all the money they receive is only half their own trust interest, the actual fact is that the Canadian economy and social services are subsidized by First Nations, not the other way around.

Why would Aboriginal people want to give up their rights to become self-indulged, legally impotent bigoted wing nuts (of course if you are holding yourself out as an example of what you think a real Canadian is)?

[cybercoma]

The fact of the matter is, all the money First Nations receive come from the interest on the $2 trillion First Nations trust.

I'm curious. People have brought this up before and, although I'm sympathetic to the problems that our aboriginal communities face, you have never actually provided any citations or evidence for this trust fund. Whether it exists or not--I lean towards not--doesn't actually matter, given the agreements made with the Crown. I would, however, like to read up on it if it does indeed exist.

[charter.rights]

My question is directed to the period prior to the abomination of the Residential Schools. Please answer why there was a "fire water" problem as early as the early 1800's.

Generally there wasn't. It was another of the many myths and fears propagated by ignorant peasants.

However, it was widely held that Indian Agents would use alcohol at meetings to get them to surrender land. After the Royal Proclamation 1763 it was prohibited for anyone but the Crown to obtain land.

[charter.rights]

Isn't a good percentage of native men in prison? pretty soon they'll be more in prisons due to Harpers marijuana and there goes the culture with it

The First Nations are growing faster than they die or incarcerated. As their populations increase so does the per capita funding obligation from the government.

[prairiechickin]

I think you should study the UN definition of genocide before getting your hackles up. There are more ways to attempt to destroy cultures/peoples than outright murder.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: national, ethnical, racial or religious group, national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to preve births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Thanks for providing the UN's definition of genocide, but its a little broad and fuzzy for my liking. Look at (B)Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of this group. By this definition simply detaining a half dozen Mexican illegal immigrants, beating the hell out of them and not letting them sleep constitutes genocide. In my books, that's not genocide, that's just beating the hell out of a half dozen Mexicans. So the UN is entitled to their definition, I prefer mine because its more precise and is reserved for cases where one group specifically tries to wipe another off the face of the earth. Hitler set out to kill every Jew in Europe -- that's genocide. Trying to equate the adoption of Native children in Canada to non-Native families to this horror involves a leap in moral relativism that, for me, simply does not equate. I prefer to see the term only used in its original context, to water it down to fit all oppressed peoples on earth simply weakens the term into irrelevance.

[prairiechickin]

The fact of the matter is, all the money First Nations receive come from the interest on the $2 trillion First Nations trust. That amounts to about $35 billion a year, of which Aboriginal Affairs uses half for the joint funding of First Nations and the bureaucracy. Canada uses the rest of the money they are supposed to be paying directly into the trust to fund the economy.

The Supreme Court has already ruled the First Nations are Constitutionally entitled to take their portion of the trust from the government and appoint their own trustees. The problem is the government refuses to hand over anything.

Could we get a source, or a link, to this supposed $2 trillion trust fund? I've never heard of this before.

[olp1fan]

First Nations are not Canadians and are not obligated to live as Canadians. Since all the money they receive is only half their own trust interest, the actual fact is that the Canadian economy and social services are subsidized by First Nations, not the other way around.

Why would Aboriginal people want to give up their rights to become self-indulged, legally impotent bigoted wing nuts (of course if you are holding yourself out as an example of what you think a real Canadian is)?

real canadian? how about a productive member of society which most are not because they pick up their cheques and waste it on drugs and alcohol, do you ever wonder why the high school graduation rate is low for them? They are given money for every time they pass a class ..I know because a quarter the people in my HS were native and barely any of them showed up

natives for the most part are a burden on our society

call me what you want to but I've lived around them my whole life and I will no longer be politically correct to appease the pansies

Edited December 21, 2011 by olp1fan

[charter.rights]

I'm curious. People have brought this up before and, although I'm sympathetic to the problems that our aboriginal communities face, you have never actually provided any citations or evidence for this trust fund. Whether it exists or not--I lean towards not--doesn't actually matter, given the agreements made with the Crown. I would, however, like to read up on it if it does indeed exist.

Yes I have.

Go to AANDC and search on "First Nations trust". However, the consolidated trust is not found in any one location. You have to follow the court cases and accounting through 250 years of history.

The fact is that the Six Nations trust on its own merits is worth over $1 trillion and much of it has been embezzled (the government has admitted they are aware of the mis-dealings of Indian Agents) and used for things like the CN railway, the Welland Canal, Osgoode Hall and the failed Grand River Navigation Company, without repayment back to the fund. Nevertheless as a trustee the government has a fiduciary to account for all the money in the trust and maintain it with the interests specified by an Order in Council from 1820 on. By the way the trust was started in 1684 Howard Treaty when the Crown agreed to hold the payment for land in trust on behalf of Six Nations for their perpetual care. A forensic audit conducted by accountants retained by Six Nations actually has the fund at around $2 trillion but there are doubtful expenditures which put the reasonable minimum at $1 trillion. Six Nations is presently in Court to settle a portion of that account over lands sold to Brantford but never paid for.

Other First Nations are in similar situations with the Crown agreeing to hold the trust for gas, oil and timber royalties derived from their land, from the sale and settlement of land claims and for annuities promised in treaties and resource agreements. In all that would be a minimum of another $1 trillion.

[charter.rights]

Thanks for providing the UN's definition of genocide, but its a little broad and fuzzy for my liking. Look at (B)Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of this group. By this definition simply detaining a half dozen Mexican illegal immigrants, beating the hell out of them and not letting them sleep constitutes genocide. In my books, that's not genocide, that's just beating the hell out of a half dozen Mexicans. So the UN is entitled to their definition, I prefer mine because its more precise and is reserved for cases where one group specifically tries to wipe another off the face of the earth. Hitler set out to kill every Jew in Europe -- that's genocide. Trying to equate the adoption of Native children in Canada to non-Native families to this horror involves a leap in moral relativism that, for me, simply does not equate. I prefer to see the term only used in its original context, to water it down to fit all oppressed peoples on earth simply weakens the term into irrelevance.

Nope it doesn't.

The key is that genocide is directed a a specific group with the intention of reducing the populations of that group. Thus, all First Nations people were targeted by the government when Residential Schools were implemented with the specific goal of erasing the Indian in the child.