First nations patiences waning

[Smallc]

All people are equal.

Some of us inherit collective land rights through our families. Others don't.

Something that should be done away with, if we're actually all equal. Injustices of the past should not drive us away from an equal future.

[Guest Derek L]

I agree. One law for all. Creating Bantustans is not the way to run Canada. If natives need help with training and transitional funding to join our society, let's provide that. But having little villages in the middle of nowhere with no economic justification, and then expecting them to have a nice middle class life is just insane.

I agree. Racism and segregation, the unintended consequences of trying not to be seen as racist………..

[Evening Star]

I agree. One law for all. Creating Bantustans is not the way to run Canada. If natives need help with training and transitional funding to join our society, let's provide that. But having little villages in the middle of nowhere with no economic justification, and then expecting them to have a nice middle class life is just insane.

I freely admit to not being extremely knowledgeable about FN issues, and I know it's un-PC, but I have a hard time disagreeing with this. Maybe if the FNs actually seemed to be profiting greatly from their 'inherited collective land rights through their families', I could see more merit to the status quo.

Edit: The argument against the 1969 White Paper was that getting rid of the Indian Act and reserve system would simply lead to urban poverty for FNs iirc? But in what way is urban poverty worse than the situation in reserves like Attawapiskat?

Edited December 12, 2012 by Evening Star

[jacee]

All people are equal. Some of us inherit collective land rights through our families. Others don't.

Something that should be done away with, if we're actually all equal. Injustices of the past should not drive us away from an equal future.

Excuse me?

I shouldn't be able to inherit my share of our (collective) family trust and property interests?

We all have that right.

Edited December 12, 2012 by jacee

[Smallc]

I shouldn't be able to inherit my share of our (collective) family trust and property interests?

We all have that right.

Actually, no, it doesn't work like that for most of us. Aboriginal people don't really 'own' that land anymore, and only rights that set them apart...make them unequal....give them any claim to it. It really has no place in the year 2012, and we should work towards Constitutional change to reflect that.

[jacee]

Actually, no, it doesn't work like that for most of us. Aboriginal people don't really 'own' that land anymore, and only rights that set them apart...make them unequal....give them any claim to it. It really has no place in the year 2012, and we should work towards Constitutional change to reflect that.

It works like that for everyone whose family collectively holds wealth, property or any other kind of interest.

We all have the right to inherit, and I doubt the 1%'rs would be interested in constitutional change to deprive them of that right.

You are very much at odds with the law, smallc, and the people.

[Evening Star]

Inheritance of private property is not the same as the sorts of collective land rights you're talking about though, and does not afford the same rights that treaties with the FNs do. We're all aware that there are constitutionally protected treaties but it seems pretty false to equate this to the inheritance of private property.

[Smallc]

It works like that for everyone whose family collectively holds wealth, property or any other kind of interest.

Are you trying to claim now that first nations people are a 'family'?

We all have the right to inherit, and I doubt the 1%'rs would be interested in constitutional change to deprive them of that right.

You're talking about a completely different issue, in relation to private property, and ES says.

You are very much at odds with the law, smallc, and the people.

You're very much at odds with the actual conversation.

[jacee]

I agree. One law for all. Creating Bantustans is not the way to run Canada. If natives need help with training and transitional funding to join our society, let's provide that. But having little villages in the middle of nowhere with no economic justification, and then expecting them to have a nice middle class life is just insane.

The interesting development that make your view moot is that many remote First Nations have rich resource developments on their traditional lands, and are entitled to a share.

And it's true that their patience is wearing thin with the federal government that shirks its responsibility to facilitate the agreements that give them their share.

Edited December 12, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

Are you trying to claim now that first nations people are a 'family'?

You're talking about a completely different issue, in relation to private property, and ES says.

You're very much at odds with the actual conversation.

There is no difference.

We all have the right to inherit anything, but in particular the rights and interests that our family may hold, sometimes collectively.

Are you suggesting that only some of us 'should' have that right?

[Smallc]

[login]

-

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[login]

Actually, no, it doesn't work like that for most of us. Aboriginal people don't really 'own' that land anymore, and only rights that set them apart...make them unequal....give them any claim to it. It really has no place in the year 2012, and we should work towards Constitutional change to reflect that.

Wrong.

The treaties are between two nations. Canada doesn't own its land it is held by Canada in trust of the Crown. The natives hold their own title, but are at least brothers equal in status to the crown.

As soon as treaty is violated Canada looses its claim of right.

Sure if it violates treaty and is completely crooked on its obligations, it can do whatever it wants but so can the natives.

The idea of a modern Canada as nothing but something which rules by force doesn't promote legitimate rule though.

You can go that route but it is just occupation in that event. You can say so what but in blind ignorance or dishonour you will take it to your grave and be held accountable.

Ultimately we all have equal rights but if you corrupt the system to suit your own means, than you are worthless to deal with or recognize or respect.

Your form of government is illegitimate.

You can't impose rule. If you do you fail eventually because it is unilateral when there are multiple parties. It is just war, and it is unfortunate you can't repsect people and have to result to use of force.

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[TimG]

The treaties are between two nations. Canada doesn't own its land it is held by Canada in trust of the Crown. The natives hold their own title, but are at least brothers equal in status to the crown.

Nonsense. Canada is the sovereign power. The Crown and the Nation of Canada are the same. Under the umbrella of Canadian sovereignty natives have the option of establishing that they hold aboriginal title to some of the land in Canada. The SCC has laid out the requirements for establishing aboriginal title and it applies mainly to bands that have no formal treaties with the crown. There is no aboriginal title on land that has been properly ceded.

[login]

Nonsense. Canada is the sovereign power. The Crown and the Nation of Canada are the same. Under the umbrella of Canadian sovereignty natives have the option of establishing that they hold aboriginal title to some of the land in Canada. The SCC has laid out the requirements for establishing aboriginal title and it applies mainly to bands that have no formal treaties with the crown. There is no aboriginal title on land that has been properly ceded.

You are subjugating but you arn't recognizing the historical factor. You are trying to impose EuroCanadian values on First Nations identity. Sovereignty can't be forced on others. You can't force assimilation. Indians rejected that long ago under the premise of Citizens Plus. Native rights arn't alienable, this includes the foundation of their membership in Canada, much like Provinces have rights as part of a Federation. The Indian Act is a mechanism for performance under the treaty, regardless of the injustices that have been done through it.

No native land has been properly ceeded. The cession process is whatever you make it but as long as it is disputed, it is disputed. If Canada can back out and change the rules so can the natives.

Most of Canada wasn't ceeded to the federal government, there were land use treaties by provinces. Most of BC wasn't historically ceeded. Most of Northern Canada wasn't. There are massive problems in Ontario in that the land was occupied by non ancestorial claim, that is during the contact period there was a diaspora so natives in areas wern't in their traditional lands. Disease effected things greatly. In that sense there is a certain degree of shared land rights in that only individual groups were dealth with. In Quebec and all former French territories land was not ceeded, it was assumed for the crown, when France under treaty, which has since been in large part voided, handed it over to England. Nova Scotia was annexed. In modern contract any treaty signed under duress is void, which are many. The circumstances are problematic. That is why there are so many court cases on rights. Not all native land is ceeded. The government just likes to think that way because it benefits them.

You are only supporting the view of the conqueror and that is why your view is faulty.

You are just trying to force and enforce changes to the status quo that advantage Colonialism over stakeholder rights it has been going on since the contact period but it doesn't make it ethical or supportable. I would hope we have become more enlightened and moved away from a period of forced conversion, occupation and oppression. My Canada is not your Canada if you support those things. Ultimately we are free and equal but we need to work on concensus not unilaterialism. Canada is many stakeholders and many nations, not simply a unitary subjugation of the populace. I reject the sort of Canada were it is ignorance and rule by force alone, and so should you. We are equals and we are free.

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[Moonbox]

Fat slob on a hunger strike. Reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons.

Morning news:

Hot dog stand raided outside Parliament Hill.

[TimG]

You are only supporting the view of the conqueror and that is why your view is faulty.

All of the "rights" which aboriginals have today only exist because of the legal system created by the "conqueror". Without that legal system, aboriginals would have nothing. Look to South America if you want some idea of what aboriginal rights would be without the British "conqueror".

Bottom line: Canada exists. It is the sovereign country. A lot of Canadians recognize that natives were treated badly and would like to see these historical wrongs redressed. But that desire does not mean that people are going to buy into the 'Canada does not own the land' claptrap. All you accomplish with such rhetoric is piss people off who would otherwise be willing to compromise on the details of resource revenue sharing, economic development and self government.

Edited December 12, 2012 by TimG

[login]

Well that sounds like something that should be up to band to decide. Any organization needs to have rules to prevent the process from being abused.

That is wishful thinking as it was changed by the Government via the Indian Act, not as a band council decision and not as an individual status indian agreement level

land was given per family not per band.

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[login]

All of the "rights" which aboriginals have today only exist because of the legal system created by the "conqueror".

Wrong.

Without that legal system, aboriginals would have nothing. Look to South America if you want some idea of what aboriginal rights would be without the British "conqueror".

Wrong. Aboriginal rights exist at their local organization level as well as internationally.

You are just being ignorant.

Bottom line: Canada exists. It is the sovereign country. A lot of Canadians recognize that natives were treated badly and would like to see these historical wrongs redressed. But that desire does not mean that people are going to buy into the 'Canada does not own the land' claptrap. All you accomplish with such rhetoric is piss people off who would otherwise be willing to compromise on the details of resource revenue sharing, economic development and self government.

You are just being fascist. You can't accept natives have their rights because they existed before Canada did. They made Canada and gave it its name from their language not the other way around. They gave the French a place to live. It was the English who opted to fight for the land. They are occupying they don't own anything. Treaties which must be followed exist to give the Crown right to use the land Canada is within. You are just in denile if you ignore that fact. Fabricate your reality it doesn't make it any more real. Geuss what, those treaties were broken and the crown lost its title. If they obey the treaty the title can be mainained, its just like any other lease. You play by the rules you can play you don't, you can't.

Its the natives who gave Europeans a right to exist not the other way around. Europeans recognized the requirement to coexist because natives were too valuable and did no wrong to deserve being at war in many cases. It was colonial occupation that has bloomed. Natives have been very welcoming both by their spirit and their necesity. It is sad you have to resort to use of force to rob people of their land. If we can agree it can be shared for mutual benefit. It was all about trade not ownership.

The natives saved Canada, remember that. You are utterly ignorant of the past.

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[Canuckistani]

The interesting development that make your view moot is that many remote First Nations have rich resource developments on their traditional lands, and are entitled to a share.

And it's true that their patience is wearing thin with the federal government that shirks its responsibility to facilitate the agreements that give them their share.

It they get a share, let 'em pay their own way and pay taxes on what they get. I don't agree with one race being given an extra share vs the rest of Canada, but if so, at least let em quit sucking off the govt tit.

[login]

It they get a share, let 'em pay their own way and pay taxes on what they get. I don't agree with one race being given an extra share vs the rest of Canada, but if so, at least let em quit sucking off the govt tit.

Maybe you should stop sucking off of native land. Thats been happening a lot longer than natives getting 'handouts' you know there is a reason they do. Because the land you use is theirs.

Edited December 12, 2012 by login

[jacee]

Interesting article about Aboriginal rights and the development of Canada's resource wealth:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/10/first-nations-a-revolution-of-rising-expectations/

Last week’s scuffle outside the lobby of the House of Commons between aboriginal leaders and the Commons security guards is likely only the opening salvo in what could be a long and protracted battle over Canada’s natural resource wealth.

If the government’s relationship with aboriginal leaders heads in the direction of greater conflict, much of the prosperity that has been projected for Canada will be at risk. So, too, will be a once-in-a-century opportunity to rebuild the economic and social fabric of aboriginal communities across the country.

…

In fact, we think Canada has now reached a sweet spot, where real progress on the ground is possible because government authority and companies’ access to capital and development expertise are finally being matched by the very real legal and political rights of aboriginal peoples.

...

Companies have increasingly come to the table in a collaborative spirit, realizing that the viability of resource projects rests on mutually beneficial arrangements with indigenous peoples.

Aboriginal people are frustrated —with the Government of Canada, the provinces and the resource companies. One can hardly blame them, given the decades of resistance to welcoming First Nations into planning and development processes. It is surprising, in fact, that so many (but not all) aboriginal communities are open to discussions and negotiations.

But aboriginal leaders and governments have come to an important realization: unlocking the resource potential of this country is the best way to provide their communities with jobs, income, and a real and sustainable partnership in Canada. Canadians have likewise realized that large-scale resource development is the key to national economic success.

The hand aboriginal communities have extended on resource development has to be grasped. Canada’s economic future, and the revitalization of aboriginal communities across the country, rest on the ability and willingness of governments and business to capitalize on the impressive collaborative models that already exist.

Edited December 12, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

Nonsense. Canada is the sovereign power. The Crown and the Nation of Canada are the same. Under the umbrella of Canadian sovereignty natives have the option of establishing that they hold aboriginal title to some of the land in Canada. The SCC has laid out the requirements for establishing aboriginal title and it applies mainly to bands that have no formal treaties with the crown. There is no aboriginal title on land that has been properly ceded.

"Properly" being the operative word.

Canada/BNA didn't always follow or follow through "properly". That's why there are hundreds of outstanding 'specific land claims' for Aboriginal title, even where there are treaties and land was supposedly 'ceded'. One recurring issue is payment: There might be a document indicating land was to be ceded upon payment or other considerations - timber rights, for example - but if our government never made the proper payments, the land was never " properly ceded".

The issue of resource development, however, isn't always Aboriginal title (outright ownership).

Even on land "properly ceded", some Aboriginal rights are retained. Traditional hunting, fishing and other rights, relevant to all traditional territories, are legally interpreted as 'the right to sustain themselves' from the land.

Aboriginal rights thus include the right to a say in land development and a share in revenues from all traditional territories.

Aboriginal rights are the reason resource development must include agreements with affected First Nations.

The government is legally responsible for ensuring that this occurs, but often fails to do so.

Edited December 12, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

Maybe you should stop sucking off of native land. Thats been happening a lot longer than natives getting 'handouts' you know there is a reason they do. Because the land you use is theirs.

Absolutely correct.

And the impatience of First Nations leaders is due to the failure of government leaders to address this very real issue:

January 2012, Crown-First Nations Summit:

“The prime minister knows that there’s very high expectations on him for this meeting, and the fact that he’s scaled back his time commitment to us, that’s what’s disappointing,” Nepinak said. “He’s going to come out, he’s going to take some pictures, he’s going to make a grand announcement of some sort that’s intended to appease the First Nations participants.”

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/01/20/uncertainty-about-harpers-attendance-tainting-first-nations-conference/

Chief Spence's hunger strike, the Chief's march on Parliament and other activism is in demand that Harper fulfill Canada's legal obligation to facilitate agreements for resource development that respect Aboriginal rights to a say in development and a share in revenues ... legal obligations upheld by the Supreme Court.

Edited December 12, 2012 by jacee

[gunrutz]

I dont see any of them volunteering to go back to living the way they did before we got here, in fact most of the complaints are about not having enough of the modern conveniences that we invented and provide, but yet treaties signed under completely different circumstances from the world as we know it today should be 100% enforced? No, we should tear them up, let the 'nation' come after us for it. I wonder if their allies, like Iran, would come to their aid.

If it wasn't for us you would be living the same life as your ancestors 400 years ago, choose, i would respect you a lot more, a house, or a tent, the ground or a bed, and outboard or a paddle, choose, but then accept that those modern convieniences that we all want come at a price, accepting reality is the first step. But then you already know this, it's all about money, everything else is jsut bullshit.