First nations patiences waning

[bush_cheney2004]

What an odd discussion....here we have a nation that claims to have cornered the market on "multiculturalism", and yet it struggles with the culture(s) that existed in North America long before Canada was ever an imperialist twinkle in a monarch's eye.

[dre]

Your logic is criminal. Your understanding of the law and the Constitution is also rather sad. A view can't be criminal. The Constitution is subject to limitations clauses and, believe it or not, can be amended.

The constitution can be amended, but the treaties with the natives are agreements to share the land. If we dont honor those agreements they dont have to share the land with us anymore. Without those treaties Canada is an occupation.

[TimG]

The constitution can be amended, but the treaties with the natives are agreements to share the land. If we dont honor those agreements they dont have to share the land with us anymore. Without those treaties Canada is an occupation.

Nonsense. Every country in the world was created by the conquest of territories without the approval of the occupants at the time. They are not less legitimate because of the way they came to be.

[dre]

Nonsense. Every country in the world was created by the conquest of territories without the approval of the occupants at the time. They are not less legitimate because of the way they came to be.

The courts have ruled that it isnt nonsense. I never said that the government cant refuse to honor its obligations... clearly they could, and clearly some governments have. The government could write a law that lets them sieze YOUR land too... The question is would it be wise or productive for the government to treat people this way, and the answer is no.

[Smallc]

The courts have ruled that it isnt nonsense.

Only because of Canadian Law.

[TimG]

The question is would it be wise or productive for the government to treat people this way, and the answer is no.

Of course not. A negotiated settlement is always preferable. But the trouble with natives today is their mythology when it comes to what their treaties mean is completely disconnected from reality. This makes it hard to find a reasonable compromise.

[dre]

Only because of Canadian Law.

Yeah... inconvenient being a nation of laws.

[Smallc]

Yeah... inconvenient being a nation of laws.

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The curt interprets the law and the constitution. The government, or governments make it. I'm not proposing doing anything without First Nation approval, I'm saying it's technically possible.

[cybercoma]

No, that isn't the answer, because it still presupposes that aboriginal people are somehow different...and they aren't.

Of course they're different. They have treaties with the Crown. You and I don't.

[Moonbox]

The courts have ruled that it isnt nonsense. I never said that the government cant refuse to honor its obligations... clearly they could, and clearly some governments have. The government could write a law that lets them sieze YOUR land too... The question is would it be wise or productive for the government to treat people this way, and the answer is no.

Your issue here is that you seem to think a treaty or the Constitution are somehow sacrosanct...that somehow they are the very essence of Canada and being Canadian and that we can't exist without them in their current form.

The simple fact is that the treaties were written many generations ago under very different circumstances, for very different purposes and by ancestors with whom neither side has virtually anything in common. The government will negotiate with the First Nations on how to deal with these treaties within reason, but no further. The within reason part is the foundation of any just society and you'd do well to remember that considering how much you emphasize the law.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

Nonsense. Every country in the world was created by the conquest of territories without the approval of the occupants at the time. They are not less legitimate because of the way they came to be.

Ours wasn't a conquest. Those "conquered" people defended our asses in 1812 and earlier against other Native tribes. They worked in partnership with us from the beginning. Now you want to throw that partnership in the garbage and say they belong to us; they're subordinate to us. That was never the agreement. If that's the way you want it now, I hope you've stocked up on firearms because you're asking for a violent war with the original inhabitants of this country.

[Smallc]

Of course they're different. They have treaties with the Crown. You and I don't.

No they aren't different (I'm Metis btw, and I don't want to be counted as different because of where some of my ancestors may have come from).

[Smallc]

Now you want to throw that partnership in the garbage and say they belong to us; they're subordinate to us.

I'm sure you're missing the point.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Smallc

[Moonbox]

Ours wasn't a conquest. Those "conquered" people defended our asses in 1812 and earlier against other Native tribes. They worked in partnership with us from the beginning. Now you want to throw that partnership in the garbage and say they belong to us; they're subordinate to us. That was never the agreement. If that's the way you want it now, I hope you've stocked up on firearms because you're asking for a violent war with the original inhabitants of this country.

Not belong to us, or subordinate to us. It's more like belong with us and are part of us.

The original goals and purposes of the treaties are so far removed from the warped interpretations of today that they're next to meaningless.

As for the First Nations defending our asses, give me a break. They were allies and they saw what happened to the aboriginals in the United States. They allied with us, preferring to live with British colonials rather than take their chances on the Americans, who had a nasty habit of systematically wiping out the indigenous in their territories.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

Not belong to us, or subordinate to us. It's more like belong with us and are part of us.

Exactly. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this, and why this position is somehow considered as racist, or even better yet, genocide.

[TimG]

Now you want to throw that partnership in the garbage and say they belong to us; they're subordinate to us.

They are no more subordinate than the angles are subordinate to the saxons. History is history. Today is today. A democratic society is based on the principal that laws apply equally to all people. It makes no difference whether you got off the boat yesterday or if your ancestors were here 10,000 years ago. Edited December 28, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

Exactly. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this, and why this position is somehow considered as racist, or even better yet, genocide.

I dont think you are racist or genocidal at all. I just the our government should be in the business of honoring our obligations and our treaties, and I think the only right way to change them is through negotiation. I also think these treaties have been a great deal for us. We have extracted zillions of dollars worth of resources from lands subject to these treaties in return for mere table scraps.

I also agree in principle that the laws should be applied the same to everyone, but in practice I dont think that will work.

[TimG]

I also agree in principle that the laws should be applied the same to everyone, but in practice I dont think that will work.

There is also another principal: non-native Canadians are not serfs living on land owned by the native overlords. So any settlement must result in a country that is governable and allows non-native Canadians to benefit from the resources as well since it is the non-native Canadians that created the high tech industrial economy that allows natives to benefit from resource extraction.

[Guest]

I dont think you are racist or genocidal at all. I just the our government should be in the business of honoring our obligations and our treaties, and I think the only right way to change them is through negotiation. I also think these treaties have been a great deal for us. We have extracted zillions of dollars worth of resources from lands subject to these treaties in return for mere table scraps.

I also agree in principle that the laws should be applied the same to everyone, but in practice I dont think that will work.

It could be that your last sentence applies to your second sentence as well.

[jbg]

http://www.theglobea...article6188717/

The 'Cheif' of Attawapiskat has gone on a hunger strike until the Queen or PM enter dialogue in regard to ignoring treaty.

Learn to spell, but the Chief's plight moves me not.

[cybercoma]

allows non-native Canadians to benefit from the resources as well

As well? Is that some kind of joke? They benefit almost exclusively.

[Evening Star]

Oh come on, state-owned Chinese corporations appear to be deriving some benefit too.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Evening Star

[Moonbox]

As well? Is that some kind of joke? They benefit almost exclusively.

and the only reason the natives don't is because they live in a broken reserve system, often in the middle of BF nowhere, and even when there is work available they have neither the education nor the skills to do it. What's worse is that the rules against owning property remove the incentive most communities have to pursue wealth building activity (ie education and work), which leads them directly into the situation they find themselves in today. Basic human nature asserts itself here on the reserves.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Moonbox

[login]

Learn what the word treaty means. If you break the treaty you do not get your half of the stuff you loose all claim to it.

You break the terms of contract, you do not get to keep the stuff you gain from it, it goes back to the owner. Renegotiation is an option but default on a treaty negates what you gained in the treaty.

Learn your place and it is not on top. It is a partnership. Understand that.

You have no moral ground to stand on and without it, you are dead.

You are lucky first nations are more reasonable than rascist criminal idiots like you.

Edited December 29, 2012 by login

[jbg]

Learn what the word treaty means. If you break the treaty you do not get your half of the stuff you loose all claim to it.

"Chief" was the word you didn't know how to spell.

You break the terms of contract, you do not get to keep the stuff you gain from it, it goes back to the owner. Renegotiation is an option but default on a treaty negates what you gained in the treaty.

Obviously you have no understanding of the remedies for breach of contract.

Learn your place and it is not on top. It is a partnership. Understand that.

You have no moral ground to stand on and without it, you are dead.

Partnership? I do not see the Attawapiskat chief as my fiduciary. I am hardly dead. I am sitting at my keyboard typing. Maybe I should go to sleep earlier rather than responding to you.

You are lucky first nations are more reasonable than rascist criminal idiots like you.

Again, learn to spell. It's "racist". And I am not a racist, nor a criminal, nor an idiot.