First nations patiences waning

[shortlived]

Keep in mind that 'traditional native ways' could mean murdering settlers/miners/loggers/trappers/etc. At least it was in B.C. Generally, not part of proper British society. That couldn't be allowed to continue under any scenario.

Absolute BS the british were the ones who instigated settler conflict in the area that was to become BC, they annexed native land by force, as well by trickery under false terms murder the chief of a band under the auspice of treaty negotiations.

You know nothing about Bc history to make statements like that.

The british invaded native land, annexed it and ignored native custom.

you are utterly ignorant.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

Why can't fn people get jobs instead of relying on handouts ?

They aren't handouts they are money that is owed to them. If you lease your land to someone on conditions you expect those conditions to be fulfilled.

understand you are standing on (or sitting on) native land right now. The british crown has no divine right to annex another peoples land. the legacy of conquest is not an ethical one, and treaty for land must be looked at from our ethical standards today. Illegal contract yesterday is still illegal contract. It is easier just to support cheating and robbing people, but people with higher moral standards won't accept those types of cultural legacies as acceptable.

They aren't handouts, they are monies owed to first nations.

owing someone money isn't the same as charity.

It wasn't free land. It wasn't discovered. It was possessed before the English crown arrived in North America.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

They aren't handouts they are money that is owed to them. If you lease your land to someone on conditions you expect those conditions to be fulfilled.

Illegal contract yesterday is still illegal contract..

Ah, so no moneys are owed. Good. Better tell that to the First Nations seeking redress for treaty illegal contract violations.

[g_bambino]

Absolute BS.

You know nothing about Bc history to make statements like that..

you are utterly ignorant.

Well, there you have it, DoP: "you're stupid". How could you possibly counter that solid and eloquent argument?

[Accountability Now]

They aren't handouts they are money that is owed to them. If you lease your land to someone on conditions you expect those conditions to be fulfilled.

understand you are standing on (or sitting on) native land right now. The british crown has no divine right to annex another peoples land. the legacy of conquest is not an ethical one, and treaty for land must be looked at from our ethical standards today. Illegal contract yesterday is still illegal contract. It is easier just to support cheating and robbing people, but people with higher moral standards won't accept those types of cultural legacies as acceptable.

They aren't handouts, they are monies owed to first nations.

owing someone money isn't the same as charity.

It wasn't free land. It wasn't discovered. It was possessed before the English crown arrived in North America.

Shortlived....are you not aware of (or do you just refuse to acknowledge) the number of treaties made by the FN to cede and surrender all their land to the British? These documents are available for you to look at online if you haven't read them.

[TimG]

The british crown has no divine right to annex another peoples land. the legacy of conquest is not an ethical one, and treaty for land must be looked at from our ethical standards today.

Our ethical standards today mean that all people are equal before the law and no people are entitled to special treatment because of their DNA. Treaties rights are really nothing but reconstructed feudalism where the descendants of a minority group are entitled to benefits for no reason other than the fact that they have the "right" DNA. Europeans booted out emasculated their feudal lords decades ago. Why are people here so keen on preserving the structure?

Ethically and morally treaty rights are wrong.

Edited February 26, 2013 by TimG

[DogOnPorch]

Absolute BS the british were the ones who instigated settler conflict in the area that was to become BC, they annexed native land by force, as well by trickery under false terms murder the chief of a band under the auspice of treaty negotiations.

You know nothing about Bc history to make statements like that.

The british invaded native land, annexed it and ignored native custom.

you are utterly ignorant.

You're free to believe that Native Indians were perfect saints while the evil white man stole all the land. I know otherwise, thanks. Best look-up fellows like Ot-Chee-Wun (aka Ah-Chee-Wun), Tzouhalem the Bold, Chief Isadore the Ahousat tribe (to name a few) and events like the Tonquin (ship), the Boston (ship), the Attack on Fort McLoughlin, the Hell's Gate War, the Massacre at Ganges Island, the Salt Whiskey War, the Chilcotin War...etc, etc. I think it's YOU who are utterly ignorant. Nice to meet you, btw. Don't expect coffee.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, there you have it, DoP: "you're stupid". How could you possibly counter that solid and eloquent argument?

I'm used to that around here from my esteemed opponents...lol.

[shortlived]

Our ethical standards today mean that all people are equal before the law and no people are entitled to special treatment because of their DNA. Treaties rights a really nothing but warmed over feudalism where the descendants of a minority group are entitled to benefits for no reason other than the fact that they have the "right" DNA.

Ethically and morally treaty rights are wrong.

Yeah and contract requirements granted to one person should be fulfilled if they are ethical.

Equality before law does not mean everyone is entitled to the same amount of money, resources, and women.

IT IS OWED.

Yes so, they have legal status. Equality before the law means equal treatment. This does not mean individuals who have international treaty benefits for their other national status mean that other national status is effected. They have dual nationality. Treaty is between two sovereign peoples, they didn't give up their native nationality when they gained Canadian nationality.

You are trying to force an assimilation which doesn't exist. They are dual nationals. Treaty is not an internal agreement or policy, it is treaty between two sovereign peoples.

The white paper was rejected decades ago.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

You're free to believe that Native Indians were perfect saints while the evil white man stole all the land. I know otherwise, thanks. Best look-up fellows like Ot-Chee-Wun (aka Ah-Chee-Wun), Tzouhalem the Bold, Chief Isadore the Ahousat tribe (to name a few) and events like the Tonquin (ship), the Boston (ship), the Attack on Fort McLoughlin, the Hell's Gate War, the Massacre at Ganges Island, the Salt Whiskey War, the Chilcotin War...etc, etc. I think it's YOU who are utterly ignorant. Nice to meet you, btw. Don't expect coffee.

The person being invaded is more ethical than the invader. they ignored native land rights and they were attacked as they encroached without permission.

You try to demonize but yes they had long established trade and relations with other groups. Whiteman showed up and used guns to kill anyone who didn't agree to their terms.

Learn a little before you speak.

FIrst nations in BC have been far more honourable than the British land thieves.

Potlatch and sundance are only some examples of completely by today standards unethical moves to conquer the native peoples by violence.

Try to cross the US border without permission and see what happens if you don't submit.

You are just blatantly ignoring native land rights and title assuming the British have always had divine right to the land. Ignorance nothing but ignorance.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

IT IS OWED.

No it is not.

A government cannot legally require future generations to pay special benefits to people who have not even be born. At any time now or in the future, the people can use their democratic right to cancel such payments.

Treaty is between two sovereign peoples, they didn't give up their native nationality when they gained Canadian nationality.

Native groups are not sovereign by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, the 1763 declaration which natives are so keen to use establishes quite clearly that natives have surrendered their sovereignty to the British crown. The only thing left was the question of title to lands. Edited February 26, 2013 by TimG

[DogOnPorch]

The person being invaded is more ethical than the invader. they ignored native land rights and they were attacked as they encroached without permission.

You try to demonize but yes they had long established trade and relations with other groups. Whiteman showed up and used guns to kill anyone who didn't agree to their terms.

Learn a little before you speak.

There was no invasions in BC other than the Haida coming for more slaves. The very word 'Haida' would send the natives around here fleeing to the bush not that long ago.

[shortlived]

There was no invasions in BC other than the Haida coming for more slaves. The very word 'Haida' would send the natives around here fleeing to the bush not that long ago.

You are coming off as nothing but an uneducated ignoramus in denial.

Until you recognize the fact BC and other parts of Canada are under the legacy british colonial rule as a result of occupation and oppression I'm not sure you will have an informed position. Denial and ignorance is all you bring to this discussion.

The premise of seeing unethical behaviour from your cultures perspective then trying to apply that to the other culture from your cultural basis does not create ethical conduct. No act is equal, and do be dishnourable to those you see as dishonourable is simply dishonourable.

If you don't like it kill it, but creating a corrupt society because you see other corrupt societies is not "good". or ethical, or acceptable.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Yeah and contract requirements granted to one person should be fulfilled if they are ethical.

IT IS OWED.

Equality before the law means equal treatment. They have dual nationality. Treaty is between two sovereign peoples... They are dual nationals. Treaty is not an internal agreement or policy, it is treaty between two sovereign peoples.

The white paper was rejected decades ago.

You seem to not understand the difference between nationality and sovereignty and to be confused about the law and its source, which is causing an inability to keep your story straight. First the treaties are "illegal contracts" imposed by an invading force who's successor, because of that "immoral" nature of its predecessor, has no legitimacy as government of these territories; yet, supposedly sovereign people are now using the law of a separate but illigitimate power to seek payments owed to them according to illegal contracts. Nonsense.

[ed.: +]

Edited February 26, 2013 by g_bambino

[DogOnPorch]

You are coming off as nothing but an uneducated ignoramus in denial.

Another excellent comeback. Are you even aware who the Haida are? As well as for invasions...BC was, at first, an enterprise undertaken by fur traders with a lot of Native assistance. Everybody knew there was a dollar to be made...including the more forward thinking tribes who eagerly joined into the fray of gold mining, logging, fur trapping. Guess what? Our Governor then was BLACK....omg!!! Not even a WHITE MAN....lol.

Edited February 26, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[Canuckistani]

Not sure what any of that has to do with the issue of who owns the land. IMO, Canada should have long ago declared dominion. So do it now, Change the charter as necessary, but enough of this bullshit of FN's sitting back and collecting rent. For one thing the rent is never enough. My understanding is the original treaties called for payment of $4 a year. I have no problem with that. But better would be to just declare that Canada owns the land it sits on. What a rediculous concept otherwise.

[shortlived]

You seem to not understand the difference between nationality and sovereignty and to be confused about the law and its source, which is causing an inability to keep your story straight. First the treaties are "illegal contracts" imposed by an invading force who's successor, because of that "immoral" nature of its predecessor, has no legitimacy as government of these territories; yet, supposedly sovereign people are now using the law of a separate but illigitimate power to seek payments owed to them according to illegal contracts. Nonsense.

[ed.: +]

No you seem to be confused with thinking you think like I do.

What are you talking about? What have I said that isn't true?

A nation is a people. A sovereignty is recognition of self determination. Both of which our first nations were and are.

This is even recognized by the united nations. They are technically special status observer states.

Do you not understand those true statements?

See and also affirm this

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ga_61-295/ga_61-295.html

now see the failure people of your mind set are creating

http://www.firstperspective.ca/news/2686-canada-rejects-un-human-rights-criticism-detailed-in-amnesty-international-report

Your view is wrong and corrupt. You are offering nothing but rhetoric, ignorance and greed.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Not sure what any of that has to do with the issue of who owns the land. IMO, Canada should have long ago declared dominion. So do it now, Change the charter as necessary, but enough of this bullshit of FN's sitting back and collecting rent. For one thing the rent is never enough. My understanding is the original treaties called for payment of $4 a year. I have no problem with that. But better would be to just declare that Canada owns the land it sits on. What a rediculous concept otherwise.

What does the Charter have to do with it? The Canadian Crown has dominion over, well, Canada: see the Royal Proclamation 1763, a part of the constitution.

[g_bambino]

A nation is a people.

Sometimes.

overeignty is recognition of self determination.

Correct.

Both of which our first nations were and are.

Incorrect.

[DogOnPorch]

No you seem to be confused with thinking you think like I do.

What are you talking about? What have I said that isn't true?

A nation is a people. A sovereignty is recognition of self determination. Both of which our first nations were and are.

This is even recognized by the united nations. They are technically special status observer states.

Do you not understand those true statements?

See and also affirm this

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ga_61-295/ga_61-295.html

They can mass their vast mechanized forces on the Canadian 'white-man' border and take it all back in that case. As the truism goes, you do not have a right to land...just the right to defend it.

[shortlived]

They can mass their vast mechanized forces on the Canadian 'white-man' border and take it all back in that case. As the truism goes, you do not have a right to land...just the right to defend it.

Might is not right in a just society.

Might is not right in a free society.

Your view is uncanadian.

Do you really want lots of homicides?

Northern natives hunt as part of their life.

Why don't you get a nice set of antlers and do the world a favour.

That position is only representative of the oppression and occupation mentioned earlier.\

Your view is not one humane people would express.

The first nations who compromise 10% of Canada's population need to be respected and that respect includes not lying about the past, and fabricating an alternate history to cover up the abuses of your ancestors.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[DogOnPorch]

Might is not right in a just society.

Might is not right in a free society.

Your view is uncanadian.

Do you really want lots of homicides?

Northern natives hunt as part of their life.

Why don't you get a nice set of antlers and do the world a favour.

LOL...a tiny few still hunt & trap as per the old days. Includes Bald Eagles...not good eating...but the Chinese will pay top dollar for their corpses.

[DogOnPorch]

Why don't you get a nice set of antlers and do the world a favour.

What exactly do you mean by this? Explain.

[shortlived]

What exactly do you mean by this? Explain.

You said the natives should defend their land, on a basis of might is right, if you are opposing that I suggested you get in the spirit.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[DogOnPorch]

You said the natives should defend their land, if you are opposing that I suggested you get in the spirit.

No...that isn't what was implied. You seem to wish me dead in a hunting accident or worse. Am I getting close?