First nations patiences waning

[jacee]

Well nobody could ever accuse either of you of soft racism.

[hitops]

It's really sad actually. I feel sorry for these people, our system keeps them hopeless and dependent generation after generation. They cannot get out because we approach the situation with heart-on-sleeve instead of intelligence and common sense. I have paid many thousands of dollars in taxes and none of that has helped them. They are more dependent and poverty striken than ever. Hundreds of millions after hundreds of millions, it is doing nothing. The only thing it guarantees is that our children will be there paying it next generation. And the native lot will be no better.

The best thing that could possibly happen to these people is to get cut off and have the same expectations put on them as any other Canadian in a modern society.

Soft racism.....amazing term. That's exactly what it is, a hidden malignant form of racism that sells out the natives people's future for votes playing on people's emotions.

[shortlived]

shortlived, you're living in the past.

The people alive today were born into the situation we have now. No one alive on any reserve was an original inhabitant of anything. For them to claim ownership of the whole nation is childish at best. For them to claim a right to my tax money, or to land that I paid for is asinine. The so-called 'first-nations' were immigrants too, primarily nomadic people, and only occupied a small fraction of what is now Canada. They have already been given far more than what was ever promised to them, and it's time for the free ride to end.

I would raise the point that you know it'd be nice to live in that world but unfortunately there are people with guns that won't just let me move to the tropics and do whatever the heck I want with the land down there.

Reality check. We are stuck in this place together we need to cooperate otherwise we should just start the slaughter and that will do nobody any long term good because there is more to the world than your backyard.

I'm all with you, have what you have, but the issue is there are other people that won't let me have what you have, and that is the problem.

Do your kids or wife deserve your property? Even if they didn't live on it, where does your money go when you die? Does it go to your family or the government, or strangers?

Reality check its probably mostly go to your family not colonizing people from some other country.

Take a step back see where its at, and you will see thats not your house its some old native guys kids house. You just don't want to accept an equal basis of treatment. Either way its native land, the only basis you have of keeping what is yours by saying I deserve it they don't and ethically if they do the same its theirs too, even if you still maintain it. That is realist but that is not ccoperation. Finding a point of cooperation could save both as long as everyone is a realist.

Prince Rupert died a hell of long time ago too you know.

Edited April 8, 2013 by shortlived

[Smallc]

Well nobody could ever accuse either of you of soft racism.

No, it's much less racist to continue treating Canadians differently based on ethnic origin. That's not even soft racism.

[shortlived]

No, it's much less racist to continue treating Canadians differently based on ethnic origin. That's not even soft racism.

Why stop at ethnicity, how bout we go to age too cause all them old people don't deserve pensions right, or how about kids getting that free education at the cost of the tax payer, or sex, lets just stop completely giving childrens benefits to mothers and give them to fathers instead or how about equally or no one.

​Everyone can fend for themselves. BUT HOLD ON ITS NOT ETHNICITY IT IS LEGAL STATUS.. you know lets stop treating law abiding people differently than criminals like the City of Montreal is doing or people who have civil claims in court and lawsuits to just deny any legal protection whatsoever, or how about married couples when someone is used in a relationship and dumped and have all the time and money they put into a relationship deprived from them.

Fact is ITS NOT ETHNICITY it is legal status, they have a contract with the state, the state owes them due to law, not because they are brown or have a different language. THEY ARE OWED THOSE RIGHTS BY LAW.

You are just ignorant and bringing up the race card against their legal rights IS RACISM because it is so imbred in you you are totally ignorant of that fact. Wake up, its not cause they dance and beat drums, its cause THEY ARE OWED ACCESS to the land, it is their land it is only contracted out to the crown provided the conditions of treaty are met that is money, and specific priveleges which vary such as education and medical access, but in general part of that is that all land west of the apallacians is for them to use, and that no settlement is allowed under the right of the crown west of the appalacians. IT IS FOR SOLE NATIVE LAND USE. You can travel there but the natives have primacy over use of the land, meaning it ain't your home it is their home, and you can only use it at their leisure. If they want to use it for something else then by the royal proclamation that is their land to use. Don't build your property there if you don't want it to fall into their land use.

Reality check you arn't cool with that because you got the shaft on the deal because you had no idea about native land rights because the people who taught you got caught in the same trap. Then you have to resent them for being the masters of your land, you have to rob them and steal their land by covering up the fact it was there and is there.

Well guess what you are not good, you are selfish and just pushing the lie, living in denile because you are selfish and greedy. Ateast admit it.

I'm sure if your property deed or title was just handed over to someone else you'd be a little upset too.

There are only two solutions for a good person 1. cooperate 2. leave

Of course I don't expect either of those from people who are selfish and greedy and would rather kill a native than give them their land back if you had the choice.

Its the whole basis of your indoctrination and thus your world veiw has perpetually been flawed by a lack of ethics and beleif that your treatment of the first nations peoples is acceptable because well you have a superior status to them because you are part of the government not a subjugated people. And the government is superior to the first peoples because it conquered them and it is master.

Well you are wrong. First peoples have more rights than you. They are the masters of the land, and they have not been conquered they peaceably for the most part cooperated with an invasive culture from Europe and intermingled with them even with high levels of racism and abuse.

Learn something about history and seriously question how you view the first peoples because without them you wouldn't be here today, they gave you life here in Canada.

They are the foundation of Canada, and the disrespect I've seen in this thread shows either you people arn't Canadian or you have been indoctrinated into an inferior culture of degenerates.

---

In closing just because law is old does not make it invalid.

There is treaty still in effect from the 1300's.

I'm pretty sure the magna carta 1215 and constitution 1867 are still in force.

suck on an egg.

Perhaps you can start your next post with

I am an evil diabolical lusting and crazed vicious sadistic and ruthless person who would cut out the heart of anyone who tried to take what I felt was mine. I don't give a damn about the law unless it advances my causes. We must all now get our ghost costumes and defend what is ours.

and atleast you can not be a delusional liar.

smallc kapitalK

This is NOT meant to be an insult, it is meant to be encouragement to be truthful, do not take it the wrong way.

BTW I 110% support having a positive self image including cultural background which may include ancestory. I do not think there is a way to measure an absolute of specific genes being better than others for all things, nor any single culture that is a master race, this transcends to government in that no government is a master government. We as a free society and a society of individuals having equal rights can only seek to enhance the betterment of society as a whole. (However it is clear that some genes that create physical characteristics may benefit specific things, and that there is a high percentage of gene inheritence. I think this will be more realized when DNA manipulation becomes more normal in years to come when individuals can start selecting for gene traits, perhaps first for medical reasons, enzyme production etc.. One might think natives are better selected for Canada than Europeans Eugenically. .None the less, there are no absolutes. None of us are animals, and I think most of us would find it a challenge to live like them. It would actually take a better man to live as a beast because they must subdue their humanity, and achieve the majesty of nature. Personaly I am mystified by the mysteries of the windowen and other first peoples shamans and heritage, much as I am with European or other cultures, I see myself as human and that is where my pride comes from in being something which lives on the earth and struggle to maintain their humanity in a world of torments. World culture is remarkably similiar when you go back. We are facing many of the same primal issues. It is just a great complexity. I'm sure most of you are programmed by media and don't think for yourself, you arn't liberated from your desire to live. Yada yada,

I think truthfulness is part of that, perhaps the second step is to realize if there are flaws in how you position your rights at the detriment of other peoples rights.

Usually the first person holding the title to the land keeps it, not the person resold it by a third party. (This law was corrected a few years back in Ontario)

None the less the point here is, sure you can be all political and culturally based but without law you are out of touch with modern society. Without rule of law all talk is meaningless other than to mobilize.

Just realize they have a stronger heritage claim to the land. It is more part of their identity and their life than others from other parts of the world.

You can see yourself as only having existed for as long as your birth certificate says. My identity however reaches back to beyond time. I am not flesh I am identity flesh only makes up part of that identity.

Of course I am geusssing you read this remark, thats not a normal thing to say, and go on about your life as a programmed atomic play person with inklings of emotion and one drive to keep your propelled or your fears of not having anything to propel you, or having to look at yourself in the mirror of life.

None the less cooperation is the key, cooperation of humans on a planet where the torment will draw ever closer in a race to escape it. In the end the worst torment is facing it, and it is you. Because it means you have lost your humanity. And that is the worst defeat an ego can ever face. Freedom only comes through oneness of the ego with the collective unconciousness and conscious emotion of humanity one that is positive and holds a future.

Ok now you can go back to being a drag on existence but know you have the choice to reform yourself and devote your life to making the planet not end with your hate consuming you and ripping your humanity to shreds and everlasting oblivion.

Edited April 8, 2013 by shortlived

[Accountability Now]

No the blockade was far more complex. Since the band itself wasn't an official sponsor of the blockade. Spence actually asked them not to.

There was criticism of not enough aboriginal workers and training, and also that there are discontents due to people who were fired from working at the mine, and thus were not getting any benefit from its operation.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/06/chief-theresa-spence-calls-band-council-meeting-to-discuss-blockade-on-road-to-diamond-mine/

Wanting "something"

That was the first blockade. The second one was about a family saying they never got compensated for their trap lines which the band was compensated. I would say ask Spence where that money is but we all know the answer to that.

Definitely wanting 'more'

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2013/02/11/diamond-mine-hit-by-second-attawapiskat-blockade/

[jacee]

It's really sad actually. I feel sorry for these people, our system keeps them hopeless and dependent generation after generation.

That has been one of many strategies our governments have used to try to destroy Aboriginal children, families, communities and Indigenous Nations. There was nothing humane about it whatsoever: Its purpose was entirely genocidal, to destroy their rights to the land and the living it provides to us, not them.

The UN Convention on Genocide of 1948 was a wakeup call to Canada, shining an international spotlight on Canada's mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples. Since then, Indigenous Nations have gained access to our courts and have won a steady stream of victories in establishing their continuing rights to the benefits of the land.

While the oppression that you identify still continues, they are gaining power in negotiating new sources of revenues to strengthen their communities themselves:

Aboriginal Law rising

The recent growth, and accompanying profile, of aboriginal law begs the question of how the practice area grew from obscurity less than two decades ago into relatively big business, with no signs of letting up in the foreseeable future.

While there was a sprinkling of significant Supreme Court of Canada rulings defining aboriginal rights in the first two decades after the advent of the Canadian Constitution such as the 1990 Sparrow decision affirming the right to fish alongside traditionally inhabited land and the 1997 Delgamuukw judgment confirming that aboriginal title included a right to the land itself no decisions in the early years produced significant traction in the aboriginal law business. That all changed, however, when the Haida Nation of British Columbias Queen Charlotte Islands known across Canada for its colourful totem poles carved from red cedar took issue with a tree-farming licence the provincial government had issued to lumber-giant Weyerhaeuser Co., allowing it to log on land claimed by the Haida more than a century earlier. The dispute spawned a protracted legal battle that culminated in a seminal 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that revolutionized the practice of aboriginal law.

The Supreme Court affirmed a constitutional duty for the Crown to consult before approving developments such as logging, mining, or new infrastructure on contested public land that was subject to claims that had not yet been proven. It was the first time the court recognized the honour of the Crown extended to negotiating with First Nations if they could be negatively impacted by the resource development in question. One year later, in 2005, the Supreme Court applied the duty to consult to projects on land involving treaty rights.

Lawyers and legal scholars contend if there is one single driver in the rapid growth of aboriginal law, it is the constitutionalized duty to consult, because it means aboriginal concerns are now central to virtually all resource development across the country. Obviously with Haida [Nation], the world changed, says Isaac. Now, with any development on the ground, whether youre acting for a lender or a developer, if its not the number one or number two issue people should be focused on, its in the top three, he says. What it means daily is that anytime you have a government approval that might have an adverse affect on an aboriginal interest, you dont even have to prove rights the duty to consult is triggered. And so imagine on a mine project, on a pipeline project, on a real estate development, on an energy project, on an electrical transmission line, on a rail project, on a bridge project, on a big highway project, all of those types of projects could have an adverse affect on an aboriginal interest.

Thus, while your 'concern' about the cycle of dependency is still valid since our governments continue to threaten and punish them by withholding necessities if they protest, they have gained legal leverage to take back some of the wealth of the land for themselves. The remote areas where many Indigenous communities exist are often among the most economically active areas of the country due to our natural resource reliance.

It's a work in progress, but there is more progress in achieving autonomy in Indigenous communities than at any time in our history.

Edited April 8, 2013 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Fact is ITS NOT ETHNICITY it is legal status, they have a contract with the state, the state owes them due to law, not because they are brown or have a different language. THEY ARE OWED THOSE RIGHTS BY LAW.

I agree. The treaty rights are something that are owed to them as that was part of the deal for them to surrender the land to the Crown. They are owed those rights. My thought however has always been that these 'treaty rights' are screwing them over. For natives to obtain most of their treaty rights they need to live on the reserve (right?). Most of these reserves are tucked way out in the middle of nowhere meaning finding jobs or other ways to sustain a living is not practical. It forces them into a welfare state just to get the few extra perks from the treaty. Add to this...they aren't owners of their own property. The band owns the houses which means they have any vested interest in it. So no job, no sense of ownership....all for some free education and medicare. If i was a native on the reserve I would walk away and get the real thing.

Wake up, its not cause they dance and beat drums, its cause THEY ARE OWED ACCESS to the land, it is their land it is only contracted out to the crown provided the conditions of treaty are met that is money, and specific priveleges which vary such as education and medical access, but in general part of that is that all land west of the apallacians is for them to use, and that no settlement is allowed under the right of the crown west of the appalacians. IT IS FOR SOLE NATIVE LAND USE. You can travel there but the natives have primacy over use of the land, meaning it ain't your home it is their home, and you can only use it at their leisure. If they want to use it for something else then by the royal proclamation that is their land to use. Don't build your property there if you don't want it to fall into their land use.

Shortlived...I think you have this one backwards and I also think you know it too. You never did respond when I asked about where in the Roylal proclomation did it say it was the Indians land. Not to mention, the Royal Proclomation was as you put it for east of the Appalachians. There are a number of other treaties in place that cover the western parts where they have surrendered and ceded all rights to the land. Its NOT theirs anymore. They can use the land but its not theirs. Natives can travel there and hunt if they want but ultimately its Crown land and utlimately the Crown will decide its uses.

I'm sure if your property deed or title was just handed over to someone else you'd be a little upset too.

Ok...so you do admit the deed was transferred.

Well you are wrong. First peoples have more rights than you. They are the masters of the land, and they have not been conquered they peaceably for the most part cooperated with an invasive culture from Europe and intermingled with them even with high levels of racism and abuse.

Its funny....it the same breath you say they were tricked into giving their land and now you say it was given peacefully. The natives were conquered. They realized for their sake that they better strike a deal because if it wasn't the Brits from the East then it would be the Yanks from the south. It wasn't until some of the later treaties that the natives realized they could negotiate a little.

I often hear natives complain about 'being tricked' into these treaties. Isn't that another way of being beaten? Being smarter than someone in a deal is conquering them. Of course the Brits thought they were smarter at the time because they only spent $700k in total to obtain all the land versus the US spending $20million. In the long run though....the Yanks have us licked as they just push their natives under the rug and we get a lifetime of footing bills. Like most invasions....it would have been better for all if force was used rather than persuasion.

[Accountability Now]

Lawyers and legal scholars contend if there is one single driver in the rapid growth of aboriginal law, it is the constitutionalized duty to consult, because it means aboriginal concerns are now central to virtually all resource development across the country. Obviously with Haida [Nation], the world changed, says Isaac. Now, with any development on the ground, whether youre acting for a lender or a developer, if its not the number one or number two issue people should be focused on, its in the top three, he says. What it means daily is that anytime you have a government approval that might have an adverse affect on an aboriginal interest, you dont even have to prove rights the duty to consult is triggered. And so imagine on a mine project, on a pipeline project, on a real estate development, on an energy project, on an electrical transmission line, on a rail project, on a bridge project, on a big highway project, all of those types of projects could have an adverse affect on an aboriginal interest.

Jacee....what is the limit to 'consulting". For example, if the government decides to put a big highway through and tells the bands about it...can they proceed even if the bands don't approve?

In other words does consult really mean consent?

[g_bambino]

They are the masters of the land, and they have not been conquered

Well, they're certainly not sovereign.

[Smallc]

Yeah, the idea that they're still masters of Canada is pretty ludicrous. The idea that they're separate countries from Canada even more so.

[hitops]

That has been one of many strategies our governments have used to try to destroy Aboriginal children, families, communities and Indigenous Nations. There was nothing humane about it whatsoever: Its purpose was entirely genocidal, to destroy their rights to the land and the living it provides to us, not them.

The UN Convention on Genocide of 1948 was a wakeup call to Canada, shining an international spotlight on Canada's mistreatment of Indigenous Peoples. Since then, Indigenous Nations have gained access to our courts and have won a steady stream of victories in establishing their continuing rights to the benefits of the land.

While the oppression that you identify still continues, they are gaining power in negotiating new sources of revenues to strengthen their communities themselves:

Aboriginal Law rising

Thus, while your 'concern' about the cycle of dependency is still valid since our governments continue to threaten and punish them by withholding necessities if they protest, they have gained legal leverage to take back some of the wealth of the land for themselves. The remote areas where many Indigenous communities exist are often among the most economically active areas of the country due to our natural resource reliance.

It's a work in progress, but there is more progress in achieving autonomy in Indigenous communities than at any time in our history.

You are mistaking an economically active area with economically active natives. We have plenty of the former, and very little to none of the latter. I would love it if natives were working in the natural resource sector, doing those skilled labor jobs and taking home a paycheck, paying taxes and contributing to Canada. But they are by and large not, and you and I both know this. Being born by sheer dumb luck near a diamond reserve, does not make you economically active or a contributor to Canada.

Here is why so called 'native' land yielding wealth does not mean natives are - because without the rest of Canada, the natives would have absolutely no clue, nor any ability, to extract or benefit from that wealth. It would just be land. If we left them alone, they would not extract the minerals, they would just starve. We however do not need their contribution, we are more than capable to exploiting the resources and benefiting Canada. If they were not there, it would make literally no difference whatsoever to our ability to do that. So it's not a two way street, it's a one way street. We do the work, we pay the taxes, and they sit there.

Where you are sadly mistaken is that native autonomy is not the solution, it is the cause of native poverty and dependency. Why? Because it's not real autonomy. Real autonomy means you have authority, and also responsibility. They don't have, or want the responsibility. They want gov to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars, and not have to give anything in return. Gov gives all of us services......because we pay taxes to gov. Native reserves do not, they only lose money every single year. This is not a situation of equals. Tax status, educational discounts, special programs are the reason natives remain poor, not the solution.

There has been no group in history that has risen up out of poverty and misery as a result of special programs and handouts. It has never happened. Plenty of groups however, have risen up from poverty without them and learned to join Canada like normal contribution members. My wife's family for example, a visible minority, actually outperforms white people as an ethnic group. They came with nothing, but rose up because their value system led them to depend on themselves, not the breast of government. Another group, the Jewish people, were actively prejudiced against in people minds. But they didn't get special treatment and they didn't let the attitudes stop them either. Today they are the most successful ethnic group in north america. We have SO MANY immigrants who come and accomplish the same, arriving with nothing and families to care for. The native who have more opportunities, more perks and benefits on the government dime than perhaps any ethnic group in the world, cannot do this.

Treat them like equal human beings. Not like stupid little children who need their hand held. Get rid of status, get rid of tax benefits. You will quickly see they will adapt to the expectations. Right now our expectations are they will fail and be inferior, and they are fulfilling them. That needs to change.

Edited April 8, 2013 by hitops

[eyeball]

Treat them like equal human beings. Not like stupid little children who need their hand held. Get rid of status, get rid of tax benefits. You will quickly see they will adapt to the expectations. Right now our expectations are they will fail and be inferior, and they are fulfilling them. That needs to change.

Remember Brian Mulroney's nation to nation speech? I'd look to things like that for the source of so many native expectations.

I guess what people who are getting impatient with natives need to do is elect a national leader who will be just as unequivocal when backpedalling Ottawa away from the direction Mulroney steered us in.

[hitops]

Remember Brian Mulroney's nation to nation speech? I'd look to things like that for the source of so many native expectations.

I guess what people who are getting impatient with natives need to do is elect a national leader who will be just as unequivocal when backpedalling Ottawa away from the direction Mulroney steered us in.

I don't know what Mulroney did but I would fully support anyone who no longer wanted to put up with the money sink that is native reservations. It's politically dangerous though, as it is simply too easy to manipulate Canadians into thinking that person is just a hater. The CPC are the best candidate to do it, although too many people hate them right now. They are at least doing something with those work programs. I wonder if the Liberals could.......they might but on the other hand Justin Trudeau? Doubtful. The NDP obviously would just exacerbate the problem, happily condemning further generations to the poverty cycle for votes.

[eyeball]

Mulroney said it was time for Canada to sit down and negotiate with native people "nation to nation". I mean, when the Prime Minister of a nation says that, what do you expect people to think? That he's just another no account mealy-mouthed politician who's forked tongue can be interpreted and reinterpreted to mean just about anything?

BTW I get a hoot out of people who complain when natives want to renegotiate terms.

Edited April 8, 2013 by eyeball

[Canuckistani]

Mulroney made a huge error there, just created a "dream castle" for the natives. They're not nations, Canada is a nation. They are citizens of that nation, should get the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen.

[eyeball]

Mulroney only did what national government leaders do best, string their people along. The trouble is Mulroney put a real knot in that string and now Canadians expect the straight shooters they elect to untangle it?

Good luck with that.

[g_bambino]

Mulroney made a huge error there, just created a "dream castle" for the natives. They're not nations, Canada is a nation. They are citizens of that nation, should get the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen.

The nation-to-nation concept has been around since long before Mulroney. And there's more than one meaning of "nation".

[eyeball]

The nation-to-nation concept has been around since long before Mulroney. And there's more than one meaning of "nation".

That's the beauty of speaking with forked tongues. You can just make shit up as you go.

[jacee]

Mulroney made a huge error there, just created a "dream castle" for the natives. They're not nations, Canada is a nation. They are citizens of that nation, should get the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen.

In international terms, Canada is a country, a 'state', defined geographically, and a state can have more than one nation of people.

In fact, Canada is and always has been legally a tri-national state, founded and defined by Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code and English Common Law.

I guess there will always be those who vehemently oppose this reality, failing to comprehend and denying the very foundation, constitution and laws of our country.

Xenophobia is always destructive, and tears at the fabric that weaves us together: An attack on one is an attack on us all.

[g_bambino]

That's the beauty of speaking with forked tongues. You can just make shit up as you go.

Sorry, what shit did Mulroney just "make up", again?

[jacee]

I would fully support anyone who no longer wanted to put up with the money sink that is native reservations.

AHHH! The myth of the "money sink"!!

Such a complete lack of understanding of, or respect for our country!

It's pathetic what a poor job our schools do of educating people about what Canada is really about.

Please read my post above, and this:

Canada exists ONLY because we have treaties with Indigenous Nations.

In addition to defining some of our geographic borders, the treaties define our economic relations with Indigenous Nations.

One aspect of that is how our governments PAY for our rights to live on, develop and reap the wealth of the land: The treaties define our rights and our responsibilities.

Some of our payment for our land rights is, always has been, 'in kind', by providing education, health, governance and other services.

Some is land surrenders and sales, leases, resource and other revenue sharing, money that goes into First Nations Trust funds.

Those trust funds contain over a trillion dollars, producing billions of dollars in interest each year.

That money is administered and distributed by our governments, for the services referred to above.

THERE IS NO "MONEY SINK"!

There is just xenophobia using money excuses and choosing to remain ill-informed about our country.

That's a personal choice ... and an unfortunate one, imo.

What if Natives Stop Subsidizing Canada?

Now, if you sincerely wanted to talk about the sources of hopelessness and dependency, we could discuss the effects of centuries of oppression and genocide and particularly six generations of cultural, psychological and physical destruction of families and communities by removing children from their culture and forcing a brutal version of ours on them.

Not only brutal and destructive but a damn waste of money ... if that's the only issue of concern to you.

Edited April 8, 2013 by jacee

[shortlived]

Shortlived...I think you have this one backwards and I also think you know it too. You never did respond

Where did you ask?

when I asked about where in the Roylal proclomation did it say it was the Indians land. Not to mention, the Royal Proclomation was as you put it for east of the Appalachians. There are a number of other treaties in place that cover the western parts where they have surrendered and ceded all rights to the land. Its NOT theirs anymore.

Those treaties didn't meet with the proclamation. The British have time and time again violated their promises. The treaties are bilateral, the proclamation is a unilateral declaration.

that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds

The last part is very big since all lands in Canada natives have the right to hunt by native rights that have been constitutionalized. This means effectively all of Canada natives may not be moletested or disturbed in "possessing those lands"

Note that it is not just ceeded territories but also - hunting grounds. Natives have hunting and fishing rights to all of Canada. That means there is some ambiguity. In the meaning of "their possession" it more or less means it is their deeded land. And they have primacy as first holder. The crown needs to delegate it, read the proclamation yourself and realize this. http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/royal-proclamation-1763.html

The HBC issue is complex because of some ambiguity on the claims as well as their extent as of 1763.

They can use the land but its not theirs. Natives can travel there and hunt if they want but ultimately its Crown land and utlimately the Crown will decide its uses.

Ok...so you do admit the deed was transferred.

Its funny....it the same breath you say they were tricked into giving their land and now you say it was given peacefully. The natives were conquered. They realized for their sake that they better strike a deal because if it wasn't the Brits from the East then it would be the Yanks from the south. It wasn't until some of the later treaties that the natives realized they could negotiate a little.

I often hear natives complain about 'being tricked' into these treaties. Isn't that another way of being beaten? Being smarter than someone in a deal is conquering them. Of course the Brits thought they were smarter at the time because they only spent $700k in total to obtain all the land versus the US spending $20million. In the long run though....the Yanks have us licked as they just push their natives under the rug and we get a lifetime of footing bills. Like most invasions....it would have been better for all if force was used rather than persuasion.

You don't seem to see the big picture.

The bottom line it was their land and the proclamation has their hunting grounds as their possession even in cession.

Treaties lie the Robinson treaties were a sham, the treaties are really full of it, if you study treaty law unbiased you will see all the bollocks in them. You can't just look at the treaties you have to look at the big picture of hsitory, and other primary source documents, memoires, news reports etc.. the picture is much different than highschool history classes. canadian history for that purpose is really glossed up and doens't really tell the truth, it is propaganda, thats why i can understand you are ignorant of these facts, because it is the status quo and even if it is continuation of corruption you feel jepordized by the truth. Its understandable but we needn't lie about these things, we must move beyond denile of the truth so we can be whole and live in the real world.

he idea of possession is as old as the related concepts of private property and ownership. Our modern possession laws originated in the ancient Roman doctrines of possessio

The act of holding; possession, occupation, control, occupancy.

That which is possessed; a possession, property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedis_possessio

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Possessio.html

Possessio, in its primary sense, is the power by virtue of which a man has such a mastery over a corporeal thing as to deal with it at his pleasure and to exclude other persons from meddling with it.

http://www.sicc.sk.ca/archive/saskindian/a90jan10.htm

approximate HBC actual claim

http://www.ec.gc.ca/eaudouce-freshwater/default.asp?lang=en&n=E94A4CCD-1

map of three colonies circa 1763

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/customcode/TCEMediaPopup.cfm?Language=E&ArticleID=A0006990&MediaID=2357&TB_iframe=true&height=612&width=885&modal=true

So chunks of Ontario, Alberta and BC are native possession under the Proclamation.

However even in as much, based upon hunting rights, all is. example S.C. (Powley)

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2076/index.do

R. v. Marshall (1999)

etc..

You don't seem to get the crown is charged with protecting the possession of the First Nations.

They are under the protection of the crown, but it is their possession. It is held by the crown in many instances but the crown is obligated to protect their right to be unmolested and free to use their land.

In some cases it is a deed in other cases it is absolute (but all is established as allodial domain).

Edited April 8, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

[T]he Royal Proclomation was as you put it for east of the Appalachians.uses.

Actually, it extends all the way west:

...We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure... to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the [Atlantic Ocean] from the West and North West as aforesaid.

Royal Proclamation 1763

[hitops]

Xenophobia is always destructive, and tears at the fabric that weaves us together: An attack on one is an attack on us all.

Only in the modern bizarro world of politics, does wanting to treat everyone equally become 'xenophobic'. Could not possibly be more off base. We want the native to engage and be a productive part of society, that is the opposite of xenophobic.