First nations patiences waning

[eyeball]

If natives want to live communally, ie on reserves, let them. But not if it means they have no means of supporting themselves and so need welfare. Time to move to the city or really go back to the old ways, hunt and fish, live in tents or huts, give up the pickup truck and TV.

Hunting and fishing can easily support the purchases of trucks and TV's.

I see more native boats gearing up on the coast around here all the time now...going back to the old ways before there were licences and a bunch of assholes lobbying the government to get you out of their way.

I sure wish I was a native. They look like the freest people on Earth with a world of opportunity around them from where I'm sitting.

Edited April 16, 2013 by eyeball

[Canuckistani]

Well great, if they're fishing under the same regs as Second Nations people, not bs food and ceremonial fishing that gets sold on the commercial market. Can't go back to before licenses, the fish just aren't there. And your solution sure won't help the people in Attawapiskat.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Canuckistani

[eyeball]

Well, I'm telling it's happening right now right here on the coast. Some guys are gearing up and doing exactly what you're suggesting, standing on their own two feet and becoming self-sustaining and there's not a licence in sight, just a simple right. The people of Attawapiskat will have to find a different way forward I guess.

As for second nation status, that appears to be our corporations and institutions, we seem to rate ourselves even lower than them when it comes to our own self-governance.

Why you're so willing to settle for so much less than our fellow native Earthlings is beyond me.

Edited April 16, 2013 by eyeball

[Canuckistani]

Well, I'm telling it's happening right now right here on the coast. Some guys are gearing up and doing exactly what you're suggesting, standing on their own two feet and becoming self-sustaining and there's not a licence in sight, just a simple right. The people of Attawapiskat will have to find a different way forward I guess.

As for second nation status, that appears to be our corporations and institutions, we seem to rate ourselves even lower than them when it comes to our own self-governance.

Why you're so willing to settle for so much less than our fellow native Earthlings is beyond me.

If we all tried to live the way you're suggesting we'd all soon starve. It's gone way beyond that.

Not sure what your last sentence means.

[eyeball]

My last sentence relates to the sentence above it.

If we keep settling for the type of distant governance we do we will never be in a position to be self-governing or self-sustaining, we'll always be looking to Ottawa for everything. The small boats and limited amount of gear I see and the way I see them being used suggests a very sustainable fishery is evolving on the coast but I'm pretty sure native people will have to curtail the activities of a few corporations at some point to ensure it can continue. They'll probably need our help for that but we'll need to be more self-governing ourselves if we're going to be of any use.

We can not sustain the way we're living because of the way we're governing ourselves something these native fishermen seem have figured out for themselves.

By self-governing I mean more autonomy regionally including local control over the charters that empower corporations that operate here. I'm quite comfortable defining my region according to the territorial boundaries native people have used for thousands of years because they make so much biogeographical sense.

Edited April 16, 2013 by eyeball

[Canuckistani]

This just isn't something that works for a modern society with so many people in it. Sorry, nice dream, not reality. Sustainability will have to look a lot different and we'll likely always need large complex institutions to govern the large complex societies we've built. Now, if we have a large cataclysm, as I think is very likely, maybe we'll figure out a different way next time. Project one would have to be to limit breeding.

[eyeball]

Well these guys are living the dream which it seemed you were suggesting they do so...I guess you're too hard to please no matter what.

I would suggest that what we need is better control over our largest institutions, our failure to achieve this is is what will cause a cataclysm and probably sooner rather than later. In fact, that's something that's probably unfolding as we speak.

[Accountability Now]

There really are reserves that are economically viable; profitable, even. People who live on reserves really do work off-reserve.

The average unemployment for people on reserves is 25%. Sure...some reserves are economically viable but for the most part they are not. Those people that work off reserve make up the 75% which is considerably lower than 93% like the rest of us. Claiming that the reserve system works is describing it in an idealized or unrealistic fashion....which is the definition of romantacize.

The reality is those who are doing well under the current system are not doing so because of the system. These people live in economically viable spots and they personally choose to make the best of it. The system doesn't make them viable....their drive and ability makes them viable. Conversely, people who live in reserves with no ecomonic viablilty (which is the vast majority) don't have this option. Yet...if they want to get their treaty money, then they need to stay. Its a catch 22.

Of course, there are reserves where neither is the case; they are destitute, pathetic places. But, their existence doesn't mean the reality of the aforementioned can simply be ignored in order to deem the reservation of land for First Nations a total failure.

Its a numbers game. If the vast majority suffer then there is something wrong. Just because a few are doing good that doesn't make the system right.

[g_bambino]

Claiming that the reserve system works is describing it in an idealized or unrealistic fashion....which is the definition of romantacize..

She didn't claim the "reserve system" works in the post to which you responded.

[Canuckistani]

Well these guys are living the dream which it seemed you were suggesting they do so...I guess you're too hard to please no matter what.

If they want to hunt and fish to feed themselves, let them. It's often in a treaty anyway. But no joining the world of Mammon by selling your catch. Then you're part of the system and have to play by the system's rules.

[hitops]

If natives want to live communally, ie on reserves, let them. But not if it means they have no means of supporting themselves and so need welfare. Time to move to the city or really go back to the old ways, hunt and fish, live in tents or huts, give up the pickup truck and TV.

Bingo. It's not that they want to be left alone, it's that they want to be left alone........as long as we pay for it.

By self-governing I mean more autonomy regionally including local control over the charters that empower corporations that operate here. I'm quite comfortable defining my region according to the territorial boundaries native people have used for thousands of years because they make so much biogeographical sense.

The problem with that is that traditional living and boundaries lead to traditional living. But natives don't really want traditional living, they want modern living with running water, electricity, phone service, central heating and health care. You can't have those things way up north unless somebody else is footing the bill.

So if native want traditional native lives and lands, and we just let them, most likely about 70-80% of the population would just die off because they cannot actually survive that way. They need us to enable them to survive, and of course that means us paying for it. If you snapped your fingers and suddenly all non-natives disappeared and the land was left to natives, all the modern infrastructure was left in place for them, the first thing to happen would be a sheer decimation of the native population in the first 1-2 years. In the opposite happened, the effect would go almost without notice (other than the obvious people wondering what the heck happened to them).

I don't live way up north because it's really expensive and there are few job opportunities for me to provide for my family. That is a rational choice of a mature adult. Native are not put to that same standard, for them it's ok to live up and take my tax money to make sure it can happen. So they can get flown to hospitals, receive money from welfare to buy things etc. None of that exists without non-native Canadians. In contrast, without natives, that would not affect non-native Canadians ability to benefit from natural resources of Canada in any way, in fact it would make it quite a bit easier.

Natives will never progress until they are treated like other Canadians.

Edited April 16, 2013 by hitops

[Accountability Now]

She didn't claim the "reserve system" works in the post to which you responded.

She doesn't actaully claim anything or offer anything concete. I offered the suggestion that the reserve system is broken and she won't actaully address it. Instead she offers truisms that have no bearing on the conversation. However just by stating the truisms she did, it seems fairly clear that she is not in favor of removing or even alterning the reserve system. I guess in her mind the reserve system is what keeps the First Nations from fully assimilating which is the last thing they want to do.

Of course if you think the 'stuff it" comment was concete then so be it....

[eyeball]

If they want to hunt and fish to feed themselves, let them. It's often in a treaty anyway. But no joining the world of Mammon by selling your catch. Then you're part of the system and have to play by the system's rules.

No, I'm afraid out here the system has to adjust to them, as per the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on Nuu-Chah-Nulth fishing rights..

[eyeball]

Natives will never progress until they are treated like other Canadians.

Again I can only go by the facts I see on the ground and water where I live and work.

Natives seem to be progressing quite nicely around here. A few are hiring non-natives to crew their boats and logging operations and I notice I've received more requests for bids to go catch fish for a local band. These good folks through their own post treaty devices and SC rulings are fast becoming the biggest economic drivers where I live.

Your region and problems are what they are and to be frank I really don't care about them. I'm far to busy joining the effort to correct our's and trying to survive.

[hitops]

Again I can only go by the facts I see on the ground and water where I live and work.

Natives seem to be progressing quite nicely around here. A few are hiring non-natives to crew their boats and logging operations and I notice I've received more requests for bids to go catch fish for a local band. These good folks through their own post treaty devices and SC rulings are fast becoming the biggest economic drivers where I live.

Your region and problems are what they are and to be frank I really don't care about them. I'm far to busy joining the effort to correct our's and trying to survive.

That's great for people making it out there. My question is whether they are doing this on their own, or without various benefits not available to other Canadians?

Also what area are you in?

[eyeball]

I'm in Nuu-Chah-Nulth territory.

They're doing it with rights that were never extinguished. Why we allowed so many of our's to be extinguished is a mystery to me, it happened before my time.

[g_bambino]

She doesn't actaully claim anything or offer anything concete. I offered the suggestion that the reserve system is broken and she won't actaully address it. Instead she offers truisms that have no bearing on the conversation. However just by stating the truisms she did, it seems fairly clear that she is not in favor of removing or even alterning the reserve system...

Well, she does make the concrete and true assertion that some reserves are self-sustaining. I took it as no more than that; I certainly don't see it as any kind of romanticism, which is what you called it. Perhaps you're taking her one comment I'm talking about and putting it in context with other posts of hers you've read. But, that one post itself didn't romanticise the "reserve system" (which is what, exactly?).

[Canuckistani]

IIRC, she made those statements while hurling invective about it being racist to say many natives live off welfare, and used the fact that some reserves are successful as a blanket statement. The Osoyoos band is successful. They're successful because they work for it, as Chief Louie said "you don't work you don't get any money." And because they're in a prime location to make that success. Many other reserves are nowhere, and will never be anywhere economically. Time to face reality, get off welfare and go where the jobs are.

[hitops]

I'm in Nuu-Chah-Nulth territory.

They're doing it with rights that were never extinguished. Why we allowed so many of our's to be extinguished is a mystery to me, it happened before my time.

You can't compare the BC native situation with the rest of Canada. Come to the prairies where they actually make up a significant part of the population to see how things are. Or better yet the territories, where native are the majority and massive chunks of the entire economy is based on federal transfer payments and assistance.

Edited April 16, 2013 by hitops

[Accountability Now]

Well, she does make the concrete and true assertion that some reserves are self-sustaining. I took it as no more than that; I certainly don't see it as any kind of romanticism, which is what you called it. Perhaps you're taking her one comment I'm talking about and putting it in context with other posts of hers you've read. But, that one post itself didn't romanticise the "reserve system" (which is what, exactly?).

Yes...i have had many posts of dialogue with her on this matter.

The reserve system is the life they choose to live if they live on the reserve. They get certain benefits like tax breaks and housing but at the same time they don't get to own their house and are mostly controlled by the will of the cheifs/council. They get some benefits and they lose some. In my mind it wouldn't be worth it. Kind of like living at home with your parents....

[Accountability Now]

Many other reserves are nowhere, and will never be anywhere economically. Time to face reality, get off welfare and go where the jobs are.

Exactly. The system in place entices people to stay when your natural instinct would be to move. (I should say the natural instinct for most)

[eyeball]

No, you can't compare it and that's why I suggest it won't be long until native people in your region decide to revisit some of the terms of their nation's surrender. I also suggested that as the native population grows this impetus will become more difficult if not impossible to resist.

I would suggest that non-natives in the region either get with the program or go where the government still functions the way it does if that's what they prefer.

[hitops]

No, you can't compare it and that's why I suggest it won't be long until native people in your region decide to revisit some of the terms of their nation's surrender. I also suggested that as the native population grows this impetus will become more difficult if not impossible to resist.

I would suggest that non-natives in the region either get with the program or go where the government still functions the way it does if that's what they prefer.

Ultimately it does not matter whether they are willing to revisit anything. All that matters is whether on what they consider their land or not, they are willing to produce enough economic activity to sustain the costs they incur. It's a basic posture of independence and doesn't have anything to do with whether they 'own' the land or not.

If I move from my home to the US, that will have no bearing at all on whether I will want to work and participate in the economy and self-sustain. In either place, my posture on that will be the same, and I will get the same results. If the native people think getting more control of land will solve their problems, they will have a lot of disappointment.

I do not require that a certain section of Canada be declared land for the ethnically dutch/german/english, the Mennonite, the person with x shade of tan or anything else, in order to succeed. There is no reason native people's should either. They and I already have exactly the same right to do or be anything within this land.

Edited April 16, 2013 by hitops

[Accountability Now]

No, you can't compare it and that's why I suggest it won't be long until native people in your region decide to revisit some of the terms of their nation's surrender. I also suggested that as the native population grows this impetus will become more difficult if not impossible to resist.

I would suggest that non-natives in the region either get with the program or go where the government still functions the way it does if that's what they prefer.

But eyeball...did you once say that BC was different because a lot of the lands were never ceded or put under treaty? That part makes sense because they are not held back by past deals. The rest of Canada is under treaty so how could they re-visit the terms of their nation's surrender? And...don't say surrender as that ruffles some feathers out there...lol.

[eyeball]

The treaties everyone else got are just way too crappy in comparison to modern comprehensive treaties. They could compel us to renegotiate simply by continuing to grow their population, which is already the fastest growing in Canada I believe.

Once they get theirs we could then renegotiate the terms of our relationship with Ottawa/Victoria too. It makes sense the First Nations should go first, they were here before us.

Edited April 17, 2013 by eyeball