Constitutional Monarchy and the "Nation to Nation" Relationshi

[Michael Hardner]

Are you kidding me? Saying Jews are cheap or black fathers don't pay child support, are those "realistic" to you too?

Well, admittedly I'm giving the poster quite a bit of leeway however it's still not the same as calling an entire people "cheap" - which is a pejorative. Furthermore, I don't know that the idea of "work" does apply to the native culture. I'm really being academic here, so please indulge me, but I do think it's based on cultural perceptions of work. And 'work' and 'play' are most segregated in Anglo culture. In many tribal cultures, life is work and play together and separating them doesn't make sense.

I don't think I have a real argument here, though, other than just to ask a devil's advocate question on this...

[Michael Hardner]

You cannot run a country if a significant amount of economic activity takes place in 'tax exempt' zones because it decreases the revenues to government and places a much higher burden on those who live outside the zones.

Ok but is that happening to any real degree ? Theoretically it would be a problem but I think some analysis would be needed.

As long as the native economy is relatively insignificant this tax exemption is not a big deal. If that changes in the future it will be a big deal. It would be a lot easier for governments to conclude deals with native groups if this tax exempt status did not exist.

Ok - you answered my question here. I don't understand the last sentence though.

[cybercoma]

MH, I'll leave you to your pretzel making, but you're seriously contorting this beyond what was said. Perceptions of work and leisure are one, but that's certainly not was said nor implied. The meaning was clear: Indians are freeloading off hard-working Canadians, so Natives don't have to work. That's precisely the point that was being made and I find it unacceptable that anyone would even humour such a racist notion. Carry on.

Edited January 29, 2014 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

MH, I'll leave you to your pretzel making, but you're seriously contorting this beyond what was said. Perceptions of work and leisure are one, but that's certainly not was said nor implied.

Here's what he said:

"taxes are rents designed to support the tribe so they do not need to work"

I don't know that adopting such a point of view is instantly incorrect, nor does it mean that the person who adopts it is lazy [if they're native] or racist [if they're Canadian]. It may be a legitimate point of view with regards to reparations and so on. As such, I'm not willing to reject it, and therefore Tim's assessment that it merely exists.

[TimG]

As such, I'm not willing to reject it, and therefore Tim's assessment that it merely exists.

I simply stated an attitude that I believe is fairly widely held among natives. Nothing in that attitude implies that natives would not choose to work in addition to getting their tithe from the serfs. Edited January 29, 2014 by TimG

[WWWTT]

To natives, taxes are rents designed to support the tribe so they do not need to work - to everyone else taxes are collective payments for services rendered and the tax rates depend only on the cost of services.

I agree with Jacee, this is a racist comment laced with ignorance.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Here's what he said:

"taxes are rents designed to support the tribe so they do not need to work"

I don't know that adopting such a point of view is instantly incorrect, nor does it mean that the person who adopts it is lazy [if they're native] or racist [if they're Canadian]. It may be a legitimate point of view with regards to reparations and so on. As such, I'm not willing to reject it, and therefore Tim's assessment that it merely exists.

Go back and read that sentence.

If Natives are legally entitled to collect then why don't they need to work?

Why is there a design for natives to not work?

WWWTT

[-1=e^ipi]

Here is my position on the Monarchy and on 'the native issue':

- Abolish the Monarchy

- Abolish the Indian Act

- Abolish the Reserve System

- Abolish the Senate while you are at it

- Convert communally held properties (example reserves) into individual property rights (communism never worked, and allowing people on Indian Reserves to own their own homes and leverage property for bank loans to finance development will help a lot)

- Make everyone equal under the law with no excepts dependent on race or birth-right

- Stop dividing people into groups and treat them as individuals

Other comments:

- The reserve system, having the government treat people differently based on their race, etc. just seems immoral to me, yet for some reason people that want everyone to be equal under the law are often called 'racists' by those that support the status quo or think that non-natives owe natives large amounts of money just for being in Canada.

- The whole concept of treating people differently based on race is not feasible because how do you deal with people who are of mixed race? Are we supposed to perform genetic testing of each human in Canada and determine the percent of their DNA that is native? If I am 2% native, does that mean I deserve 2% of the rights that a 100% native person would get based on their ancestry?

- The term 'First Nations' is not correct. Most of the 'first nations' descend from people who migrated to North America during the Clovis migration 13,000 years ago. But it's more complicated than that because there were pre-clovis people (Australoids who resembled the Aborigines of Australia made it to the Americas 15,000 years ago and you have the Solutreans who existed in North America 19,000 years ago and have skulls that resemble Europeans or Indians from India). The Paleo-Eskimo people only made it to North America 3,000 years ago, and the Inuit only came to Canada & Greenland in the 11th-13th centuries (after the vikings tried and failed to colonize Greenland and Labrador). So the premises used by people to justify the status quo are questionable.

- Who gave King George 3, some unelected foreigner who lived 250 years ago, the right to create racist laws that affect people in Canada today?

- TimG, please be more careful with your language because some of your comments can come off as racist. For example, use "Some Natives" rather than "Natives" when describing your claims about individuals that feel they are entitled money from the government based on their ancestry.

[TimG]

- TimG, please be more careful with your language because some of your comments can come off as racist. For example, use "Some Natives" rather than "Natives" when describing your claims about individuals that feel they are entitled money from the government based on their ancestry.

I though I was using the term native activist which should imply a subset of natives who openly advocate for preferential treatment. I was not as consistent as I should have been.

[-1=e^ipi]

I though I was using the term native activist which should imply a subset of natives who openly advocate for preferential treatment. I was not as consistent as I should have been.

True, but people can misinterpret you, as they have done so.

[TimG]

True, but people can misinterpret you, as they have done so.

I don't think that is avoidable. The first response of any native apologist is to scream racist whenever they encounter an opinion they don't like. I guess it is easier than actually addressing the points made. Edited January 30, 2014 by TimG

[Remiel]

Here is the problem: If you want to eliminate native "birthright" you are going to have to make a really convincing case for why we are not eliminating all non-native "birthrights" at the same time. An impossibly convincing case, really.

[TimG]

Here is the problem: If you want to eliminate native "birthright" you are going to have to make a really convincing case for why we are not eliminating all non-native "birthrights" at the same time. An impossibly convincing case, really.

I assume you are talking of inherited property but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the special status that exempts natives from laws that the rest of us must follow. No one else has anything like that so there is no need to argue that non-native birthrights need to be eliminated because there are none to eliminate.

Let be clear: if it was possible to resolve the native issue by handing over trillions of dollars worth of crown land under fee simple title then I would support it (IOW - I am not concerned about spending money to address past wrongs). The trouble is native activists do not want a resolution for past wrongs that puts them on a equal footing with everyone else. They have made it extremely clear that they want their special status to be preserved forever even while they demand huge monetary sums from non-native taxpayers. This is inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian democracy.

Edited January 30, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Here is the problem: If you want to eliminate native "birthright" you are going to have to make a really convincing case for why we are not eliminating all non-native "birthrights" at the same time. An impossibly convincing case, really.

If you are talking about the monarchy, then I support the abolition of that.

If you are talking about inheritance, that isn't a birthright, it is voluntary. For example, if I have a child and later in life die, I could make my inheritance give nothing to my child and instead give everything to Justin Beiber and a cat.

If you are talking about something else, you will have to specify what you mean.

That said, even if I were to agree that inheritance is a birthright (which I don't), there are many reasons to keep inheritance, such as its effect on incentivising people to work and be productive, and its effect on the long term genetic make-up of the human population (but this discussion would lead into a discussion of eugenics).

[Michael Hardner]

If Natives are legally entitled to collect then why don't they need to work?

Why is there a design for natives to not work?

I think your question is for TimG.

[jacee]

I though I was using the term native activist which should imply a subset of natives who openly advocate for preferential treatment. I was not as consistent as I should have been.

Then perhaps you'd like to consider rewording this comment, Tim?

To natives, taxes are rents designed to support the tribe so they do not need to work

Then perhaps we can have this discussion more constructively.

Edited January 30, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

The trouble is native activists do not want a resolution for past wrongs that puts them on a equal footing with everyone else. They have made it extremely clear that they want their special status to be preserved forever even while they demand huge monetary sums from non-native taxpayers. This is inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian democracy.

Our constitutional democracy is superimposed on pre-existing societies that have not and will not surrender their sovereignty.

Some complexities of life simply have to be accepted and addressed appropriately and respectfully.

.

Edited January 30, 2014 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

- The reserve system, having the government treat people differently based on their race, etc. just seems immoral to me, yet for some reason people that want everyone to be equal under the law are often called 'racists' by those that support the status quo or think that non-natives owe natives large amounts of money just for being in Canada.

The reality is that treaties were signed and I can respect the fact that we should honor them. However, the problem is two fold:

1. These treaties have been grossly interpreted to the point that doesn't make any sense. Often the courts will use the intent rather than what was actually written which has typically been to the favor of the natives.

2. The treaties are actually hurting the natives more than they're helping them. There are some reservations that benefit from resource sharing or other economic inputs but for the most part, reserves are located in the middle of no where with no real economic prosperity or freedom available. The only basis of survival is to rely on the government which of course only gets them a portion of what they really need. The enticement of living on the reserve and not having to pay tax and to collect these other 'god given rights' resulting from the treaties keeps them there when most other people would have packed up and moved a long time ago. Add to this, no one owns the property or has the ability to own property on the reserve system which I feel leads to a demoralizing effect on one's self. You are always like a kid in your parent's basement.

- The whole concept of treating people differently based on race is not feasible because how do you deal with people who are of mixed race? Are we supposed to perform genetic testing of each human in Canada and determine the percent of their DNA that is native? If I am 2% native, does that mean I deserve 2% of the rights that a 100% native person would get based on their ancestry?

This is the exact problem I have with the somewhat recent Metis ruling giving them the same rights as full blood natives. If you are 50% native and 50% european then shouldn't then why you get 100% of the native benefits. How about 25% or less native? At what point are these people more Canadian than Native?

[guyser]

. The enticement of living on the reserve and not having to pay tax and to collect these other 'god given rights' resulting from the treaties keeps them there when most other people would have packed up and moved a long time ago.

huh?

They pay tax for many things, including income for jobs off rez

[Accountability Now]

huh?

They pay tax for many things, including income for jobs off rez

What taxes do they pay living and working on the rez?

[guyser]

What taxes do they pay living and working on the rez?

Depends really

They pay income tax for off rez income,same as anyone else.

[-1=e^ipi]

The reality is that treaties were signed and I can respect the fact that we should honor them.

I'll just claim that I'm really skeptical that those that made the treaties had the authority to make racist laws that affect people today.

At what point are these people more Canadian than Native?

Native and Canadian aren't mutually exclusive. One is a 'race', the other is a nationality. All natives with Canadian citizenship are Canadians.

[Accountability Now]

Depends really

They pay income tax for off rez income,same as anyone else.

I understand that but what is more enticing? Staying on the reservation and not paying taxes or travelling a far distance to work because of the location of your reservation and paying taxes. The reality is there are more jobs off reservation but you need to travel and pay taxes....which would both be a deterent. So it gives this person a choice....to work or not to work. Obviously there are lots of natives that do work but they also have high rates of unemployment which I believe is a result of this enticement. As such the treaties end up hurting them in a round about way. Any person confined to this system would do the same.

[Accountability Now]

I'll just claim that I'm really skeptical that those that made the treaties had the authority to make racist laws that affect people today.

They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority. I just question the current courts interpretation of what both sides intended.

Native and Canadian aren't mutually exclusive. One is a 'race', the other is a nationality. All natives with Canadian citizenship are Canadians.

I agree with you but you should ask a Native if they are Canadian. Remember....they like to deal with us Nation to Nation.

[-1=e^ipi]

They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority. I just question the current courts interpretation of what both sides intended.

Yes during the time period when there was slavery, blasphemy laws, criminalization of homosexuality and women were considered property. Laws made by people who were racist & sexist and didn't want to give native people the vote. The authority of these laws comes from some unelected monarch 250 years ago who got the position not by merit but by birthright. And the reason this monarch had authority over British North America is because the British simply invaded and took over the lands. Meanwhile, some of these laws, whose authority you do not question, contributed to the American revolution, such as the proclamation of 1763. If we consider these laws to have absolute legal authority, then shouldn't that mean we should consider the United States of America to be an illegal entity?

I simply do not accept the morality or authority behind these laws. Rule of law is not absolute and should not be respected in extreme cases. Laws that allow for slavery, laws that are inherently racist (like the reserve system) or laws that prohibit freedom of speech of ideas should never be respected.

And you also have the whole issue of 'first nations' not actually being first nations which puts the whole premise that 'they' initially owned the land in doubt (not that whether or not they are 'first nations' should matter since I disagree with the idea that the first people in a continent somehow own an entire continent and/or that this should translate into rights that are based upon race rather than individual property rights).

I agree that many of the treaties are misinterpreted by the court, but I do not agree in the authority of the law in the first place.

I agree with you but you should ask a Native if they are Canadian. Remember....they like to deal with us Nation to Nation.

Are you implying that all natives do not consider themselves Canadian? If so your comment is racist. And stop using comments like 'them' and 'us'.

We are all humans. We all share ancestors from Africa 100,000 years ago (actually most Native Canadians and Non-Native Canadians are related within 35,000 years).

And furthermore, I do not care if someone does not consider themselves something, I only care if they actually are that something (I prefer truth). Native Canadians are Canadians, whether people want to admit it or not. Humans and Chimpanzees have a common ancestor whether people want to admit it or not. Most people who self identify as 'agnostic but not atheist or theist' when asked the question 'do you believe that a god exists?' are usually atheists that refuse to acknowledge the different between 'a belief in something' and 'knowing if that belief is true with certainty' because they do not want to be labelled as atheist for cultural reasons. I could go on.