Harper Reflects on John A. MacDonald - the making of Canada

[eyeball]

But you're not. By the context of the times, he wasn't a racist at all.

MacDonald's polices regarding natives and Chinese indicate the PM does not represent all Canadians and never did, something that many Canadians maintain is still the case today.

Perhaps if MacDonald hadn't been stoned out of his mind all the time he could have risen above his baser instincts to feed his base, set a better standard and really created a democracy we could crow about, but he didn't and we don't. Canada was a charade from day one.

[guyser]

We do not have to "respect" any such thing, we just have to abide by it. Until they are changed.

'They' could probably change it, or rather end it, if the Govts (for and after) paid the bills off.

Then we'd be done with it.

But I suspect , with your attitude and all, you would whine and complain about that.

So in the meantime, enjoy the Constitution and all its laws.

[Michael Hardner]

You overstep your bounds by telling people what responses they are allowed to reply to. How is it your decision whether Tim can respond to this or not?

I didn't do that, and it's not my decision.

[drummindiver]

'They' could probably change it, or rather end it, if the Govts (for and after) paid the bills off.

Then we'd be done with it.

But I suspect , with your attitude and all, you would whine and complain about that.

So in the meantime, enjoy the Constitution and all its laws.

Sorry, paid the bills off? Could you elaborate?

Also, sorry if having an opinion differing from yours equates to whining and complaining.

[drummindiver]

I didn't do that, and it's not my decision.

I"t's not really necessary to jump in on this one, especially in the way that you have done here. Let's see what Jacee says."

Oh. Sorry. My bad.

[guyser]

Sorry, paid the bills off? Could you elaborate?

You know, negotiate , meet up, make offers, go through the long and winding rigamarole it will take to settle all the very expensive claims once and for all

?

Also, sorry if having an opinion differing from yours equates to whining and complaining.

Well your words dictate that impression.

Sick and tired and all that ?

Ya know, among others

[Michael Hardner]

Oh. Sorry. My bad.

No problem.

[TimG]

You know, negotiate , meet up, make offers, go through the long and winding rigamarole it will take to settle all the very expensive claims once and for all.

You are naive. The native grievance industry does not want the claims resolved amicably. The grievance industry needs natives to be victims in perpetuity so they can keep going back for more and more money after the piss away the money they have now.

Now if a native group was to offer terms that would forever end the "dependent status" of the native group then it should be considered. But so far, I have heard of none who want that. They all want lots of money PLUS they want the right to come back for even more once that money is pissed away.

Edited January 19, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

They all want lots of money PLUS they want the right to come back for even more once that money is pissed away.

Yeah but, isn't that what exists pretty much everywhere you go around the planet?

[guyser]

You are naive.

Oh ok thanks. I just figured if the Govt, any of them past and present, made any attempt to settle the claims we could then be done with it.

The native grievance industry does not want the claims resolved amicably. The grievance industry needs natives to be victims in perpetuity so they can keep going back for more and more money after the piss away the money they have now.

I'm thinking Naive would be held for someone who thinks they speak for all the FN's of this country. A lot of BS in your statement .

[jacee]

"We don't use the word tribe". Who's we? Not that it matters an iota, but thought you weren't native.

It isn't used in Canada.

.

[TimG]

I'm thinking Naive would be held for someone who thinks they speak for all the FN's of this country. A lot of BS in your statement.

Then prove I am wrong by giving me one example of a FN leader saying they want a settlement that ends the "fiduciary responsibility" for natives that the government currently has. I have never heard one say that. Every one of them that I have heard says they want massive settlements but they also want a deal that leaves taxpayers on the hook if they mess it up. Those are the terms embedded in all modern BC treaties which have been signed so far. Edited January 19, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

You are naive. The native grievance industry does not want the claims resolved amicably. The grievance industry needs natives to be victims in perpetuity so they can keep going back for more and more money after the piss away the money they have now.

Now if a native group was to offer terms that would forever end the "dependent status" of the native group then it should be considered. But so far, I have heard of none who want that. They all want lots of money PLUS they want the right to come back for even more once that money is pissed away.

LINK?

[jacee]

Then prove I am wrong by giving me one example of a FN leader saying they want a settlement that ends the "fiduciary responsibility" for natives that the government currently has. I have never heard one say that. Every one of them that I have heard says they want massive settlements but they also want a deal that leaves taxpayers on the hook if they mess it up. Those are the terms embedded in all modern BC treaties which have been signed so far.

Aboriginal rights exist in perpetuity.

Sir John A was responsible for negotiating manyof the treaties.

.

Edited January 19, 2015 by jacee

[TimG]

Aboriginal rights exist in perpetuity.

No - this is what aboriginals demand. It does not have to be that way. If aboriginals did not demand that it would be much easier to settle some of these claims. The problem is it impossible for a government to offer a large settlement when they can't protect themselves from even more demands in the future. Edited January 19, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

MacDonald's polices regarding natives and Chinese indicate the PM does not represent all Canadians and never did, something that many Canadians maintain is still the case today.

The opposition leader at the time thought he was too soft on natives, regarding the natives as little more than animals. To suggest the PM didn't represent Canadians at the time, despite multiple re-elections is just dumb.

[Argus]

Oh ok thanks. I just figured if the Govt, any of them past and present, made any attempt to settle the claims we could then be done with it.

I

No government of any stripe will settle the issue. The money demanded by natives would bankrupt the country. Every time some enthusiastic minister tries to tackle the issue he runs into uncompromising natives, and the cold, hard reality of the impossibility of fulfilling all their demands. Trudeau junior should have learned that from daddy, for he was one of those hopeful ministers, at first. Certainly Harper has learned it, when he offered tons of new money for education, managed to get the agreement of the major first nations, then had it all unravel because of internal native politics and their demand for money without supervision or oversight.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Argus

[guyser]

Then prove I am wrong by giving me one example of a FN leader saying they want a settlement that ends the "fiduciary responsibility" for natives that the government currently has. I have never heard one say that.

And ?

Sure doesnt mean the govt of the day cant try and see it through, massively expensive it will be.

Every one of them that I have heard says they want massive settlements but they also want a deal that leaves taxpayers on the hook if they mess it up. Those are the terms embedded in all modern BC treaties which have been signed so far.

Oh, like big business ?

Guess if big biz can come in and sign agreements for money from the Feds, then fuck it up and leave for the govt to clean up the mess, dont see why anyone else cant or shouldnt.(Ecept big biz doesnt put in addendums for clean up, theyt just shrug and leave)

Edited January 19, 2015 by Guyser2

[TimG]

Guess if big biz can come in and sign agreements for money from the Feds, then fuck it up and leave for the govt to clean up the mess

A nonsensical analogy. Business can't do that. But businesses can go bankrupt and disappear off the face of the earth if the liabilities mount (i.e. all rights the business might have had are gone too). Now if you want Native bands to be like businesses which disappear as institutions when they fail then that could work. But that is not reality. The reality is native bands want to be protected from their own failures. No business gets that luxury (even banks see shareholder equity wiped out if governments are forced to step in). Edited January 19, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

No - this is what aboriginals demand. It does not have to be that way. If aboriginals did not demand that it would be much easier to settle some of these claims. The problem is it impossible for a government to offer a large settlement when they can't protect themselves from even more demands in the future.

There are outstanding 'specific land claims' that can be settled 'once and for all'.

However Aboriginal rights on all traditional lands exist in perpetuity - the right to benefit from resource and other developments on those lands.

That doesn't go away. They are effectively shareholders in much of the land.

.

[TimG]

However Aboriginal rights on all traditional lands exist in perpetuity - the right to benefit from resource and other developments on those lands.

That doesn't go away. They are effectively shareholders in much of the land.

Again - you seem to be missing my point. There is no god sitting on a throne deciding these things. You are simply describing what aboriginals expect when they try to negotiate something and their expectations mean it is impossible for the government to settle land claims because as soon as aboriginals piss away the settlement money they will be back demanding more. Governments want certainty and if an aboriginal group actually offered a final settlement that extinguished all future claims then the government could be more generous than it has been. As it stands today, the government on gets accused of creating "roadblocks" if it says extinguishment is a pre-condition which is BS because by refusing to discuss extinguishment aboriginals make deals impossible. Edited January 20, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

Again - you seem to be missing my point. There is no god sitting on a throne deciding these things. You are simply describing what aboriginals expect when they try to negotiate something

What I've described is Canadian law.

and their expectations mean it is impossible for the government to settle land claims because as soon as aboriginals piss away the settlement money they will be back demanding more.

No link?

No evidence to support your 'opinion'?

That's just blatant ugly bigotry.

Governments want certainty and if an aboriginal group actually offered a final settlement that extinguished all future claims then the government could be more generous than it has been. As it stands today, the government on gets accused of creating "roadblocks" if it says extinguishment is a pre-condition which is BS because by refusing to discuss extinguishment aboriginals make deals impossible.

No there won't be any extinguishment of Aboriginal rights. That's not possible in law.

Love it or leave it.

And btw ... the thread topic is Sir John A.

What do you think of the treaties he had negotiated to put the railway through?

.

Edited January 20, 2015 by jacee

[TimG]

No there won't be any extinguishment of Aboriginal rights. That's not possible in law.

You don't understand the law. Extinguishment is most definitely possible. The only barrier is aboriginals refuse to discuss it and because of that they do not give the government any incentive to resolve their claims. Personally, I think it is because the native grievance industry does not want claims to be settled because it is much more lucrative to complain endlessly while cashing government checks.

[jacee]

No government of any stripe will settle the issue. The money demanded by natives would bankrupt the country. Every time some enthusiastic minister tries to tackle the issue he runs into uncompromising natives, and the cold, hard reality of the impossibility of fulfilling all their demands.

"Impossibility"of upholding the Queen's treaties?

Even the ones Sir John A had negotiated?

Starved them into submission to sign?

Governments can't keep their word?

They have to. It's the law.

And it's shameful the billions that have been wasted on sharp dealing under the guise of 'negotiating' with no intention of ever settling. The so called negotiations are just a way of wasting time and our money, when they could have settled it for much less.

Trudeau junior should have learned that from daddy, for he was one of those hopeful ministers, at first. Certainly Harper has learned it, when he offered tons of new money for education, managed to get the agreement of the major first nations, then had it all unravel because of internal native politics and their demand for money without supervision or oversight.

Trudeau and Harper both had this silly idea of 'extinguishment'.

Not going to happen.

Indigenous communities wanted local control of their education systems - like we have - pretty reasonable in light of how horribly the feds have handled it for the last 140 years.

.

[jacee]

You don't understand the law. Extinguishment is most definitely possible. The only barrier is aboriginals refuse to discuss it and because of that they do not give the government any incentive to resolve their claims. Personally, I think it is because the native grievance industry does not want claims to be settled because it is much more lucrative to complain endlessly while cashing government checks.

edited ...

Extinguishment of Aboriginal rights is not legally possible without consent - ratification by the whole community.

Extinguishment can't be imposed, is

not very likely, and may not hold up to challenge.

.

Edited January 20, 2015 by jacee