Argus Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Just wondering how more war is an excuse for others waring against each other. War didn't need an excuse back then. Any leaders who thought they could take land from others did so, be it in the Americas, in Europe, Asia or Africa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 So some small band of natives lived in the woods by a river, and they owned what, everything for a thousand miles around? I don't think so. You don't own land simply because you live near it. You are way behind the times, Argus. Traditional Indigenous territories 'at contact' have been mapped all across Canada, according to treaties they had with each other at that time and including some shared hunting grounds. We have legal precedents ... law ... to deal with this. You don't seem aware of many relevant facts, so your opinions are of questionable value to the discussion. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 War didn't need an excuse back then. Any leaders who thought they could take land from others did so, be it in the Americas, in Europe, Asia or Africa. And then they made peace treaties. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 The 'Beaver Wars' were fought by the English against the French, and both had native allies. "1698: The Iroquois, realising that they are the scapegoat in what was essentially an English inspired war, sue for peace 1701: Grande Paix (Great Peace) Treaty." Because following conflict ... one makes peace treaties ... for peace, land rights, boundaries, etc. And we have those treaties. The Great Peace Treaty of 1701 is still referenced in negotiations today. . The Iroquois Wars were ongoing long before the Europeans arrived and before the Natives aligned themselves. The Great Peace Treaty you speak of with the Iroquois has the following as a precursor - which I posted previously....and it doesn't look like the Iroquois had peace treaties with the tribes they conquered.......and all this reference doesn't detract from the fact that First Nations in Canada have had periods of mistreatment but lets be honest about the context of the times. The wars were brutal and are considered one of the bloodiest series of conflicts in the history of North America. As the Iroquois succeeded in the war and enlarged their territory, they realigned the tribal geography of North America, and destroyed several large tribal confederacies—including the Huron, Neutral, Erie, Susquehannock, and Shawnee—and pushed some eastern tribes west of the Mississippi River, or southward into the Carolinas. The Iroquois also controlled the Ohio Valley lands as hunting ground, from about 1670 onward, as far as can be determined from contemporary French (Jesuit) accounts. The Ohio Country and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan were virtually emptied of Native people as refugees fled westward to escape Iroquois warriors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 So land in this country changed hands over war and since we won the last one. ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 We made treaties. And we are legally bound by our own courts to uphold treaties. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) And then they made peace treaties. . You know, the government signed legal contracts with its public servants, and then one day, it decided to pass a law which basically negated some of the stuff in those contracts. It seems to be legal, and most Canadians seem to be okay with that, so maybe they should do that with natives too. Edited June 10, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 You know, the government signed legal contracts with its public servants, and then one day, it decided to pass a law which basically negated some of the stuff in those contracts. It seems to be legal, and most Canadians seem to be okay with that, so maybe they should do that with natives too. Especially considering the vast majority of things they continue to fight for are not in the treaties but were given to them through interpretation by such courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 You know, the government signed legal contracts with its public servants, and then one day, it decided to pass a law which basically negated some of the stuff in those contracts. It seems to be legal, and most Canadians seem to be okay with that, so maybe they should do that with natives too. Not sure what cases you're referring to but ... pos, eh? Collective agreements don't seem to have the same power as treaties. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Especially considering the vast majority of things they continue to fight for are not in the treaties but were given to them through interpretation by such courts. ? Can you be more specific? What "things"? What "such courts"? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 ? Can you be more specific? What "things"? What "such courts"? . Well...where in any of the treaties do they say they have rights to resources especially buried under the ground? The treaties say they can use the land for hunting but the land still belongs to the Crown and this right to hunt is SUBJECT to various regulations including the requirement for settlement, mining, trading or other purposes. No where does it say anything about the natives having rights to these resources.....but yet here we have the courts giving it to them because their bleeding hearts just couldn't deal with it when the natives complained about their oral history and how it magically conflicts with the written and signed agreements. And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees with her said Indians, that they shall have right to pursue their vocations of hunting throughout the Tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may, from time to time, be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty and saving and excepting such Tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, trading or other purposes by Her Government of Canada; or by any of Her Majesty's subjects duly authorized therefor by the said Government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Well...where in any of the treaties do they say they have rights to resources especially buried under the ground? The treaties say they can use the land for hunting but the land still belongs to the Crown and this right to hunt is SUBJECT to various regulations including the requirement for settlement, mining, trading or other purposes. No where does it say anything about the natives having rights to these resources.....but yet here we have the courts giving it to them because their bleeding hearts just couldn't deal with it when the natives complained about their oral history and how it magically conflicts with the written and signed agreements. The treaty doesn't say the British had those under the ground rights either ... because it wasn't an issue back then.Courts therefore have to apply treaties to modern contexts. This has been explained to you many times. Sorry you can't grasp that concept. That's why we have legal experts ... because we're not. Do you think you'll rethink some of this once you have 'status'? . Edited June 10, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 The treaty doesn't say the British had those under the ground rights either ... because it wasn't an issue back then. Do you think you'll rethink some of this once you have 'status'? . Lmfao!!! What the heck does the word Mining mean to you. The British were mining sub surface well before these treaties were made and knew exactly what it was about. Such BS on your part. The compensation the natives get is not for rights to the resources but for the disturbance to their lands. The fact that a 99% non-native like me may potentially get status rights is a clear indication that the courts are messed up. And no....I would still be saying the same thing even if I did get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Without those abuses there is no moral basis for holding onto the priviledges. Yes there is... we made a deal, and its moral to honor your commitments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angie84 Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 There should be one citizenship for all. No special privileges for people just because their ancestors have been in Canada longer than mine. Scrap the Indian act, get rid of reserves and do not bestow nor deny anyone based on their ethnicity. Anyone that claims to fight against homophobia and misogyny and then defends the Islamic ideology is full of fucking shit. Anyone that claims to fight against racism and defends the the legalized special privileges bestowed on people of Aboriginal ancestry is full of shit.Anyone that REALLY understands right from wrong would never dispute either. http://thebluecashew.com/the-blue-cashew-f2/right-wrong-t3016-20.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Scrap the Indian act, get rid of reserves and do not bestow nor deny anyone based on their ethnicity. Well, ok but how ? Most people feel some empathy for the state of the conquered people of Canada. I can see that you don't feel that way, or at least it seems to me that you don't, but you're basically checking out of the discussion with a stance like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Yes there is... we made a deal, and its moral to honor your commitments.Again complete BS because times change. The entire rationalization for noble privilege in UK was because the ancestors of these nobles made a deal with the leaders in times gone by. This made no difference when the government decided these privileges were unfair to the majority of the population. The rules were changed and the privileges stripped away. The entire premise behind taxation of the wealthy (inheritance taxes in particular) is that people are not absolutely entitled to keep whatever privileges they may have earned by following the rules or by deals made with governments in the past. The idea that a group of people should be perpetually entitled to special privileges that are not subject to taxation is elitist garbage with no moral justification. The only reason anyone even entertains the idea today is because natives are perceived as underdogs - if that changes then so will social attitudes towards their privileges. Edited June 10, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Again complete BS because times change. The entire rationalization for noble privilege in UK was because the ancestors of these nobles made a deal with the leaders. This made no difference when the government decided these privileges were unfair to the majority of the population. The rules were changed and the privileges stripped away. The entire premise behind taxation of the wealthy (inheritance taxes in particular) is that people are not absolutely entitled to keep whatever privileges they may have earned by following the rules or by deals made with governments in the past. The idea that a group of people should be perpetually entitled to special privileges that are not subject to taxation is elitist garbage with no moral justification. The only reason anyone even entertains the idea today is because natives are perceived as underdogs - if that changes then so will social attitudes towards their privileges. They arent "special privileges". They are the procedes of a realestate deal we made with them... A deal by which we made out like bandits, and got vast tracts of valuable land and resources for next to nothing. The treaties are as valid now, as they day they were signed. The only reason anyone even entertains the idea today is because natives are perceived as underdogs No, its because its Canadian law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) They arent "special privileges". They are the procedes of a realestate deal we made with them...The nobility in the UK did the same thing. You had a local leader amass a track of land and then would make a deal with the king to make the land part of the kingdom in return for special status within the kingdom. The kingdom benefited. This does not mean that the UK is forever obligated to grant the descendants of these nobles special status. A deal by which we made out like bandits, and got vast tracts of valuable land and resources for next to nothing. The treaties are as valid now, as they day they were signed.There is no "we". The land in question was incorporated into a sovereign country that made it possible for a free market society to turn these assets into wealth. Natives are part of of that society and shared in the benefits. No, its because its Canadian law.Irrelevant. Laws can be changed if there is a public consensus. Edited June 10, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Well, ok but how ? Most people feel some empathy for the state of the conquered people of Canada. I can see that you don't feel that way, or at least it seems to me that you don't, but you're basically checking out of the discussion with a stance like that.It's not even about empathy. It's about negotiating a deal with them for their land and honouring our agreements. They can scrap the current arrangement, but they better be ready to negotiate new terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 It's not even about empathy. It's about negotiating a deal with them for their land and honouring our agreements. They can scrap the current arrangement, but they better be ready to negotiate new terms. What is it from the actual terms that we have broken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 What is it from the actual terms that we have broken?What I'm saying is if the federal government chooses to do away with the current arrangement, then it is upon them to negotiate a new arrangement, since the First Nations were here before the state and continue to be here under those agreements. With those agreements gone, they have a legal claim to their ancestral lands which were only ceded in accordance to the agreements that we have. Either the federal government re-negotiates the terms of the agreements or they face an uphill battle in court that would likely end with the court forcing them to forge a new agreement anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 What I'm saying is if the federal government chooses to do away with the current arrangement, then it is upon them to negotiate a new arrangementI take it then that you are absolutely opposed to expropriation where government decides what fair compensation should be and simply imposes those terms on the property owner. I also assume that such bans would apply whenever governments pass laws or regulations that have the effect of diminishing the value of the property. Because if you do think that expropriation is a legitimate power for government to have then you cannot argue that the only option is to negotiate a new deal. Ultimately the government has the right to decide what is in the best interest of the citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 What is it from the actual terms that we have broken? What haven't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 What I'm saying is if the federal government chooses to do away with the current arrangement, then it is upon them to negotiate a new arrangement. I agree that a new agreement is needed but it would involve a complete buyout of aboriginal rights thus making all Canadians equal. Thus buyout would be significant but I still don't think natives would go for it despite the fact their current treaties are screwing them over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.