Jump to content

Are aboriginals "immigrants"?


Recommended Posts

On 2017-6-21 at 3:50 PM, PIK said:

Most do and so do the non whites living and working here and paying taxes.

...

This crap with the natives has to be ended.

No, PIK, most Canadians do not agree with your bigoted notions. You are one of a miniscule fraction of a percentage of people who hold such extremist views. 

By "this crap with the natives" I assume you mean the treaties that allow us to live here?

End that (you can't) and you end Canada. Lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, jacee said:

No, PIK, most Canadians do not agree with your bigoted notions. You are one of a miniscule fraction of a percentage of people who hold such extremist views. 

By "this crap with the natives" I assume you mean the treaties that allow us to live here?

End that (you can't) and you end Canada. Lol

 

 

You aren't "allowed" to live here, like every other citizen you are entitled to live here regardless of where or when your ancestors came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jacee said:

No, PIK, most Canadians do not agree with your bigoted notions. You are one of a miniscule fraction of a percentage of people who hold such extremist views. 

By "this crap with the natives" I assume you mean the treaties that allow us to live here?

End that (you can't) and you end Canada. Lol

Most of the lands of Canada didn't 'belong' to anyone because the natives largely didn't understand the concept of land ownership the way the British did. They would say a certain area was their tribe's territory for hunting, but was it really their land just because they sometimes hunted in it?

Canada is here, and it's not going anywhere. The natives need to accept that, leave their reservations, sell the land, and get into the towns and cities where they can find jobs. It's a miserable life living without purpose or hope of purpose out in the boonies on government welfare. Precious wonder so many succumb to drugs and alcohol, and violence reigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wilber said:

You aren't "allowed" to live here, like every other citizen you are entitled to live here regardless of where or when your ancestors came.

We are only so "entitled" by respecting the treaties with Indigenous Nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jacee said:

I believe there are some 300+ sovereign Indigenous Nations in Canada.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-people/

You are entitled to your own opinions, but are not entitled to your own facts.

There are no 'sovereign' nations within Canada, and there are no indigenous nations. A thousand odd people is not a nation. It is a tribe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Argus said:

You are entitled to your own opinions, but are not entitled to your own facts.

There are no 'sovereign' nations within Canada, and there are no indigenous nations. A thousand odd people is not a nation. It is a tribe.

There may be several communities (aka 'First Nations') that make up (eg) the Mohawk Nation. 

The treaties are with the original nations.

They never ceded their sovereignty.

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2017 at 1:13 PM, Argus said:

It's a miserable life living without purpose or hope of purpose out in the boonies on government welfare. Precious wonder so many succumb to drugs and alcohol, and violence reigns.

All precipitated by how many generations of genocide? How many generations fit into a century? How many fit into a 150 years?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, jacee said:

There may be several communities (aka 'First Nations') that make up (eg) the Mohawk Nation. 

The treaties are with the original nations.

They never ceded their sovereignty.

A tribe is not a nation, and if you think they're sovereign watch what happens when they try to start their own army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Argus said:

A tribe is not a nation,

Would someone please remind Argus that Brian Mulroney pretty much established otherwise. If what Argus says is true Canada's 2nd Nations are little more than a collection of tribes so...tomato tomatah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2017 at 9:41 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

Seeing the various skull being unearthed in regions outside Africa, even the whole origins of humanity is up for a test.

The ancestors of the Native Indians came from Asia. Indians today living in Canada are all related to Asians. Their facial features tell me that this is so. And then the question should be asked as to whether we can call the Indians of North America all just immigrants themselves? The DNA of bones thousands of years old that have been dug up in North America not too long ago appear to be of a Caucasian origin. So did the Indians come here from Asia and knock off the former Caucasian inhabitants? All speculation, but hey, you never know, eh? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2017 at 10:57 AM, jacee said:

No, PIK, most Canadians do not agree with your bigoted notions. You are one of a miniscule fraction of a percentage of people who hold such extremist views. 

By "this crap with the natives" I assume you mean the treaties that allow us to live here?

End that (you can't) and you end Canada. Lol

 

 

Have you personally gone around and asked every Canadian in Canada as to where they stand on all of this Indian nonsense and treaties stuff? If you have not then you should not talk. How the hell would you know as to what the real percentages are? Obviously, you have been reading and listening too much to the liberal media for your so-called facts. 

Treaties or no treaties the British/Europeans came to stay whether the Indians liked it or not. At least we did something with the place, and we brought the Indians into a new era where they could upgrade themselves from where they were, and get with the new times.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Argus said:

A tribe is not a nation, and if you think they're sovereign watch what happens when they try to start their own army.

"Tribe" is a US term. We don't use it in Canada.

The government endorses "nation-to-nation" relationships, because that is the legal reality: Treaties are by definition 'between nations'. Always were. That hasn't changed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jacee said:

"Tribe" is a US term. We don't use it in Canada.

The government endorses "nation-to-nation" relationships, because that is the legal reality: Treaties are by definition 'between nations'. Always were. That hasn't changed.

 

Really?   Obviously, you have no exposure to aboriginal entities and tribes other than what you get from the media.

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100020616/1100100020653

And,speaking as someone who has been around the issue for a very long time:  a LOT of Canadians really are sick to death not only of hearing about the aboriginal crap, but PAYING for it.  

There is simply no workable way to have 300 "sovereign nations" within one country.  The whole notion is idiotic.

Edited by cannuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the aboriginals are not immigrants they did not leave one country and go to another as such concepts of country and nation did not exist back then. The proper term would be migration and that is how every part of the world became populated is through migration.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cannuck said:

Really?   Obviously, you have no exposure to aboriginal entities and tribes other than what you get from the media.

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100020616/1100100020653

And,speaking as someone who has been around the issue for a very long time:  a LOT of Canadians really are sick to death not only of hearing about the aboriginal crap, but PAYING for it.  

There is simply no workable way to have 300 "sovereign nations" within one country.  The whole notion is idiotic.

I see Sask does have "Tribal Councils", perhaps because some groups span the Canada/US border.

I'm not certain whether 300 is the exact number of Indigenous Nations in Canada. They are associated with linguistic groups but not exactly the same perhaps. 

Eg, from your link:

There are 70 First Nations in Saskatchewan, 

nine Saskatchewan Tribal Councils.

The five linguistic groups ... Cree, Dakota, Dene (Chipewyan), Nakota (Assniboine) and Saulteaux.

Six treaty groups, and 3 FN communities without treaties.

---

Currently, the government does business with 70 FN communities in Sask, over 600 across the country. 

The number of treaty groups is smaller and likely corresponds somewhat to the traditional Indigenous Nations, although treaties were also associated with geographic areas and (eg) there are Cree peoples in the northern part of several provinces, with different treaties.

Any Canadians who are ... "sick to death not only of hearing about the aboriginal crap, but PAYING for it" ... don't have a very good understanding of Canada, possibly because some politicians mislead them.

Funds 'paid' to FN communities come from treaty-related trust funds (land and resource revenues) administered by the feds:

IT'S NOT OUR MONEY AND IT NEVER WAS!

However, because there have been cases where governments fraudulently removed money from trust funds to pay for (eg) infrastructure for us (canals, universities, railroads, etc), such cases are now subject to claims settlements to return those monies to Indigenous trust funds. In other cases, land was fraudulently taken and monies from land sales was fraudulently put into our general revenues instead of into Indigenous trust funds.

There are still MANY such outstanding claims.

The real fact is that Indigenous Trust Fund monies have been subsidizing us for a very long time, while First Nations communities have been underfunded compared to us, and kept in a state of poverty and deprivation.

If politicians are leading you to believe that your taxes are paying for First Nations, they are lying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jacee said:

I see Sask does have "Tribal Councils", perhaps because some groups span the Canada/US border.

I'm not certain whether 300 is the exact number of Indigenous Nations in Canada. They are associated with linguistic groups but not exactly the same perhaps. 

Eg, from your link:

There are 70 First Nations in Saskatchewan, 

nine Saskatchewan Tribal Councils.

The five linguistic groups ... Cree, Dakota, Dene (Chipewyan), Nakota (Assniboine) and Saulteaux.

Six treaty groups, and 3 FN communities without treaties.

---

Currently, the government does business with 70 FN communities in Sask, over 600 across the country. 

The number of treaty groups is smaller and likely corresponds somewhat to the traditional Indigenous Nations, although treaties were also associated with geographic areas and (eg) there are Cree peoples in the northern part of several provinces, with different treaties.

Any Canadians who are ... "sick to death not only of hearing about the aboriginal crap, but PAYING for it" ... don't have a very good understanding of Canada, possibly because some politicians mislead them.

Funds 'paid' to FN communities come from treaty-related trust funds (land and resource revenues) administered by the feds:

IT'S NOT OUR MONEY AND IT NEVER WAS!

However, because there have been cases where governments fraudulently removed money from trust funds to pay for (eg) infrastructure for us (canals, universities, railroads, etc), such cases are now subject to claims settlements to return those monies to Indigenous trust funds. In other cases, land was fraudulently taken and monies from land sales was fraudulently put into our general revenues instead of into Indigenous trust funds.

There are still MANY such outstanding claims.

The real fact is that Indigenous Trust Fund monies have been subsidizing us for a very long time, while First Nations communities have been underfunded compared to us, and kept in a state of poverty and deprivation.

If politicians are leading you to believe that your taxes are paying for First Nations, they are lying.

 

You're starting to make about as much sense as Omni and Hot Enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jacee said:

I see Sask does have "Tribal Councils", perhaps because some groups span the Canada/US border.

I'm not certain whether 300 is the exact number of Indigenous Nations in Canada. They are associated with linguistic groups but not exactly the same perhaps. 

Eg, from your link:

There are 70 First Nations in Saskatchewan, 

nine Saskatchewan Tribal Councils.

The five linguistic groups ... Cree, Dakota, Dene (Chipewyan), Nakota (Assniboine) and Saulteaux.

Six treaty groups, and 3 FN communities without treaties.

---

Currently, the government does business with 70 FN communities in Sask, over 600 across the country. 

The number of treaty groups is smaller and likely corresponds somewhat to the traditional Indigenous Nations, although treaties were also associated with geographic areas and (eg) there are Cree peoples in the northern part of several provinces, with different treaties.

Any Canadians who are ... "sick to death not only of hearing about the aboriginal crap, but PAYING for it" ... don't have a very good understanding of Canada, possibly because some politicians mislead them.

Funds 'paid' to FN communities come from treaty-related trust funds (land and resource revenues) administered by the feds:

IT'S NOT OUR MONEY AND IT NEVER WAS!

However, because there have been cases where governments fraudulently removed money from trust funds to pay for (eg) infrastructure for us (canals, universities, railroads, etc), such cases are now subject to claims settlements to return those monies to Indigenous trust funds. In other cases, land was fraudulently taken and monies from land sales was fraudulently put into our general revenues instead of into Indigenous trust funds.

There are still MANY such outstanding claims.

The real fact is that Indigenous Trust Fund monies have been subsidizing us for a very long time, while First Nations communities have been underfunded compared to us, and kept in a state of poverty and deprivation.

If politicians are leading you to believe that your taxes are paying for First Nations, they are lying.

 

They are called "tribal councils" because they are from different TRIBES.   It has nothing to do with the 49th parallel (see Jay Treaty), but merely the fact that the diverse cultural and linguistic groups are speaking English due to the presence and dominance of the immigrant European population.

You seem to thing there is some magic box of money that the aboriginals left behind in trust with the Government of the Dominion.  They left nothing except their land in agreement with the English government of the day.   In case you didn't notice, we are CANADA, not frigging ENGLAND any more, so any dispute they have and any compensation they seek should come from Her Frigging Majesty.

Canadian trust funds are right here for all to see:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/ftf-eng.asp  EVERY penny within came from the work and contribution of OFF RESERVVE Canadians.  You would have to provide some evidence that these (VERY public records) funds have been tapped for general revenue - even though each and every one CAME from general revenue.

The concept of Canada selling "their land" is based upon the notion that there was any legal title to convey - and there was not.  They suffered from incompetent leadership that listened to the lying English (just as we, India, Australia, etc. did as well) and moved them from where they were to where they are.  If you look at how many billions every year we pay into the Indian Industry (a good chunk of which lands in the pockets of Chief and Council, but precious little ending up with anyone at the end of the line) is suqandered, it is time to simply say "enough is enough, and we are far, far past enough".

Instead of focusing on their abject failure as a society and culture, aboriginal groups should be grateful to England and France for not using the US version of genocide as public policy in their colonies and to Canada for being so stupid as to perpetuate the endless waste of money on a population that enjoys privilege that is not afforded to any other Canadians (except for maybe Omar Khadr).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, cannuck said:

They are called "tribal councils" because they are from different TRIBES.   It has nothing to do with the 49th parallel (see Jay Treaty), but merely the fact that the diverse cultural and linguistic groups are speaking English due to the presence and dominance of the immigrant European population.

You seem to thing there is some magic box of money that the aboriginals left behind in trust with the Government of the Dominion.  They left nothing except their land in agreement with the English government of the day.   In case you didn't notice, we are CANADA, not frigging ENGLAND any more, so any dispute they have and any compensation they seek should come from Her Frigging Majesty.

Canadian trust funds are right here for all to see:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/ftf-eng.asp  EVERY penny within came from the work and contribution of OFF RESERVVE Canadians.  You would have to provide some evidence that these (VERY public records) funds have been tapped for general revenue - even though each and every one CAME from general revenue.

The concept of Canada selling "their land" is based upon the notion that there was any legal title to convey - and there was not.  They suffered from incompetent leadership that listened to the lying English (just as we, India, Australia, etc. did as well) and moved them from where they were to where they are.  If you look at how many billions every year we pay into the Indian Industry (a good chunk of which lands in the pockets of Chief and Council, but precious little ending up with anyone at the end of the line) is suqandered, it is time to simply say "enough is enough, and we are far, far past enough".

Instead of focusing on their abject failure as a society and culture, aboriginal groups should be grateful to England and France for not using the US version of genocide as public policy in their colonies and to Canada for being so stupid as to perpetuate the endless waste of money on a population that enjoys privilege that is not afforded to any other Canadians (except for maybe Omar Khadr).

See "Indian monies" here:

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1428673130728/1428673159469

Your comment that "aboriginal groups should be grateful ..." 

is disgusting.

And it is Canada (not England or France) that has conducted a systematic campaign of genocide, violating every treaty of the Crown, mandating children's attendance at brutal 'Indian' Residential Schools, stealing their land and resources and trust funds, etc.

You need to do more homework if you truly wish to understand these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lived and worked on and off reserves with aboriginal leaders and individuals for most of the last 50 years.  I have been very well acquainted with previous Treaty Commissioners.  I have done business with many, many bands, councils and individuals at my expense and risk.   So don't sit in your liberal fantasy world of some big city asshole factory and try to tell me what the frick the damned issues with Canadian aboriginals are.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Canadian trust funds are right here for all to see:  http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/ftf-eng.asp  EVERY penny within came from the work and contribution of OFF RESERVVE Canadians.  You would have to provide some evidence that these (VERY public records) funds have been tapped for general revenue - even though each and every one CAME from general revenue.

This is actually not true. Although the large majority of funds do come from the general tax pool, a smaller part does come from money generated from 'Indian Band Funds'.

 
Quote
Indian Band Funds

These accounts were established to record moneys belonging to Indian bands throughout Canada pursuant to sections 61 to 69 of the Indian Act.

Indian Moneys of the bands are classified as either capital moneys or revenue moneys. Capital moneys of the band include all moneys derived from the sale of surrendered lands or the sale of band capital assets. Moneys from the sale of surrendered lands can include land sales, timber sales, oil and gas royalties, and sale of gravel. Revenue moneys are all moneys not classified as capital moneys.

Moneys are generally disbursed from these accounts pursuant to an authorized request from a band.

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1445002892771/1445002960229#06

With that said, the total trust account is at ~900 Million and not trillions of dollars as many deluded individuals claim. As you correctly pointed out, they make this claim insinuating they own all of this land and that we should have paid that much to them by this point.  Its troubling there are so many First Nation mouth pieces that continue to purport these lies as it only confuses an already confusing issue. 

Edited by Accountability Now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2017 at 8:43 AM, Accountability Now said:

This is actually not true. Although the large majority of funds do come from the general tax pool, a smaller part does come from money generated from 'Indian Band Funds'.

 

With that said, the total trust account is at ~900 Million and not trillions of dollars as many deluded individuals claim. As you correctly pointed out, they make this claim insinuating they own all of this land and that we should have paid that much to them by this point.  Its troubling there are so many First Nation mouth pieces that continue to purport these lies as it only confuses an already confusing issue. 

Thanks for putting that straight.  I had indeed forgotten that the actual government of this county - the one and only "nation" involved - has isolated funds from transactions and royalties related to treaty land entitlements.  If one was to do the accounting for what Canada as the one and only "nation" involved has given in financial benefits to aboriginal entities over the last century (especially the last few decades) that number dwarfs the value of those trust amounts by several orders of magnitude.

Most of the early treaties simply granted permission to use crown lands for hunting and fishing.  They were negotiated with Great Britain, who wrote them simply to pacify the aboriginal population so they could continue to occupy the land to exploit resources.  The tribes that were displaced had no system of land registration so did not "own" anything by any conventional means.  Not that the British had no intention to honour such treaties, but there is simply no way that what they wrote is relevant to today's world - nor could one expect them to have that kind of foresight. If one wishes to be fair, it falls onto the British who profited for centuries from exploiting her colonies to build "the Empire" to make restitution, not Canada.

Later treaties with "the Dominion" started to imply things that do exist under modern law and convention, but to carry that forward, the time to have these disputes over land occupancy and "ownership" are long gone.  If these "nations" had any objections, it would have been up to them to order their defense forces to remove the intruders first under THEIR legal and diplomatic legal system and failing that by ordering the military defense to remove what they considered invaders.   Of course these did not happen because those properties of nationhood simply did not exist - and they fail this basic test at that point in time.  Thus, everything cedes to the successful squatters..

Of course, the idiotic "government of Canada" seems to refer everything to the "constitution act" and some nonsense implying that we no longer come under the British North America Act - all ignoring the fact that this crap has never been ratified by the Government of Quebec - as is required by law.   So, they have no status IMHO to be giving away the rights and properties of those who would collectively BE Canada to a group of people making these ridiculous claims.

Finally, the issue of what constitutes the "first inhabitants" that seems to be at the root of the Indian's argument is very much up for grabs.  AND, IMHO, irrelevant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...