Just how far should the B.C. government go in trying to settle land claims and appease FNs?

[blackbird]

The reality of life in British Columbia is that railways, highways, cities, towns, farmlands exist on what many native bands claim as their traditional territory.  If Canada or British Columbia were to recognize such claims to the land, Canada as a sovereign nation would cease to exist.  5% of the population claiming ownership of the land that the other 95% of Canadians live on?  Hardly a rational position to take.  European settlers started coming to north America approximately 500 years ago or more.  They eventually settled in the various parts of the country.  Natives existed in small areas in the various regions.  But there was so much uninhabited land that there were few disputes in Canada.  The U.S. was different.  When Americans settled in the U.S. starting on the east coast, friction developed over the land and conflict continued as the west was settled.  There were the Indian wars.

That scenario did not happen in Canada fortunately.  Settlement was relatively peaceful. 

This is a brief history of B.C. re FNs.

"

Copilot

Sent by Copilot:

The process of acquiring land from the First Nations in British Columbia has a complex history. Initially, the British Crown recognized Indigenous title to the land through the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which stated that only the Crown could acquire land from First Nations, and this had to be done through treaties12.

However, when British Columbia joined Canada in 1871, the province did not recognize Indigenous title and believed there was no need for treaties, except for the existing Douglas Treaties13. These treaties were negotiated by James Douglas between 1850 and 1854 with various First Nations on Vancouver Island3.

In the northeastern part of the province, Treaty 8 was signed in 1899, covering a large area and involving several First Nations13. For many years, no further treaties were made, leading to unresolved land claims and disputes.

It wasn’t until the 1990s that the British Columbia Treaty Commission was established to facilitate modern treaty negotiations3. The Nisga’a Treaty, implemented in 2000, was the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia1.

This history reflects ongoing efforts to address and reconcile land claims and rights with First Nations in the province."

Add to that the existence of many reserves where aboriginals live in villages and it gets very difficult and complex.

There are elected band councils in the various reserves where aboriginals live.

But there are also hereditary chiefs that many believe are legitimate representatives.  Some elected band councilors would dispute that.  One could say that the idea of hereditary chiefs does not fit in with today's nation where Canada is governed by various elected levels of government.  Hereditary chiefs often claim vast tracts of land which cover the whole of the province.  This is a problem because the country is not the same country it was 500 years ago or even 100 or 200 years ago.  There are 40 million people living in Canada and 95% of the population are not aboriginals.  These people have rights to.  Nobody in north America has a perpetual claim to vast areas of the continent.

So, it is simplistic and naive to accept the claims of FN hereditary chiefs and their activists who claim vast areas of land which covers all of B.C.  There is no evidence or proof that they ever lived on much of areas that some of them claim.  In fact the present FNs absolutely did not live or occupy a lot of the areas in question.  Their ancestors may have lived in some areas or locations, but it is very difficult to prove exactly where they lived and what they did.   They were not miners or oil/gas producers or even farmers.  They were hunter-gatherers and on the coast fishermen.

So again, what gives them the right to claim natural resource revenues from companies operating today in areas that they just happen to claim as their traditional territory when there is no proof they even lived in all those areas?

This is the conundrum British Columbia's government is in and depending on ideology, the government seems to be bending over backwards to grant them lands and money and various services at the expense of everyone else.  Just how far this should go is the question.  This concerns many British Columbians who live on the land and depend on it for various occupations and industries.

Another problem is the present BC NDP government signed onto the United Nations' UNDRIP which is the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  This has a long list of demands or requirements for the country or jurisdiction that signed on.  This has created a whole new set of problems and may have serious consequences for the people of B.C.

[herbie]

Here we go with another racist thread claiming undeniable overdue treaties and obligations to indigenous peoples are "appeasement".

And undoubtedly will draw exactly the same replies from the same people that it's not racist at all to spout the same reasons. all based on stereotypes, once again.

By the person who proves out the very stereotype I coined myself as a teen:

He who spouts his Christianity the loudest, is the least.

[blackbird]

On 7/23/2024 at 6:27 PM, herbie said:

Here we go with another racist thread

Here we go with another wacko lefty-liberal whose only contribution to any discussion is to call those he disagrees with racist.  When will you grow up little boy?  And he who knows nothing about Christianity or the Bible is the least qualified to be an accuser.  Instead of spewing garbage in almost every post, you need to get down on your knees and beg God to forgive you and be merciful to you and start listening to him through his word for a change.

[ExFlyer]

On 7/23/2024 at 9:27 PM, herbie said:

Here we go with another racist thread claiming undeniable overdue treaties and obligations to indigenous peoples are "appeasement".

And undoubtedly will draw exactly the same replies from the same people that it's not racist at all to spout the same reasons. all based on stereotypes, once again.

By the person who proves out the very stereotype I coined myself as a teen:

He who spouts his Christianity the loudest, is the least.

This is expected from our resident bible thumpin, scripture quoting christian,

He/She is anti FN, anti Palestinian , anti Pakistani, anti immigrant, anti non white. and anti religion other than his version of Christianity. A hypocrite of monumental proportion.

He/She is the worst kind of discriminatory christian that you can imagine.

He/She has even resorted to the conspiracy theorist rantings that if you do not agree with him/her that you are a leftists. Seems only he/she can dictate what we think or believe. Yup, hypocritical is the word LOL

 

BTW,  I am very torn about the amount we spend and give the FN peoples. I m not anti FN, just concerned that the welfare society we have created will never be off the government teat. I don't know how to change or resolve the issue. Perhaps give them 5 years waning that they will be cut off the government  teat and they will be like all other Canadians, paying taxes etc.

Edited July 25 by ExFlyer

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

This is expected from our resident bible thumpin, scripture quoting christian,

He/She is anti FN, anti Palestinian , anti Pakistani, anti immigrant, anti non white. and anti religion other than his version of Christianity. A hypocrite of monumental proportion.

You and herbie are two of the same kind. Both of you love to be false accusers.  But you can make all the accusations in the world but it won't make a bit of difference.

"Although the accuser of the brethren wants to emphasize our sin before God with the aim of condemning us, God is merciful enough to reject Satan’s accusations and offer grace. Even in the case of Job where God grants the devil permission to test Job, Job’s perseverance and eventual humility renders the devil’s accusations false. In the New Testament, Job is presented as an example of perseverance in the face of suffering (James 5:10–11), a victory against the accuser.

Furthermore, we rest secure in the truth that Christ and the Holy Spirit intercede for us (Romans 8:26; Hebrews 5:14–15; 7:25). Satan’s accusations won’t twist God’s sovereign plan to save all those who place their trust in Christ, and God’s purpose will be fulfilled for His glory.   unquote

Who is the accuser of the brethren in Revelation 12:10? | GotQuestions.org

So the Bible describes Satan as the accuser.  Who do you work for?  God or Satan?

That is the real question.  You can become a son of God, but you have to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  There is no other way but the way described in the New Testament.

 

[ExFlyer]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You and herbie are two of the same kind. Both of you love to be false accusers.  But you can make all the accusations in the world but it won't make a bit of difference.

"Although the accuser of the brethren wants to emphasize our sin before God with the aim of condemning us, God is merciful enough to reject Satan’s accusations and offer grace. Even in the case of Job where God grants the devil permission to test Job, Job’s perseverance and eventual humility renders the devil’s accusations false. In the New Testament, Job is presented as an example of perseverance in the face of suffering (James 5:10–11), a victory against the accuser.

Furthermore, we rest secure in the truth that Christ and the Holy Spirit intercede for us (Romans 8:26; Hebrews 5:14–15; 7:25). Satan’s accusations won’t twist God’s sovereign plan to save all those who place their trust in Christ, and God’s purpose will be fulfilled for His glory.   unquote

Who is the accuser of the brethren in Revelation 12:10? | GotQuestions.org

So the Bible describes Satan as the accuser.  Who do you work for?  God or Satan?

That is the real question.  You can become a son of God, but you have to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  There is no other way but the way described in the New Testament.

 

False accusers? Of what? Name them.

Name something we made a false accusations about .  Be careful, you have laid yourself and your biases out on these forums.

Edited July 25 by ExFlyer

[herbie]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Here we go with another wacko lefty-liberal whose only contribution to any discussion is to call those he disagrees with racist.

Sorry to have to educate you that people who are not racists are not all leftists. And you're absolutely nuts to think calling me one is an insult in any way.
So you don't think denying a specific people their basic rights and obligations due on their own land is racist? That living up to past promises is too "woke" for you?
Well buddy, the natives I live among are far more Christianized and less hypocritical than you and held both a Mass and a Band ceremony when my wife passed even though she was what you'd call an absolute heathen atheist. They even brought premade dinners and the Father came to have tea and offer condolences as well, regardless that neither of us were Catholic. We're all members of one community and act like it.

Do you even share that level of compassion, as your near hatred of everything native or Catholic sure doesn't seem like it.

Edited July 25 by herbie

[blackbird]

39 minutes ago, herbie said:

Do you even share that level of compassion, as your near hatred of everything native or Catholic sure doesn't seem like it.

Again a completely false statement.  All part of your false accusations.  I never said I hated Catholics or natives and never intimated I did.  So it is you that is lying.

If you read my comments properly, I oppose your idea of giving FN activists who demand land that is not theirs.  Demanding land and a cut of natural resource industries on the basis of the fact some FNs ancestors living somewhere in the province or country is ridiculous.  Nobody has perpetual ownership of the land because of some claim about ancestry like that.

As for the RC church, I have nothing against the Catholic people.  I believe they are deceived much like countless other organization that have deceived their people.  I go by what the Bible teaches and am familiar with their beliefs which are mainly contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

You need to reconsider your false claims.   It is you that has no compassion for anyone that doesn't think like you.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I never said I hated Catholics or natives

No you never come right our and say exactly that, you just post stuff that reveals it. Sort of like how a black friend told me he preferred the South where they came right out in your face instead of quietly hiding their prejudice with faked smiling faces and polite words.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

No you never come right our and say exactly that, you just post stuff that reveals it. Sort of like how a black friend told me he preferred the South where they came right out in your face instead of quietly hiding their prejudice with faked smiling faces and polite words.

Nonsense.  My comments are always related to false teachings, unbiblical practices, etc..  You are projecting false ideas.

[eyeball]

Quote

Just how far should the B.C. government go in trying to settle land claims and appease FNs?

As far as our justice system tells it go if it can't bring itself to go on its own.

 

10 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

BTW,  I am very torn about the amount we spend and give the FN peoples. I m not anti FN, just concerned that the welfare society we have created will never be off the government teat. I don't know how to change or resolve the issue. Perhaps give them 5 years waning that they will be cut off the government  teat and they will be like all other Canadians, paying taxes etc.

Treaties in my region will if not already have phase in the collection of taxes just like everyone else pays.

Standing in the way of treaties won't just kick things down the road it'll also make the road longer.

Edited July 26 by eyeball

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

As far as our justice system tells it go if it can't bring itself to go on its own.

 

Treaties in my region will if not already have phase in the collection of taxes just like everyone else pays.

Standing in the way of treaties won't just kick things down the road it'll also make the road longer.

Just an example of my issues with supporting FN's

The Esk'etemc  first nation in BC was just given $147 million over some old water rights  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/feds-pay-first-nation-in-b-c-147m-over-loss-of-water-rights-1.7275256

They have done fine since 1890's but now we pay.

There are about 1000 members of the nation with less than 1/2 actually living on the reserve where they pay nothing and get everything.

Where does the $147 million go? To finish the ditch from the lake? Is it even needed? Because I suspect if they actually want or need a ditch they would get it built by the feds. Or do they actually give it to members of the band?

My point and very valid question is , we have, over recent years, given billions along with rights and land to the FN's and never stopped giving them handouts as per normal. Where does or did all the billions go?

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

As far as our justice system tells it go if it can't bring itself to go on its own.

 

Treaties in my region will if not already have phase in the collection of taxes just like everyone else pays.

Standing in the way of treaties won't just kick things down the road it'll also make the road longer.

Throwing hundreds of millions and billions of dollars at FNs has just made Canada poorer and will solve nothing as far as making them self sufficient and independent.  In fact giving and spending vast sums of money only makes people more dependent and less willing to work to support themselves.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

My point and very valid question is , we have, over recent years, given billions along with rights and land to the FN's and never stopped giving them handouts as per normal. Where does or did all the billions go?

I have no idea. Maybe it would help if our governments were more transparent.

Weren't you involved in the business of greater government accountability at one time?

[ExFlyer]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I have no idea. Maybe it would help if our governments were more transparent.

Weren't you involved in the business of greater government accountability at one time?

The government is transparent. They tell you how much and where the money goes.

Thing is the FN's insist they don't have to tell you what they did with it.

And, unfortunately, other recipients are the same. What goes out is one thing and what happens to it once it is out the door is another. Ask your MP for a detailed audit of the money his constituency has gotten and what it was used for... I would like ot hear the runaround respose LOL

My involvement was to provide information to whoever paid $5 to ask for it...and we did.

[eyeball]

53 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Thing is the FN's insist they don't have to tell you what they did with it.

Probably because it's theirs.

[ExFlyer]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Probably because it's theirs.

It was given to them,so yes, it is theirs but, you wanted transparency.

You are OK with the government handing out money and never saying what was done with it? Or where it went? Or who kept ti for themselves?

It is OK by you that the government is just an open vault with no need for the public to know where the money went?

Or is it just the FN"s that do not have to tell?

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

It was given to them,so yes, it is theirs but, you wanted transparency

From our governments. Like us they're also responsible for their own governments.

[ExFlyer]

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

From our governments. Like us they're also responsible for their own governments.

So

It is OK by you that the government is just an open vault with no need for the public to know where the money went?

And it is it just the FN"s that do not have to tell what they do with the billions of dollars you give then and still allow them to collect their monthly stipends?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

is OK by you that the government is just an open vault with no need for the public to know where the money went?

Nope, not at all. 

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

And it is it just the FN"s that do not have to tell what they do with the billions of dollars you give then and still allow them to collect their monthly stipends?

Why would they have to tell us what they do with their money? If native people want to know what their governments do with their money that's up to them.

[herbie]

Money? That's the opposition to settling treaties?

Well they could've been settled for a hundred thousand 200 years ago, keep dragging our feet and make a self fulfilling prophecy; they'll be too expensive forevermore!

And who says land claims must involve money?

[ExFlyer]

On 7/26/2024 at 6:48 PM, eyeball said:

Nope, not at all. 

Why would they have to tell us what they do with their money? If native people want to know what their governments do with their money that's up to them.

 

So, by your logic, when the government gives money to anyone, they can do what they want and do not have to tell anyone what they did with it?

Billions to companies, to provinces, to municipalities ,and those recipients can just stuff their coffers or do whatever?? What is this "transparency " you speak about??

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

So, by your logic, when the government gives money to anyone, they can do what they want and do not have to tell anyone what they did with it?

Nope.

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Billions to companies, to provinces, to municipalities ,and those recipients can just stuff their coffers or do whatever??

Nope.

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

What is this "transparency " you speak about??

No in-camera lobbying. Same as always. Bark but what do you mean as many times as you like.

But in the meantime if you believe we already have all transparency we need then why don't you know the answers to the questions you're asking?

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope.

Nope.

No in-camera lobbying. Same as always. Bark but what do you mean as many times as you like.

But in the meantime if you believe we already have all transparency we need then why don't you know the answers to the questions you're asking?

So, what do mean then? You said "Why would they have to tell us what they do with their money? If native people want to know what their governments do with their money that's up to them"  To me you say when they get the money they can do as they want. and do not have to tell anyone what they do with it.

So, "transparency" to you means they have to be on camera when making deals but when they get the money they don't have to use it as they say....they can do what they want with it.

Never said there is enough transparency, as a matter of fact, I am saying there should be more....iike having to produce evidence what the doiwith government handout.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

So, what do mean then?

Will you please stop channelling cdnfox.