The Treaties

[betsy]

I would like to know and understand about these treaties that are at the root of our conflict with the natives.

Confessing to something that had not grabbed my interest until most recently in this forum, I admit that most, if not all of my limited and little knowledge about Indian Affairs came from other Canadians, and from articles and controversial news reports (that briefly referred to the treaties).

This thread is meant to pore over, interpret and discuss the treaties among ourselves. We may agree or greatly disagree....become heated in our discussions...but at least, we're grabbing the bull by its horn.

As a start, does anyone have a link to the ORIGINAL treaties that we can read?

[betsy]

I guess this is how it all started?

2. The ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763

"As illustrated by the extract from the letters patent issued to John Cabot cited earlier in this chapter, both France and Great Britain initially had far-reaching plans for imperial adventures in North America that took little account of the rights of the Aboriginal inhabitants. Nonetheless, as the history of French relations with the Innu and Wendat shows, in the early days of colonization the French were usually compelled to seek Aboriginal nations as trading partners and military allies, in that way recognizing the autonomy and independence of the Aboriginal nations with which they sought association."

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg11_e.html

[Riverwind]

As a start, does anyone have a link to the ORIGINAL treaties that we can read?

Betsy, when discussing native treaties you have to consider a few facts:

1) The are over 600 native groups in Canada - only some of those groups have anything that resembles a treaty. The other groups are claiming that they deserve similar treaty rights because their ancestors were the first immigrants to North America.

2) The Canadian courts have bent themselves into contortions to accomodate native claims. The courts would insist on some sort of proof if a non-native went to court to demand rights promised to their grandparents by the Canadian gov't . However, if you are a native in Canada, proof is not required: the recollections of an aging native elder is considered enough.

3) The treaties that did exist were agreements with native 'nations' that do not exist anymore. Insisting that Canada must live up to literal terms of these treaties is no different than saying Canada is obliged to live up to terms of treaties with Austro-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire.

The native industry and many in the media would like Canadians to beleive that every native treaty claim is an indisputable fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, even when properly documented treaties exist there is still the moral question about whether we want to live in a society where people have to get a DNA test to determine what rights they have.

[Charles Anthony]

trea-ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (TREE-tee)

n. pl. trea-ties

A document or contract which can unilaterally be torn up or ignored or re-written at the convenience of the people who write the history books or by "society" or by whoever has the divine power to "grant rights" or take "rights away".

A properly documented treaty can be strategically discredited by pulling out the race card.

[betsy]

As a start, does anyone have a link to the ORIGINAL treaties that we can read?

Betsy, when discussing native treaties you have to consider a few facts:

1) The are over 600 native groups in Canada - only some of those groups have anything that resembles a treaty. The other groups are claiming that they deserve similar treaty rights because their ancestors were the first immigrants to North America.

2) The Canadian courts have bent themselves into contortions to accomodate native claims. The courts would insist on some sort of proof if a non-native went to court to demand rights promised to their grandparents by the Canadian gov't . However, if you are a native in Canada, proof is not required: the recollections of an aging native elder is considered enough.

3) The treaties that did exist were agreements with native 'nations' that do not exist anymore. Insisting that Canada must live up to literal terms of these treaties is no different than saying Canada is obliged to live up to terms of treaties with Austro-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire.

The native industry and many in the media would like Canadians to beleive that every native treaty claim is an indisputable fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, even when properly documented treaties exist there is still the moral question about whether we want to live in a society where people have to get a DNA test to determine what rights they have.

Thank you for explaining that to me.

[Ahni]

As a start, does anyone have a link to the ORIGINAL treaties that we can read?

Hey. Here's a list of the treaty areas of Canada:

and, if anyone want to giggle a bit, here's a list of all treaties with America

Riverwind:

3) The treaties that did exist were agreements with native 'nations' that do not exist anymore.

Can you show me one single example where that's true? (that's simply not true.)

As archaic and insulting as some of the treaties are, and eventhough some are invalid because of the notwithstanding clause (which basically cancels out what was said) and other nice and shiny loopholes (Aswell, in the states a document was recently discovered which documents orders that no treaties are to be signed without getting the natives drunk first. This was before alcholism was a common affliction) they are still,irrefutably, legally-binding contracts.

When some Nation who signed a treaty fails to uphold the obligations they agreed to by signing the treaty, well there are consequences.. and they cannot simply pretend the treaties don't exist, or come up with any legitimate arguement that validates such a claim.

Even if such a claim was (so-called) proved in the Supreme court, it still would be false - not to mention the big oops! that would get pointed out regarding the jurisdiction of a federal court addressing intenational matters - unless the Natives of the 'disputed' treaty submitted to the will of that court...

Riverwind, if the Indigenous Nations didn't exist (treaty rights and obligations are inherited), or if we forfeited our inherent title on the land (and fully subordinated ourselves to the gov of can), or if every treaty was not based on, refer to, or in lieu of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (PDF) - and validated time and time again by all signatories (Canada is perpetually a signatory) then yes, the treaties would be invalid/non-existent, But this is not the case.

You're certainly right about the whole blood quantum thing, and thanks for pointing that out. The relationship between the Canadian State and Indigenous Nations is definitely based on race...

The blood thing is because of greed. If this wasn't done than everyone would have a legitimate claim to treaty benefits, which are sometimes good (free university education), other times lame (eg $5 a year in the 1800's is not $5 a year now, though that's what they get. That's nothing compared to what we're owed though - A recent estimate totalled a few hundred billion dollars owed by Canada... over 1 trillion in the states.)

Personally I don't like the divisions this blood-quantity thing has created. Some people who should have had legitimate claims were outright ignored. If i reall there's even a point somewhere about if a women marries outisde of her tribe, she forfeits her (and her children if she is to have any) treaty benefits.

There's even some instances (especially in the states) where hundreds and thousands of people are disenrolled, because dividing several billions dollars from Casinos is so time-consuming, I guess but that's a small minority. For the majority it's business as usual...

Ahni

[Riverwind]

they are still,irrefutably, legally-binding contracts.

A government cannot enter into a legally binding agreement that violates the principals of the constitution. For example, if the gov't signed a treaty that allowed natives to keep slaves then that treaty would be invalid - no matter what documentation exists.

Native treaties are racist documents that grant special rights to a particular ethnic group. 'Being here first' is _not_ a justification for racism. I am sure there would be a huge outcry if the Quebec gov't decided to give special tax breaks to descendants of the original French settlers because 'they were here first'.

Furthermore, I believe that acknowledging treaty rights will simply increase the amount of racism in Canadian society over time and lead to more conflicts because most people understand that special rights for natives is incompatible with the principals of liberal democracy. Many people are willing to over look this contradiction today because they feel bad that the social conditions in native communities are so bad. However, that sympathy would disappear completely if the social conditions improved and natives continue to demand special status.

In the end there has to be a compromise where native reserves are turned in the municipal corporations with some special provisions that allow natives to better look after their cultural heritage. In return natives will have to accept that they are no better than any other Canadian and will have to follow the same rules and pay the same taxes.