Jump to content

What do natives want?


Recommended Posts

I would like to hear directly from the native population EXACTLY what natives want changed or improved.

Please state:

your claim

your province or region

if possible, links or references to justify claim

I sincerely hope this thread can serve to eliminate any mis-representation from any side.

We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Chuck:

Are you solely talking about land claims? That is one thing, but there is far more than that that Native people want. Secondly, being individuals, we all have different priorities, and if you take that to involve National identities, then that establishes a whole list of new priorities.

For instance, West Coast folks (at least the coastal ones), want fishing rights, some want whaling rights, others want tree harvesting rights, some want religious rights recognized, some want political rights to the fore and so on.

but this may have nothing in common with what prairie Nations or Nations living in the Shield want. Confederacy people have a totally different outlook than Algonkian people, who have a different outlook than the Metis or Mik'maq. The Confederacy puts a priority on the Canada/U.S border crossing than many other bands would even consider, or care to consider.

Trying to list everything for easy reading would be difficult in the extreme, and lead to confusion on the part of non-Natives since there are representatives of many different Nations here anyway.

There is are no such things as stupid questions, just stupid people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck:

Are you solely talking about land claims? That is one thing, but there is far more than that that Native people want. Secondly, being individuals, we all have different priorities, and if you take that to involve National identities, then that establishes a whole list of new priorities.

For instance, West Coast folks (at least the coastal ones), want fishing rights, some want whaling rights, others want tree harvesting rights, some want religious rights recognized, some want political rights to the fore and so on.

but this may have nothing in common with what prairie Nations or Nations living in the Shield want. Confederacy people have a totally different outlook than Algonkian people, who have a different outlook than the Metis or Mik'maq. The Confederacy puts a priority on the Canada/U.S border crossing than many other bands would even consider, or care to consider.

Trying to list everything for easy reading would be difficult in the extreme, and lead to confusion on the part of non-Natives since there are representatives of many different Nations here anyway.

:blink:

Holy Molly! :huh:

I'm gonna be crude. We are in deep shit. :o

I need a drink..... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you solely talking about land claims? That is one thing, but there is far more than that that Native people want. Secondly, being individuals, we all have different priorities, and if you take that to involve National identities, then that establishes a whole list of new priorities.
I think we (non-natives) need to hear everything. There are too many non-natives opening their traps and saying what they think natives need or want. I think we need to hear it directly without any non-native spin or filtering.
Trying to list everything for easy reading would be difficult in the extreme, and lead to confusion on the part of non-Natives since there are representatives of many different Nations here anyway.
I think you must do it. That is why I started it off by asking "province or region" so that non-natives can STOP stereotyping.

I would hope that the non-natives do not interject into this thread by twisting other people's words but I doubt it.

We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.

<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhh seems to me that west coast native already have fishing rights -- you should check into that. Non native fishing "persons" are having a helluva hard time because of these restrictions and some have lost their boats and their livelihood ......

Tree harvesting, ok then lets talk reforestation on land logged by natives ..... is it happening"

Pass that bottle Betsy --- and a BIG glass --- second thought, skip the glass ......... :o

Speaking of the price of gas and how much of that is taxes, this poor slob filled up his mid size truck today and forked over $150 - guess what the native at the other till paid for filling his truck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhh seems to me that west coast native already have fishing rights -- you should check into that.
Actually, west coast natives have decided they want _all_ of the fishing rights. Preferential access is not good enough so they are taking the gov't to court.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they really want to do is string nets across the Fraser River preventing ANY salmon from running up stream to lay eggs, reproduce and replenish the salmon stocks. They would wipe out the entuire salmon population in a single season if they could get away with it.

This is what is behind most of the arrests of native fishers, the mass slaughter and annihiliation of future fish stocks. Including night netting and fishing with lights, and in many cases, shotguns.

In First Nations communities there are problems associated with being an enforcement officer within your own territory
Concerns were raised about the lack of follow through by DFO on charges for breaking the law.....

... A member of the BC Wildlife Federation pointed out that laws are in place through the Fisheries Act but they have no value if they are not being enforced, and expressed concerns about the capacity of the current ORR program.

.........after the Supreme Court ruled that Aboriginals had the right to catch fish for food and ceremonial purposes, Native people want to play a larger role in the fishery that once sustained their culture.
(meaning commercial fishing )

I have read one article after another on Native websites claiming that West Coast Native fisheries have not been recognised by the BC Government and Dept of Fisheries, this is total bull........ when the season opens Native fishers have the first crack at it --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kindred:

What they really want to do is string nets across the Fraser River preventing ANY salmon from running up stream to lay eggs, reproduce and replenish the salmon stocks. They would wipe out the entuire salmon population in a single season if they could get away with it.

would you have any proof that this is occuring?

No...i don't think so. I find your statement tends to ring false, especially since I visited some Nations in B.C. a while back and was told about their harvesting methods.

I have a hard time believing that anyone would be so willing to destroy a resource, but then again, considering the manner in which our Occidental brethren accuse Natives of terrorism, it is no surprise that they'd make other false accusations based on no reason.

That is the Canadian way.

There is are no such things as stupid questions, just stupid people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would you have any proof that this is occuring?
The Cheam band insists on using drift nets during periods when most conservationists agree they should not be used.

http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/issues05/08.../082105nn5.html

River: Using driftnets does not translate into setting nets across the entire river. Likewise, from reading the article, it sounds like the "Canadians" are the problem by purposefully interfering with the Cheam's harvest, instead of respecting their annual harvest.

If anything, the story you cite doesn't cast non-Natives in a very good like. It makes them sound like the same kind of provocateurs that the drunken Caledonians are.

I think I'm right when I say that there is a strong racist streak among many occidental people in this country, and now that we have a conservative government, we are hearing calls from these people to use the army on their fellow neighbours.

Hmmmm....

There is are no such things as stupid questions, just stupid people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

River: Using driftnets does not translate into setting nets across the entire river. Likewise, from reading the article, it sounds like the "Canadians" are the problem by purposefully interfering with the Cheam's harvest, instead of respecting their annual harvest.
I agree that the use of drift nets is not necessarily bad practice, however, I could not find a good link that explained how the Cheam band's use of them threatens the fish stocks. If you look at the DOF site you will find charges that the Cheam repetedly put up illegal nets - often at night to avoid detection.

The Cheam band are a bunch of thugs that bring most of their problems on themselves. On many occasions they use violance and aggression to intimidate people.

In other words, racism begets racism. Any native who treats their neighbors like inferiors should not be surprised when their neighbors respond with racism.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the use of drift nets is not necessarily bad practice, however, I could not find a good link that explained how the Cheam band's use of them threatens the fish stocks. If you look at the DOF site you will find charges that the Cheam repetedly put up illegal nets - often at night to avoid detection.

I think one of my old land claim negotiators put it best at a public meeting years ago. A tourist operator wanted to know that if the land claim came into effect, would the indians be able to gill net in "their" lake.

The negotiator replied that, up until 1927 -when the highway went through- his grandfather lived on that lake and set nets there daily for a couple of decades, until he was forced off the land and onto the Reserve. He asked the tourist operator if there were fish in the lake when they first arrived, which, of course, there were.

Oh yeah, we could net there anyway because that was a treaty right, but no one wanted to travel so far to a little lake when there were larger ones close by.

The Cheam band are a bunch of thugs that bring most of their problems on themselves. On many occasions they use violance and aggression to intimidate people.

I bet that the Cheam band grew up on stories like I did...of the olden days when our treaty rights were ignored, and things happened like what occured to one of our Chief's in the 1930's. The old man came across a wolf-killed and half-eaten deer carcass frozen on his trapline one winter. He cut off the good half and took it back to his hunt cabin. The MNR showed up and saw the deer carcass hanging there, so they charged our Chief with poaching, took his guns and traps, and jailed him for three months -or long enough to miss the prime trapping season. In essence, the man's family had to live on handouts while he was in jail, and then he had to wait til summer came before he could get more work to replace his equipment and feed his family.

He even offered to take the MNR to the spot where he got the carcass because the scene would offer proof of a wolf kill, but they declined.

...and that is only one story. I could go on and on, but I know that in the seventies and eighties, our people wouldn't put up with crap like that from the MNR, and they got a reputation for being violent thugs....but then again, most people just felt that we were born that way, when really we were taking a stand on our rights. It might not be "right", but but people weren't putting up with the "Indian quips" the white folks would make anymore, so it wasn't all as one-sided as you'd have us believe.

I know folks like you too well to believe it.

In other words, racism begets racism. Any native who treats their neighbors like inferiors should not be surprised when their neighbors respond with racism.

I agree that racism begets racism, but you have to admit that it is our Caucasian neighbours who've utilized the english language to have multiple descriptive words to describe every race, color and creed imaginable. I know of at least 5 or 6 good, solid racist terms for Native people, at least a dozen for black folks, about the same for East Asians, names for both the Chinese and Japanese, and even names for non-English speakers like Germans or French folk.

So don't give me this one-sided racist indian crap when it is the occidentals developing and using the putdowns. I suppose you feel the Indians should just put up and say "thanks" when one of their "betters" calls them a dirty timber nigger or wagon burner.

There is are no such things as stupid questions, just stupid people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So don't give me this one-sided racist indian crap when it is the occidentals developing and using the putdowns. I suppose you feel the Indians should just put up and say "thanks" when one of their "betters" calls them a dirty timber nigger or wagon burner.
It is a vicious circle and I agree that racist attitudes of whites towards natives in the past have contributed to the current hostile environment. That is why it is so difficult to break the cycle of racism. That is also why preserving the principal that all people have exactly the same rights no matter what their race is so important. Trying to 'solve' a problem created by racism with race based rights simply ensures that the racism will persist from generation to generation.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

River:

It is a vicious circle and I agree that racist attitudes of whites towards natives in the past have contributed to the current hostile environment. That is why it is so difficult to break the cycle of racism. That is also why preserving the principal that all people have exactly the same rights no matter what their race is so important. Trying to 'solve' a problem created by racism with race based rights simply ensures that the racism will persist from generation to generation.

How many people need to tell you that the rights the Natives are exercising are not based on race, but are based on treaties signed exchanging the land we call Canada for these rights.

I'll say it again for your benefit...if you are jealous of Native people getting their education, housing and medical care paid for, and their tax exempt status, then give back the land we exchanged for those rights in the first place.

I'll even go as far as to say that you can keep your money and i'll just take the land.

the bottom line is that Natives are not stupid. Why would we give up our rights after trading them for our land, only to turn around later on and give up our rights for nothing other than the fact that some Canadians get jealous of these rights. Especially when your people utilized the Indian Act to ensure that we remained at the bottom of the economic totem pole (and still do, for the most part) for over a hundred years.

The days of trinkets, baubles and whisky are gone, my friend. Learn to live with the Indians...in fact, why don't you volunteer to drive their boat for them, or help them clean their catch in exchange for some fish.

Or would you rather stand there and get upset because you can't do what they do.

There is are no such things as stupid questions, just stupid people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how many people need to tell you that the rights they are exercising are not based on race, but are based on treaty signed echanging the land we call Canada for these rights.
How many times do you have to be told that exchanging 'rights' for property not a legitimate thing to do in a multi-ethnic democratic society. If natives need to be compensated for giving up land in the past then they should be compensated with assets (cash or land). Compensating natives with race based rights simply ensures that the cycle of racism with continue forever.

To illustrate consider two hypothetical scenarios:

1) Natives groups in BC own 80% of the commercial fishing licenses on the Fraser River which they were given as part of a treaty settlement. These licenses are exactly the same as a non-native licences, however, since natives own most of them natives get most of the benefits from this resource.

2) Native groups in BC are given a right to native only commercial fishery which allows them to catch 80% of the available quota.

In both scenarios the natives receive the same benefit from 80% of the fishery. However, in Scenario 1) natives are equal participants in society. In Scenario 2) natives are beneficiaries of a clearly racist gov't policy. Some people will grumble about both scenarios, however, scenario 2) simply perpetuates the cycle of racism.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times do you have to be told that exchanging 'rights' for property not a legitimate thing to do in a multi-ethnic democratic society.

How many times do you have to be told that the Natives had nothing to do with Canada creating a multi-ethnic society. We never made the immigration laws, so if Canada changed between 1867 and now, then that still won't change the legal nature of the agreements.

I'll say it again...i'll give up my rights and tax exemption in exchange for the land, as per the original deal.

If natives need to be compensated for giving up land in the past then they should be compensated with assets (cash or land). Compensating natives with race based rights simply ensures that the cycle of racism with continue forever.

Well, tell your government this. However, the natives aren't stupid. thhey'll still want the land because that is what they are tied to.

To illustrate consider two hypothetical scenarios:

1) Natives groups in BC own 80% of the commercial fishing licenses on the Fraser River which they were given as part of a treaty settlement. These licenses are exactly the same as a non-native licences, however, since natives own most of them natives get most of the benefits from this resource.

2) Native groups in BC are given a right to native only commercial fishery which allows them to catch 80% of the available quota.

In both scenarios the natives receive the same benefit from 80% of the fishery. However, in Scenario 1) natives are equal participants in society. In Scenario 2) natives are beneficiaries of a clearly racist gov't policy. Some people will grumble about both scenarios, however, scenario 2) simply perpetuates the cycle of racism.

To be honest, that would be for the people living there to decide which option they like best. The key concern is "given". As a native, I would never accept something that the government would refer to as a "given" right. However, I'm also of the mind that Native fishers will use the latest science combined with traditional knowledge to ensure the fishery is healthy.

The example of what happens to a fishery when non-Natives run it, like the non-native fishers have done to the ground fish industry on the east coast. Either take some fish or they'll be none left, and then everyone will have to work the tarsands.

There is are no such things as stupid questions, just stupid people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times do you have to be told that the Natives had nothing to do with Canada creating a multi-ethnic society. We never made the immigration laws, so if Canada changed between 1867 and now, then that still won't change the legal nature of the agreements.
The society exists today and it is not going to disappear. Natives have to learn to live with this society. That means that natives will have to accept that they will never get back what they orginally had. In any case, you are the one always complaining about white racists. Eliminate special rights for natives and you will see the anti-native racism disappear.

Continue to insist on race based rights and you will see anti-native racism grow over time. There are many Chinese and other 'coloured' people in Vancouver that are just as racist as many whites when it comes to natives. They developed these attitudes because they are bothered by race based rights - the fact that they are superficially legal does not make them moral or legimate.

Do you want to live in a society where the race of your grandchildren has no affect on their ability to succeed in life or do you want to live in a society where your grandchildren will always be judged by their racial background? Personally, I prefer the former, however, it appears that you would prefer the latter.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we truly want to save this world famous fishery, then let’s get tough. Close the entire Fraser sockeye fishery, meaning the interception of salmon at the mouth of the Fraser by commercial boats that happen to be American and Canadian, the commercial netting in the main river by non-native and native fishermen, as well as…..to sport fishing. Let’s also quit playing the racial game. Close the fishery to everyone. I think that just about everyone concerned about the condition of this river is willing to admit that no race or nationality of people should be allowed to put pressure of any type on these wild stocks. How long of a moratorium would I put in place? Let’s start with at least ten years. That should give at least two cycles for all species back to the spawning grounds. Once again, a moratorium should be placed on everyone, no matter how special some of us think we are.
Unfortunately, that resource has now become scarce, and the meaning of the Indians' treaty right to take fish has accordingly become critical

I believe drift netting regulations say a net cannot be pulled more than 1/3 across the width of the river, this is continually violated and nets are being pulled across as much as 3/4 of the river. Drag netting and dip netting are also being used apparently. The Fraser is extremely silty which impairs the fish's vision and their ability to avoid the nets.

The treaties were drawn up and signed when indians were living a nomadic life style which meant the stress on fishing stocks wants constant.

At the time the treaties were executed there was a great abundance of fish and a relative scarcity of people

I would think anyone truly concerned with the preservation of natural resources would be able to take these factors into consideration. but thats doesnt appear to be the case.

Its the "natives right" based on age old treaties that didnt take into consideration that the natural resources are limited in terms of todays harvests, so they have the "right" to deplete the resources. Its not about preserving Canada and its "beautiful and wonderous resources from which life sprang " Its all about "gimme what I feel I am entitled to, and if it means destroying it all in the process I dont care because its MINE - and I want it !!!!!!!!!!"

Norway completed their fish stocks awhile back by over fishing and were left in a pretty bad situation because of it.

Its not about good management of resources, its about "gimme what I feel is mine" and nothng more than that. Its not about tradition or preservation or some kind of spiritualism, its about money and power, and a great deal of racism.

MONEY AND GREED. THATS ALL IT IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone living in BC knows they can buy "illegal salmon" from the natives, salmon that is supposed to be caught for "food" and not for "commecial purposes". Illegal selling of salmon is a real money earner for the BC natives.

I am curious about how native think whites should honour a treaty when the natives constantly violate it? Shouldnt that work both ways? Must be that tired old "priviliged race" things again -

Do I believe natives have a claim to land and privilige in Canada? No I dont, no more than the Vikings do in Norway or any other country in the world that had an "original settler". Thats the way children five year old and younger think, "I was here first, its all mine !"

Native civilizations were concentrated in small, specific areas of Canada. They did not travel the entire country, and did not inhabit, hunt or fish more than a very small part of it. Using the "I was here first" theory could raise some interesting points and land claims ........

Sorry my concern is whats best for Canada and the majority of the people who live here.

FYI I do believe somewhere Tem claimed the natives invented canoes and snowshoes that aided the Europeans in taking over Canada. Not something I am interested in debating but I thought it wouldnt hurt to set the record straight on that one too ...

Other history sources have it that skiing in Iran dates back to 2000 BC, when ancient tribes are believed to have devised a "ski board" or snow shoe made from animal hide.
Wikepedia
A coracle is a primitive type of boat. It is a light boat, oval in shape, and formed of canvas stretched on a framework of split and interwoven rods, and well-coated with tar and pitch to render it water-tight. According to early writers the framework was covered with horse or bullock hide (corium)......

The coracle (or canoe) forms a unique link between the modern life of Wales and its remote past. This primitive type of boat was in existence amongst the Britons at the time of the invasion of Julius Caesar, who has left a description of it, and even employed it in his Spanish campaign.

Wikepedia
More than a millennium before Captain Cook arrived, a group of intrepid people braved the Pacific, looking for land. The voice of the salty water ran through their veins. Without instruments, they traveled at night, when stars guided their way. Their canoes, plank-lashed vessels, yielded to the ocean. They had brought with them livestock, edible plants, and the desire to build a new life.

How fortunate they must have felt when they found Hawaii, and, growing on it, the giant koa tree. Now they could craft a canoe hull out of one single piece!

Over the years, these first Polynesians established themselves as the Hawaiian people. They developed new skills. And the building of the canoe became a religious task, because they discovered all too soon that on the rough waters surrounding the islands fishing was not all that easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I was just wondering...Do River and Kindred share the same brain? Did they both just fall off the turnip truck? What the heck, they are doing EXACTLY what the thread starter asked them NOT TO DO?

Where is the respect here fella's????

I was also wondering if you smart assed tongue twisters who like to speak before you think ...KnoW exactly how many commercial fisheries from OUTSIDE our country are allowed to prosper before any other citizen does? I don't think either one of you twits have the educational background on fisheries to contribute anything valuable to this topic. Just because you can do internet research does NOT make you an expert.

Again, the real issue here is - you want to contribute to the government chokehold on our economical strength by falsely accusing our people of mishandling our resources. Heres the big ol' F U mofo's! ( raises middle finger).

You make your people look bad.

It's a shame that stupidity isn't painful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly have no wish to anger anyone with what I am about to say but here it goes.

I would like to see the First Nations issues resolved, I really would. I will therefore suggest that self government be granted unto any First Nation group that so desires it. Give them their land and let them chose their own path. When a first nation citizen lives outside of that land they are Canadian citizens and subject to the laws of the land. Conversely a Canadian should be allowed to live on First Nations land and be subject to those laws. If that self governed first nations land decides that they don't want to tax their citizens, that would be up to them to figure out how to provide watever services they desire. Hospitals and schools are not cheap and neither are ther professionals who staff them.

Land claims? Lets look at that for a moment. If a treaty was signed it should be honoured no question about it. If a treaty was not signed or one is sought after the fact then the problem should be viewed in a squatter mentality. If you improved the land in any way, increased its value, and nobody has tried to throw you off of it this land it should be yours. But you only get as much of it as you can prove you were using and had improved.

I simple don't believe that there are any "rights" at issue. From all I have read it seems that privilege is a more realistic use of terminology.

Convince me I am wrong folks because I think what I propose is fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they want anything they aren't willing to give me, they are racist.

The above comment makes little sense. You are assuming in your comment that it is unfair to recognize natives as having rights that non natives would not have. That is not necessarily racist or discriminatory. It is possible because of the contents of binding legal treaties, that natives have legal rights flowing from those treaties that would not apply to non natives. Is it racist to compensate say Chinese for the head tax? Is it racist to recognize that compensation may be entitled to certain groups of people because that group was singled out for unfair treatment? If natives had not had their treaties breached in the first place and were not subject to discriminatory and illegal behaviour, then your contention might hold a little more water. The fact is however you sound like a lot of non natives who immediately get up in arms over the concept of natives seeking legal compensation or seeking to enforce treaties.

I come to you to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is food for thought in that previous post. What is the definition of a "right". From my perspective rights should apply to citizens. The articles contained within treaties should be classified as legal entitlements according to the provisions of the contract. In that sense there would be a strong legal arguement for breach of contract.

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
      10,815
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    UKTelcoLTD
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Chrissy1979 went up a rank
      Experienced
    • Randyjohnson71 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Fluffypants earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Mathieub earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

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