Six Nations Crisis- “Canada’s Pandora’s Box?”

[gc1765]

I simply don't buy the arguement that since they live in an economically unviable location, which is where I live by the way, is an excuse to have the tax paying citizens cover the costs of their existance. That does not apply to me, why should it apply to them? Are they somehow more deserving of this government largess than I? Why doesn't the taxpayer subsidize my location?

The government also subsidizes anyone living in the north, regardless of race.

What about if all of your peoples children had been snapped up against their will and put in state-run schools where they were subject to physical and sexual abuse?

All, as in every single individual child? You state that everyone was kidnapped and mistreated. Everybody? Look, I am more than willing to discuss the issues but I will not do so without honesty. I offer you my honesty and request the same in return. I will not embellish a statement to prove my point and I will request that you act in like manner, okay?

Yes, every single child was required to attend residential schools. I suppose you can consider that kidnapping because they would be taken against their will if necessary. Not all of them were sexually abused or murdered (though many were) but it's pretty fair to say that all were mistreated.

[betsy]

Yes, every single child was required to attend residential schools. I suppose you can consider that kidnapping because they would be taken against their will if necessary. Not all of them were sexually abused or murdered (though many were) but it's pretty fair to say that all were mistreated.

This reminds me of a recent incident. Remember the aboriginal child adopted by non-natives? That child was yanked out of her adopted family.....simply because the adopted parents are not aboriginals. This happened not too long ago.

Then there is a similar case, more tragic than that other case. This time, the child died from head injuries (by blunt object) while in the care of aboriginals.....after she was taken from non-aboriginal foster parents.

Can you see the similarities here? These incidents did not happen in the distant past.

[jbg]

These are heartbreaking situations. On the one hand, if we simply subsidize and don't demand advancement and responsibility, we foster a reproductive boom that the land cannot sustain and taxpayers will be unwilling to sustain. If on the other hand we cut the chord suddenly, people will die, in large numbers.

Perhaps the solution is individual vesting, ownership and alienability of property, with, clear, transparent titles to that property. If the people then choose to band together, as the Israeli kibbutziks do, fine. If the people don't choose that, fine. Meanwhile, perhaps the US welfare reform model of five years and out would be a good one. People who fear not being able to make it on the reserves would be free to sell their "property" and move on, perhaps integrate.

[gc1765]

This reminds me of a recent incident. Remember the aboriginal child adopted by non-natives? That child was yanked out of her adopted family.....simply because the adopted parents are not aboriginals. This happened not too long ago.

Then there is a similar case, more tragic than that other case. This time, the child died from head injuries (by blunt object) while in the care of aboriginals.....after she was taken from non-aboriginal foster parents.

Can you see the similarities here? These incidents did not happen in the distant past.

I'm not sure I understand your point here, but if I do understand correctly... are you suggesting that Natives are not capable of looking after themselves and that it is therefore acceptable to forcibly remove Natives from their homes and bring them to residential schools where they are abused?? Are you saying Natives were better off at residential schools than if they had stayed at home with their familes?

I am not familiar with the case you are referring to, but you did say that it happened in the not too distant past. Well for thousands of years it would appear that Natives did fine looking after eachother without White people coming in and saving them from themselves. Remember that abuse is a cycle. If a child suffered a head injury due to abuse, there is a good chance that the parents or their parents were abused (by residential schools for example) and that the abuse is part of that cycle (but again, I am not familiar with that particular case).

[Riverwind]

I'm not sure I understand your point

Betsy is pointing out that Natives are more than willing to forcibly remove children from healthy loving homes in order to satisfy their ethnocentric views on how children should be raised.

[August1991]

I'm going to returning to the OP, which seems to me a good starting point to this whole question:

With today’s increasing and aggressive actions by Native people to obtain concrete resolutions to land claims, will we see an increase of racism and hostility or an increased awareness of our Native people and Canada’s misinformed history?

The problem in Caledonia, as in Oka and in BC, is land - land claims. True, there are other contentious practical issues (treaty rights more generally, compensation for treatment in residential schools and then a whole panoply of social issues) but land claims are the reason we are discussing this. (And given the Ontario government's current policy, I'd say we'll discuss this problem more frequently in the future.)

In a similar and more eloquent vein, Tawagami had a good line in another thread. He argued that he simply wanted his land back.

The Pandora's Box of the thread title curiously resembles the most basic zero-sum game imaginable. Who owns the land? Each acre I own means one less acre for you. This is Middle Eastern in its simplicity.

IOW, land disputes are legendary around the world - the Palestinian/Israeli example being the most obvious. So, is this the path we want to follow? Do we want to get involved in a dispute about who owns the land?

To respond to this thread, let me think a little outside the box.

If your imagined yet unconceived great-granddaughter could stand beside you now and speak, what would she say? Would she say: "Fight for my land!" Or would she say, "I don't care what you do but if I'm still fighting for land when I'm 70, then I know I'll be poor."

[gc1765]

Betsy is pointing out that Natives are more than willing to forcibly remove children from healthy loving homes in order to satisfy their ethnocentric views on how children should be raised.

That certainly makes a lot more sense than my interpretation. However, as you have pointed out before, two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, this is one case. This is not the government taking away every Native child.

[Riverwind]

That certainly makes a lot more sense than my interpretation. However, as you have pointed out before, two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, this is one case. This is not the government taking away every Native child.

Hindsight is 20/20. When residential schools were first conceived most of the British upper class sent their kids away to boarding schools (many Canadian politicians went through these British schools and did not see it as a bad experience). The schools were intended to help - not harm the natives. Furthermore, a lot of the abuse (i.e. using the strap) was acceptable discipline for the time.

That said, there were many natives who were harmed by these schools and they deserve compensation as indiviudals. However, the problems in these schools cannot be used to justify creating a bunch race based rights for aboriginals that future generations are going to be stuck with long after the problems of residentials schools have been forgotten.

[gc1765]

Hindsight is 20/20. When residential schools were first conceived most of the British upper class sent their kids away to boarding schools (many Canadian politicians went through these British schools and did not see it as a bad experience). The schools were intended to help - not harm the natives.

Boarding schools are very different from residential schools. First of all, boarding schools were not specifically deisgned to assimilate a culture, residential schools were. The only purpose of residential schools was to try to assimilate Natives into the "European" society, not to help them in any other way. Secondly, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that any of the British upper class were forced into boarding schools as Natives were forced into residential schools.

Furthermore, a lot of the abuse (i.e. using the strap) was acceptable discipline for the time.

Yes but rape and murder were definately not acceptable discipline for the time.

However, the problems in these schools cannot be used to justify creating a bunch race based rights for aboriginals...

I'm not arguing for race-based rights because of residential schools. I believe that Natives deserve the rights laid out in treaties, but that is a different argument. Personally, I don't mind helping anyone, regardless of race, living in the conditions that many Natives live in. All I hope for is that Canadians recognize that many of the problems in Native communities are directly related to these residential schools. Maybe then we can find a solution to the problems that exist in Native communities. I learned about the holocaust in high school, yet it wasn't until University that I learned Canada had it's own "holocaust".

... that future generations are going to be stuck with long after the problems of residentials schools have been forgotten.

As I've mentioned before, abuse is a cycle. The impact of residential schools on Natives will also be around for a long time, and will not be forgotten so easily.

[Riverwind]

The only purpose of residential schools was to try to assimilate Natives into the "European" society, not to help them in any other way.

Natives were economically and socially disadvantaged compared to non-natives at the time. Assimilation was seen as a way to correct this inequality. Assimilation may sound bad in our post-Trudeau society where multiculturalism is an artical of faith, however, at the time assimilation was considered to a good thing that would help the natives.

I learned about the holocaust in high school, yet it wasn't until University that I learned Canada had it's own "holocaust".

The Germans did not send to the Jews to the concentration camps to make them better Germans. They sent them there to kill them. There is no comparison to what happened in the residential schools and the holocaust. Pretending that there is a comparison simply invites people to dismiss your arguments.

The residential schools were a well intentioned effort gone bad due to lack of funding, poor management and cultural insensitivity. That does not change how some native children were hurt by the experience, however, it is important to maintain a proper perspective when judging actions in the past.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

All, as in every single individual child? You state that everyone was kidnapped and mistreated. Everybody?

No, obviously not everybody was abused. All children were taken.

Now having said that I will agree that there were numerous cases of documented abuse. There was a legal remedy made and therefore a conclusion to this issue correct?

This shows how little you understand about the issue.

Go speak to those who suffered in residential schools and the children of those who suffered. Ask them if a "conclusion" has been reached.

You don't even know the facts, there has been no legal remedy and there has been no societal remedy.

In your mind aboriginals have been treated fairly and the issues are settled. There's no need for something like the Kelowna Accord, correct?

Another mindreader eh? Why on earth would you make a statement like that? Listen to me for a second please. I stated that since the matter had been before the courts a legal remedy was implemented. Is that a false statement? What could legally be done was done.

With respect to the Kelowna Accord, I thought it was a wise plan of action.

[gc1765]

The only purpose of residential schools was to try to assimilate Natives into the "European" society, not to help them in any other way.

Natives were economically and socially disadvantaged compared to non-natives at the time. Assimilation was seen as a way to correct this inequality. Assimilation may sound bad in our post-Trudeau society where multiculturalism is an artical of faith, however, at the time assimilation was considered to a good thing that would help the natives.

You seem to agree that the purpose of residential schools was assimilation. However, assimilation was meant to benefit the Canadian settlers by making Natives 'productive' members of society. I don't believe that their intentions were to help the Natives. Natives have survived in Canada for thousands of years, and appeared to be doing fine, so why try to change thier lifestyle?

I learned about the holocaust in high school, yet it wasn't until University that I learned Canada had it's own "holocaust".

The Germans did not send to the Jews to the concentration camps to make them better Germans. They sent them there to kill them. There is no comparison to what happened in the residential schools and the holocaust. Pretending that there is a comparison simply invites people to dismiss your arguments.

I'm not trying to make a direct comparison between the holocaust and residential schools, which is why I used "holocaust" in quotations. The germans purposely killed millions of jews, Canadians sent Natives to residential schools to try to assimilate them and in the process 50,000 died/went missing (edit), many were raped and countless others witnessed these murders/rapes. One is worse than the other, but that does NOT make either of them right. All I'm trying to say is why do we learn about one in school and not the other, especially when it occured in Canada?

The residential schools were a well intentioned effort gone bad due to lack of funding, poor management and cultural insensitivity. That does not change how some native children were hurt by the experience, however, it is important to maintain a proper perspective when judging actions in the past.

Once again, I don't believe that residential schools were well intentioned at all.

[Riverwind]

However, assimilation was meant to benefit the Canadian settlers by making Natives 'productive' members of society.

Giving natives the skills necessary to fully benefit from the modern economy is exactly what natives needed then and what they need today. Assimilation was seen as means to that end. We can agree that forced assimilation was not the best way to achieve that end, however, it does not change the fact that assimilation was intended to benefit the natives.

Prior to the arrival of Europeans natives lived a stone age existence without the benefit of any modern technology. This existence has a romantic appeal to many urbanites living today who think they can re-live this experience by spending a week in the woods without a privy. However, life without steel, horses and modern medicine was difficult and short. I don't think there is a native alive today that wants to go back to that existence - what they want is it to pretend they still have that lifestyle but still benefit from the new technology by living off tax money provided by others.

Canadians sent Natives to residential schools to try to assimilate them and in the process 50,000 went missing

Many children died from TB and other illnesses at these schools, however, your choice of wording suggests that something more nefarious was going on. Furthermore, you must put that figure in context: how many children would have died from disease or accidents if they stayed in their remote communities? I suspect that you would find that the child mortality rate in the schools was not that much worse than in their communities.

Once again, I don't believe that residential schools were well intentioned at all.

I am not a fan of Christian extremists, however, I do believe that many Christians are motivated by a sincere desire to help others. The churches got involved with these schools because they believed it would help the natives. We can agree the that their help was misguided and counter productive but that does not change the fact that the primary motivation was to help.

[gc1765]

Giving natives the skills necessary to fully benefit from the modern economy is exactly what natives needed then and what they need today. Assimilation was seen as means to that end. We can agree that forced assimilation was not the best way to achieve that end, however, it does not change the fact that assimilation was intended to benefit the natives.

If Natives chose to learn these skills in order to improve their lives that would have been much better, however Natives were forced into these schools. Natives did not only learn important skills, they were also forced to lose their language and religion, and replace it with christianity. This was the policy of the schools at the time. Please explain to me how forbidding Natives to speak their native language, and practice their own religion (and punishing them if they did) helps Natives, or was well-intentioned.

Prior to the arrival of Europeans natives lived a stone age existence without the benefit of any modern technology. This existence has a romantic appeal to many urbanites living today who think they can re-live this experience by spending a week in the woods without a privy. However, life without steel, horses and modern medicine was difficult and short. I don't think there is a native alive today that wants to go back to that existence - what they want is it to pretend they still have that lifestyle but still benefit from the new technology by living off tax money provided by others.

I must reiterate my previous point, if Natives wanted to benefit from the technology that the settlers brought and wanted to benefit from the European-type economy, fine. But why not let Natives decide that for themselves? You mentioned that not a Native alive wants to go back to that existance...that may be true, but if a Native did want to go back to that existence should we prevent them from doing so?

Many children died from TB and other illnesses at these schools, however, your choice of wording suggests that something more nefarious was going on.

I edited my post to read died/went missing. You are correct that many died from TB, but many did go missing and many others were deliberately murdered. Some people even think that Natives were purposely exposed to TB, but I don't think there's any way to prove that, so don't let that take away from my other points.

Link

Link

Furthermore, you must put that figure in context: how many children would have died from disease or accidents if they stayed in their remote communities? I suspect that you would find that the child mortality rate in the schools was not that much worse than in their communities.

The death rate was higher from TB in residential schools compared to other Native communities, because they were more crowded and obviously a large number of people in a crowded space will lead to infectious diseases. The death rate was also apparently higher due to lack of ventilation. These things were known at the time. Common sense would seem to suggest that if the government noticed extremely high death rates (40%) from TB, largely due to over-crowding, that they would end residential schools and allow Natives to go back to their communities where the death rate was lower.

Link

I am not a fan of Christian extremists, however, I do believe that many Christians are motivated by a sincere desire to help others. The churches got involved with these schools because they believed it would help the natives. We can agree the that their help was misguided and counter productive but that does not change the fact that the primary motivation was to help.

Many of them probably were trying to help, but those in the church who committed murder and rape were not motivated by helping the Natives. And there were many in the church who did that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look people we are beating this to death without purpose. We cannot change the past, that is a fact. We are not responsible for the sins of our fatheres, that is a fact. Now having said that there is a problem to be solved. I suggest that solving the problems are more relevant than pointing fingers and blaming everything under the sun for the tragic mistakes that were made.

I think that the Kelowna Accord was a step in the right direction, are there a disenting opinion to this?

[jbg]

The Germans did not send to the Jews to the concentration camps to make them better Germans. They sent them there to kill them. There is no comparison to what happened in the residential schools and the holocaust. Pretending that there is a comparison simply invites people to dismiss your arguments.

Good point, and as a Jew I personally appreciate it very much. People that equate anyone they don't like to Hitler, i.e. Bush = Hitler, cheapens the memory and lessons of the Holocaust and of that ultimate inhumanity.

[Riverwind]

they were also forced to lose their language and religion, and replace it with christianity. This was the policy of the schools at the time.

This was the pratrice of _all_ public schools at the time. My mother was punished for speaking French at school in the 40s. The native kids were not treated any differently. In fact, I have heard of kids getting punished for speaking English at French schools in Quebec.

Please explain to me how forbidding Natives to speak their native language, and practice their own religion (and punishing them if they did) helps Natives, or was well-intentioned.

Immigrants and natives who choose to assimilate in the mainstream culture are almost always economically better off than those that hold on to their traditional cultures. This was a fact of life 50-100 years ago and it is still true today.

I edited my post to read died/went missing. You are correct that many died from TB, but many did go missing and many others were deliberately murdered. Some people even think that Natives were purposely exposed to TB, but I don't think there's any way to prove that, so don't let that take away from my other points.

You are making allegations that you acknowledge cannot be proven. I can make similar allegations: we can never really know the true extent of the abuse at these schools because there is a huge financial and social incentive for natives to exaggerate or fabricate stories of abuse. Making up stories of abuse is not something unique to natives - have you ever heard of 'false memory syndrome'? People recall childhood abuses after seeing therapists that tell them that all of their emotional problems were a result of abuse as a child. Many people with these false memories still cling to these memories even after they have be proven wrong by irrefutable facts. I think the same thing in going on a massive scale in native communities.

The death rate was higher from TB in residential schools compared to other Native communities, because they were more crowded and obviously a large number of people in a crowded space will lead to infectious diseases.

I can agree with that, however, the inaction on the part of gov't is better described as bureaucratic ineptitude than malice. Similar bureaucratic bungling caused many people to die from tainted blood

Many of them probably were trying to help, but those in the church who committed murder and rape were not motivated by helping the Natives. And there were many in the church who did that.

Abusive clergy is not a problem unique to residential schools - many white kids suffered a similar fate at the hands clergy. It is ridiculous to suggest that the abuse was anything other than the actions of few sick individuals.

[southerncomfort]

Are you meaning to imply that you think the Stand off at Six nations is violent? and if so, from what end? Agressive action does not always trigger violence so much as its simply intended for results...key word here being "action".

Key words are "stand-off" and "aggressive" along with "does not always trigger violence" implying violence occurs MOST of the time.

"Intended for results".....like something terrorists would do,without consideration of anything or anyone.

Jerry J. is right,keep the peace and take your civil suits to court(you do have lawyers do you not?)

Agree with this for sure.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Natives were economically and socially disadvantaged compared to non-natives at the time. Assimilation was seen as a way to correct this inequality. Assimilation may sound bad in our post-Trudeau society where multiculturalism is an artical of faith, however, at the time assimilation was considered to a good thing that would help the natives.

Assimilation aka Cultural Extermination never was, and never will be acceptable. It will always " sound bad " to people who value true equality. " Correct this inequality " what crap! The Indian Act was brought in to erase the Native culture in 1876. The Anti-Potlatch amendment of 1884 banned all cermonies tied to Native Culture. In 1918, Duncan Campbell Scott amended the Act in order to make illegal any Aboriginal Dances, ceremonies or institutions, these bans remained in effect until 1951 when the act was revised. In 1924 the hostile removal of The Traditional Government facilitated by The Indian Act.What impotant to note that the Indian Act is a document of restriction and racism, it singles out a race to restrict their lives and development. It is absolutely unbeleivable that anyone in their right mind would think that this document written to intentionally impede any progess that could have been made by Native peoples was a positive or well intentioned step. Only those who agree with laws singling out one section of society would support that assumption.

( look up the definition of fascism )

In regard to Rivers comments on " false memory syndrome ". That argument is so flimsy that you insult your own intelligence by stating it.

The reason they were economically disadvantaged is because all the land granted to them in order to provide that support back to the community was taken away in 1792. And as River has said in another post the land they were left to live on had minimal resources. So how do you expect anyone to thrive when all the resources granted to them have been arbitrarily taken away?. If the lands and resources granted by Gov. Haldimand stayed in the proper hands then maybe the outcome may have been different.

Giving natives the skills necessary to fully benefit from the modern economy is exactly what natives needed then and what they need today. Assimilation was seen as means to that end. We can agree that forced assimilation was not the best way to achieve that end, however, it does not change the fact that assimilation was intended to benefit the natives.

Prior to the arrival of Europeans natives lived a stone age existence without the benefit of any modern technology. This existence has a romantic appeal to many urbanites living today who think they can re-live this experience by spending a week in the woods without a privy. However, life without steel, horses and modern medicine was difficult and short. I don't think there is a native alive today that wants to go back to that existence - what they want is it to pretend they still have that lifestyle but still benefit from the new technology by living off tax money provided by others.

News Flash River - They didnt NEED, ask, or want help from the Europeans. They had a fully functioning society for centuries before the Europeans showed up. Do you remeber who invented Democracy? Ill give you a hint... not any of the Europeans Another wake up call for you Riv - Natives had a rich culture before the arrival of the europeans - they had farming far advanced to that of the europeans, woodworking, leatherworking, art, stone working, bowyer/fletching, silver and coppersmithing - this is by no means a complete list! Just a few examples to illustrate how little you actually know River. Being that metalsmithing is my trade ive studied the metallurgical histories in school. In reference to Iron Working specifically - the same skills are used to fashion items of silver or copper - the difficulty with iron/steel is that its melting and working temperature are so much higher - the problem is obtaining a fuel to use in a kiln in order to smelt the ore, they had access to all the necessary components - but necessity is the mother of invention. The reason i bring all of this up is your assertion that Native peoples were in the stone age and the implications you make springing from the statement- educate yourself.

A History of The Native People of Canada - 1000 BC to 500 AD

Modern Skills and Development of Native Peoples

The second link may scare people like River

I learned about the holocaust in high school, yet it wasn't until University that I learned Canada had it's own "holocaust".

The Germans did not send to the Jews to the concentration camps to make them better Germans. They sent them there to kill them. There is no comparison to what happened in the residential schools and the holocaust. Pretending that there is a comparison simply invites people to dismiss your arguments.

Way to go Riv! youve managed to put your special point of view on GC'c statement. He stated that Canada had conducted their own holocaust. Do you need the definistion of Holocaust as well? " Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the massive destruction of humans by other humans " Do a search on just the word holocaust alone - youll get hits from all over the world.

In closing i just want to touch on the fact that the treaty agreements are legal and binding. The first thing i hear form the anti-Native Rights wing on this forum is that the documents are ancient history.... im not responsible for the sins of the father... etc etc.

When is the line drawn as to the date of a signed legal agreement being too old to honour?

The Indian Act was instated in 1876 but its still law - its more than 120 years long enough?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well I simply have to agree that the treaties were and are legally binding documents. I would love to see the governments honour the damned things and remove this stain on the hearts and minds of citizens. I for one am tired of getting beat up for what the damned government does or does not do. My family has lived in Canada for a few hundred years and in all that time the government has not lived up to its obligations, that in itself is a tragedy.

But I must ask again, how do we get out of this problem? How much land is being contested? I will say this with respect to land. If it is in private hands then compensation will have to be made to the current owners at fair market value, if it is government land, no charge. If the land has a business on it, good deal for the natives because they should be entitled to a lease fee from it. Does that sound fair?

[Riverwind]

In regard to Rivers comments on " false memory syndrome ". That argument is so flimsy that you insult your own intelligence by stating it.

Flimsy? It is a well established fact that people will make up stories of childhood abuse if given the right incentives. It is also a well established fact that people can create memories that they believe are real. It is ridiculous to say that every story of residential school abuse is true. It is also ridiculous to say that every one is false too. That means we have a situation where some stories are true and some are false. How do we find out what percentage are true?

News Flash River - They didn't NEED, ask, or want help from the Europeans. They had a fully functioning society for centuries before the Europeans showed up. Do you remember who invented Democracy? Ill give you a hint... not any of the Europeans

Not the natives either. The first democratic states were in India.

the difficulty with iron/steel is that its melting and working temperature are so much higher - the problem is obtaining a fuel to use in a kiln in order to smelt the ore, they had access to all the necessary components

Fine, natives made it to the bronze age but that does not change the fact that life expectancies in such a society are very low and people living in such a society usually want the benefits of industrialization if they see their neighbors had it. Do you agree with my assertion that there is not a native alive today that wants to go back their bronze age existence with no access to modern technology?

Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the massive destruction of humans by other humans " Do a search on just the word holocaust alone - you get hits from all over the world.

News flash - no matter how much self-serving propaganda you want to spew you cannot change the fact that residential schools were never intended to destroy anyone or anything - they were a misguided attempt to help natives integrate better in the society that existed.

When is the line drawn as to the date of a signed legal agreement being too old to honour?

Well if you look at Harper's position on Kyoto you will see that a few months is old enough. Treaties between nations are political documents - not legal ones. They are only honoured if it is in the best interest of both parties to honour the deals. If you want treaties honoured you must convince the majority of Canadians that apartheid is a wonderful system as long as whites are not in charge and that Canadian society will be better off with an apartheid system for natives.

[Riverwind]

Well I simply have to agree that the treaties were and are legally binding documents. I would love to see the governments honour the damned things and remove this stain on the hearts and minds of citizens.

Is it a stain on the hearts and minds of citizens for Harper to tear up the Kyoto Treaty? Many would say no.

I would love to resolve the native treaty issue in a way that makes everyone happy. Unfortunately, natives are simply demanding more than we can reasonably pay as a society. For example, natives in BC are claim 110% of the province. Most of Mississauga is also subject to a land claim - should we just turn that over?

In short, honouring all treaties is not an option - we have to tell natives that its isn't going to happen. However, that does not mean that natives get nothing - it just means that they can only get what we as a society are willing to pay.

That is why it is important for non-native Canadians to think carefully about what they are willing to pay in terms of cash, land and special rights. We also have to consider the implications for future generations as well as the current generation. There can be no negotiation with native groups on treaties until we, as a society, agree on what is too much. Native treaty negotiations are stalled because we have not come to that agreement, as a result, natives groups have no incentive to moderate their demands.

[August1991]

The first democratic states were in India - Alexander the Great brought information about these states back to Greece.

The Golden Age of Athens predated Alexander the Great by about 100 years.

Is it a stain on the hearts and minds of citizens for Harper to tear up the Kyoto Treaty? Many would say no.

I would love to resolve the native treaty issue in a way that makes everyone happy. Unfortunately, natives are simply demanding more than we can reasonably pay as a society. For example, natives in BC are claim 110% of the province. Most of Mississauga is also subject to a land claim - should we just turn that over?

Uh, the Kyoto Protocol contains a provision allowing any signatory to withdraw at any time. I'm not aware of such a clause in any treaty signed with the Indians.

However, your mention of land claims raises the central issue - the reason this thread exists at all. Some Indians want land back that some whites claim to own. This dispute could go on for a very long time unless someone decides to compromise with one side or both backing down.

[Riverwind]

Uh, the Kyoto Protocol contains a provision allowing any signatory to withdraw at any time. I'm not aware of such a clause in any treaty signed with the Indians.

Modern treaties always have an opt out clause to make it less embarrassing to abrogate the treaty when necessary. The fact that Kyoto has an opt out clause proves my point: treaties are political - not legal documents.

For example, The NAFTA treaty has a clause requiring all parties to follow decisions by the NAFTA panel. That did not stop the Americans from forcing the Canadian industry to accept a political compromise on softwood. Does that make the Americans 'treaty breakers'? Should Americans be ashamed of the way their politicians acted? Most Americans don't think so.

[August1991]

Modern treaties always have an opt out clause to make it less embarrassing to abrogate the treaty when necessary. The fact that Kyoto has an opt out clause proves my point: treaties are political - not legal documents.

Just a second here. Are you suggesting the Kyoto Protocol's opt-out clause exists to avoid embarrassment? Or that "pre-modern" agreements did not contain such clauses?

Something else. I see a difference between agreeing to play a game of Monopoly and then agreeing to buy Marvin Gardens during a game.

For example, The NAFTA treaty has a clause requiring all parties to follow decisions by the NAFTA panel. That did not stop the Americans from forcing the Canadian industry to accept a political compromise on softwood.

That's your (Canadian) interpretation of events. The US government has a different interpretation.

----

But I don't want to get sidetracked. If I understand, you are arguing that the Canadian government should simply ignore any treaty obligations it has with natives. I suppose so, and the government would suffer any consequences of that strategy.

My point is that native grievances are increasing focussing on land claims and land disputes typically become awful zero-sum games where compromise is difficult. We can discuss at length the Palestine/Israel conflict but when all is said and done, the conflict is about who controls the land. I simplify but France and Germany were at war for almost a century over Alsace-Lorraine.