We pay while Indians live in luxury

[Charles Anthony]

Native rights are _not_ property based rights. Before your heirs can inherit property you must pay tax on it. In some cases, the taxes owing might force you to sell the property to pay the taxes.

I see no compelling argument to expect natives to accept such a preposterous imposition. Can you provide one?

[Riverwind]

Native rights are _not_ property based rights. Before your heirs can inherit property you must pay tax on it. In some cases, the taxes owing might force you to sell the property to pay the taxes.

I see no compelling argument to expect natives to accept such a preposterous imposition. Can you provide one?

What does that have to do with anything? You are the one who claimed that native 'rights' are no different than the property inheiritance rights that everyone has. I pointed out that there is no comparison.

[myata]

I really can't believe how thick headed some are on this. It's pretty simple. Everyone has equal rights, no more, no less. Be done with it. None of the current living Indians were likely around when those documents were signed, so ya, their lineage gives them the right to what those obligations are. Stupid stupid stupid.

Using 100 year old documents and empty rhetoric is how apartheid was maintained in South Africa as well.

geoffrey,

while I agree that, in principle, having citizens of two sorts is not ideal and maybe even inacceptable from puristic rights perspective, the current situation reflects the reality of historic evolution of this country: most importantly that from the outset it was decided to co-exist and negotiate with aboriginal population of the land as opposed to simply subjugate it, as in most (all ??) other settlement and colonization episodes. Certainly, the "co-existance" wasn't perfect and oftentimes plain flawed. However the principle held and holds still till now.

We can consider this time as transitional for the two populations to adjust and learn to accommodate each other. I will not be surprised if in certain, probably remote future (at least while the cornerstone of Canadian policy still holds: don't fix it if it ain't broken and then some) the issue could be revisited. This may happen on the request of native groups themselves who may realize that keeping the special status is counter-productive to their long term prosperity; or if majority of population will no longer be able to support status quo.

I'm not sure (and here I tend agree with you) if the cituation with two classes of citizens is acceptable in principle. It would be interesting to discuss this aspect. I think maybe those who want to keep their special rights should not be citizens (some don't want it anyways, as I understand it). They can be given a special status, like "Crown protected resident", with all the rights under treaties, land ownership, culture and so on, but citizenship should be reserved for those who contribute here and now, not x hundred years ago.

[geoffrey]

Last time I looked Indians lived in India. If you bother to read the legal arguements being advanced by the aboriginal nations they have never asked for ALL the land in Canada. The rights they seek enforced or the compensation they seek are based on specific treaties that were breached.

Actually there is a fine population of status Indians living just 5km from my place. Huh. I never thought I lived in Asia...

The reality is that all Indians aren't 'aboriginal' (whatever that anthropologically incorrect term may be), many get the rights for marrying someone with the correct DNA and creating some offspring with some of that DNA still remaining. Status Indians are different than 'aboriginals' so I'll continue to draw that distinction... it's merely a legal term for the legally superior race in our society.

Here is another issue to ponder. The use of land by aboriginal peoples unlike the use of land by we allegedly advanced people did not poison it or deplete its resources. The aboriginal concept of exploiting the earth was one of not using more then the earth could provide and not destroying anything that could not be replaced and leaving the land as it was found.

Oh boo woo, if you want to live like a caveman, there is nothing stopping you. The third world would glady take you in with open arms.

I could care less how they used their land. Civilized people use our system, hence our great wealth compared to the rest of the world.

The current legal problems with the exploitation of land come from allegedly advanced civilization and its corporate structure which has not been morally responsible, has ignored all the laws of nature and done permanent damage to the earth.

Its ironic that the latest trend is for politicians to be talking about the environment. Why is it now that we have destroyed the earth and are all dying of cancer, we finally think we should consider what the aboriginals tried to tell us centuries ago but we laughed off because of our notions of cultural superiority?

Well, when they were all uneducated, mumbling about great sky sorcerers while getting by bision kill to bision kill, we probably said hmmm... I don't think I like that lifestyle. Let's go with ours of progress and development instead of permanent stagnation.

One unarguable fact remains, Indians have access to all of our services... health, education and social... and some of these reside outside any treaty agreements. I feel that Canada should be compensated for this, if indeed these documents are peace treaties between nations. All transfers to Indians should be scaled back in proportion to their use of Canadian services outside of their treaty agreements.

Considering that the cost of keeping someone in jail right now is:

- Federal female prisoner: $150,000-$250,000 per prisoner/per year

- Federal male prisoner: $87,665 per prisoner/per year

And that:

Aboriginal Adults (2004-2005)

* 3% of the total canadian adult population - (2001 Census)

* 22% of admissions to provincial/territorial sentenced custody

* 17% of admissions to federal prisons

* 21% of male prisoner population

* 30% of female prisoner population

Source: http://www.prisonjustice.ca/politics/facts_stats.html

I expect to see a refund check from the Indian groups for our services in keeping law and order on their land... if in fact, it is their land, right?

If your going to give them so much power, it's time to keep them accountable for it.

[William Ashley]

what are the long term costs for living in an asbestos environment - is it legal and to code that buildings contain asbestos...

where would they go if they didn' t have the hotel.. jail? incarceration? how much would this cost.. more than a hotel room?

why isn't there subsidized housing available for them?

[Upuranus]

When mean Jean Chretien punished Calgary for not electing a Liberal he closed CFB Calgary in punishment and moved the troops to Edmonton.The noble red man then rushed the base,kicked in the doors and occupied the housing which naturally services were already cut off.In anticipation of the closure,the reserve laid claim to the forthcoming freebie claiming ,"It's ours".Seeking public sympathy for all the terrible treatment the evil white man was forcing them to endure,reporters were invited to the Reserve.Joe Squirrelnuts' 5 member family was living in a plastic tent and chosen as the symbol of opression.Band leaders talked of getting grants from oil companies to buy lawn mowers and the like to be good homeowners like whitey.A Herald reporter did an in depth research and each band member gets $50,000 a year in Band money from oil royalties and Federal payments,tax free of course.Free medical,dental,eyeglasses,no taxes on gas/diesel and no GST on anything.So just why are they living in squalor?After the illegal occupation of the housing,the Feds took a hard stance saying they would be removed.The very next day the Feds declared noble red man could indeed keep the housing.Within a year noble red man successfully turned perfectly good housing into trash.The other side of the coin is that the rest of the housing was rented out pending disposal.I knew people renting there and they were nice houses.The same age,style that I grew up in as an Army brat.Every house was cleaned of asbestos,repairs done,painted inside and out,reshingled and some exterior esthetics done,raised up onto pylons and sold for a pittance.Done one at a time and the renters moved out in sequence.Lesson: don't tear up a house for firewood and you don't disturb the insulation. The proof: military families across Canada have raised families in the same style house on every military base in Canada for 50 years.Have you ever heard of 1 of the probably million+ people housed in them with asbestos related problems?So noble red man has no sympathy from me.If my take-home pay was a quarter million dollars a year with free health benefits I doubt I would be living in a polythene tent.The Casino won't pay taxes either and the huge revenues should be deducted from their Federal monies......but won't.That would be racist.On turning 18 each Brave gets a $40,000 payment.A few years ago Jimmy Snowshoe celebrated his 18th birthday by buying a truck.No licence,insurance,drunk to the hilt he drove through a 4-way stop and killed 5 innocent white people.Fortunately he died too.Fucking racist white man for driving on the road,huh?

[Charles Anthony]

What does that have to do with anything? You are the one who claimed that native 'rights' are no different than the property inheiritance rights that everyone has. I pointed out that there is no comparison.

There is only no comparison by virtue of the white man's decree. I am asking you to provide a compelling argument (other than an argument through the barrel of a white man's gun) for why natives should be expected to accept such a decree.

[Riverwind]

I am asking you to provide a compelling argument (other than an argument through the barrel of a white man's gun) for why natives should be expected to accept such a decree.

So what compelling argument would you have against a a law giving huge tax breaks to white francophones for no reason other than the fact that their ancestors made sacrifices to build the 'nation' of Quebec? One must either accept the principal that all people are born equal or not. If you are someone that believes in a feudal system where certain people have more rights than others by virtue of their ancestry then there is no argument that will convince you that there is something inherently wrong with aboriginal rights.

[geoffrey]

what are the long term costs for living in an asbestos environment - is it legal and to code that buildings contain asbestos...

where would they go if they didn' t have the hotel.. jail? incarceration? how much would this cost.. more than a hotel room?

why isn't there subsidized housing available for them?

Why should I subsize anyone's housing?

As a university student, I pay an extra $5000ish a year minimum more than they can make, on top of that I need to work less to make room for studies. And my place isn't subsidized. So sho sho, who cares, they can get a job. We're talking Calgary here, not Conception Bay.

If they are truly disabled, then they'd be receiving Alberta's very generous (more than other provinces) subsidies to disabled people. Otherwise they are lazy.

0 sympathy for the squatters.

It was not illegal at the time to build with asbestos, and many buildings currently contain it. It's no big deal until it's disturbed. So essientially these people are demanding higher quality squatting areas than many rent payers receive.

Ridiculous. And it would only happen because a majority are Indians. Normally squatters are kicked to the curb when their buildings are condemned.

But anyways, the issue has been settled. The building is within Health Canada standards and the squatters are free to return, after their little hotel holiday.

If my place was found to have asbestos that needed to be cleaned up, the government would not provide me anything. I'd be on my own to figure out where to live. But if I have the superior DNA... whew, I get a hotel room and everything. Nice deal.

[Charles Anthony]

So what compelling argument would you have against a a law giving huge tax breaks to white francophones for no reason other than the fact that their ancestors made sacrifices to build the 'nation' of Quebec?

Everybody deserves a tax break. Do not ask me to interpret or justify the application of a particularly convoluted or arbitrary law.

One must either accept the principal that all people are born equal or not.

Can I quote you on that?

If you are someone that believes in a feudal system where certain people have

I believe each person has dominion over his body and has a right to own physical property -- including dominion over a patch of land. Without those simple principles, we are nothing but slaves. The outcome of those simple principles in any particular market of your choosing is yours to judge and to speculate.

[Rue]

"That's BS. The collective rights of an ethnic group? Can you come back and speak to me when you reach the 20th century at a minimum in your thinking?"

Uh hello its the 21st century and yes I am not sure what century you are in but the one I am in has thousands of case and legal precedents of decisions awarding collective rights to people based on their group identity.

"What laws are based on racism?"

if you have to ask that, well perhaps that is precisely what the problem is. Until you sit down and figure that one out, you just don't get the rest, let alone how the real world and law works.

"Just because one race breaks them more often than others, doesn't mean it's racism,"

Now I love that logic. Just because the Canadian government and before them the British government breached treaties signed with the aboriginal nations, doesn't make it racist. Uh hello, the treaties were breached precisely because it was conceived that aboriginals were not equal to whites and therefore breaking treaties with them was not significant since they were not white. Again if you can't understand that you really do need to sit down and read some history books.

"maybe there is a problem in how we've treated them, and it's biting us in the ass. Time to treat them like every other race."

Biting US in the ass. Its not biting anyone in the ass. Your comment that it is time to treat "them" like everyone else is typical of thevery weakness in your arguement and summed up in the above sentence. You want the Canadian government to simply abandon its legal obligations because its not convenient for you.

"I really can't believe how thick headed some are on this. It's pretty simple. Everyone has equal rights, no more, no less.Be done with it."

Do you read what you right? Talk about "thick-headed". where is the logic in your comment that everyone has equal rights when in the same breath you say, when the aboriginals seek to be treated as equal you don't want them to be treated as equals and you want to simply forget the rights we took away from them when when we imposed inequality. How can they be equal if we follow your logic and permanently prevent them from achieving their equality. You don't want equality, you want to permanently absolve the Canadian government from having to be equal to aboriginal nations.

"None of the current living Indians were likely around when those documents were signed, so ya, their lineage gives them the right to what those obligations are. Stupid stupid stupid. "

When someone inherits money from their father and they are dead, it is passed on in their estate to their children and so on. When you use the word stupid, stupid,stupid, with due respect that is what you are if you can't understand the basic rules of inheritance.

"Using 100 year old documents and empty rhetoric is how apartheid was maintained in South Africa as well."

Now you really are getting embarassing. Whether a document is a eyar old or 500 years old doesn't make it invalid. The law does not automatically say contracts are no longer enforceable unless the contract or treaty spefically states a limited time period and defines an expiration date. So again you are completely wrong about trying to suggest because a treaty is old it is not valid. That is truly absurd. Then what gets even mroe absurd is you state aboriginals are akin to the whites in South Africa. I mean read what you right man. Its past the point of being able to debate you coherently when you suggest aboriginals are racist because they were placed on reservations, had their treaties breached, had their land stolen, were forced into reservations (uh hello bantulands!) and had Christians try force their religion on them in between molesting them or trying to kill them off.

Your attempt to selectively ignore history, then rewrite it to suggest the aboriginals are the oppressors for wanting the law to compensate them for damages that directly flow from the Canadian governemnt's breaching of legal treaties not only makes no legal sense its transparent.

What this comes down to is not logic, not legal reasoning, simply your subjective desire to ignore history and permanently erase what happened to allow the current Canadian government to escape its legal and moral responsibilities.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already made it clear it will not ignore the aboriginal peoples' collective rights and will endevour in an orderly manner to do its best to try find proper legal solutions to address the

breaches.

Man I love your logic. Using your logic, the Swiss banks should just keep all the stolen money from the victims of the holocaust. The millions of people who have been able to successfully win class action law suits should give all their money back. We should have no collective bargaining system. For that matter we should have no criminal laws since criminal law is based on collective rights of society.

That is the absurd conclusion of your position.

[geoffrey]

I'll deal with the few things that you say that actually make a marginal amount of logical sense.

"What laws are based on racism?"

if you have to ask that, well perhaps that is precisely what the problem is. Until you sit down and figure that one out, you just don't get the rest, let alone how the real world and law works.

That's about the weakest response I've ever seen.

"maybe there is a problem in how we've treated them, and it's biting us in the ass. Time to treat them like every other race."

Biting US in the ass. Its not biting anyone in the ass. Your comment that it is time to treat "them" like everyone else is typical of thevery weakness in your arguement and summed up in the above sentence. You want the Canadian government to simply abandon its legal obligations because its not convenient for you.

Legal obligations are not neccessary moral obligations. A law can be immoral. In South Africa it was the obligation for blacks to be subjected to control of a white minority. Obviously, that's not moral. And so the law was changed.

You don't want equality, you want to permanently absolve the Canadian government from having to be equal to aboriginal nations.

I want to permanently absolve the Canadian government from paying out massive sums of cash that accomplish nothing, all in the name of DNA based rights.

"None of the current living Indians were likely around when those documents were signed, so ya, their lineage gives them the right to what those obligations are. Stupid stupid stupid. "

When someone inherits money from their father and they are dead, it is passed on in their estate to their children and so on. When you use the word stupid, stupid,stupid, with due respect that is what you are if you can't understand the basic rules of inheritance.

I have no problem with Indians inheriting land or what not from family.

I have a major issue with people inhereting rights from parents. In Canada we decided to abandon a bloodline Senate, we saw it as outdated. I think it's about time we look at doing for everything else. I should have no fewer or no more rights than any other Canadian citizen.

Your attempt to selectively ignore history, then rewrite it to suggest the aboriginals are the oppressors for wanting the law to compensate them for damages that directly flow from the Canadian governemnt's breaching of legal treaties not only makes no legal sense its transparent.

The Indians aren't oppressing the majority of Canadians, it's quite simply Canadians oppressing themselves. It's some ridiculous guilt complex, I should feel sad because someone not at all connected to me 300 years ago signed a piece of paper then went and pissed on it.

Boo boo. It's 2007. Time for equality.

What this comes down to is not logic, not legal reasoning, simply your subjective desire to ignore history and permanently erase what happened to allow the current Canadian government to escape its legal and moral responsibilities.

Nope, just equality amongst races, that's all I seek.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already made it clear it will not ignore the aboriginal peoples' collective rights and will endevour in an orderly manner to do its best to try find proper legal solutions to address the

breaches.

The law is not evidence to a morally sound position.

Man I love your logic. Using your logic, the Swiss banks should just keep all the stolen money from the victims of the holocaust. The millions of people who have been able to successfully win class action law suits should give all their money back. We should have no collective bargaining system. For that matter we should have no criminal laws since criminal law is based on collective rights of society.

Nope, because that is there money in the Swiss accounts. Stop with the strawmans and debate this in context.

On the other hand, most Indians never owned the land, never had a concept of ownership. Some groups did, and they should get their land according to their records. But most did not. Traditional hunting grounds aren't ownership, I'm talking permenant settlement.

But if they want their historical lands, it comes with the condition that they no longer can access our systems of modern amenities. They can have either, or. Not their cake and eat it too.

That is the absurd conclusion of your position.

Your position of DNA based right inheritence is extremely outdated and out of touch with modern civilization.

[blueblood]

Oh shit, when they expropriate a farmers land for the oil industry, he gets a cheque and told where to go. We expropriated this country, we've handed out far to many cheques, now time to tell them where to go.

[BayLee]

And here I thought racism was only allowed on the recently shut down CNEWS forum

[myata]

And I thought that each viewpoint should, perhaps, be clearly articulated?

[stignasty]

And I thought that each viewpoint should, perhaps, be clearly articulated?

The racism in this thread has been very clearly stated.

[myata]

No, I'm sure you can do better!

[stignasty]

No, I'm sure you can do better!

Just when you think you've seen it all, along comes "I know you are, but what am I?"

[jenny]

The government doesn't help you if your house burns to the ground...

Before you out and out lie, you really should look into what you are saying before posting for all to see.

Quite a few houses burned to the ground during the Salmon Arm fire.Almost all these homes were white people who had no insurance.

Guess who came to their aid? If you guessed the BC government you would be correct

The fires of 2003?

Almost all the homes lost north of Kamloops were owned by white people, who figured they did not have to insure their homes.

Guess who came to their aid? Again, If you guessed the BC government you would be correct.

Makes me wonder why I bother to pay close to a thousand a year to insure my home

[Catchme]

The collective rights of an ethnic group?...speak to me when you reach the 20th century..in your thinking?"

...its the 21st century and yes I am not sure what century you are in but the one I am in has thousands of case and legal precedents of decisions awarding collective rights to people based on their group identity.

It would appear, that someone who does not recognize rights and breaches in historical legal contracts, is stuck back when the there were no rights for anyone, except for white males, and when the contracts were orginally and continuously not addressed. It is the same mentality then and now. It is colonialistic patriarchial ideology that some have adopted as their truth, irrespective of the fact that it is a misogynistic racist hegemony that benifits the few.

"Just because one race breaks them more often than others, doesn't mean it's racism,"

Now I love that logic. Just because the Canadian government and before them the British government breached treaties signed with the aboriginal nations, doesn't make it racist. Uh hello, the treaties were breached precisely because it was conceived that aboriginals were not equal to whites and therefore breaking treaties with them was not significant since they were not white. Again if you can't understand that you really do need to sit down and read some history books.

It is unbelievable that someone could suggest it is not racism, and think they could get away with it.

How can the actions of one race, that breaks the laws, in their favour, more often than others not, in fact, be prejudicial thinking, or racism? There is NO other explanation, or reason, for it to occur.

"maybe there is a problem in how we've treated them, and it's biting us in the ass. Time to treat them like every other race."

Its not biting anyone in the ass. Your comment that it is time to treat "them" like everyone else is typical of thevery weakness in your arguement.... You want the Canadian government to simply abandon its legal obligations because its not convenient for you.

True, the fact is had FN's been treated as everyone else, fairly and without prejudice, there would be nothing biting us in the ass. All the Treaties would have been settled and ties to the government would've have been concluded long ago, instead of being carried on for centuries. That there were racist actions taken against the FN's is not their fault, ignoring legal obligations to ratify outstanding obligations, today, is a further action that would be conducted by prejudice.

"I really can't believe how thick headed some are on this. It's pretty simple. Everyone has equal rights, no more, no less.Be done with it."

Do you read what you right? Talk about "thick-headed". where is the logic in your comment that everyone has equal rights when in the same breath you say, when the aboriginals seek to be treated as equal you don't want them to be treated as equals and you want to simply forget the rights we took away from them when when we imposed inequality. How can they be equal if we follow your logic and permanently prevent them from achieving their equality. You don't want equality, you want to permanently absolve the Canadian government from having to be equal to aboriginal nations.

It should be simple, one would think, if everyone just forced the MP's to conclude the outstanding negotiations in a timely manner and then we would be done with it, as we should've been long ago, if the government was/is not conducting itself in a prejudicial manner.

"None of the current living Indians were likely around when those documents were signed, so ya, their lineage gives them the right to what those obligations are. Stupid stupid stupid. "

When someone inherits money from their father and they are dead, it is passed on in their estate to their children and so on. When you use the word stupid, stupid,stupid, with due respect that is what you are if you can't understand the basic rules of inheritance.

Funny, how some believe in inheritance rights for some, but not others. But again they are doing it from a prejudicial ideology. And amazingly many of these people, who think like this, also think Jews have a right to the land now called Israel, from a 4000 years ago promise that was made by a mythological being.

"Using 100 year old documents and empty rhetoric is how apartheid was maintained in South Africa as well."

Now you really are getting embarassing... try force their religion on them in between molesting them or trying to kill them off.

Exactly,on both fronts, that they have survived, to insist upon their rights, is truly amazing and no small accomplishment.

Your attempt to selectively ignore history, then rewrite it to suggest the aboriginals are the oppressors for wanting the law to compensate them for damages that directly flow from the Canadian governemnt's breaching of legal treaties not only makes no legal sense its transparent.

What this comes down to is not logic, not legal reasoning, simply your subjective desire to ignore history and permanently erase what happened to allow the current Canadian government to escape its legal and moral responsibilities.

What it comes down to is, prejudical colonialistic and paternalistic thinking that is still in existence long past its expiry date.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already made it clear it will not ignore the aboriginal peoples' collective rights and will endevour in an orderly manner to do its best to try find proper legal solutions to address thebreaches.

... Using your logic, the Swiss banks should just keep all the stolen money from the victims of the holocaust. The millions of people who have been able to successfully win class action law suits should give all their money back. We should have no collective bargaining system. For that matter we should have no criminal laws since criminal law is based on collective rights of society.

That is the absurd conclusion of your position.

Very good points, people formulate information to suit their prejudicial needs, and never venture beyond that parameter in information gathering, because they could not upohold their prejudicial thinking.

[geoffrey]

The government doesn't help you if your house burns to the ground...

Before you out and out lie, you really should look into what you are saying before posting for all to see.

Quite a few houses burned to the ground during the Salmon Arm fire.Almost all these homes were white people who had no insurance.

Guess who came to their aid? If you guessed the BC government you would be correct

The fires of 2003?

Almost all the homes lost north of Kamloops were owned by white people, who figured they did not have to insure their homes.

Guess who came to their aid? Again, If you guessed the BC government you would be correct.

Makes me wonder why I bother to pay close to a thousand a year to insure my home

Governments cover all loses in terms of an 'Act of God' because no insurance covers that. Sorry, your wrong.

[Topaz]

I have only one question for you. Would YOU change your life, for one as a First Nation citizen???

[Posit]

Of course they wouldn't! They would have to give up their "white" privilege. We all know that this is the real argument against First Nations claims to rights and lands. It is also the same argument when it comes to immigrants and brown people, whom the "white" majority feel peck away at their higher status in the "system".

Those who claim to want "equality" never agree with "equity" which are intrinsically linked. So the point of the equality movement is to ignore all basic human rights and give control back to the Anglo-European western Christian white male majority. Very rarely do we ever hear of the Anglo-European western Christian white female ever make the same "equality" argument since they are one the other targets of the former even though they carry their status just below the men.

[jenny]

Governments cover all loses in terms of an 'Act of God' because no insurance covers that. Sorry, your wrong.

Not sure just what you are saying there.A forest fire is NOT considered an act of God, and in one above mentioned fire, the big one north of Kamloops, it was caused by a fireman tossing away a lit cig.

The poster earlier said the government doesnt help you ( white man) if your house burns to the ground. I was pointing out that was totally false.

And even more confusing about what you are saying.Of course if you have house insurance, you are covered if it burns due to a forest fire.What are you thinking?

[Rue]

Catch me may I commend you on a point you made that I just read and am pleased to see you picked up on. I may debate you on posts forcefully but that is a sign of respect.

For me yes as a Jew, when I consider the aboriginal feelings towards the Mother Earth it is different but similiar to the mythology of Jews and our feeling we have some sort of spiritual responsibility or connection to Israel.

However for me, I am actually more comfortable with the aboriginal concept that the earth is a living, breathing organism, and no one owns it, and at best we can all share it, if we respect its rules.

For me personally while I understand the mythology in Judaism associatd with a covenant to a spiritual being to live in a particular land and cultivate it - I of course like many Jews don't see that covenant as a

paradign for racism or intolerance, simply a way to maintain an indentity over many thousands of years.

I see that covenant as a responsibility that also entails finding peaceful ways to live with others, Jewish or not and I think for me, Judaism's more mystical beliefs are closer to the aboriginal ones and equally as important to study because as aboriginal spiritual paths have taught, the physical world, the material world, is an illusion. It causes a lot of people to fixate or get stuck at a certain point, and be unable to grow past that.

The fluid nature of the aboriginal soul is something we Westerners caught up in a material world do not understand or feel comfortable with and it is a major reason for conflicts over land rights. Much of the legal fiction we use in law to define property rights is an absurdity to aboriginals and why should it not be?

For that matter, when I look at my own religion or Islam or Christianity, I criticize them all equally for the way they have not paid enough attention to the rules of nature and the concept of the earth as a fragile being that needs to be respected and shared not fought over.

I criticize all three mono-theistic religions for their violent wars over land and personally feel in that sense the aboriginals approach to the earth is something all three of our religons need to learn from. We are children in that sense who need to look to the aboriginals for guidance.

As longa s some people keep seeing aboriginals as drunks and angry radicals they will miss that point. I am not hero-worshipping aboriginals. Wat I am saying though is many of their spiritual beliefs will become the basis of laws in the future in the so called material world as we try preserve the plant from our man made pollutions and poisons. Whether we like it or not, our laws of property and environment have already started to call on aboriginal concepts-case in point -collective rights to share natural resources between different groups.