We pay while Indians live in luxury

[Borg]

Scott. Perhaps you missed the history lesson. Archaeology has proven that North American natives beat Europe in the smelting and working of metals by nearly 3000 years.

As well our system of democracy as was the US Constitution was derived from the over 1000 year old Great Law of Peace practiced by the Iroquois Confederacy. They had a system of government, agriculture and a society far superior to the colonial peasants that arrived here fleeing poverty and persecution from Europe. Although it wasn't spoken of too much, many if not most of the Jesuits and colonists that came here "turned Indian" and adopted the lifestyle and culture of many First Nations. That's how the Metis were born.

So if you want to accuse someone of being stone age, I would suggest that you are not far derived from it.

They may have done a little smelting, but it sure as heck did not go anywhere - goodness, when the whiteman arrived here the indian was still putting two sticks on the dogs back and dragging gear from place to place. The wheel had not been thought of. So it does not matter who was first.

If medicine and life was as good as reported why bother to abandon the old folks with a few sticks of wood when they could not keep up?

Metis were "born" because the guys that were trapping in the west needed to get laid - so they took local gals for brides. Some of them even loved those gals. A Metis is not a breed - although after a couple of hundred years of this - the courts would disagree. Essentially it is a cross between a horny guy - usually french and white and a local indian gal.

The indian is in trouble - the poor indian will never be able to stand up on his own two feet.

The indian cannot do anything in conjunction with the white guy - must always do it in a confrontational manner because someone 200 years ago did something wrong. If things do not change they will simply get worse.

The average joe in Toronto or Montreal and / or most other major cities gives a damn if the indian lives, dies or disappears - the only time they hear about the indian is when the indian complains about a wrong doing. That person never hears anything good about an indian - therefore the indian is to this person, nothing but trouble. This average joe has managed to create a life, raise a family and find happiness.

Why does the average joe not care? Because this average joe, generally speaking cannot relate to a wrong doing of a couple hundred years ago. They themselves may have come here from a war torn land, they may have come here from famine - whatever. They have decided the past needs to be conquored by working for the future.

The indian is mired in the past - real. imagined and sometimes fabricated wrong doings - and to overcome this needs a whipping boy - the white guy. Incapable of moving forward because they have been done so wrong. Nothing gets accomplished without at great deal of whining, complaining, government money and certainly without publicity. Usually bad.

Unfortunately this is breeding a new generation of indian - one that is incapable of looking after himself. One that does not have to exercise personal responsibility. One that lives in isolation from the rest of Canada - because they are mired in the past and not ready to move forward without a great wiling and gnashing of teeth - "I am sooo hard done by."

It is my opinion the various elders across Canada have propogated this attitude - done so for personal and profitable reasons - and indeed have been very successful at highlighting difficult past treatments - certainly conveniently ignoring any potential positives in modern life - with the full intent of creating a hostile environment between their charges and the white guys.

Hostile mind control and racism to the core.

History can be studied and it can be explained - but it cannot be changed.

I see now why departmen of indian affairs will be with us forever.

Borg

[ScottSA]

I've stayed out of this thread because the title is so inflammatory, but I would like to know how many of those who have posted here have actually lived on or near a reserve. These places are towns. Their chiefs are mayors. Some are good, and some are bad. But the title of this thread is pretty damned racist.

Higgly, until we stop worrying about how not to talk about things because it's "racist" or "bigotted" or [insert PC no-no], we're going to get nowhere. What's the point of looking for euphemistic ways to say things. Do you not realize how silly it is to claim that the word "Indian" is racist, while Indians claim cash on the basis of race deem it quite appropriate? What IS racist is paying wergeld to a bunch of people defined by race and demanding ever more money on the basis of race. They were here first? Well, how bout if I start demanding cash from the Chinese and East Indians because, after all, my race was here first too relative to them. What's even more racist is to claim that Indians will never be able to make it on their own without wheelbarrows full of cash.

[Canadian Blue]

Higgly, until we stop worrying about how not to talk about things because it's "racist" or "bigotted" or [insert PC no-no], we're going to get nowhere. What's the point of looking for euphemistic ways to say things. Do you not realize how silly it is to claim that the word "Indian" is racist, while Indians claim cash on the basis of race deem it quite appropriate? What IS racist is paying wergeld to a bunch of people defined by race and demanding ever more money on the basis of race. They were here first?

We agreed to that, and we should meet our obligations.

Well, how bout if I start demanding cash from the Chinese and East Indians because, after all, my race was here first too relative to them.

You mean like a head tax, I think that we already did that.

What's even more racist is to claim that Indians will never be able to make it on their own without wheelbarrows full of cash.

Its not really racist, people who live in poverty often have a tougher time breaking out of the cycle. The same can be said of people of any race or ethnicity. Thats why we need social programs to assist the poor. Unfortunately, it seems that the Native community has a larger proportion of social ills when looking at the condition of most reserves today. But the solution isn't throw them off welfare, if anything that will only create more problems.

Thats fairly easy to say if you are a part of the white majority. But it doesn't address the social inequalities of different communities. There are more social ills in Native communities, however what I'd rather do in get a dialogue going with those communities, and finding ways of alleviating those problems.

[Canadian Blue]

Before you type up some retarded line item counterexamples, take the time to think things through...this is a bit more complicated than you might think.

I actually think things are more complicated, once again the only person here who is arguing that whites are all good, and non whites are all savages is yourself. Which is inane at best.

We can rewrite history all we want, and we can pretend that things weren't the way they were. We can even pretend that everything Bwana ever did was bad, and that the moral virtue somehow accrues to non-whites by virtue of historical oppression. That's the joy of history. But when we actually start to believe nonsensical revisionism, that's a bit of a danger.

Its not rewriting history, the notion that all people non-white are savages is simply wrong. The only one that is arguing that whites have never done any wrong here is yourself. People will of course correct that notion.

[Riverwind]

We agreed to that, and we should meet our obligations.

The NDP government signed sweet deal with the BC public sector unions shortly before they were booted from office. The Liberals tore up that agreement when they took power because it was not in the best interest of the majority of people in BC.

Native treaties were signed by representatives of a feudal society at a time when racism was acceptable. The terms of many of these treaties are unacceptable by today's standards. It is wrong to impose these obligations on people living today.

That said, I agree that we need to do something different and that native self-government with access to economic resources sounds like a reasonable approach. Unfortunately, the more conciliatory approach taken by governments and the courts in the last 20 years has created a generation of natives that believe they entitled to a living paid for by the non-natives. This attitude is toxic and will make it more difficult to reach the necessary compromises.

[ScottSA]

I will resist replying to CB until such time as he formulates an actual argument and stops making up silly strawmen like claiming that I'm arguing "that whites are all good, and non whites are all savages". How silly.

[geoffrey]

I've stayed out of this thread because the title is so inflammatory, but I would like to know how many of those who have posted here have actually lived on or near a reserve. These places are towns. Their chiefs are mayors. Some are good, and some are bad. But the title of this thread is pretty damned racist.

It's unfortunate you think that my title is racist, when ignoring the racism of the events it represents.

White people don't get to stay in hotels while their squatting areas are cleaned and inspected by Health Canada. The double standard based solely on race is clear and very evident. That's what I'm asking for, an end to the racism. I want the white bum and the Indian bum to get the same treatment, either give them both hotels or give neither a hotel (perferably the neither).

Canada taxpayers were paying for these Indians (and yes, these status Indians were the group involved, it's an important fact in my case here) to live in nice hotels.

It's completely racist and this needs to end. This isn't the late 1800's or anything anymore. We should have equal rights and equal treatment regardless of race from the government.

[Live From China]

ScottSA, I like your posts; they are well though out and well presented.

The historical revisionist angle has always bothered me. Unfortunately, I think much of this is started by New Agers who are feeling some kind of angst and guilt. I remember a teacher of mine who often said that it is an exercise in futility to judge the actions of people in the past by today's values; especially those long past. I don't like the idea of gladiatorial games but I don't feel any anger or guilt that my ancestors found them an exciting form of entertainment.

The growth of democracy in the West had its origins in the Enlightenment and not because the Iroquois Confederacy created it.

We need to get rid of the paternalistic approach to this problem. Throwing money at it will not make it better, only worse.

[Posit]

Wrong. The colonial government - of which we are still rooted - is that of an aristocracy. The concept of participatory democracy is entirely an Iroquois invention in N.A.

We are not in a revisionist era. It is historical enlightenment that is the result of the "information highway" where historical facts are no longer hidden from us, or where those we are exposed to are not customized to support a single ideology.

In reading much of the Jesuit's Relations, there is much admiration for the Iroquois from their customs to their organized democratic governments to their advanced forms of agriculture and trade. Much of this has been clouded by the editing of the texts by the Church, but not enough to block out the sentiment.

History - especially British colonial history - is biased. In listening to Iroquois orators recite some of their oral traditions (I had the honour of attending a number of conferences where someone renowned speakers were present) it is evident that their version fo the history is vastly different than ours. The trick to their oral history is to confirm the record from a number of sources and as one delves into the French, American and Native versions, it is evident that the British have told a number of lies and Canadian educators have vastly misrepresented native history. These corrections, some of which I offer are necessary in order to understand the exact relationship our forefathers forged with the Natives. Turns out they were in need of the First Nations help and in exchange we guaranteed their protection....in writing...binding and legal like....

Throwing money as a solution to anything never works. However, being penalized for our past wrongs financially is the only punishment that we will remember long enough to not do it again.

[geoffrey]

Turns out they were in need of the First Nations help and in exchange we guaranteed their protection....in writing...binding and legal like....

Throw out the agreements if they aren't in the majorities interest (and they aren't). It's done all the time, laws are changed. International treaties are changed unilaterally or dismissed altogether. None of the parties to those agreements are even alive today.

There is no justification in the 21st century to give preferential funding and rights to a group based on their DNA. It's absolutely outrageous and needs to end.

[Canadian Blue]

I will resist replying to CB until such time as he formulates an actual argument and stops making up silly strawmen like claiming that I'm arguing "that whites are all good, and non whites are all savages". How silly.

I only make observations, and so far its right on.

[Posit]

Don't be silly. The integrity of the Crown and Canada is at stake. We can't "throw out" agreements anymore than we can unilaterally toss the FTA without penalties. The penalty for doing what you say would be to lose our title and interest (resources and development) in all lands, since the treaties we made in the past benefit us along those lines. Not only that we would be confronted with having to renegotiate new agreements with First Nations that would cost us far more than it costs us now.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, without having to pay the baker first....an obviously you do not believe in the "rule of law", which is first and foremost the basis of being Canadian.

[Riverwind]

The penalty for doing what you say would be to lose our title and interest (resources and development) in all lands, since the treaties we made in the past benefit us along those lines.

Wrong. The government has the power to extinguish any and all treaties should it choose to do so. In some cases a constitutional amendment would be required, however, the government has the power to pass constitutional amendments if that is what the majority of the people in the country want.

The only penalty that we would have to worry about is a bunch of angry natives that would likely resort to terrorism. The idea that Canada would lose title to the lands is question is absurd.

[Posit]

Ya ya ya ....I've read your argument before but you don't get the fact that it will never happen. A consitutional amendment is not an option since precedent law would dictate the direction. Of course you realize that the Supreme Court has not only enforced native rights within the constitution but they interpreted them as extending well outside the Charter. This would make little argument for Canadians and legislators at the provincial levels to support any more, since the Charter presently provides that no act or legislation can abrogate from their pre-existing rights. You cannot make an reasonable argument to support the change when a change is not warranted.

The government cannot trash the treaties without a legal and civil backlash. Such a unilateral move would likely result in a civil war. Is that what you are after?

[geoffrey]

Such a unilateral move would likely result in a civil war. Is that what you are after?

So the threat of violence is what keeps us in this sad, racist, state of affairs?

[Rue]

"The government has the power to extinguish any and all treaties should it choose to do so."

Actually it does not. That is a legal concept you just don't want to accept. I suppose its easier for yout o cling to such simplistic concepts of power. In your world, the government simply arbitratily imposes unilateral pronouncements as long as it has majority vote.

So using your rasoning, we do not need a constitution, supreme court, case precedent system, or anything else. We simply go from majority vote to majority vote on any law.

"In some cases a constitutional amendment would be required..."

Oopsy are we actually referring to the legal system you seemed to have inferred is irrelevant because mjority rule prevails? Guess what., It wouldn't be in "some" cases as you have stated. It would be in ALL cases, but then let's not let understanding and representing the legal system accurately get in the way of your comments.

"however, the government has the power to pass constitutional amendments if that is what the majority of the people in the country want."

There we go. It didn't take you long to get back to the thesis the government can simply ignore the constitution by a majority vote.

"The only penalty that we would have to worry about is a bunch of angry natives that would likely resort to terrorism."

Well there we go. It didn't take long for your racism to manifest itself. You just couldn't resist turning this into a scapegoating of "angry natives" and for that matter "terrorists" at that.

What would happen if you wrote in one post without trying to alienate natives from the rest of Canada and ceasing and desisting in your stale attempts to depict natives as violent terrorists and us agin them.

I will say it one last time. Not all of us Canadians who are non native can be lumped into one category just like your pathetic attempt to stereotype natives is equally as invalid.

if the best you can do in this debate is turn this into a racist exercise of depicting natives as terrorists go away. We get it. You hate natives. Yay. Goody for you.

"The idea that Canada would lose title to the lands is question is absurd."

What is absurd is your attempts to reduce a complex series of legal issues into black and white racist categorization and an "us" against "them" tribal war.

Your attempts to alienate native peoples and deny their legal rights is nothing more then a reflection of your own personal resentment against natives. You think they getting something you can't have. It is that simple and it is that ridiculous.

[ScottSA]

The government cannot trash the treaties without a legal and civil backlash. Such a unilateral move would likely result in a civil war. Is that what you are after?

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but to claim that something in fundamental opposition to the intent and purpose of the charter cannot change is inane. Civil war? Civil war between who? The CF and a bunch of beer bellied braves armed with hunting rifles and dressed in way cool camous bought at army navy surplus? I wonder who would win?

[Posit]

Go ahead and under estimate a formidable and tenacious foe. The Mohawk Warriors were under estimated at Lundys Lane too. Ask the Americans how it turned out for them.....

We not only recognize them as being skillful fighters but we enlist them in our armed force to train our troops in non-conventional combat....

However, the Senate has warned us of the impending civil unrest if we do not deal honestly and timely in our disputes over treaties. It is not a threat we should worry about but the inevitability of doing nothing, or worse deliberately sabotaging our agreements with First Nations.

[Riverwind]

"however, the government has the power to pass constitutional amendments if that is what the majority of the people in the country want."

There we go. It didn't take you long to get back to the thesis the government can simply ignore the constitution by a majority vote.

The constitution CAN be changed. That is why there is an amending formula. The amending formula today requires a 7 provinces representing 50% of the population and the SCC would be legally obliged to accept any amendment that was approved according to that rule.

That said, the current constitution does require that the government consult with aboriginal groups before changing any of the provisions affecting aboriginals, however, the duty to consult does not give aboriginals a veto over any change. The people who wrote the 1982 constitution understood that native rights could be a problem in the future - that is why they made it legally possible to get rid of them without the permission of native groups.

Your attempts to alienate native peoples and deny their legal rights is nothing more then a reflection of your own personal resentment against natives. You think they getting something you can't have. It is that simple and it is that ridiculous.

I don't want to live in a feudal state. Natives rights are feudalism by another name.

[Posit]

Well then, you had better wake up to reality. You are already living in a feudal state. Ever wonder why the constitution never entrenched property rights and why all public land is referred to as "Crown Land"? The only difference is that Crown Land is really "Native Land" save and except those treaties you abhor.

Whether the consititution "can" be change is irrelevant to this discussion. The basis for an amendment must demonstrate a "need" to be changed in order to get support for holding a Constitutional Conference. As well the majority does not rule in Canada since we are a party based system that can legislate where only a minority of Canadians have elected the ruling party.

[Ontario Voter]

deleted

Edited October 7, 2007 by Ontario Voter

[Posit]

dbl post

[Riverwind]

Ever wonder why the constitution never entrenched property rights and why all public land is referred to as "Crown Land"?

The "Crown" is simply a name for the state of Canada. Crown Land is land owned by the government. It means nothing more than that.

Whether the consititution "can" be change is irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes it is. It means that native rights are not absolute and that they are subject to laws of Canada and the approval of the majority of the population. Changing the constitution is cumbersome which gives natives groups considerable negotiating power. However, that does not mean the government needs to give natives whatever they demand.

[Live From China]

Go ahead and under estimate a formidable and tenacious foe. The Mohawk Warriors were under estimated at Lundys Lane too. Ask the Americans how it turned out for them.....

Here we go again. Yes, we know the Mohawk warriors are immortal, etc., etc., etc. Threats of this kind of violence are just an attempt to hold people at ransom. This is a sickening equivalent of the "heckler's veto" And, bloody hell, Lundy's Lane took place 200 years ago. Before the days of tanks, airpower, napalm, the Archer artillery gun, satellite and infrared surveillance, UAV's, etc.

but we enlist them in our armed force to train our troops in non-conventional combat....

So, when the day comes, we can use their techniques against them.

I'm with you Ontario Voter, a group of so-called "warriors" (who tries to speak for the people who want every settled peacefully) are nothing more than a group that wants violence and revenge. You can see it in Posit's posts: the more we won't bend, the angier and more hostile and threatening he becomes.

[Posit]

Ha ha ha. I'm not angry. Nor do I support the Mohawk Warriors. I just know of their expertise from an uncle that was in the Green Beret during Vietnam. He attribute his still being here on account of the skills taught to him during training by Mohawk Warriors enlisted by the US Special Forces. There are still many there today training Seals and Special Ops using modern weaponry with a twist. Of course you do realize that while the Warriors almost equal access to most weapon systems, it is their "other" abilities that make then invaluable. Can you imagine an ordinary Canadian like you confronted by a Ghost Warrior? or a mole?

"Can" doesn't mean "will". There is no "will" to change the constitution and the Canadian government cannot change the rights of Native. Go reread the Charter. It says

"35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed."

No where does it afford First Nations these rights as is does in the rest of the Charter. It acknowledges that their rights pre-exist the constitution and the Supreme Court has gone that way in the interpretation. If government choose not to recognize these rights then under international law they would be required to negotiate new ones...unless of course the rule of law doesn't matter....

You had better go back and reread all the constitutional documents as well since the Crown is not Canada but an entity greater than Canada. The power of the Crown comes from the Queen and legally every act must receive her consent. Trudeau so wanted to repatriate the Constitution that when the Queen told him that he had recognize the pre-existing rights of aboriginal people he balked but eventually caved. Her power, and the power of the GG is still intact and very much the holder of the treaties.

The Crown's Fiduciary Relationship....

"The scope of the fiduciary concept was extended significantly in R. v. Sparrow (1990),(6) the Court’s first section 35 decision. Sparrow determined that:

* the “general guiding principle” for section 35 is that “the Government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to aboriginal peoples. The relationship between the Government and aboriginals is trust-like, rather than adversarial, and contemporary recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights must be defined in light of this historic relationship”;

* "the honour of the Crown is at stake in dealings with aboriginal peoples.(7) The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginals must be the first consideration in determining whether the [infringing] legislation or action in question can be justified”;

* “[t]he justificatory standard to be met may place a heavy burden on the Crown,” while inquiries such as whether the infringement has been minimal, whether fair compensation has been available, and whether the affected Aboriginal group has been consulted may also be included in the justification test.