We pay while Indians live in luxury

[jennie]

So what you're saying is that if your family owns hundreds of acres, homes here and there, that you should not have the privilege of having it when they pass on, just because of your DNA connection? Correct? So anyone should be able to have it, up for grabs.

I notice no one answered this question. We have had this raised on this board before, and they have no response to the issue of inheritable property rights. No one can explain why this should not apply to FN. However, this is the crux of the issue. Good post!

[jefferiah]

I notice no one answered this question. We have had this raised on this board before, and they have no response to the issue of inheritable property rights. No one can explain why this should not apply to FN. However, this is the crux of the issue. Good post!

Actually it is a terrible analogy Jennie. I don't think anyone has to think about it very long before they can see that. If my immediate ancestor left me land, then that would make me the right inheritor. But if I found out that my great great great great grandfather owned some land that he was pushed off, which over the course of many years has changed hands, I don't think that is grounds for a claim. It would be ridiculous. The more appropriate analogy is the one another poster made about Marie Antionette's descendants - an analogy which no one has been able to provide an adequate answer to as of yet.

Edited October 9, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

Actually it is a terrible analogy Jennie. I don't think anyone has to think about it very long before they can see that. If my immediate ancestor left me land, then that would make me the right inheritor. But if I found out that my great great great great grandfather owned some land that he was pushed off, which over the course of many years has changed hands, I don't think that is grounds for a claim. It would be ridiculous. The more appropriate analogy is the one another poster made about Marie Antionette's descendants - an analogy which no one has been able to provide an adequate answer to as of yet.

People who like to flog the 'race-based privilege' card refer to 'rights by DNA'. My point is that everyone can have property rights by DNA, if your DNA owns any property. What remains to be seen is the legal disposition of land with existing aboriginal rights or title. I do believe the laws should be upheld, whether in the courts or in negotiation. Don't you agree?

[ScottSA]

People who like to flog the 'race-based privilege' card refer to 'rights by DNA'. My point is that everyone can have property rights by DNA, if your DNA owns any property.

That's silly. If I own a piece of land, Scotland has no claim to it whatsoever, in spite of whatever racial ties I may have to Scotland. No one addressed the question because it's so stupid that I imagine they were trying to spare FN's feelings by ignoring it.

[geoffrey]

Again, if we chose to be called FN, that is our choice, regardless of what the government put on our cards. AGAIN...that was not our choice.

Race is a dead concept in biology, a fruitless endeavour. So I prefer to refer to legal status than to non-existant things such as race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race

My problem is not with people that are of dissent of some of the tribes that inhabited limited areas prior to Eurpoeanisation, it's with the concept of Indian status and DNA based privledge.

[jefferiah]

People who like to flog the 'race-based privilege' card refer to 'rights by DNA'. My point is that everyone can have property rights by DNA, if your DNA owns any property. What remains to be seen is the legal disposition of land with existing aboriginal rights or title. I do believe the laws should be upheld, whether in the courts or in negotiation. Don't you agree?

Not necessarily. An inheritor does not have to be related. You can bequeath as you choose. No relation of mine has a DNA right to have anything of mine. My cousin cannot make a claim on guitar. If I leave it to him he can. Now if after my death, I leave a certain peice of land to my cousin...but through a certain mishap it ends up in the hands of someone else. I would not think it reasonable for someone 5 generations down the line to demand that the current tenants move out because they are descendants of my cousin.

A battle over something your parents leave you in a will, and a battle over something your great great great grandfather had taken from him-----two different stories to me.

Edited October 10, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

Race is a dead concept in biology, a fruitless endeavour. So I prefer to refer to legal status than to non-existant things such as race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race

My problem is not with people that are of dissent of some of the tribes that inhabited limited areas prior to Eurpoeanisation, it's with the concept of Indian status and DNA based privledge.

The so called 'privilege', is existing aboriginal and treaty rights, directly related to the areas inhabited prior to contact. That's what the issues are about.

'Indian' status is a concept designed by the government purposes of the archaic and offensive 'Indian' Act.

[jefferiah]

The so called 'privilege', is existing aboriginal and treaty rights, directly related to the areas inhabited prior to contact. That's what the issues are about.

'Indian' status is a concept designed by the government purposes of the archaic and offensive 'Indian' Act.

You know Jennie. I am not native. I do not have first hand experience of being native. But I can tell you this. I know that the name Indian was a mistake, since Columbus thought he was on his way to India. Nonetheless, there is nothing offensive about that. Seriously. Why in hell would someone make a big deal over the whole Indian thing? Someone can come on and blather about how offensive that term is and I dont care. They are trying to be offended.

It's like this art teacher I had in high school. All of a sudden one year she got a whim to change the pronunciation of her last name to give it more of a french flair. And she would always correct you if you said her name the old way. It was as if you were deliberately trying to insult her.

If I say so-and-so is French no one gets upset and says "you mean Francais". I have yet to hear a German tell me "you mean Deutschland." You know the name is not intended to be offensive, and there is nothing offensive about it, unless you hate people from India.

Edited October 10, 2007 by jefferiah

[geoffrey]

'Indian' status is a concept designed by the government purposes of the archaic and offensive 'Indian' Act.

I agree. Why can't we all be legal equals in a modern society?

[gc1765]

No relation of mine has a DNA right to have anything of mine. My cousin cannot make a claim on guitar. If I leave it to him he can.

Yes they do. If you don't have a will, your possessions will go to your family based on DNA.

[jennie]

Not necessarily. An inheritor does not have to be related. You can bequeath as you choose. No relation of mine has a DNA right to have anything of mine. My cousin cannot make a claim on guitar. If I leave it to him he can. Now if after my death, I leave a certain peice of land to my cousin...but through a certain mishap it ends up in the hands of someone else. I would not think it reasonable for someone 5 generations down the line to demand that the current tenants move out because they are descendants of my cousin.

A battle over something your parents leave you in a will, and a battle over something your great great great grandfather had taken from him-----two different stories to me.

Certainly they are different, but the processes would likely be similar regardless of who you are. If you determined that family land had been expropriated but never compensated historically, the sale is null and void. I believe you have the right to pursue that too.

What I am getting at is that there are no special 'DNA based rights' for Indigenous Peoples as some suggest.

They are the same rights we all have, but their rights have been oppressed until now.

And yes, it is simply the right to bequeath to whomever you choose.

Edited October 10, 2007 by jennie

[Posit]

Aboriginal and Treaty rights are neither DNA based or race based. They are "collective rights".

The Ontario and Canadian border with the US runs down the middle of the St Lawrence, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. We have a right to those waters as a "collective" right of all Ontarians and on behalf of all Canadians. That collective right is passed down through successive generations of Ontarians and Canadians.

That is exactly the same things as aboriginal and treaty rights.

[M.Dancer]

Aboriginal and Treaty rights are neither DNA based or race based. They are "collective rights".

So non aboriginals can share the Treaty rights?

[Posit]

So non aboriginals can share the Treaty rights?

We already do. Our collective rights to the lands north of the border were defined under the Jay Treaty (Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, by their President, Ratified June 24, 1795). That same treaty recognizes the sovereignty of natives and their collective right to cross the border unmolested.

[M.Dancer]

We already do. Our collective rights to the lands north of the border were defined under the Jay Treaty (Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, by their President, Ratified June 24, 1795). That same treaty recognizes the sovereignty of natives and their collective right to cross the border unmolested.

So I can cross the border unmolested then? Can I also get sunsidized university and forget about sales taxes, duties and such?

[Posit]

So I can cross the border unmolested then? Can I also get sunsidized university and forget about sales taxes, duties and such?

The British never negotiated for that for us. They didn't negotiate on behalf of natives either but both countries "recognized" that aboriginal sovereignty was beyond their control and entrenched in the Jay Treaty an agreement between them that Natives crossing the border wouldn't be molester - which has been interpreted to mean, no duty, taxes or other encumbrances. And as I understand it, the Iroquois Confederacy is on the verge of reaching their own agreement with the US Homeland Security to allow the use of Confederacy issued cards to continue the unmolested travel across the border guaranteed under the Jay Treaty.

As far as the other fiduciary responsibilities we have for native education, health and exemptions you'll have to take that up with your MP. Perhaps you will get rid of your sour grapes and realize the legal relationship we have with natives as a result of Treaties (which cannot be unilaterally modified) and due to their aboriginal rights guaranteed under the Charter are an obligation we undertook in order to use land and resources for our own profit. And unfortunately due to our greed we took loads more than we are legally entitled to.

[M.Dancer]

The British never negotiated for that for us.

You seem to be purposely missing the point. You said erroneously that: Aboriginal and Treaty rights are neither DNA based or race based.

Well if they are not race based, then I want EXACTLY the same rights and priviledges as they....or they can have the same rights as me. But if they have different rights only because they are indians.....then what are they but race based rights.

[Posit]

You seem to be purposely missing the point. You said erroneously that: Aboriginal and Treaty rights are neither DNA based or race based.

Well if they are not race based, then I want EXACTLY the same rights and priviledges as they....or they can have the same rights as me. But if they have different rights only because they are indians.....then what are they but race based rights.

You can't have that "collective" right UNLESS you denounce your Canadian citizenship and become a citizen of the Iroquois Confederacy. It has nothing to do with race OR DNA and everything to do with sovereignty.

[ScottSA]

Poor Posit. One of those people who would rather get backed into a corner and hammered rather than just say "oops" I was wrong. I guess we can all go outside and shout "Ich bin ein Indian" and commence smuggling cigarettes now.

[ScottSA]

You can't have that "collective" right UNLESS you denounce your Canadian citizenship and become a citizen of the Iroquois Confederacy. It has nothing to do with race OR DNA and everything to do with sovereignty.

So I can renounce my Canadian status, stop paying income tax, and start picking up cashola for past wrongs? Far out. We should all become iroquiois! Damned boarding schools anyway. They cut my head off, y'know, and the Great Spirit had to sew it back on again.

[Posit]

Poor Posit. One of those people who would rather get backed into a corner and hammered rather than just say "oops" I was wrong. I guess we can all go outside and shout "Ich bin ein Indian" and commence smuggling cigarettes now.

Poor Scotty. Can't participate in an intelligent discussion so hurls insults instead. Get a life and an education. You might learn that your myths are really just lies your mother told you about your origins.

[ScottSA]

Poor Scotty. Can't participate in an intelligent discussion so hurls insults instead. Get a life and an education. You might learn that your myths are really just lies your mother told you about your origins.

Right, oh Troothar. Now then, are you telling me that I can simply renounce my Canadian citizenship and join a tribe just like that, in spite of my ruddy Scots complexsion or any trace of Indian blood, be alotted all the perks of tribehood, and blissfully partake in the ongoing snivelfest?

[M.Dancer]

You can't have that "collective" right UNLESS you denounce your Canadian citizenship and become a citizen of the Iroquois Confederacy. It has nothing to do with race OR DNA and everything to do with sovereignty.

And are they taking multicultural immigrants?

Please post a link .....

1) Where I can join

2) That the legitimate Government will recognise my new citizenship

Edited October 10, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Posit]

So I can renounce my Canadian status, stop paying income tax, and start picking up cashola for past wrongs? Far out. We should all become iroquiois! Damned boarding schools anyway. They cut my head off, y'know, and the Great Spirit had to sew it back on again.

You can also give up you Canadian citizenship, become and American and enjoy the collective rights they enjoy too.

No doubt ~someone~ "cut off your head" because you seem to be talking through your a**.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Posit

[Posit]

And are they taking multicultural immigrants?

Please post a link .....

1) Where I can join

2) That the legitimate Government will recognise my new citizenship

The Great Law of Peace

You can start reading at #66 & #73. You will need an Iroquoian sponsor and must comply with certain requirements. First of all you need to be a worthy person and I highly doubt you will find anyone to vouch for you on that. So you might try sticking to being a Canadian.