We pay while Indians live in luxury

[creeo]

Back to the original post:

This is being done for indians, but it would not be done for white people. That is the point of contention, not whether it should be done or not. The reserves receive more than enough to look after reserve indians, but for some reason, the building they inhabit falls under government responsibilty to repair (and put them in a hotel).

Why? No government official would dare risk being called a racist, and the indians would be the first to play that card.

Only white people can be called racist. Prove me wrong.

If an indian were to refuse something to a white person, it would no doubt be put down as the choice of a minority. Women can have a women's only hospital, Native Friendship centers, Negro College Fund, RCMP intake quotas for minorities, and the list goes on.

Can you imagine the sh*t storm if I started the Caucasion Youth College Endowment Fund? Any bets on how many SECONDS it would take for the first comparison to Hitler to hit the news?

The building in question will be inspected and repaired on the taxpayer's tab, and no taxpayer had better say a word in public. It makes no difference whether or not it needs it, or whether or not the indians in question can pay for their own accomodations in the meantime. It will be done because they are indian.

Very well said. As a white person I feel that to show pride for my race and heritage would be seen as absolute racism. It's true that white people are the only ones called racists (publicly, at least) and to start any kind of organization to be used for the benefit of white people only would be public suicide. I agree completely with your post, and admire you for having the courage to speak up.

[stignasty]

Back to the original post:

This is being done for indians, but it would not be done for white people. That is the point of contention, not whether it should be done or not.

Very well said. As a white person I feel that to show pride for my race and heritage would be seen as absolute racism. It's true that white people are the only ones called racists (publicly, at least) and to start any kind of organization to be used for the benefit of white people only would be public suicide. I agree completely with your post, and admire you for having the courage to speak up.

The only problem is that no one can provide any evidence that white people who are living in an asbestos filled building would not get government assistance.

Rah Rah!! Those rassin' frassin' injuns get all the breaks don't they?

I'll call you racists, because when you state opinions that are clearly racist . . . well you are (even if you say you aren't).

[geoffrey]

The only problem is that no one can provide any evidence that white people who are living in an asbestos filled building would not get government assistance.

Find me an example where they squatters have had hotel accomodations paid for while their sleeping quarters were fixed up.... besides the example I gave you of course.

Your right, it's blatant racism. But not the way you described. One race in this country is very privledged and the rest are not. The Indians have things like this handed to them, all in the name of political correctness.

When a white guy dies in the cold, it's a sad story but people get over it. If one of these people died of exposure after being evicted from their unsafe squatting hole, it'd be a national event.

What up?

[stignasty]

One race in this country is very privledged and the rest are not. The Indians have things like this handed to them, all in the name of political correctness.

Your ignorance is as blatant as your racism.

Oh wait, maybe you're talking about these special privileges. White Canadians don't get special taxi service like this! Of course, there is all that free housing those freeloading Indians get all the time.

When a white guy dies in the cold, it's a sad story but people get over it. If one of these people died of exposure after being evicted from their unsafe squatting hole, it'd be a national event.

What up?

Please fill me in on the story of the unfortunate white guy who died in the cold because he was prohibited from sleeping anywhere else. Was he too evicted so repairs could be made to his squat? Or, are you just making shit up?

What up with that?

[Canadian Blue]

I wouldn't throw around the "racist" slur around too much, ignorant maybe, but racist, I highly doubt it.

[Catchme]

No, to re-label racism as ignorance allows it to continue. It is so ingrained in people that they do not even realize it when they are saying it.

For example, my daughter has cousins who are First Nations that live on the Rez. Her partner made a comment to her that she better use good hygiene techniques when she was with them, as you never know what you will get from the Rez.

Needless to say my daughter lost it, and truthfully informed him he was being racist, and that indeed cities are worse carriers of disease than reservations. He did not even think about his comment as being, not only wrong but also racist.

Let's look at the definition of racism in particular the #2 definition of a person being in a state of prejudice or discrimination:

Main Entry: rac·ism

Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-

Function: noun

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Now let's look at the definition of ignorant:

Main Entry: ig·no·rant

Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt

Function: adjective

1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED

There are plenty of opportunities in this day and age of computers and information for people to be informed as to the truth, if they do not seek out validation of their perceptions then they are keeping themselves in a state of wilful ignorance. It is the state of keeping themselves in wilful ignorance that is the foundation of their racism. They do not want to be informed because of their inherent racism and nothing more.

[White Doors]

"The only problem is that no one can provide any evidence that white people who are living in an asbestos filled building would not get government assistance."

Virtually ever home buiilt in Canada prior to 1979 has asbestos in it smartass.

I have one from 1959 and the thought would never cross my mind to ask the government for assistance. Therein lies the whole problem.

[White Doors]

By those defintiions Catchme, our very constitution is racist.

weird eh? there's them facts again.

[Who's Doing What?]

Uh no I can't and evidently neither can the Supreme Court of Canada. I think your definition of racist is defective. You are suggesting because aboriginals are merely seeking to reinforce treaties that have been broken somehow they are trying to ask for special rights. I think you have completely missed the boat on what racism is.

Racism is the notion that we can ignore the pre-existing laws and existence of people prior to 1867 who are not caucasian Christians from Europe and whose religion and laws differed.

Racism is placing these people on reserves, entering into treaties with these people then breaking them, and now trying to argue well tough, we are here now, lets just ignore what we did in the past and just start today and ignore what we did.

So giving one race special treatment over others is not racism?

I would beg to differ.

This is where you are just plain wrong. You make this concept of no tax seem like a benefit. Have you even a clue why aboriginals are not taxed? You obviously don't otherwise you wouldn't make the assumption this is a privilege. If there is no tax, perhaps you should try find out why there is no tax. It makes up for something else taken away from aboriginals. Until you can figure that out, I won't go further on the point. See the problem is you are ignorning the reason why there is no tax. It was not given as a privilege, it was given as an offset for other rights taken away unfairly.

They are Canadian citizens, and as such they should be paying taxes like the rest of us. Not having to because of their race is retarded.

As for your comment that aboriginals have extra rights, again this flows from your lack of awareness of what their rights are. They are not asking for anything extra. In fact if they were, the Supreme Court of Canada would not have made the decisions it already has. The aboriginal legal claims don't ask for anything extra, just what was originally promised to them in treaties that were then broken.

Uh I have to pay for my fishing rights. Natives don't. That would seem to me they have rights I don't. If they have rights that I don't, those would be extra rights.

In fact if the aboriginal peoples used the same arguement you are using today, they would in fact ask for more or extra rights. Please don't confuse them with you.

If the natives used my arguement they would be advocating equality and not "more or extra rights". They would in fact be arguing infavour of themselves paying taxes and having to pay for hunting and fishing rights.

See the above comment for me is interesting. I lived in Israel. I have seen people blow up. I have seen people from both sides suffer from terrorist attacks. I have seen soldiers in Guatemala shoot down aboriginal peasant farmers in a corn-field and I barely got out alive having stumbled on to it. I have witnessed the Tonts Tonts Maceaux (I probably spelled it wrong) in Haiti terrorize their citizens when Papa Doc Duvaliers was in charge.

I have seen terrorism and when I see what you refer to as terrorism all I can say is, aboriginal peoples have not engaged in terrorism. They haven't attacked innocent children or public areas.

What you call terrorism are aboriginals occupying land. The reality is we live in a wonderful country where our armed forces and our police, with a couple of exceptions (thank you Mike Harris) and the aboriginal peoples have avoided violence in confrontations. Aboriginal people could have and have never engaged in terrorism. Please do not confuse taking a stand with terrorism. See you really need to meet face to face with the warriors you call terrorists. If you knew who they were and put a person and face to them, you would realize, if they wanted to kill you and engage in indiscriminate violence they would have done it long ago.

So are are going to sit there and argue that because the natives aren't killing enough innocent people we shouldn't consider their actions terrorist-like?

The answer for you of course is simple, as long as aboriginals know their place and don't try enforce what we promised them in treaties, everything will be o.k. Well that is wishful thinking. Ignoring treaties we entered into and are obliged to honour, will not solve this problem. The fact that you don't want to accept legal responsibility won't make it go away. Our moral responsibility to obey the treaties we entered into of course belongs. It's who we are. It is what we stand for. If we break our treaties, that makes us liars and I am not interested in being a liar and living a lie.

Aboriginals do not scare me-breaching treaties does. If my country's word means nothing, in my opinion, I mean nothing. Maybe you want to be part of a social vision where we lie and cheat, I do not. Aboriginal warriors do not worry me. You do. Aboriginal warriors don't threaten my identity-you do. Aboriginals are simply asking we remember who we are. You are basically saying ignore what we don't like. I truky believe we have to honour laws and treaties, even those we don't like. It makes us who we are. Our word is all we have when all is said and done.

Being extorted by a group of individuals who think they are owed something because they are of a certain race I find disgusting.

Aboriginal warriors don't threaten my identity-you do

That is about the strangest thing I have ever heard.

[Rue]

Rue, I have asked you this before and you evaded the question. What would you say if the law and these treaties required you to hand over your own property without compensation to a native band? Would you put your money where your mouth is? I am willing to bet your answer is no. If that is your answer then you have no business lecturing anyone on the sanctity of treaties or law.

I have been away. I apologize for not responding earlier. I will give you the same answer I said in the past. If two parties have a conflict as to who should own the land, it should be the role of our government to find a way to accommodate both.

As I have said in the past, neither I nor aboriginal groups advocating for their rights have asked treaties to be imposed blindly. To suggest such a thing is just not true. You have to take the time to read the arguements presented by the native groups before you label their positions as simply wanting to take things away from you.

Now you asked me a question. Would I agree to someone taking my land away without compensation. That was NEVER the issue.

If you read anything I said in defence of aboriginal legal rights, at no time have I ever said, people like you if displaced or placed in a situation of inequity, should not receive government compensation.

I think with due respect you are posing the question as to recognizing aboriginal rights as an all or nothing debate. If we respect and honour their rights, it necessarily means taking land away from non natives. This is just not true. In the vast majority of legal disputes as to land, we are talking access to natural resources, hunting and fishing and compensation to aborigonals when land is exploited. We are not talking about taking your home away.

I have said it once and I will say it again. If a Canadian is placed in a situation of hardship on an individual basis, i.e., they are faced with their home being taken away, then yes of course, we have to find a legal solution to compensate such people in the same humanitarian tradition we need to follow when we accommodate aboriginals.

Please understand I have been in a position in Israel where two sets of people fought to the death over the same land. It doesn't work. It can't work. It requires ordinary people like you and me finding a compromise and compromises are possible. Aboriginal legal arguements presented to the federal government and in court have not been simply ultimatums. They have constantly suggested compromise positions only to have them rejected.

By the way I don't blindly follow the law. I have been arguing the law is a set of variables that must be applied with compassion and due consideration for all the parties in the dispute, not just some.

[Rue]

Aboriginal warriors don't threaten my identity-you do

That is about the strangest thing I have ever heard.

Strange? I do not doubt you would find it strange. You have shown in your dialogue that you will not acknowledge the legal treaties we entered into with aboriginals and then breached. It is this refusal to acknowledge Canadian history, our historic treatment of aboriginals in the past and our legal cases and breached treaties, that led me to say you and not aboriginal warriors are a threat to my identity. Aboriginals when arguing for their rights, simply remind us all of where we came from. In your case, you choose to ignore where you come from, and truly believe you can simply start today, as if eveything is on a level playing field and just conveniently forget history.

What I am saying to you is this-if you do not understand Canadian history and choose to ignore it - you are a threat to my Canadian identity. I choose to remember where I come from so as to know where I am going.

[Riverwind]

By the way I don't blindly follow the law. I have been arguing the law is a set of variables that must be applied with compassion and due consideration for all the parties in the dispute, not just some.

I don't think we really disagree on the fundamental issues then. My position is that we should seek reasonable accommodation wherever possible. However, I do not share your optimism - there are many native bands that are willing to negotiate fair compromises but there are other bands that demanding nothing less than the complete surrender of all the land they claim (many of these people have posted on this forum).

This puts in a situation where the SCC will eventually rule on these disputes. If the SCC rules in favour of the 'law' even when it is grossly unfair to the majority of people in the country then the politicians will be forced to act. My argument is we should feel no obligation to honour old treaties simply because that is what the current law requires. The only obligation we have to offer a good faith compromise that balances all of the competing interests. I did not make that last point clear in my previous posts: I feel that we do have an obligation to try and find a resolution and that refutation would only be considered when faced with native groups that reject reasonable compromises that we offer.

[Who's Doing What?]

Strange? I do not doubt you would find it strange. You have shown in your dialogue that you will not acknowledge the legal treaties we entered into with aboriginals and then breached. It is this refusal to acknowledge Canadian history, our historic treatment of aboriginals in the past and our legal cases and breached treaties, that led me to say you and not aboriginal warriors are a threat to my identity. Aboriginals when arguing for their rights, simply remind us all of where we came from. In your case, you choose to ignore where you come from, and truly believe you can simply start today, as if eveything is on a level playing field and just conveniently forget history.

What I am saying to you is this-if you do not understand Canadian history and choose to ignore it - you are a threat to my Canadian identity. I choose to remember where I come from so as to know where I am going.

I acknowledge Canadian history. I fully support payments for the boarding school torture and abuse. Where I say you can "go stuff your hat" is when I'm told everything from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland is Native land and compensation, absurd compensation is demanded.

To accuse me or my generation of trying to assimilate or outright destroy native culture is a joke. In my lifetime the Native culture has been celebrated, taught, expanded and funded more than it ever has since Europeans arrived in North America. Then I hear "It's not enough" no matter how much is given, or how many billions a year is pumped into helping and providing for natives "it's not enough". It gets tired on the ears pretty quick.

Then there is the whole notion that because a person is native they should be exempt from certain laws. Now if a native wants to live like a native from 300 years ago and hunt and fish for food I can understand being exempt from hunting and fishing seasons and licenses. But when they stand there with their "white-man's" guns, wearing their "white man's" clothes, driving their "white man's" cars, trucks and ATV's, finding their location by using their "white man's" GPS system, and sleeping in their "white man's" trailer with it's "white man's" propane stove, I just get overwhelmed by the hypocricy of them saying they want "TRADITIONAL" hunting and fishing rights and lands. The term "white man" is used as I have heard natives use it. Personally I don't care if the person who made something was white, black, purple or orange.

So no I will not blindly accept some 300 year old treaty. If that threatens your Canadian Identity I'm sorry. Although I would think no Canada at all is a bigger threat to anything considered Canadian, including your identity.

[Drea]

Hear Hear Whos!

I wish all Canadians would stop their bleeding hearts for 5 minutes and realize that we don't OWE anybody anything.

[blueblood]

Holy crap you know there's a problem when a righty and a lefty are in agreement over this. You forgot about the government of Canada's right to expropriation.

[geoffrey]

Good call WDW... it's time Canadians woke up to the blatant racism in front of our faces. It's time to end rights based on bloodlines and having specific DNA.

[Charles Anthony]

Good call WDW... it's time Canadians woke up to the blatant racism in front of our faces. It's time to end rights based on bloodlines and having specific DNA.

Great idea!

If your father dies without leaving a documented will, how should we divy up his property?

[Riverwind]

If your father dies without leaving a documented will, how should we divy up his property?

Only natives are allowed to bestow rights on their offspring - that makes it racist. A veteran earns a number of rights (special pensions, medical benefits, etc) because he/she fought for the country. Their heirs cannot claim these rights.

[geoffrey]

If your father dies without leaving a documented will, how should we divy up his property?

Only natives are allowed to bestow rights on their offspring - that makes it racist. A veteran earns a number of rights (special pensions, medical benefits, etc) because he/she fought for the country. Their heirs cannot claim these rights.

Exactly, I don't get rights from my father, but I do get whatever he decides to give me in personal property.

CA I expected better from you. Where is the idea of liberty there? Upon my death, I should be able to decide without interference where my assets are distributed.

If there is no will, we make the reasonable assumption that next-of-kin would get the possessions.

Rights and freedoms can't be given out the same way.

[Charles Anthony]

Only natives are allowed to bestow rights on their offspring - that makes it racist. A veteran earns a number of rights (special pensions, medical benefits, etc) because he/she fought for the country. Their heirs cannot claim these rights.

Exactly,

--what part of "property" do you guys not understand?

Where is the idea of liberty there? Upon my death, I should be able to decide without interference where my assets are distributed.

It sounds like the natives do not get that right.

If there is no will, we make the reasonable assumption that next-of-kin would get the possessions.

My ill-informed understanding of native claims are that they are derived from their (as it is yours) right of familial (not DNA and not race) inheritance -- the predominant property being land.

In my book, if YOU (a non-native) married into a native family, your off-spring would inherit those claims exactly as YOU (a non-native) should expect to inherit whatever property your father left after he died -- without a will.

I firmly believe in family inheritance being universal.

[Riverwind]

My ill-informed understanding of native claims are that they are derived from their (as it is yours) right of familial (not DNA and not race) inheritance -- the predominant property being land.

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. Furthermore, maintaining your ownership of any land requires that you pay taxes on that land every year. If you fail to pay taxes then the land will be expropriated by the government - natives pay no taxes yet they keep their so-called property rights. Lastly, any property that you own can be expropriated by the gov't if it is in the public interest - natives right cannot taken away without a constitutional change.

It is absurd to compare native rights to the normal property rights that everyone else. They are a special class of rights that only people with the right DNA are allowed to have.

[geoffrey]

CA,

Are you saying the Indians have a right to all the land in Canada? Which Indian owns it? Do they own it communally? Did they even have the concept of ownership in their society?

What of the mostly nomadic types of the Western plains?

Do reserves have the right to interfere with property outside of their reserve, such as over fishing streams that run into other's land?

[Rue]

It is absurd to compare native rights to the normal property rights that everyone else. They are a special class of rights that only people with the right DNA are allowed to have.

You are amazing. You keep referring to the collective rights of aboriginal peoples as dna based. Do you do that because you are that oblivious to history and refuse to acknowledge it?

When the British and French came to Canada and imposed their laws and entered into treaties they then broke, do you think anyone cared about the DNA of aboriginals? The many years of hatred directed at aboriginals because of the notion that white Christians were superior-how does that fit in your DNA theory?

Stop with the double standard. If you think its racist to acknowledge the collective rights of the aboriginals then you must be consistent and also consider it racist that our current laws are based on racism as well.

The collective rights the aborginals are seeking recognized, are based on treaties NOT dna. They are based on treaties with their nations that were broken and they now seek compensation for.

Stop selectively twisting this around as if we caucasians are the victims of racism by aboriginals we are not. They are not asking to kill us or put us on reservations or force us into orphanages and institutions so they can sexually molest us and impose their religious views on us.

[geoffrey]

Stop with the double standard. If you think its racist to acknowledge the collective rights of the aboriginals then you must be consistent and also consider it racist that our current laws are based on racism as well.

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?

What laws are based on racism? Just because one race breaks them more often than others, doesn't mean it's racism, 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.

The collective rights the aborginals are seeking recognized, are based on treaties NOT dna. They are based on treaties with their nations that were broken and they now seek compensation for.

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.

[Rue]

CA,

Are you saying the Indians have a right to all the land in Canada? Which Indian owns it? Do they own it communally? Did they even have the concept of ownership in their society?

What of the mostly nomadic types of the Western plains?

Do reserves have the right to interfere with property outside of their reserve, such as over fishing streams that run into other's land?

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.

You are correct when you say the concept of ownership in these nations is a collective concept. It is a collective right of the community or specific nation.

As for various rights associated with hunting or fishing its far more complicated then saying it is limited to within reserves. Many of the treaties never said that.

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.

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?