Petition to Abolish the Indian Act

[jennie]

The key element is murder. You probably don't differentiate between "murder" and "killing" either, nor does the UN it seems.

That only appears once. The rest are means of preventing the health, growth and development of the group - i.e., causing the .group' itself to cease to exist as a recognizable group. Thus, if you take all the children and raise them in a different culture, that is genocidal as your intention is to destroy the group itself, etc.

* Killing members of the group

* Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

* Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

* Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

* Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I often hear/read people saying the reserves should be shut down and all natives moved elsewhere. That is a highly questionable suggestion, I think, from the perspective of genocide as "trying to destroy the group itself".

However, we are pretty far off the topic of the 'Indian Act'.

I find it odd that someone like the CTF thinks they 'know what is best' for aboriginal communities.

Seriously ... how presumptuous ... tacky, imo.

Edited September 1, 2007 by jennie

[Pliny]

That only appears once. The rest are means of preventing the health, growth and development of the group - i.e., causing the .group' itself to cease to exist as a recognizable group. Thus, if you take all the children and raise them in a different culture, that is genocidal as your intention is to destroy the group itself, etc.

* Killing members of the group

* Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

* Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

* Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

* Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I often hear/read people saying the reserves should be shut down and all natives moved elsewhere. That is a highly questionable suggestion, I think, from the perspective of genocide as "trying to destroy the group itself".

However, we are pretty far off the topic of the 'Indian Act'.

I find it odd that someone like the CTF thinks they 'know what is best' for aboriginal communities.

Seriously ... how presumptuous ... tacky, imo.

And what is best for aboriginal communities besides extracting largesse from the rest of the population of the nation?

And is assimilation the same as genocide?

[jennie]

And what is best for aboriginal communities besides extracting largesse from the rest of the population of the nation?

And is assimilation the same as genocide?

My point was 'what is best' for aboriginal communities is up to them to decide.

Some people choose to assimilate into the dominant culture.

Some don't.

Forced assimilation would be genocide.

[Pliny]

My point was 'what is best' for aboriginal communities is up to them to decide.

Some people choose to assimilate into the dominant culture.

Some don't.

Forced assimilation would be genocide.

I agree it is up to them to decide. From what I see, the status quo is being challenged - by natives themselves, so there is a movement between those currently at the helm to solidify their positions.

So, forced assimilation is genocide. I can almost agree with that, but not quite if the term genocide is to retain its significance, and that is the death of the individuals who make up the culture. The use of force is the problem in a lot of cases which is why governments exist. It is the only agency that can legally use force or designate the use of force. A law to encourage people of different cultures to remain divided and completely separate is a use of force that endorses future conflict. Assimilation should not be forced and if force is used it never results in assimilation, as is evident in Canada. Forced assimilation is an oxymoron. Resentment is the result not assimilation.

Cultures will assimilate naturally when they interact, each one adding their own input to create a new culture together. What moves us into the future is what is generally adopted by new generations and what remains of the past is held onto by the older generation until the blend is seamless.

[jennie]

I agree it is up to them to decide. From what I see, the status quo is being challenged - by natives themselves, so there is a movement between those currently at the helm to solidify their positions.

So, forced assimilation is genocide. I can almost agree with that, but not quite if the term genocide is to retain its significance, and that is the death of the individuals who make up the culture. The use of force is the problem in a lot of cases which is why governments exist. It is the only agency that can legally use force or designate the use of force. A law to encourage people of different cultures to remain divided and completely separate is a use of force that endorses future conflict. Assimilation should not be forced and if force is used it never results in assimilation, as is evident in Canada. Forced assimilation is an oxymoron. Resentment is the result not assimilation.

Cultures will assimilate naturally when they interact, each one adding their own input to create a new culture together. What moves us into the future is what is generally adopted by new generations and what remains of the past is held onto by the older generation until the blend is seamless.

We have integration of peoples of many different cultures in Canada. Assimilation is an ugly word that means everybody becomes like the dominant culture. I don't think that is how we do it.

It is interesting what is happening in some Indigenous communities right now, because the traditional culture is being revived by the young people. It is not dying out but becoming stronger, after many years where it was illegal, of course.

[Pliny]

We have integration of peoples of many different cultures in Canada. Assimilation is an ugly word that means everybody becomes like the dominant culture. I don't think that is how we do it.

It is interesting what is happening in some Indigenous communities right now, because the traditional culture is being revived by the young people. It is not dying out but becoming stronger, after many years where it was illegal, of course.

So "assimilation" is an ugly word now. Well, assimilation means a culture can retain it's heritage among those interested in retaining it. If the UN had it's way then cannibalism, headshrinking, and scalping would be protected cultural activities and they would be fighting assimilation by appealing to government to enshrine their activities in law. No culture will tolerate force to change it but sometimes it is necessary to the protection of life, a far more important cause than culture which is but a passing ship in the water.

You need to really get over the past and quit hoping to live off the avails of others. There is no sense in creating a parasitic culture within a culture. Especially since most cultures pass with time - being parasitic you will pass along with them, and if they cater to parasites the life will go out of them quite quickly. Help them or get out of the way.

Am I asking you to lay down and die as a culture? That could be your perception but I am asking you to be part of the future in the only way we can possibly create a future of co-operation together by being equal and respecting each other. Your beef is with government, the agency that you think is even today committing "cultural genocide", in spite of the fact multiculturalism is, sadly, in my view, now a part of its policy. I myself cringe when I see the Government of Canada crediting itself with "allowing" the existence of different cultures through it's benevolence and compassion for humanity. Puke!

Excuse me! Gotta go!

[jennie]

Nice rant. Wrong audience. Wash your mouth out with soap, young man.

So "assimilation" is an ugly word now. Well, assimilation means a culture can retain it's heritage among those interested in retaining it.

That is not typically how it is used. I would suggest that is integration ... different heritages retained, people integrated. Doesn't matter to me much though, if you feel strongly about it. I want you to be clear on who I am and who I speak for and who you are speaking to: I am (Irish) Canadian, not aboriginal. These are my opinions.

If the UN had it's way then cannibalism, headshrinking, and scalping would be protected cultural activities

You forgot my favourite part of our Euro-heritage ... heads on pikes! That's why we Euro-colonizers developed scalping ... it was too heavy carrying whole heads the long distances in Canada, I guess!

Excuse me! Gotta go!

puke?

Edited September 3, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

Furthermore ...

I agree it is up to them to decide. From what I see, the status quo is being challenged - by natives themselves, so there is a movement between those currently at the helm to solidify their positions.

Politics is everywhere!

So, forced assimilation is genocide. I can almost agree with that, but not quite if the term genocide is to retain its significance, and that is the death of the individuals who make up the culture.

Genocide is the attempted destruction of the culture itself, whether by death or dispersal of peoples. Individuals may survive, but they would be absorbed into the dominant culture.

The use of force is the problem in a lot of cases which is why governments exist. It is the only agency that can legally use force or designate the use of force. A law to encourage people of different cultures to remain divided and completely separate is a use of force that endorses future conflict.

Not sure what you mean here ... in Canada you mean? A law?

Assimilation should not be forced and if force is used it never results in assimilation, as is evident in Canada. Forced assimilation is an oxymoron. Resentment is the result not assimilation.

I agree absolutely.

Cultures will assimilate naturally when they interact, each one adding their own input to create a new culture together. What moves us into the future is what is generally adopted by new generations and what remains of the past is held onto by the older generation until the blend is seamless.

I think it is fabulous the way different cultures are retained in Canada, while we all share a common culture too.

Funny thing, some cultures are retained here in more traditional fashion and more vibrant than the modern culture of the homeland has become. And I do think it is wonderful how aboriginal culture seems to be reviving too.

Edited September 2, 2007 by jennie

[Pliny]

Furthermore ...

Politics is everywhere!

Genocide is the attempted destruction of the culture itself, whether by death or dispersal of peoples. Individuals may survive, but they would be absorbed into the dominant culture.

Not sure what you mean here ... in Canada you mean? A law?

I agree absolutely.

I think it is fabulous the way different cultures are retained in Canada, while we all share a common culture too.

Funny thing, some cultures are retained here in more traditional fashion and more vibrant than the modern culture of the homeland has become. And I do think it is wonderful how aboriginal culture seems to be reviving too.

I disagree it is reviving. Some new form of parasitic culture is being created.

I know you are not aboriginal. I also know you have a job to do.

[jennie]

I know you are not aboriginal. I also know you have a job to do.

btw ... Your racist rant at me - (above) when you thought I was aboriginal ?

It offends me. Might have to put in a grievance. ya really

Edited September 2, 2007 by jennie

[Posit]

I disagree it is reviving. Some new form of parasitic culture is being created.

You need to look a little closer to what is happening in Central Canada. Oka, Ipperwash, Saugeen, Caledonia, Tyendinaga, Ardoch - these are all examples of a change in the politic of native-government relations. In the past the natives were content to sit back, and take the government's suggestions for their grievances. But because our government refuses to keep its word (right down to the lying OPP) they feel they have no choice but to start taking back the lands and resources they have been dislodged from. And funny thing, when we get a chance to examine the treaties we made with them, we find they are right. We have no right to use or develop their lands without their consent. That is backed up by the SCoC too.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Posit

[jennie]

You need to look a little closer to what is happening in Central Canada. Oka, Ipperwash, Saugeen, Caledonia, Tyendinaga, Ardoch - these are all examples of a change in the politic of native-government relations. In the past the natives were content to sit back, and take the government's suggestions for their grievances. But because our government refuses to keep its word (right down to the lying OPP) they feel they have no choice but to start taking back the lands and resources they have been dislodged from. And funny thing, when we get a chance to examine the treaties we made with them, we find they are right. We have no right to use or develop their lands without their consent. That is backed up by the SCoC too.

I am not sure I would again suggest pliny "look at" anything to do with aboriginal people. He either doesn't know or doesn't care where the line is for socially acceptable comment.

What bothers me about this attempt to abolish the Indian Act ... is that it is something once again being imposed on aboriginal people that they did not choose.

Because it is the CTF, we know it is a Tom Flanagan style agenda. That means it is about "Oops sorry we got your land and resources ... come and be 'just one of us' and we might share some of it with you."

What I would truly like to see before we start throwing things out without any consultation is a real commitment from the government to resolving the comprehensive claims involving large tracts of land and self-determination.

If the government could move on that, and then consultations could begin about 'throwing out the Indian Act'.

I think the CTF has it backwards.

[geoffrey]

Because it is the CTF, we know it is a Tom Flanagan style agenda. That means it is about "Oops sorry we got your land and resources ... come and be 'just one of us' and we might share some of it with you."

How is ol' Tommy wrong? If you studied all of his work, you'd find he offers some of the best suggestions on the issue yet. I even took a class he taught on a related issue.

The big thing that Flanagan proposed was instead of giving money to band councils, the government should give it to individual on reservation Indians and have the band councils tax them for the services they provide. That would put a drop of accountability into a broken system. Currently, these Indian chiefs run around in $80k pickup trucks and huge houses while their people suffer, and their books are unaudited. Ridiculous.

If we are going to have privledged DNA in this country, which we should, it should at least be accountable.

[jennie]

How is ol' Tommy wrong? If you studied all of his work, you'd find he offers some of the best suggestions on the issue yet. I even took a class he taught on a related issue.

The big thing that Flanagan proposed was instead of giving money to band councils, the government should give it to individual on reservation Indians and have the band councils tax them for the services they provide. That would put a drop of accountability into a broken system. Currently, these Indian chiefs run around in $80k pickup trucks and huge houses while their people suffer, and their books are unaudited. Ridiculous.

If we are going to have privledged DNA in this country, which we should, it should at least be accountable.

We have had privileged DNA is this country forever, specializing in stealing indigenous land.

I have seen auditing statements for a FN Band - on their website - so I don't know where you get your (mis)information about that.

I am not well-informed enough to comment on big trucks and houses ... well come to think of it someone did tell me that since they cannot get mortgages, they buy expensive cars, pay them off and use it as collateral for a loan to build a house. I think that may be one of the gross stereotypes that abound. Tom Flanagan could not enlighten you about that either, since he prides himself on writing aboriginal policy without ever being on a reserve.

Therein lies the problem with the way Canada always goes about making policy for indigenous people: It is written without their input or in spite of what they say, and then imposed on them, seldom addressing their real concerns or needs.

I have not yet seen one of Tom Flanagan's ideas that was geared toward independence and economic development and respect for indigenous cultures. They are all about breaking up and selling off reserve land and otherwise seeking to destroy collective rights and promote assimilation. Correct me if I am wrong on that ... I also think it is easy to sit in an ivory tower and have 'great' ideas, but if they are not feasible and cannot be implemented, they are not worth much.

Interesting idea about giving the money to the people and taxing it back. That could be done for our provincial grants to municipalities too. I wonder why it isn't if it is such a good idea?

Edited September 2, 2007 by jennie

[Pliny]

btw ... Your racist rant at me - (above) when you thought I was aboriginal ?

It offends me. Might have to put in a grievance. ya really

I don't see that my "rant" was racist. I see what I said as being inclusive and I see your view as maintaining policies of exclusivity.

When you said this I knew you weren't native.

We hardly have much to complain about, not being the ones who had to go through it. If they can go through it we can certainly hear them out and face the truth.

You complain about aboriginals not being heard and government telling them what to do. You are not aboriginal so why do you think they should listen to you? Frankly, you are, in my opinion continuing the victimhood they should relieve themselves of. It is generally not an easy choice to make to wean oneself from addiction but it means independence. That is what I advocate. You and the Canadian government seem to like to make the distinction of race. I would rather ignore it as a distinction between any man. Don't ever refer to me as racist again.

[geoffrey]

I have seen auditing statements for a FN Band - on their website - so I don't know where you get your (mis)information about that.

The Auditor General does not have access to the books of FN communities even though they are effectively spenders of government cash.

I am not well-informed enough to comment on big trucks and houses ... well come to think of it someone did tell me that since they cannot get mortgages, they buy expensive cars, pay them off and use it as collateral for a loan to build a house. I think that may be one of the gross stereotypes that abound. Tom Flanagan could not enlighten you about that either, since he prides himself on writing aboriginal policy without ever being on a reserve.

By the time someone pays off a truck, it's not worth enough to get even half the value in collateral.

Interesting idea about giving the money to the people and taxing it back. That could be done for our provincial grants to municipalities too. I wonder why it isn't if it is such a good idea?

Because then people would be too accountable. Governments don't like that (Indian or otherwise).

[jennie]

The Auditor General does not have access to the books of FN communities even though they are effectively spenders of government cash.

Well you see that's our difference of opinion right there because

... we export billion$ of resources from traditional and treaty land EVERY DAY without consultation or compensation.

The land and its resources are literally being dug up, cut down, loaded onto trains and sent south ... trains ... on tracks ... that run across their territories ... again without consultation or compensation ...

... many MANY trains ... many many times ... ALL DAY EVERY...FRIGGEN...DAY.

We are spending their money, imo, and saving some ... 8 straight federal budget surpluses, for example.

When is the last time Indian Affairs was audited? I'd like to see that first!!

Point taken, though, re auditing ... and the reports are always helpful ... if it was "government cash", that is, and what you imply by that ... but it isn't, of course: It is pathetically miniscule payment toward Canada's constitutional and treaty obligations ... Canada's outstanding legal liabilities to Indigenous Nations.

AUDITING IS DEFINITELY IN ORDER FOR THAT!!!

Know what Canada's accountants call our national debt to Indigenous Nations in the budget?

"Land claims negotiations and (a miniscule number of) settlements".

Know whose budget it appears in?

Indian Affairs ... so it's attributed to "First Nations" funding.

unhunh.

slick ... propaganda.

It is the number one request of the AFN ... to have Canada's debt to First Nations removed from their debit sheet.

And while we are at it ... a complete accounting for the treaty accounts is WAY LONG overdue.

What say you? ( )

By the time someone pays off a truck, it's not worth enough to get even half the value in collateral.

mybad ... I omitted the word "quickly" ... she said "pay it off quickly..." ... and buy a solid classic, of course, and keep it.

Because then people would be too accountable. Governments don't like that (Indian or otherwise).

So are you making my point or what?

If we are not auditable ... why would they be?

Especially when it is ... imo ... a bit of their share of resources, if you like, or a bit of the interest ... on our (growing) national debt to the Indigenous Nations.

(Note I will not say 'owing to Band Councils', or AFN as they are Canadian government.)

[Posit]

Regarding audits of FN.....Band governments are scrutinized more than any government structure - including corporations - in Canada.

When was the last time that you heard of a municipal, provincial or federal government or ministry, or any corporation being put under third party management? Yet when First Nations fall into a deficit - despite being underfunded in every area of governance, they are taken over by third party managers whom INAC pays at more than 4 times the rate that band Chiefs get paid.

[geoffrey]

... we export billion$ of resources from traditional and treaty land EVERY DAY without consultation or compensation.

Not true, if the land is successfully claimed or has reservation status, the Indians own the mineral rights.

When is the last time Indian Affairs was audited? I'd like to see that first!!

Every year at the least.

It is the number one request of the AFN ... to have Canada's debt to First Nations removed from their debit sheet.

And while we are at it ... a complete accounting for the treaty accounts is WAY LONG overdue.

What say you? ( )

mybad ... I omitted the word "quickly" ... she said "pay it off quickly..." ... and buy a solid classic, of course, and keep it.

So are you making my point or what?

If we are not auditable ... why would they be?

I'm really confused by what just happened above. What are you asking?

Especially when it is ... imo ... a bit of their share of resources, if you like, or a bit of the interest ... on our (growing) national debt to the Indigenous Nations.

(Note I will not say 'owing to Band Councils', or AFN as they are Canadian government.)

Why is there a growing debt to these early immigrants?

Regarding audits of FN.....Band governments are scrutinized more than any government structure - including corporations - in Canada.

Only if they choose to be audited by private sector firms. In which they are audited like every other corporation in Canada.

When was the last time that you heard of a municipal, provincial or federal government or ministry, or any corporation being put under third party management? Yet when First Nations fall into a deficit - despite being underfunded in every area of governance, they are taken over by third party managers whom INAC pays at more than 4 times the rate that band Chiefs get paid.

I'd like to see evidence of the pay rates of managers over Chiefs. The real income of Chiefs, not just what they report in the budget. I've never seen a starving Chief (actually quite the opposite, and they always have nice homes and trucks) but I've seen plenty of starving and abused Indians.

[jennie]

Not true, if the land is successfully claimed or has reservation status, the Indians own the mineral rights.

ABSOLUTELY!! ... which is why our governments refuse to resolve the land claims in good faith, stalling them to continue allowing plundering of the land for its resources first. ... which is why we have so many blockades and so much activism.

Think about the Algonquins: UNCEDED land ... gov has ABSOLUTELY no paperwork for that land ... ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL RIGHT TO THE MINERALS that they can produce. Gov refuses to settle (a very simple matter since the gov HAS NO CLAIM), instead the land is overrun with uranium drillers ... or it was until the Algonquins and local landowners stopped it.

This is the illegal scam currently being perpetrated against First Nations by our governments ... ALL of our governments ... and MANY FN across the country.

Why is there a growing debt to these early immigrants?

Interest tends to accumulate on debt that is not paid. For example, 145,000 pounds sterling taken from Six Nations' account to build the Welland Canal (and never returned) is now worth over $100m Cdn just in currency conversion, NOT including the lost interest and interest accruing as we speak .... billions and billions. That is a very small example ... one of the smallest of the 28 specific claims of Six Nations.

As for your snide 'early immigrants' crack, in law it makes no difference: They were here (for thousands of years), it was their land. The ONLY 'rights' we have to live here are laid out in the treaties we made with them. How are we doing at adhering to those laws? (We are NOT ... so why haven't they kicked us out long ago?)

I've never seen a starving Chief (actually quite the opposite, and they always have nice homes and trucks) but I've seen plenty of starving and abused Indians.

I have never seen a starving Canadian politician either, but I have seen plenty of starving and abused Canadian kids.

(wtf ??? You are way outta line using old-fashioned, discarded, ignorant racial stereotypes like that in supposedly 'intelligent' conversation. )

Face the facts. Debate the facts.

[Pliny]

We can take the argument further into the past, enlarge the scope somewhat, and say that the Semites appeared on earth in the middle east before any other races and we are all interlopers on their land anywhere on Earth. They were here first and all others must recompense them for the use of their land and resources. Or perhaps the Black race appeared in Africa first. All of this is their land because they were here first. Or perhaps the Chinese were the first to appear on Earth and they have precedence. Native aboriginals appeared around 11,000 years ago in North America. Sorry but the Blacks were on Earth first and you must pay them for the use of their land and resources. It is not a ridiculous premise in comparison to yours. So let's get current.

I am certain people today understand and sympathize with what occurred during the European colonization of North America, and the fact that aboriginals and aboriginal culture was oppressed is not in question or disputable. It seems that the perpetuity of those past injustices are being carried forward generation after generation but for what purpose?. Today billions of dollars annually and benefits not granted the regular Canadian citizen are distributed among aboriginals. Is this oppression? If it is then all you are asking for is further oppression. The only purpose to carry them forward is to hold the current population to ransom.

Holding people at ransom for concepts that were held four centuries ago regarding sovereignty over land is not conducive to good relations currently. Views have changed over the years and the people of most societies have become more understanding and tolerant of the differences in races and cultures.

You may argue that an attempt is being made to forget the past and thus relieve ourselves of any obligation toward the misdeeds of our forefathers. Well, they were the not the misdeeds of my forefathers. Our family has only been here for a century and I don't recall anything in our personal history that included anything like "cultural genocide". We lived by the laws of the land as it was recognized a century ago and others lived by the laws two centuries ago and others still four centuries ago. If you are saying the laws were illegitimate over all those years and you refuse to recognize them then how can I be recompensed for being lied to?

In summary, I see no oppression today of aboriginal people by the government of Canada or the non-aboriginal people of Canada. I see the opposite. A government too willing to cater to special interests and all manner of cultures, creating division, resentment and conflict in the process. If it cannot treat all people equally it cannot deliver on its primary mandate, that being justice.

And so, in your PM to me, jennie you think being "equal" is code for "we get to keep all your land and all the resource money" tells me you think in terms of we and they (there is a term for that), and your primary concern is not about culture. If it were you would be infusing as much of aboriginal culture in Canada as possible instead of portraying it as a victim of "cultural genocide' and creating a scenario that gives it that every appearance in order that your concept becomes one of self-prophesy. I really question who is using "old-fashioned, ignorant, racial stereotypes".

And in answer to the other question in your PM regarding whether I knew you were aboriginal or not. This is an anonymous forum. Can anyone be certain of what anyone says about themselves? I don't take what people say up front about themselves as gospel. Only through dialogue is anything eventually determined about another individual and it is usually quite limited. I have more certainty of incidental information, such as I quoted from you, than outright claims as to the identity of a person on an anonymous forum. I am beginning to doubt you are Irish Canadian. I do know you have a vested interest in this topic, perhaps you are married to a native person. I can guess that you do in some manner stand to benefit from the position you take. I do not stand to benefit anything in my position other than a peaceful, co-operative Nation of peoples.

[Posit]

Fact correction:

Native aboriginals appeared around 11,000 years ago in North America.

Wrong! The oldest find of human occupation of the Americas is 60,000 years with the oldest human remains found in South Carolina at 45,000 years. This represents an occupation of North America that precedes the occupation of Europe by 10,000 years.

In the scheme of things the archaeology of a place is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant in discussing the rights of settlers versus the rights of aboriginal people is who and what was here before contact. Since native people were here and occupied all of North America prior to any European expansion, we have no right or legal authority to impose our laws and customs on them. And by law we must accommodate them both in being sensitive to their Charter Rights and their pre-existing land and customs rights.

I think the Iroquois say it best in referring to the Two Row Treaty they made with the Dutch just 60 years after they arrived, and it was extended by the British and French in the same manner called the "Covenant Chain - The Treaty of Friendship and Goodwill". They say that our two cultures are like two rows - like two rivers flowing in the same direction, one contains us in our boats and the other contains them in their canoes. They say that we are not like father and son but like brothers both born of the same earth and cradled in the bosom of Nature. They also say that the treaties agreed that we would not interfere with each other's path and that one could not have one foot in either vessel without the risk of falling into the abyss between. Yet we have constantly broken that agreement and rendered it worthless it still holds some hope that we will one day remember our obligations and responsibilities.

In summary, I see no oppression today of aboriginal people by the government of Canada or the non-aboriginal people of Canada.

I understand that. But I also believe that you are either too far removed from the injustice Canada and non-aboriginal prejudice towards native people or you are deliberately ignoring the obvious. I have daily reminders of that injustice, be it in the courts or in communities without adequate safe drinking water, poor health services or woefully inadequate child care services in native communities. You say the government is doing too much? I say it isn't doing enough and have the force of comparative statistics to back it up. As a suggestion to become better informed, I would suggest reading more current events - especially that back pages where media tends to hide the shocking stories about natives.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Posit

[jennie]

The only purpose to carry them forward is to hold the current population to ransom.

I don't believe this is what it is about at all.

Ask the Landowners of Frontenac County.

For them it is about protecting the land against our governments' destructive greed, and they know only the Algonquins can help them.

It has become, on a very large scale, about the environment and human life.

http://www.thewhig.com/webapp/sitepages/co...ws&classif=

Tax revolt brewing; Mine's neighbours withholding property dues

Frank Armstrong

Local News - Friday, August 31, 2007 @ 00:00

Non-native neighbours of a proposed uranium mine north of Sharbot Lake are showing that area Algonquins aren't the only people who have resorted to civil disobedience to push for government action.

A number of North Frontenac Township residents have visited their local government office recently to tell staff they won't pay their municipal tax bills until the township council takes a stance on the prospect of the uranium mine.

...

Unlike neighbouring councils in Central Frontenac and Addington Highlands, which don't want a uranium mine in the area, North Frontenac has reserved judgment because it believes that responsibility lies with the provincial government.

"Individual councillors have expressed their opinions, but we're still maintaining it's a problem with the Mining Act, which is a provincial act," said Beam, adding that he personally doesn't want to see a uranium mine in the area.

(and yes ... the guy's name is ... Jim Beam

Edited September 4, 2007 by jennie

[Posit]

A timely reference for the discussion:

No Justice for Aboriginal People, say judges

[Pliny]

If i wanted to cite examples of injustice from the government I could cite many. Stephen Truscott is an example.

Highlighting only native injustices is discriminatory. There are many injustices in our system. What you are saying is that government cannot deliver justice. I agree. And, I believe, the reason is they grant privilege to special interests and it blinds them to what equality under the law means. Since the time our cultures first met and natives helped Europeans through cold winters, saved them from starvation and taught them how to live off the land governments have arrogantly refused to treat them as equal. The people did intermingle and would have established common communities benefiting each other but education and religion were forced upon them from authority whether they liked it or not. They obviously did not like it but were treated in that manner for centuries and kept separated from Europeans on reserves. Something that perhaps left natives behind and resisting acceptance.

There is something above race and that is humanity and perhaps something above humanity but we all must work on treating each other with respect, regardless of race, culture, religion and perhaps, once we realize that, wars will end. Of course to those that wish special treatment or privilege from an agency of force over the treatment of others will view calls for equality as a tack or ploy to "keep all the land and the money". Well, government today does not respect anyone's private property and they never have. they have no qualms about seizing bank accounts or property from citizens it criminalizes with its laws. Today 50% of all production in the country goes to government. The people see nothing wrong with this it is all justified in their minds. They get to be educated to protect themselves with car and home alarms and deadbolts and immobilizing devices which is a slap in the face to the protection they pay for. They get to pay road tolls above their taxes and have communities volunteer to look after the garbage on their streets. All of these things government said they would look after for us if we paid them to do so. Now they throw it back at us and blame us for crime by not locking our doors, they tell us we need to be responsible and look after our streets and corporations need to be socially responsible and give back to the community when in fact alot of communities owe their existence to those corporations.

So don't talk to me about government injustices to natives. The government lost the ability to deliver justice to society because it never did treat everyone equally. I think there was only one government that even considered doing so and it is almost now a nation of special interests demanding privilege and largesse - special treatment from government.

If there is anything to learn I would suggest it is something that has been forgotten and that is what George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

I do not blame government for doing what it considers it's job and favoring and protecting its citizens over non-citizens. It would be failing in it's purpose if it didn't. It's failure is in not treating it's citizens equally and consequently not being able to fairly deliver justice.

That is why if you are appealing to government today for justice I know that it is not justice that is sought. Special privilege is being sought because, and aboriginals should know it quite well, justice cannot be delivered by an agency that grants privilege and cannot see equality, because they also will equate it as code for "keeping all the land and resources". One thing though, force will beget force.