# Native protesters



## gnplummer421 (30 Oct 2006)

Was just reading a story on yahoo with reference to the OPP chief stating that it is beyond their scope, will the military step in? 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20061030/ca_pr_on_na/native_occupation

I wondered if perhaps military intervention is appropriate here. I think back on Oka, and I have to assume we learned from that and have improved our training for this type of situation, thoughts?

Gnplummer421


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2006)

All that is needed is a provincial government with a spine and some OPP ERT.


----------



## KevinB (30 Oct 2006)

I can solve it


----------



## COBRA-6 (30 Oct 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> All that is needed is a provincial government with a spine and some OPP ERT.



+1, the OPP and the Provincial government is just afraid of another Ipperwash


----------



## aesop081 (30 Oct 2006)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> +1, the OPP and the Provincial government is just afraid of another Ipperwash



....so we get to replay Oka ?


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I can solve it


Infidel-6: form your "Infidelians" and GO!  


(Said in the same manner as on that old Thunderbirds TV show in "Marionation":  "Thunderbirds are GO!")
;D


----------



## COBRA-6 (30 Oct 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> ....so we get to replay Oka ?



If the province decides they "can't handle it" then, yes, that's exactly what could happen. Under Aide to the Civil Power, the CDS *must * respond to a request from the province. 

In this case however, I think they might be trying to pass the buck to the feds  ;D


----------



## rmacqueen (30 Oct 2006)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> If the province decides they "can't handle it" then, yes, that's exactly what could happen. Under Aide to the Civil Power, the CDS *must * respond to a request from the province.



Not going to happen, election in 11 months and McGuinty won't risk that sort of voter backlash


----------



## COBRA-6 (30 Oct 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Not going to happen, election in 11 months and McGuinty won't risk that sort of voter backlash



That's why I could see him doing it, so it would no longer be _his_ problem. 

So the question is, will Ontario:

a) do nothing and hope the problem goes away (status quo)
b) sort the situation out themselves (potential Ipperwash?)
c) get the feds to clean up his mess (potential Oka?)

my guess is a


----------



## rmacqueen (30 Oct 2006)

I would go with a as well


----------



## Sig_Des (30 Oct 2006)

You mean there's other solutions than ignoring it?  

I don't see anything getting done unless somehow things escalate again.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2006)

Winter's coming.  Turn off the power and water and whatever else if no-one is paying the bills.


----------



## gnplummer421 (31 Oct 2006)

Maybe with winter setting in, interest will wane on the part of the protesters, but I think the Natives in Ipperwash were there for a long time before the Dudley incident. The protest is undoubtably gobbling up significant resources from the OPP. With the locals becoming frustrated, I wonder if there will be an escalation in violence bteween them and the protesters.

Maybe if everyone just stops paying attention, it will simply go away, but I can't see that happening. At some point diplomacy may become exhausted, and action will be required, but that is "un-Canadian" isn't it. A no-win situation?

Gnplummer421


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Oct 2006)

Since this is only a property dispute and nobody's life is currently danger, there is great value from a law enforcement perspective in letting this continue to simmer. For example, this is a great way to collect intel on the native protest movement and those who support them.  Sources of funding, tracing routes of smuggled weapons and explosives, interception of communications, studying of tactics, identifying visible and behind the scenes leadership, identifying those that hold political office and support native terrorism by supplying classified information, the list goes on and on.     

Think of this as a opportunity to learn many lessons for the purposes of dealing much better with the next big native issue in Ontario, which is just around the corner.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Oct 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Since this is only a property dispute and nobody's life is currently danger, there is great value from a law enforcement perspective in letting this continue to simmer..



Yup,....overtime.


----------



## Bigmac (31 Oct 2006)

Just like a bad movie shouldn't have a sequel, the military should stay clear of this dispute. Nobody wants to see Oka 2!


----------



## KevinB (31 Oct 2006)

The let is continue is about as hypocritical as can be.  What if I occupied a section of land and decided my Infidel posse and I where to set up shop?

OPP TRU.



This summer I was going to see if some of the guys wanted to do a roadtrip -- but apparently the OPP arrest whites driving thru...


----------



## George Wallace (31 Oct 2006)

Unfortunately, the waters are getting more and more murky.  Dalton McGuinty has now gone to the Feds for Federal money to settle a Provincial matter.  I am sure he will use the Federal involvement in Land Claims and such as a precedence, as well as all Federal support given to Reserves.


----------



## dglad (31 Oct 2006)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> That's why I could see him doing it, so it would no longer be _his_ problem.
> 
> So the question is, will Ontario:
> 
> ...



How about:

d) Continue talking and work towards a peaceful resolution of the situation while containing it from a law enforcement point of view

Oka involved heavily armed insurgents subverting the law through organized violence.  Caledonia is a long way from that, a few violent incidents notwithstanding.  There have been other blockades by aboriginal people in the province (mostly in northern Ontario) over what they perceive as unjust situations; the only difference with this one, so far, is its duration.

Military intervention isn't even close to being justified.


----------



## UberCree (2 Nov 2006)

Thank god you are not in charge.  



I find it interesting when casual uniformed observers say, "They (Native people) were conquered, they need to deal with reality!  Suck it up" etc.  Then they incessantly whine like little babies when society does something they dislike, when someone else's interests finally get air time.  
I say, suck it up.
'One law for all' - as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, which happens to support Aboriginal rights, Aboriginal claims to land, self-government etc.  You need to grasp the current reality and get with the times.  Give up your griping and move on.


----------



## Baloo (3 Nov 2006)

You could say the exact same thing about the Natives in Caledonia. There is no proof that there land was illegally taken away from them. There are government documents and treaties that prove the fact that they surrendered their regions to the federal government. Now, they want their cake and eat it, too? Of course the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the same rights as everyone else. However, this does not include making frivolous claims that cost the governments millions of dollars, disrupt local lifestyles and commerce and force standoffs with police.


----------



## cplcaldwell (3 Nov 2006)

Are we really dealing with the 'average aboriginal' in this situation?

I agree that aboriginals have a lot of beefs. I would also hasten to point out that the aboriginal community has some work to do on its side.

But, _perhap_s here, like at Oka, we are not dealing with the average person, perhaps we are dealing with a radicalized few....


----------



## dglad (3 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Are we really dealing with the 'average aboriginal' in this situation?
> 
> I agree that aboriginals have a lot of beefs. I would also hasten to point out that the aboriginal community has some work to do on its side.
> 
> But, _perhap_s here, like at Oka, we are not dealing with the average person, perhaps we are dealing with a radicalized few....



Perhaps.  But "perhaps" offers insufficient justification for proceeding with any sort of extreme action.  I certainly don't pretend to understand the legal intricacies in this case; my background is dealing with the northern Ontario Treaty Groups (Treaties 9/5, Treaty 3, Robinson-Superior and Robinson-Huron) and I have only a general understanding of those.  Certainly, there is a case to be made that, in exchange for recognition of certain rights (Treaty rights) to continue conducting various activities on the land essentially free from interference, and for and set-asides of reserve lands, aboriginal people surrendered their right to claim "ownership" of the land, so that it passed to the ownership of the Crown.  But some First Nations have taken the position that they, specifically, never signed on and are attempting to prove that; other aboriginal parties claim that it's unreasonable to bind present aboriginal people to written documents that are a century or more old, executed by ancestors that had an oral tradition and didn't normally deal in written documents.  It's extremely complex legal territory.

Which means that the Caledonia situation may be somewhat more nuanced than some on here are suggesting, and that since there has been no overt, violent opposition to the legal authorities involved, this remains a law-and-order matter.  I'm not saying that some of the protestors haven't behaved unlawfully, and they should be held fully accountable for that.  I'm also not saying that if the situation descends into something like insurrection, the involvement of the military shouldn't be considered.  But we're not there yet; "perhaps" ain't enough.  If talking can resolve this without anyone getting hurt, then that should remain the main effort.  Not until it becomes very clear another approach is required, should the province change tactics.

As for vigilanteism...well, I have no useful reply.


----------



## cplcaldwell (3 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> But "perhaps" offers insufficient justification for proceeding with any sort of extreme action.



Quite right, and I am sorry if I implied that it is time to resort to force. 

In fact, in Oka if the SQ hadn't reacted, well... let's just say hadn't reacted the way they did... at the outset there would have been no need for the CF.

My comment was more aimed at some posts that seem to imply that Aboriginals in general are _all_ cigarette smuggling, grow-op proprieting thugs. Like any society I'm sure they have their fair share but _I'll bet there's more than a few moderate aboriginal Canadians sitting around shaking their heads at those wacky Warrior Society members in Caledonia right now_...

The fact is Indians _are different_, and we 'white-eyes' are as much to blame for it as anyone else. I never much agreed with Ronald Reagan on most stuff but I wholeheartedly agreed with him when he said ' the greatest injustice ever foisted on the Native American by the White Man ... has to be the Reservation system...'

So we have a bunch of angry, dis-enfranchised, segregated young people fighting over land today... why? IMHO because it's one of the few resources we left them with...

Does that justify this action on their part... no but what's the option.. Wounded Knee... Ipperwash... ???
_(we'll talk more about Herr McGuinty...)_

I know what they're doing is Wrong and they should, when the dust settles, be tried for it...


----------



## niner domestic (3 Nov 2006)

Well piper, thank you for that stellar example of being way out of your lane and not having one iota of understanding of what First Nations people are all about or even having an inkling of what entails complex treaty negotiations are all about, not to mention your insightfulness and broad general strokes on what reserve communities are most like in appearance.  I'm sure the thousands of First nations would agree with you that they aren't Canadians but nevertheless to the detriment of life on a reserve, answered the call of service in every single conflict Canada has had.  Entire communities were emptied of their young people to fight in wars that some would consider not theirs to fight.  So, do by all means on Novmember 11th set aside these "whiner's' ancestors and pay tribute to only the good old white boys.  I do feel that any sembalance of an acknowledgement from you to these vets in any case would be hollow, meaningless words.   These very same vets are fighting for their compensation from the government for their land grants that were not given to them as were their white counterparts.  But I assume from your posturing, you would feel strongly that these men and women don't have a right to that either?  Now what you may ask has this to do with Caledonia? Sadly, a fair amount.  The Haudonsanee have a long list of greivances against the Government and the erosion of their land set aside by treaty is just one. But then If I had to wait 30 odd years for it to be dealt with, I'd lose patience too.  (oh wait, my First nation's land claim took 40 years...what ever am I talking about ?) However, you apparently lack the understnding of Haudonsanee culture and government so trying to explain why these people are so annoyed would be fruitless.  Just imagine if you can for a moment how peed off you'd be if you and your male friends signed up for a tour of duty with your allies and they took you to a foreign country and just left you there, as you were considered expendible.  Haudonsaunee men were left in South Africa after the end of the Boer war.  

I'd be more than happy to explain First nation politics, confederacies, treaties, the Indian Act and anything else you seem to be lacking in knowledge from .  My lane? I'm First Nations and I live every day of my life under the Indian Act not because I want to, but because I have the DNA that genetically links me to this piece of legislation.


----------



## cplcaldwell (3 Nov 2006)

When I was a little kid we did a field trip to downtown Ottawa.

The usual stuff, Parliament, some play the the NAC, once around the war museum...

The teacher (who was an old RCD..) decided he was going to walk us from the hill to the NAC. When we got to Confederation Square he explained the National War Memorial to us.

Apparently there is great symbology in the figures passing through the Arch. He described many of the figures and the symbology associated with the monument.

_Long Story short_, I remember him quite pointedly remarking, how the man on the right, just inside the arch was supposed to be a Aboriginal  Canadian, out of respect for their contribution to the war effort....must have been important back then...

My bit of trivia for the day...


----------



## dglad (3 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Quite right, and I am sorry if I implied that it is time to resort to force.
> 
> In fact, in Oka if the SQ hadn't reacted, well... let's just say hadn't reacted the way they did... at the outset there would have been no need for the CF.
> 
> My comment was more aimed at some posts that seem to imply that Aboriginals in general are _all_ cigarette smuggling, grow-op proprieting thugs. Like any society I'm sure they have their fair share but _I'll bet there's more than a few moderate aboriginal Canadians sitting around shaking their heads at those wacky Warrior Society members in Caledonia right now_...



Understood--and I fully agree with your last point.  Like any group in society, there are aboriginal people are good to the point of being saintly, there are those who are truly horrible human beings, and then there is the vast majority--generally decent people who want reasonably healthy, happy and rewarding lives for themselves and their families.  Sometimes, events will occur that will motivate them to take actions they believe in, even if they transgress normal behaviour and even, sometimes, if it crosses over into illegality.  Environmentalists blockade logging roads, aboriginal people occupy land they consider important, citizen groups withhold taxes, war protestors stage rallies and marches, students take over a university building to protest hikes in tuition, farmers slow traffic to a standstill on an expressway with their tractors to highlight falling crop prices.  Fortunately, we live in a society in which the first instinct in such cases is to ensure there's no threat to life or limb, and then talk.  We can, in part, thank the efforts and sacrifices of soldiers who have defended such a society from those who would simply brutally oppress dissention of any sort.

That said, the moment violence becomes the medium (or the message), then it's time to react, and react decisively.  Once the protestors start brandishing firearms and lives are placed in danger, it's time for the government to respond, with all means up to and including lethal military force, if required.  Until then, however, there's really very little to be gained and a great deal to be lost by not looking for a peaceful resolution, even if it takes some time.  And if, once it's over, some parties have suffered undue hardship--economic or otherwise--we have the courts and the justice system to redress things.


----------



## cplcaldwell (3 Nov 2006)

> Environmentalists blockade logging roads, aboriginal people occupy land they consider important, citizen groups withhold taxes, war protestors stage rallies and marches, students take over a university building to protest hikes in tuition, farmers slow traffic to a standstill on an expressway with their tractors to highlight falling crop prices.



Perspective, it's all about perspective. Thank you, Sir.


----------



## niner domestic (3 Nov 2006)

Your guide was correct: 

This soldier stands just inside the arch beside the cavalryman's horse. Outfitted as an infantryman, he might well represent one of the 3,500 native Canadians who served in the war overseas. Although no specific unit was raised and manned by native Canadians, the 114th Battalion - Brock's Rangers was raised in Haldimand County and the *Six Nations Reserve in Ontario*. Two entire companies were formed under the command of native Canadian officers. 

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=memorials/memcan/national/Memorial


----------



## Jacqueline (3 Nov 2006)

Most people believe that First Nations Chiefs did not understand the language of the European Treaty. So you can imagine the controversy surrounding that.Keeping in mind the long term psychological effects, I think that the tensions related to this(and many other) issues still survive today in subconcious actions toward these problems. A person will always find a group of_ 'rebels'_ or _'warriors'_(call it what you wanna call it), regardless of ethnicity or racial origin. Some Native people think the government has thrown down the gauntlet on them, others don't. And I think it unfair to refer to a group based on it's "representer", rather than the individuals.
   However, if innocent people are being threatened, or violated against in any way, then I think any attempt by the government to sit on the fence during this period, would be interpreted as a rebuke to it's people. On the other hand, the warriors seem to be the only ones representing their people, so government sees that a commitment may need to exist. Hence, some type of action whether it be military or not.


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Well piper, thank you for that stellar example of being way out of your lane and not having one iota of understanding of what First Nations people are all about or even having an inkling of what entails complex treaty negotiations are all about, not to mention your insightfulness and broad general strokes on what reserve communities are most like in appearance.  I'm sure the thousands of First nations would agree with you that they aren't Canadians but nevertheless to the detriment of life on a reserve, answered the call of service in every single conflict Canada has had.  Entire communities were emptied of their young people to fight in wars that some would consider not theirs to fight.  So, do by all means on Novmember 11th set aside these "whiner's' ancestors and pay tribute to only the good old white boys.  I do feel that any sembalance of an acknowledgement from you to these vets in any case would be hollow, meaningless words.   These very same vets are fighting for their compensation from the government for their land grants that were not given to them as were their white counterparts.  But I assume from your posturing, you would feel strongly that these men and women don't have a right to that either?  Now what you may ask has this to do with Caledonia? Sadly, a fair amount.  The Haudonsanee have a long list of greivances against the Government and the erosion of their land set aside by treaty is just one. But then If I had to wait 30 odd years for it to be dealt with, I'd lose patience too.  (oh wait, my First nation's land claim took 40 years...what ever am I talking about ?) However, you apparently lack the understnding of Haudonsanee culture and government so trying to explain why these people are so annoyed would be fruitless.  Just imagine if you can for a moment how peed off you'd be if you and your male friends signed up for a tour of duty with your allies and they took you to a foreign country and just left you there, as you were considered expendible.  Haudonsaunee men were left in South Africa after the end of the Boer war.
> 
> I'd be more than happy to explain First nation politics, confederacies, treaties, the Indian Act and anything else you seem to be lacking in knowledge from .  My lane? I'm First Nations and I live every day of my life under the Indian Act not because I want to, but because I have the DNA that genetically links me to this piece of legislation.



+1

And Piper, that was really bad and pretty offensive.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Nov 2006)

>My lane? I'm First Nations and I live every day of my life under the Indian Act not because I want to, but because I have the DNA that genetically links me to this piece of legislation.

I should think most people would want to overthrow racist (as in a determinant) legislation.


----------



## warrickdll (3 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> ...
> I'm First Nations and I live every day of my life under the Indian Act not because I want to, but because I have the DNA that genetically links me to this piece of legislation.




Doesn't that statement gloss over the "Status" nature of the matter (enfranchisement). As long as DNA links one person, then DNA links us all - and we are left with a Race based society.

At the heart of the problem is that what is being fought for, by some of Canada's aboriginal population, can no longer by rightfully applied. 

You cannot fight for racial segregation and cloak it with self-government, or justify it by old treaties. Peel back the years and you'll find all sorts of laws and documents that cannot be enforced today because our rights as People no longer allow for it. 


_Edit: Added the word "of"_


----------



## niner domestic (3 Nov 2006)

Brad: I'm hazarding a guess you have completely missed the commission and standing committee renderings on amending the Indian Act? Not once but gee...1960 (that allowed FN to leave the reserves and not be enfranchised, hire legal counsel for land claims, drink alcohol and not be criminalized for being in possession of it and oh yes... VOTE in provincial an federal elections (all done to come in line with the 1960 Bill of Rights), in 1985 (Charter implications nessitated an amendment) - where it restored the enfranchisee to having status and treaty rights and stopped non-native marriage partners from gaining status and again in 2001 to further amend the Act - but the jury is still out on that one.

Itertor: Do you have any idea of what you are talking about and if you do, does it come with a translation? Enfranchisement means to give up ones status voluntarily (or in the case of my grandmothers, they lost theirs when they had the audacity to go to university.  My grandfather lost his by merely joining the military and my mother lost her for joining the mounties.  I lost mine for the triple whammy of marrying a white guy, joining the military and having the nerve to get a university degree all before 1985).  Read and understand the Indian Act before you make one more comment.   

And in R. v Guerin, the Supreme Court made a finding that aboriginal rights have a strict threshold to pass before they are considered extinguished.  So your " heart of the problem" argument would only bear out if you could prove that the rights have been extinguished. So far, the courts have found not many rights have been in fact extinguished.  I'd be reading the Marshall case to see that even now, bundles of treaty rights are being declared still in full force and effect.    

And one last thing, in my entire career I have had to deal with persons such as yourself either questioning my loyalty to Canada simply because I have a card issued by the Canadian Government that sets me apart genetically from anyone else and therefore not a "good enough Canadian" or questionable in terms of who's side I would take in another Oka like conflict.   In 19 years, 11 months and 3 days of my Canadian service time and the 3 years, 2 months and 9 days of my British service time, I never once gave rise to the need to have my loyalty questioned by my superiors - just persons like you.  I have had to deal with persons such as yourself question the amount of "Indianess" I possess when I step outside of what you perceive to be the appropriate stereotype. If I am perceived to me too smart, then I'm not Indian enough, if I gain access to one of your bastions of education then I only got in because of a lowering of a criteria or a quota and heavens it wouldn't dare be because I was smart enough.  I am getting rather tired of headupbuttistis attitude from the mainstream population.   When you have read, asked, learned, watched, considered  all matters regarding First nations, then you can spout off on a web site as a knowledgable person.  As Kincanucks likes to say, "Stay in your lane".


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Nov 2006)

>When you have read, asked, learned, watched, considered  all matters regarding First nations

I'm not sure to whom exactly you wanted to address the last couple of paragraphs, but I'm all for granting separate nation status to people who truly want to form a separate nation - Quebeckers, Newfoundlanders, Albertans, aboriginals, whoever - if it's that important to their sense of culture.  I mean separate in the way that, say, Chile is separate from Bangladesh.  An argument can be made that maybe it could be separate in the way that Cayman Islands is separate from the UK, or Puerto Rico from the US, but I'm not personally interested in paying taxes to support a directional flow of revenues.  Otherwise, it's my view to sweep the deck clean and place everyone on the same footing.  I'm therefore indifferent to what the courts have to say if the result is to grant differential privileges and responsibilities, because in my view the courts have then ceased to be an instrument of justice (in its literal, not politically invented, meaning)*.  I merely accept the fact that the rules are that way right now, and that people are manoeuvring within the law as it stands to gain whatever they seek as an advantage.  The simple term is "rent-seeking".  They seek incremental changes and want to educate me on the nuances of the increments; I am interested in transformational change which renders the incremental nuances an irrelevant artifact of history.

From time to time I am presented with a fact which might either fall into the "advantage" column or "mistreatment" column with respect to aboriginals.  Regardless on which side it falls, I consider it one more piece of evidence lending weight to the quest for one status of citizenship in Canada.  If I really dislike whatever disadvantage I might find myself at, I am presumably free to relocate myself or take steps to remove myself from any onerous and unequal obligation which violates my essential human liberties (eg. quit working and live in poverty).  I suspect that in reality I will tolerate a substantial amount of "differential".

*Common objection: you mean, Brad, that you will ignore the law whenever it suits you?  My response: use common sense and pay attention to the criteria: equality versus inequality.  It matters.  Government exists to arbitrate between persons, and the law is not merely a game of rules to which a rational person should surrender his autonomy.  The law is not an end unto itself.


----------



## warrickdll (3 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> ...
> I'd be more than happy to explain First nation politics, confederacies, treaties, the Indian Act and anything else you seem to be lacking in knowledge from .  My lane? I'm First Nations and I live every day of my life under the Indian Act not because I want to, but because I have the DNA that genetically links me to this piece of legislation.





			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Doesn't that statement gloss over the "Status" nature _of_ the matter (enfranchisement). As long as DNA links one person, then DNA links us all - and we are left with a Race based society.
> ...





			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> ...
> Itertor: Do you have any idea of what you are talking about and if you do, does it come with a translation? Enfranchisement means to give up ones status voluntarily (or in the case of my grandmothers, they lost theirs when they had the audacity to go to university.  My grandfather lost his by merely joining the military and my mother lost her for joining the mounties.  I lost mine for the triple whammy of marrying a white guy, joining the military and having the nerve to get a university degree all before 1985.  Read and understand the Indian Act before you make one more comment.
> ...




Someone being "Status" or not (by enfranchisement) is extremely important when you bring the discussion to this point: "...I live every day of my life under the Indian Act not because I want to, but because I have the DNA that genetically links me to this piece of legislation. ...". And your other statements make that even more clear "...I lost mine...".






			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> ...
> At the heart of the problem is that what is being fought for, by some of Canada's aboriginal population, can no longer by rightfully applied.
> ...





			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> ...
> And in R. v Guerin, the Supreme Court made a finding that aboriginal rights have a strict threshold to pass before they are considered extinguished.  So you" heart of the problem" argument would only bear out if you could prove that the rights have been extinguished. So far, the courts have found not many rights have been in fact extinguished.  I'd be reading the Marshall case to see that even now, bundles of treaty rights are being declared still in full force and effect.
> ...



How the courts handle "aboriginal rights" and racial equality is where I believe the problem will become increasingly apparent. I do not believe that there is a "Just" way to allow for Canadians to have separate rights based on their race. 








			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> ...
> And one last thing, in my entire career I have had to deal with persons such as yourself either questioning my loyalty to Canada simply because I have a card issued by the Canadian Government that sets me apart genetically from anyone else and therefore not a "good enough Canadian" or questionable in terms of who's side I would take in another Oka like conflict.   In 19 years, 11 months and 3 days of my Canadian service time and the 3 years, 2 months and 9 days of my British service time, I never once gave rise to the need to have my loyalty questioned by my superiors just persons like you.  I have had to deal with persons such as yourself question the amount of "Indianess" I possess when I step outside of what you perceive to be the appropriate stereotype. If i am perceived to me too smart, then I'm not Indian enough, if I gain access to one of your bastions of education then I only got in because of a lowering of a criteria or a quota and heavens it wouldn't dare be because I was smart enough.  I am getting rather tired of headupbuttistis attitude from the mainstream population.   When you have read, asked, learned, watched, considered  all matters regarding First nations, then you can spout off on a web site as a know ledgable person.  As Kincanucks likes to say, "Stay in your lane".




An online rant always ends up looking like someone has popped smoke. Explain how this will not end in racial segregation; perhaps I am not seeing how this will all work out from your point of view.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (3 Nov 2006)

Niner Dem,

    You have some strong points but I'm still at a loss how all that equals justice today. A few questions since you appear to be very well versed with the Act.

1. Do the Indian treaties that came from the French king stand equal to the English treaties to the English confederacy bands? If they don't I would argue they are null and void since that side lost, given that should we not treat them different.

2. On the DNA issue.....I have Iroquois DNA in me, does that make me Native or how much lane am I entitled to ramble down as a blue eyed white guy.


----------



## niner domestic (3 Nov 2006)

3rd: That is one area that has and is being argued in the courts with respect to pre-confederation treaties.  In 1763, when the Royal Proclamation was brought into full force and effect and thus granting by legal fiction, all lands in the colonies of Canada/Acadia to the British crown's ownership (with or without signed treaties - hence the term Crown land) The premise for the RP was the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht  between the Brits and French incorporating settlements to the question of land rights in the"new world" - however, there seems to be an oversight in affording a clear flow of land entitlement to the Brit crown as the French had not granted themselves title to First Nations lands.  By law, the French it is argued had no rights to settle land disputes or hand over/grant title to new world lands to the Brits.  So the question nowadays is whether the massive land grab in the pre-confed era was legitimate. The courts will have to decide especially in the cases where there is no clear treaty/land succession documentation.  In the Marshall case, where the bundle of rights were found in a Peace treaty as opposed to a land treaty, uses the RP as a premise of defined intention of the Crown to ensure the land use and resource rights were maintained.  Therefore those particular rights can not be extinguished.  It's a whole other game when it comes to post confederation treaties.  But interestingly, when the RP was first examined to glean what inherent rights were established, it was soon discovered that BC FN were not included in the RP and had no treaties and therefore, legally had not ceded their land/or rights.  Hence the massive legal rush to get treaties signed off in BC.  

There is only a handful of treaties that have been found to have completely extinguished any aboriginal rights - but those are more peace treaties rather than land treaties.  As an aside, only a treaty can set aside any land and/or inherent right to utilize the resources.  Most Canadians are under the impression that it's the Indian Act that does it.  All that the IA can do with respect to land is afford an expansion of reserve territory not create a new one IIRC, it's section 88 that sets that aside.  

Where the issues arise with the Six nations and Ipperwash is the erosion of reserve territory by provincial and or federal acts that appropriate the land without fair compensation.  (ie the land grab for the railway, veteran settlement grants, hydro easements etc).  Most Canadians are under the impression that in a land dispute it's about the land being returned, (I can only think of 3 such cases) which scares most people into fearing they will lose their homes etc.  What the premise for the claims are is to be compensated fairly for the loss of the land use (as anyone else would be entitled to if their land was illegally appropriated or trespassed upon).  These claims are taking up to 30 years to resolve.  

As for your level of DNA, you'd have to discuss your blood quantum with INAC as they are the ones that set the rules and define who is an Indian (keep in mind that in and of itself changes when ever it appears that too many inherent rights are coming up trump and it's going to cost (as seen in the aftermath of Bill C31 and on reserve housing). But if I were you, I'd take my chances with the Clan mothers for them to give you the nod.  With the Haudonsaunee, it's all about who your mother is that gives you your place as opposed to INAC that goes strictly by who your father is.  Here's your first lesson in Haudonsaunee, ( that simply means the people - Iroquois is a misnomer as is most of the FN's names).  Now with Bill C-31, your blood quantum is going to play an important factor as INAC could not decide how to actually administer the re-instating of status at the Band level for band membership and left it up to the individual bands.  Some bands went with 2 parent descent, while others went with 50/50 blood quantum and yet others like Six Nations, left it undefined.  How that tumbles down is depending on what category your re-installation falls under will depend on How many more generations status can be passed down.  For example, a woman who is a 2b, can only pass status to her child but not her grandchildren.  A 2a man can pass down to his grandchildren.  But if a 2b marries another 2b then status passes to grandchildren, a 2 a  who marries a 2b, status ends with the child of that union and goes no further.  

Prior to 1985, if a FN woman married a non FN, she lost status, if anyone joined the military, went to university, or joined the clergy, or enfranchised themselves voluntarily, they lost status and under Bill C31 those people could only gain back a 2b status.  Only those who never lost status remain a 2 a who can pass status on forever.


----------



## rmacqueen (4 Nov 2006)

Reading over this thread it strikes me how much wrong information there is, information people are basing their responses on 



			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> "They (Native people) were conquered, they need to deal with reality!  Suck it up" etc.



IIRC, none of the First Nations in Canada were conquered.  Unlike the US, the various governments in Canada over the centuries negotiated with the First Nations rather than going to war with them.  In the case of the Six Nations reserve, the area was given to them in 1784 by the British for native support in defending Canada from Americans during the revolution.  Initially they were granted 385,000 hectares but over the centuries this has been reduced to 19,000 hectares



			
				Baloo said:
			
		

> There is no proof that there land was illegally taken away from them. There are government documents and treaties that prove the fact that they surrendered their regions to the federal government.


This assertion has yet to be challenged in court and, even though the government says it exists, no one has actually seen the "proof"



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> I didn't see any active interest, a la an occupation, until new houses (hmm new grow op locations?) sprang up on that land



In reality, Six Nations legally filed a challenge to that land in 1995.  The reason for the actual occupation is the fact that the legal claim to that land has yet to be addressed.  Currently, in Ontario, unresolved claims under negotiation have been ongoing for, on average, 18.5 years.  This number does not include claims that have yet to reach the negotiation stage.  In the last 5 years, Ontario has settled 4 land claims while 21 new ones have been filed against the province.  IIRC, there are over 800 land claims in Canada with an average of 12-16 being settled every year.  You do the math as to how long it will take to settle them all.



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> I guarantee you, if it had been a bunch of white folks taking over some native land....you can imagine the public outcry, what the 'warriors' would have done and how the OPP would have assisted those 'warriors' in quickly and decisivly ejecting those white folk from the land.



I can also guarantee you that if it had been a bunch of "white folks" who had filed a legal claim to the land, the province would not have granted title and building permits until the claim was settled.  The fact that they went ahead and approved the development knowing there was a legal challenge against the ownership of the land shows a distinct disregard for native rights.  One could even suspect discrimination.

As for self-government and comments about deciding to live in poverty by staying on a reserve, how many whites would be willing to walk away from their ancestral land?  We would fight tooth and nail to keep houses and property that our parents had given us.  The advantage is that, as non-aboriginals we can get bank loans, mortgages, investors, etc. but someone living on the reserve does not have assess to these sort of things.  Until they walk away from the reserve and somehow manage to get a job then no institution will even consider a native to be a viable risk.  The background that non-natives take for granted to give us access to these sort of institutions, the ones we depend on to help improve our lot in life, are denied natives by the very nature of the system.  The same with self-government, your average village has more legal power than the governing council on a reserve.  A reserve has to get federal approval to even install a stop sign on a reserve.

Before we complain about the rights of natives in this country, we need to understand the rights that are denied to them.


----------



## Jacqueline (4 Nov 2006)

> Before we complain about the rights of natives in this country, we need to understand the rights that are denied to them.




+1


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2006)

Thats easy, *gavel drops*...reserves are now passé.   Sell and buy/develop as you wish.

Problem solved......darn, I should be running things.


----------



## UberCree (4 Nov 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Thats easy, *gavel drops*...reserves are now passé.   Sell and buy/develop as you wish.
> 
> Problem solved......darn, I should be running things.


Who owns it?  The community, individuals, families?
What about all of the land currently under claim?

They did this once in the states and because of the economic status of some of the reservations they immediately sold off most of their land to maintain an operating budget.  Some of the communities there ended up worse off.  

I think if there were an easy answer it would have been stumbled upon by now.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> They did this once in the states and because of the economic status of some of the reservations they immediately sold off most of their land to maintain an operating budget.  Some of the communities there ended up worse off.



Gee, just like most land owners [read farmers] have been doing for years?      Maybe its time to take off the training wheels.....


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2006)

This is going back to the first post, while Comish Fantino did say the OPP would not get involved in policy making decisions, he did say however, that he expects everyone in the OPP to enforce the law and not play favourites.  As it stand now, the province owns the land now, and is content with letting the natives stay on it. We are just going to have to wait and see for now.


----------



## niner domestic (4 Nov 2006)

But Uber,   don't you know, according to the anthropologists, politicians and do-gooders from the 1930's Museum Period, First Nations were never intended to survive as a people past 1960.  Forty years after that stunning policy failure the mainstream population has no clue how to "deal with us".  

Bruce, selling privately held land such as a farm is no where near the same as selling off tracts of reserve territory set out in Treaty and ratified in legislation.  Creating a reserve unlike creating a farm, is just as complicated and requires both a Treaty and ratification in legislation.  And as for the training wheels comment, can you be anymore paternalistic?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2006)

Yup, I can,.......its time to take off the training wheels and let those who want to stand, stand and those who want to.......

and I know how to "deal with you" just fine. Stick your racist assumptions anytime you wish.


----------



## cplcaldwell (4 Nov 2006)

But as I read through this it seems there are two kinds of aboriginals 1. 

The ones who decide to be enfranchised 2, get an education, serve in the military,... a bunch of other things... or marry someone who belongs to one of these (aforementioned) groups AND those who don't.

So the question could be ...

Is the Indian Act (and the rights, including Reserved Land) there as a 'backstop' to protect individuals (who have a birthright and ..) who wish to live in a relatively parochial world, that 'backstop' ceasing for folks who wish to step out into the 'big bad world' 

*OR*

Is it a birthright to be claimed by anybody, no matter what they, or their mothers or fathers (or apparently, their grandparents) have done in their lives based on some quotient of DNA....




1 I know that's the grossest of generalizations, bear with me...
2 I'm real ignorant, does this mean 'vote'?


----------



## Jacqueline (4 Nov 2006)

This is almost similar to the 1915 Hussein-McMahon correspondence issue.

To this day, Britain and the Arabs disagree as to whether or not Palestine was included within the area of Arab independence acknowledged by the McMahon corerspondence.


----------



## cplcaldwell (4 Nov 2006)

Kind of...

I think that the 'whites' (including myself) take the Royal Proclamation as a baseline...it established the suzerainty of the Crown over all British North American lands. Thus it is an absolutism, _not quite_ the discussion of two crowns implied by Hussein-McMahon...IMHO...

What I wanted to get at was whether the purpose of The Reserve is a kind of a Homeland or is it a kind of a transitional territory, designed to protect and empower Aboriginals until, someday, they all became members of 'society'....

_(I don't want to inflame here, I just want to get ideas)_


----------



## Jacqueline (4 Nov 2006)

To the best of my knowledge, it's used as a Homeland. As a half Inuit, half something else girl, I grew up in the aboriginal community and I know that most First Nations kids around my age go there during the summer as a getaway/vacation type thing, but not quite.


----------



## cplcaldwell (4 Nov 2006)

But the Inuit are different, in this regard, somewhat like BC tribes, are they not? 

Outside the purview of the Royal Proclamation of 1763..

Thus we have, rightfully so (IMHO), Nunavut...

But,_ having said that_, even if "it's used as a Homeland", is that what it was meant to be? What did the framers of the Indian Act want? What did the Chiefs/Elders think they were signing?

And because of that (i.e "it's a Homeland") why are those folks on the barricades at Caledonia tonight? And why are there a bunch of crackers out there ready to rush those barricades?


----------



## UberCree (4 Nov 2006)

There are a few things I know about Aboriginal issues in Canada.  One of them is that assimilation, specifically forced assimilation will not work.  We've been down that road before and our communities are still suffering the ill effects.  
IMHO, total and complete sovereignty (as espoused by many Native activists) will not work either.   It is as naive and unrealistic as assimilation.

I am an advocate of the 'citizen plus' model. 

Regarding the Indian Act.  One grand chief explained our relationship with the Indian Act better than I could.  Native people both love and hate the Indian Act.  It is the only thing that defines us and our role in the Canadian constitution, yet the definition is based on a paternalistic (bruce like) relationship.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Regarding the Indian Act.  One grand chief explained our relationship with the Indian Act better than I could.  Native people both love and hate the Indian Act.  It is the only thing that defines us and our role in the Canadian constitution, yet the definition is based on a paternalistic (bruce like) relationship.



Maybe thats where we don't see eye to eye........your version of "us". See to me, I'm not 'white', I'm Bruce, you are not 'native', you are Ubercree.  YOU, and your children ARE YOUR role in the Canadian constitution,  just as I and my children are.   Together, as one...........



			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> I am an advocate of the 'citizen plus' model.



Do I really want to know??


----------



## cplcaldwell (4 Nov 2006)

Re Forced Assimilation: Quite Concur. We've been there and have to find something more reasonable.

The Soverignty Model is a complete non starter...

But what is the "Citizen Plus" model?

I think your Grand Chief summed it up nicely... (Still not a durable solution for any of us Canadians though is it??)

Finally, if I take your 'bruce like relationship' quip correctly, I would put a finer point on it, I don't want to be Christoff to your Truman... so why are we stuck with this shite plot???


----------



## niner domestic (5 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> But as I read through this it seems there are two kinds of aboriginals 1.
> 
> The Constitution, as also the Charter, lays out the following groups as recognizable Aboriginal:  Status (on or off reserve), Metis and Inuit.
> 
> ...



Among a number of things, voting in Fed elections was the golden carrot of enfranchising.


----------



## Klc (5 Nov 2006)

A thought comes to mind. This is something I have wondered for a long time about why things are as they are in regards to legislation. That is, what is the overall idea behind why we continue to have anything at all in government based on race - that is why there is any legislation that is at all based on bloodline. It just seems odd, as it could be seen as discriminatory in a sense. Why is someone born into any privileges different then anybody else?  

Is it because of Convention, A continuation of past practice? Restitution, or is it perhaps Situational - that is, is it because no other solution is acceptable? the situation warrents it. Or something completely different? (much more likely then my half brained thoughts. Likely a combination of things)

I normally wouldn't wade into a conversation such as this, especially asking questions off of topic. I only do because I have never had a chance to discuss this with people who are passionate about the issue. As much as I learned about it in high school, there was a serious lack of intelligent conversation.

(Be kind, I burn easily,  ;D)


----------



## dglad (5 Nov 2006)

Klc said:
			
		

> A thought comes to mind. This is something I have wondered for a long time about why things are as they are in regards to legislation. That is, what is the overall idea behind why we continue to have anything at all in government based on race - that is why there is any legislation that is at all based on bloodline. It just seems odd, as it could be seen as discriminatory in a sense. Why is someone born into any privileges different then anybody else?
> 
> Is it because of Convention, A continuation of past practice? Restitution, or is it perhaps Situational - that is, is it because no other solution is acceptable? the situation warrents it. Or something completely different? (much more likely then my half brained thoughts. Likely a combination of things)
> 
> ...



Part 2 (that is, Section 35) of the Constitution deals with the rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada.  In particular, subsection 1 says:

_The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed._

Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have detailed and clarified what this means.  The Court has recognized that the aboriginal peoples of Canada lived here long before the arrival of Europeans and used the land and its resources (fish, game, some forest resources mainly) in a particular way, to maintain a "traditional" lifestyle.  This results in certain "aboriginal rights".  "Treaty rights" are just what they sound like...rights derived from various treaties concluded with aboriginal groups across the country.

So, the easy answer to your question is that it's the law of the land that aboriginal people be afforded certain rights that others are not (for example, the right to hunt "out of season", because doing so supports their traditional lifestyle).  More generally, the principle is that "aboriginal people were here first", so rights related to the lifestyle they already practiced at the time of European arrival should be respected.

Now, whether you AGREE with this or not is another matter, but that's the reason we recognize aboriginal people as a distinct group in the Constitution, with certain, distinct rights.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Nov 2006)

>how many whites would be willing to walk away from their ancestral land?

Many, unless you consider the entirety of Europe and the US/Canada to be the "ancestral land".  That illustrates two long-range problems.  Determination of "status" will either become even more politicized than it is now due to intercultural marriages or else "status" will cease to be meaningful/sustainable, and I expect reserve villages in remote areas to become ghost towns unless people are paid to live there (and even that may not be enough).


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have detailed,  and clarified, invented and fictionalized  what this means.  The Court has recognized that the aboriginal peoples of Canada lived here long before the arrival of Europeans and used the land and its resources (fish, game, some forest resources mainly) in a particular way, to maintain a "traditional" lifestyle.  This results in certain "aboriginal rights".  "Treaty rights" are just what they sound like...rights derived from various treaties concluded with aboriginal groups across the country.



A good answer. Note further clarification


----------



## dglad (6 Nov 2006)

If that's what you choose to believe.  I don't pretend to be a legal expert when it comes to understanding in detail the decisions of the Supreme Court such as Sparrow, Delgamuukw and so on, but I do use them in my day job for broad guidance on how to deal with aboriginal peoples and their issues.  Like them or not, they are the law of the land.


----------



## niner domestic (6 Nov 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Determination of "status" will either become even more politicized than it is now due to intercultural marriages or else "status" will cease to be meaningful/sustainable, and I expect reserve villages in remote areas to become ghost towns unless people are paid to live there (and even that may not be enough).



Brad: Hate to break it to you but the issue of status is a done deal thanks to Bill C31.  Intercultural marriage cannot aborgate or derogate status. As of 1987, the politics are a non-contender when all FN Bands decided their membership criteria. Your naysaying is about 15 years behind the hot Aboriginal issues of the day.     

I happen to come from a remote FN village and since it's been there for oh...5000 years and I suspect it'll last a few more generations but thanks for your concern.  Sheesh first, third world monikers now ghost towns, is there anything else some of you fellows would like to predict? Alien invasions? Bob Rae becoming PM? The Leafs winning the Stanley Cup this century?


----------



## rmacqueen (6 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> The Leafs winning the Stanley Cup this century?



Now, now, let's not get too ridiculous ;D


----------



## warrickdll (6 Nov 2006)

Racial inequality, and the Laws apparent need to define us by race, are increasingly becoming hot-button issues for Canadians of non-aboriginal descent. 

There is no room in a Free and Fair society for Citizen++ (especially by birth). And neither is there a place in Canadian culture for race-based governance. The Constitution mucks this up, but this will be corrected with a bit more work by those opposed to racial segregation. 

The human desire to act in a tribalistic fashion is strong, but cultures such as Canada's have managed to fight against it - and flourish. While there are valid concerns regarding language, cultural continuance, and even compensation, none of this needs to be solved by racism. 


Previously the courts were used to favour men over women, whites over non-whites, and this all changed - the courts will have to see that there cannot be laws that favour aboriginals over non-aboriginals. The courts cannot continue to be used to prop up bigotry and greed.


For the Native protesters in Caledonia, or any other aboriginal protest over the last couple of decades, whatever points I might agree on are lost because part of their cause is to maintain a form of Canadian apartheid.

If all treaties and grievances were settled by the government today would that end segregation (or its cover story - band membership)? No. So why should the government entrench a system that Canadians oppose and find fundamentally evil?


For myself, I find the history useful, but everything boils down to "what are we trying to achieve?". The whole process has been slow, but there is no need to rush to a bad conclusion. We should all receive real answers as to what this means to Canada, and being Canadian, before we allow further negotiations to continue.


----------



## dglad (6 Nov 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> There is no room in a Free and Fair society for Citizen++ (especially by birth). And neither is there a place in Canadian culture for race-based governance. The Constitution mucks this up, but this will be corrected with a bit more work by those opposed to racial segregation.



Just like Quebec signing on to the Constitution was addressed by a "bit more work" by those who wanted the province inside Confederation?  Oh, wait a minute....

I think you're being a little optimistic.  The Constitution does much more than "mucking things up".  It is the fundamental, overriding law of the land, and changing it is (as Meech and Charlottetown demonstrated) a hercluean task with no guarantee of success.  As long as Part II of the Constitution codifies aboriginal and treaty rights, and successive Supreme Court decisions have only solidified them, they remain entrenched in law.  Morever, there's no indication of any trend towards reversal.  Aboriginal people are Canada's fastest-growing demographic (source - INAC data from 2003), so it would behoove us as a nation to begin serious consideration as how to address these above facts, in combination with the fact that aboriginal people are generally at a severe socio-economic disadvantage compared to the general population (source - Caledon Institute Report, "Aboriginal People and Post-Secondary Education in Canada", 2006).  Waving the issue off as a vague racial thing, that will be solved by some future Constitutional tinkering and a pervasive reversal in the thinking of our courts may sound good, but it doesn't have much basis in reality.


----------



## Jacqueline (6 Nov 2006)

> author=Iterator link=topic=52597/post-475888#msg475888 date=1162834024
> Previously the courts were used to favour men over women, whites over non-whites, and this all changed - the courts will have to see that there cannot be laws that favour aboriginals over non-aboriginals. The courts cannot continue to be used to prop up bigotry and greed




I'm curious... which laws favour aboriginal people over non-aboriginal people?


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Nov 2006)

>Brad: Hate to break it to you but the issue of status is a done deal thanks to Bill C31.  Intercultural marriage cannot aborgate or derogate status. As of 1987, the politics are a non-contender when all FN Bands decided their membership criteria. Your naysaying is about 15 years behind the hot Aboriginal issues of the day.

Hate to break it to you, but I'm not looking into the past or the immediate future.  I'm looking ahead a couple or few generations.  Do I misunderstand the critics of C-31 in that two successive generations of extramarriage (ie. one parent not registered or registerable under the act) disqualifies descendents from status, leaving it ultimately up to individual bands to decide who will and will not be qualified to exercise aboriginal and treaty rights?  If so, what irrevocable limitations are there as to who a band can and can not include on its list?  I predict that there will be people who can claim aboriginal descendancy (a simple matter of documenting a family tree), wish to identify as aboriginal and to claim both status and membership, and will be denied on the basis of rules.  That is a recipe for increased politicization.  I also predict that as time rolls on, they will outnumber the pure laine as defined by either the Act or individual bands.  A majority should be expected to eventually have its way.  Wildlife and resource management issues are going to be entirely different when every third or fourth person in some regions is free to exercise aboriginal and treaty rights; when governments step in to deal with the resultant crises, there will be further politicization.

>since it's been there for oh...5000 years and I suspect it'll last a few more generations but thanks for your concern.  Sheesh first, third world monikers now ghost towns, is there anything else some of you fellows would like to predict?

What's important isn't the span of time, but the rate of social and technological change over time.  I suppose you must recognize that for most of those 5000 years, there were very few disruptive changes.  Instead consider the sustainability and survival of villages and settlements since 1600.  Which communities don't you think would disappear if the money to support life with a modicum of modern conveniences (housing, heating, plumbing, electricity, transportation) were not provided by external sources?  Who do you anticipate will remain to preserve the blood true?

I've visited one of my "ancestral homelands" in northern Norway.  The old family farms (from my grandparents' generation) outlying the townships are deserted and used only as vacation properties by the subsequent generations, if at all.  The smallest of the communities still exist in part because of government injections of money, but more importantly because people are free to come as well as go and the newcomers will be equal members of the community.  Otherwise, I would expect newcomers to be fewer and the net outflow of the succeeding generations to the larger urban centres to be the eventual demise of the small settlements which existed for centuries past.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Nov 2006)

>It is the fundamental, overriding law of the land, and changing it is (as Meech and Charlottetown demonstrated) a hercluean task with no guarantee of success.

"It" (whatever happens to be the fundamental, overriding law of the land at any particular time) only seems to be immovable over the short span.  Consider the number of fundamental changes over 200 years in Canada, the US, and any European country.  It is a peculiar conceit that people believe we have stumbled across the very model of stable governance for generations to come.


----------



## dglad (6 Nov 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >It is the fundamental, overriding law of the land, and changing it is (as Meech and Charlottetown demonstrated) a hercluean task with no guarantee of success.
> 
> "It" (whatever happens to be the fundamental, overriding law of the land at any particular time) only seems to be immovable over the short span.  Consider the number of fundamental changes over 200 years in Canada, the US, and any European country.  It is a peculiar conceit that people believe we have stumbled across the very model of stable governance for generations to come.



I don't recall stating that our current Constitutional framework was "the very model of stable governance".  For example, our Constitution still has a gaping hole with respect to Quebec.  And, indeed, it's open to amendment, as shown by the US example.  However:

a) postulating some future change is an interesting thought experiment, but that's about it (someday, the Taliban will no longer exist, but even as a truism that's not very useful for us in Afghanistan today or in the near future); and
b) there are simply no indications that the trend by government or the judiciary towards recognizing the inherent and treaty rights of aboriginals is going to be reversed, no matter how much you may wish it so.  Each Supreme Court decision that builds on the Constitution and previous decisions just solidifies the situation.

So, this being the case, one can actually work to cause the situation to  change in some meaningful way (how, I'm not sure, but then I'm not taking on that task) and/or work to accommodate the current situation.  Feel free to pursue the former; in the meantime, a very practical approach is to study the court decisions and determine how they can be implemented.  That's exactly what's happening in BC, Alberta and Ontario, in terms of the "duty to consult" when government activities may impact on treaty or aboriginal rights.


----------



## warrickdll (6 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> ...
> a) postulating some future change is an interesting thought experiment, but that's about it (someday, the Taliban will no longer exist, but even as a truism that's not very useful for us in Afghanistan today or in the near future); and
> b) there are simply no indications that the trend by government or the judiciary towards recognizing the inherent and treaty rights of aboriginals is going to be reversed, no matter how much you may wish it so.  Each Supreme Court decision that builds on the Constitution and previous decisions just solidifies the situation.
> ...



I somewhat agree, however there does appear to be increasing unrest within the non-aboriginal community as more people become affected by the policies of segregation. As more urban treaty resolutions begin to be negotiated I believe that the favouritism towards Canadians of aboriginal descent will become more evident and contested. 

If the courts or the constitution allow for one group of Canadians to be Above the Law, the rest will eventually notice the imbalance in the system. The non-aboriginal protesters at Caledonia are a natural result of this injustice. As that discontent increases, so will the need to avoid conflict.




			
				dglad said:
			
		

> ...
> So, this being the case, one can actually work to cause the situation to  change in some meaningful way (how, I'm not sure, but then I'm not taking on that task) and/or work to accommodate the current situation.  Feel free to pursue the former; in the meantime, a very practical approach is to study the court decisions and determine how they can be implemented.  That's exactly what's happening in BC, Alberta and Ontario, in terms of the "duty to consult" when government activities may impact on treaty or aboriginal rights.



While "duty to consult" does allow for economic activity to continue without needlessly aggravating the treaty process, it doesn't actually solve anything. 

The best approach is to mobilize the government to find solutions that will not end in racial segregation. To open the process up so that there can be a full understanding of the End State; of what we want Canada to be Post-Treaty and Post-Indian Act. There is no point in blindly going from one resolution to the next.






			
				Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> I'm curious... which laws favour aboriginal people over non-aboriginal people?



Any continuing laws, treaties, or agreements that give rights or benefits to an aboriginal Canadian that are not the same as those for a non-aboriginal Canadian.


----------



## UberCree (6 Nov 2006)

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 "recognizes and affirms" the "existing" aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada. These aboriginal rights protect the activities, practice, or traditions that are integral to the distinctive culture of the aboriginal peoples. The treaty rights protect and enforce agreements in between the crown and the aboriginal peoples. Section 35 also provides protection of aboriginal title which protects the use of land for traditional practices. These rights extend to people who make up the Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples.

Other sections of the Constitution Act, 1982 that address aboriginal rights include section 25 of the Charter and section 35.1, which sets expectations for aboriginal participation in the amendment of relevant constitutional provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act%2C_1982#Aboriginal_Rights_clause



R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 
Date:May 31, 1990 
Docket: 20311 


....Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, at the least, provides a solid constitutional base upon which subsequent negotiations can take place and affords aboriginal peoples constitutional protection against provincial legislative power.
..Section 35(1) is to be construed in a purposive way.  A generous, liberal interpretation is demanded given that the provision is to affirm aboriginal rights
....


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Nov 2006)

>I don't recall stating that our current Constitutional framework was "the very model of stable governance".  For example, our Constitution still has a gaping hole with respect to Quebec.

You didn't, but your comment reminded me of the prevailing attitude I encounter in Canada - how wonderful our constitutional framework is, and why would anyone want to change it?

There is no gaping hole with respect to Quebec except a desire for special treatment.  Quebec is free to leave, just as people who feel as I do are free to leave if we're dissatisfied with status quo and prospects for change.


----------



## gnplummer421 (7 Nov 2006)

When I initiated this post, I had no idea I would end up learning so much. Thank you all for the education with regards to Native Affairs so far. Everyday I try to learn something new, but since I have been reading posts on this site, my knowledge base has increased substantially.

Thank you

Gnplummer421


----------



## Bigmac (17 Nov 2006)

The new area of native protest is Deseronto. Unfortunately a convoy of military personnel was passing by the area on training and almost got into trouble. Wrong place at the wrong time. 


http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Mohawks+take+control+of+disputed+property+near+Deseronto/Local/ON/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=on-deseronto&feedname=CBC_LOCALNEWS&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=+%3a+Provider+%3a+Region+ontario+%3a+Speed&abc=abc


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2006)

Just in case there was ANY doubt into what these land claims are REALLY about, these two paragraphs say it all.....

_Quote,
Brant said the Tyendinaga Territory Mohawks did not assert their claim earlier because Deseronto, a town of about 2,000, does not have a very vibrant economy and the Mohawks had never worried about construction on the property.

But once the development was announced, Brant said, "we felt it was necessary to make it clear not just to the developer but to the community ... that in fact they were living on and attempted to develop land that belongs to us._

.......or, we could give two rat's asses about land unless its worth MONEY!!!

Extortionistic thugs.


----------



## exsemjingo (18 Nov 2006)

The actions of the protesters in stopping the convoy are not consistent with loyalty to Canada.  They are just damn lucky no one got killed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Nov 2006)

> to maintain a "traditional" lifestyle.



Bombing around in hummers and the biggest trucks they can find. Awesome

Read that story about them stoping a convoy of driver-students. Way to kick some ass.

I'll be impressed if they try and stop a convoy in Afghanistan 

Are these guys who blocked the road being treated any differently, legal reprecussion wise, than say *I* would be if I decided to start plating traffic marker and block traffic?


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Nov 2006)

I look at the mess going on in caledonia and see that as a failure of dalton McGuinty to take a stand and deal with the issue. I am not fully up to speed on the Desoronto situation, so I will do some reading before i speak about that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Nov 2006)

I've never been a fan of that 'we were here first' mentality.
Does that mean they shouldn't have access to modern medical advancements because they didn't develop it themselves? Of course not. Thats just silly.

Bruce I think you hit the nail right on the head.




> Quote,
> Brant said the Tyendinaga Territory Mohawks did not assert their claim earlier because Deseronto, a town of about 2,000, does not have a very vibrant economy and the Mohawks had never worried about construction on the property.
> 
> But once the development was announced, Brant said, "we felt it was necessary to make it clear not just to the developer but to the community ... that in fact they were living on and attempted to develop land that belongs to us.
> ...



Exactly.
When the 'land' wasn't bringing in any income who gives a shit but the minute money and development was brought into the mix they gotta make sure they get a piece.  While I don't blame them (much) for that their not doing their public image any help by how their going about it.
Belt they felt a little silly when they realised the convoy wasn't there for them.


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Nov 2006)

Anybody who knows paleotology could argue the "first nations" are immagrants as well. They came from aisia across the behring straight during the last ice age. 

It has also been proven that the early natives wiped out the mammoths, mastadons, short faced bear, american lion and other known prehistoric megafauna with excessive hunting.

Maybe we should remind them of that? Then again maybe its better if i don't hijack this thread.  ;D


----------



## Jacqueline (18 Nov 2006)

I,  like many people,  agree that there is no easy answer to any of the First Nations problems. We need to stop the blame game and work towards the future rather than arguing over whose fault it was. I agree with ArmyRick. Perhaps we can begin by learning something besides the time of the invasion and onwards?


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Nov 2006)

It was either here or socnet where there was a very good thread on first nations issues and ways to sort the issues out.
One was getting rid of the Indian act (if that's the correct name for it). I'll try and dig it up.


----------



## exsemjingo (20 Nov 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Anybody who knows paleotology could argue the "first nations" are immagrants as well. They came from aisia across the behring straight during the last ice age.
> 
> It has also been proven that the early natives wiped out the mammoths, mastadons, short faced bear, american lion and other known prehistoric megafauna with excessive hunting.
> 
> Maybe we should remind them of that? Then again maybe its better if i don't hijack this thread.  ;D


Thank you Ted Byfield.
We don't have to go that far to lay down indictments on these protesters.  I thought this thread was political, not racial.


----------



## Jacqueline (20 Nov 2006)

Actually, scientists still debate about whether or not these animals died because of climate change, or if they were scavenged to death. 

The short-faced bear became extinct about 15,000 years ago, partly because its large prey became extinct, and partly because of the competition between the smaller, brown bears that immigrated toNorth America.  

It depends on the scientist.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Nov 2006)

All this history is well and good, but it doesn't answer the Caladonia question.  Why should they be allowed to continue an illegal occupation and not be sorted out in a decisive manner?  By all means, protest.  Put up banners, go to court, do whatever you need to *within the law*.  But this landgrab is crap and the way Dolton is dealing with it is only going to make matters worse.  FYI, nobody can own a Crown road but the Crown, so the fact that they are barricading a highway makes it 100% illegal.  
The fact is that the government in Ontario knows how heavily armed the natives are, and at such time as somebody decides to go in it will be a shooting engagement.  No political types want to have to have to be the ones who are forced to deal with the vast numbers of illegal weapons on some reserves and once people start getting killed it will be pretty hard to ignore.  Plus, the OPP will be ready this time, with max video coverage of the event.  CTV is going to have some pretty hairy coverage of muzzle flashes from the treeline.  
There are heaps of credible natives out there.  Much like any silent majority, the vocal minority who suck are the ones who get noticed.  The Indian Act is outdated and non viable.  Scrap it.  Give native leaders five years (time line made up arbitrarily) to divide up whatever land they have to people who currently are using it and pay them out (and I would have no ability to come up with a figure).  Some will do well, some will thunder in.  No doubt since the community is so very close and mutually supporting, no one will get left behind and it will be a new golden age of native self determination.  But the treaties, laws and various arrangements only conspire to keep natives week and dependant on the Federal teat.  
It's gonna hurt no matter when it hits, so why not get it over with now when natives still have some support from the rest of Canada?  But if this turns into a shooting engagement, Joe Average is not going to really give a rats ass who said what to who in 1759 or whenever.


----------



## exsemjingo (21 Nov 2006)

There was an old Alberta Report article on that exact topic.  Besides, that is blaming the ancestors of today's Natives for something that, say, Europeans might have done in the same situation.  We aren't talking about Native Society vs Canadian Society; we are talking about the political fringe of the First Nations. Lets not give these protesters any undeserved credibility.
The protesters at Caledonia and other places can be condemned for what they are doing without widening the issue.  Otherwise, their demands get lumped together with legitimate Native Concerns.


----------



## cplcaldwell (21 Nov 2006)

+1


----------



## rregtc-etf (23 Nov 2006)

Since the Ontario Government now owns the land they should just build an L.C.B.O. outlet on it.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Nov 2006)

Funny how the thread got all quiet when you talk about what the future should hold...


----------



## UberCree (27 Nov 2006)

rregtc-etf said:
			
		

> Since the Ontario Government now owns the land they should just build an L.C.B.O. outlet on it.



What is an LCBO?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2006)

Liquor store


----------



## UberCree (28 Nov 2006)

You see, its one thing to have a discussion on an issue, even a heated one.  But then some moron with idiotic ideas and prujidices speaks up and lowers the level of thinking to about a grade 1 level.  Sorry I take that back, my daughter is in grade one and she would never say something as idiotic as that.  

So rregtc-etf, get your head out of your ass and move on to somewhere that your level of thinking is acceptable.  Maybe you can take over the neighbourhood public washroom and you can write your racist memoirs on the walls of glory in there.  That is where your kind of thinking belongs. 

Otherwise a face to face meeting should be in order.  I haven't choked anyone out in a few years and I need some practice on someone that has already lost most of their brain cells (you wont miss any).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> You see, its one thing to have a discussion on an issue, even a heated one.  But then some moron with idiotic ideas and prujidices speaks up and lowers the level of thinking to about a grade 1 level.  Sorry I take that back, my daughter is in grade one and she would never say something as idiotic as that.
> 
> So rregtc-etf, get your head out of your ass and move on to somewhere that your level of thinking is acceptable.  Maybe you can take over the neighbourhood public washroom and you can write your racist memoirs on the walls of glory in there.  That is where your kind of thinking belongs.



Ubercree,....agreed and maybe I need to get a little prejudice cause I didn't even think of it that way.
Apologies.


----------



## exsemjingo (28 Nov 2006)

rregtc-etf said:
			
		

> Since the Ontario Government now owns the land they should just build an L.C.B.O. outlet on it.


Which for people outside of Ontario turns out to mean...


			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Liquor store


Tsk tsk.  Contribute, or go away.  But first let's see an apology.


----------



## Bigmac (28 Nov 2006)

Why can't people have a heated discussion without getting insulting. We all know what the LCBO comment was about. Ubercree has every right to be p@#*ed. Stick to the subject without firing thinly disquised racial slurs.


----------



## Scott (28 Nov 2006)

Further racist comments, real or implied, will result in the person making the comment being introduced to the Warning System.

There has been good, albeit heated, discussion here. Heated discussion is OK so long as it does not cross the line. 

Seven pages and counting, I do not wish to lock this because of someones lack of maturity.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2006)

A rather curious development, after Prime Minister Harper's motion that Quebecois are a nation within a United Canada passed, Phil Fontaine said  "Any action that elevates the status of one segment of Canadian society over another is completely wrong."  

Frankly the upsetting idea behind Caledonia, other "First Nations" issues and Quebec Separatism is the idea of dividing our nation along tribal or ethnic lines, and the idea (always close behind) that these tribes are to be treated differently than the rest of us. This is the nasty, exclusionary face of Ethnic Nationalism presenting itself to Canada and Canadians, and serving and former members can attest first and second hand to the results in places like Cyprus, former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, among others.

Either the "protesters" are breaking the law, and must be held to account; or the Rule of Law, one of the very underpinnings of western civilization, has been nullified. If it can happen there, then what is to stop it from happening elsewhere?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 Nov 2006)

..effectively taking one huge step backwards...


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2006)

Liquor store comment was cheap.
Though, who wouldn't want an LCBO closer to home?

With this crap about a nation within a nation stuff that Quebec has pulled out of a hat why shouldn't Native Americans receive the same designation?
If we're playing that game I think Natives should have got that BEFORE Quebec.

To me the nation of Canada is a collection of other cultures. English, French, Irish, Scottish, Native, Negro, Asian, German.  All these and more have groups or whatever responsible for establishing Canada.  One of my great grandmothers is native (Iroquois) the other french. Grandfathers are Sottish and Austrian.

Whats so hard about being one nation, that nation being home to the best of what other cultures have to offer?
No one should get special treatment or designation, everyone contributed.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Nov 2006)

The First Nations, Quebecois nation, Canadian nation presents all sorts of interesting possibilities that are now starting to exercise Duceppe and Phil Fontaine.

Joe Clark proposed a community of communities.
Pierre Trudeau proposed a nation of cultures
Stephen Harper has proposed a nation of nations of which the Quebecois are one

In response to the latest gambit Gordon Campbell proposes recognizing a nation of First Nations within the nation of Canada.   At this point everyone gets cheerfully confused.

Gilles wanted Quebec to be equal to Canada.  He has accepted the premise that Quebecois are a subset of Canada (however the Quebecois choose to identify themselves)
Phil wanted the First Nations to be recognized as equal to the Quebecois meaning that there was the risk of ultimately equalling Canada.  Now that the risk is gone he still wants "First Nation" to equal Quebecois.  What wasn't clear is whether each nation plus the Inuit and Metis (white folks with some Native blood or Natives with white blood) is an individual nation or a collective nation.

Along comes Gordon who says we really should recognize each of the First Nations as nations within the nation of First Nations within the nation of Canada.  Phil says hold on ...... does that give me more power or less?

And ultimately that is what this is all about.  Gilles and Phil want more power.  They used the word nation as a club to get it.  This was possible because "nation" could be construed as having a precise meaning.

Now, in Canada, in common usage, nation can be a tribe, clan, religion (Israel and Islam are both nations), country, like-minded individuals..........by obfuscation the value of the word as a propoganda tool is degraded.

Likewise with Quebecois.  It now means whatever the speaker and hearer want it to mean.  In that sense a lack of clarity is a good thing.

Where clarity is necessary is to make the people currently living within the boundaries administered by the government in Ottawa realize that by treaty, common usage and force of arms those borders are unchangeable.


----------



## rmacqueen (28 Nov 2006)

Quick statistic I heard today.  In Canada, the federal government spends, on average, $15,000/person.  This includes things such as roads, infrastructure, health care, etc.  When it comes to First Nations, the government spends $9,000/person.  And we wonder why they are in the state they are.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Nov 2006)

Since the roads, infrastructure, defence, etc paid for by the federal government are enjoyed by everyone, you probably need to add the $15,000 (or at least a sizeable chunk of it) and $9,000 together to obtain the per person spending for those entitled to the $9,000.


----------



## rmacqueen (28 Nov 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Since the roads, infrastructure, defence, etc paid for by the federal government are enjoyed by everyone, you probably need to add the $15,000 (or at least a sizeable chunk of it) and $9,000 together to obtain the per person spending for those entitled to the $9,000.


The amount does not include things like defence, foreighn aid, etc but on stuff of direct benefit to citizens.  It also does not include items paid for through municipal taxation such as streets, water treatment and schools.  The $9,000 for First Nations is supposed to cover roads and sewers on reserves, health care, schools, water treatment, sewer, etc.  Given that a lot of reserves are in remote locations there are also not many public roads for them to use either


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2006)

Sorry, but I call BS on that statistic.......


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2006)

Yea I'd call BS on that stat too. Wouldn't mind seeing the source.

Biggest complaint among native americans I know is that certian members of the tribes get a lot more cash than the rest. Seems like they often feel the chiefs and leadership types are a lot more comfortable than the rest.


----------



## Jacqueline (28 Nov 2006)

A community approach needs to be taken to end the division between Aboriginal and Non Aboriginal people. With a mutual respect to both "sides".

The government should provide means to accomplish this objective without just dishing out money to the leaders.

Then Aboriginal people might slowly begin to re-discover ourselves. I think the government is throwing guilt money to compensate for the decisions of previous generations.

Alot of Aboriginals feel that there is a slipping awareness of their culture. 
Most feel that their indigenous hunter/gatherer societies have been destroyed.

I guess the government doesn't know what to do about it.


----------



## UberCree (29 Nov 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> The amount does not include things like defence, foreighn aid, etc but on stuff of direct benefit to citizens.  It also does not include items paid for through municipal taxation such as streets, water treatment and schools.  The $9,000 for First Nations is supposed to cover roads and sewers on reserves, health care, schools, water treatment, sewer, etc.  Given that a lot of reserves are in remote locations there are also not many public roads for them to use either



I would like to see the source for those numbers as well.  
They do not surprise me however.  In education, we FN's in Manitoba are given $4400.00 per pupil through federal transfer payments.  Public school divisions in the province receive between $6,000 - $10,000 per pupil, depending on their location and tax base (prov pays percentage and they raise a varying percentage through their school board).  In essence we are supposed to do the same job with 2/3rds of the money (or less).  In my case we get half of the money per pupil that the provincial schools down the road get.  All of this money goes through the band chief and council in one lump sum.  All housing, sewer, water, education, infrastructure, etc. are received in one sum.  It would not surprise me one but if those numbers were accurate in that regard when things are totalled up.  Of course if the band leadership decides that it needs more money to get a sewer system, or running water operating in the community they can take money from the education budget, which usually leaves us less.


----------



## UberCree (29 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Either the "protesters" are breaking the law, and must be held to account; or the Rule of Law, one of the very underpinnings of western civilization, has been nullified. If it can happen there, then what is to stop it from happening elsewhere?



That is the essense of the dabate.  
They (6 Nations) would argue that justice is on their side, as supported by numerous supreme court decisions and that transfering the land away from the band was the illegal act.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Nov 2006)

Do the 6 Nations (and the Cree for that matter) accept the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Nov 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Do the 6 Nations (and the Cree for that matter) accept the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?



As long as they are giving hand outs.  
It will get real dicey when somebody finally grows a set and puts their foot down on this sort of thing.  

State sponsored support of any culture is ridiculous.  If the culture has value, it will last.  If it doesn't, it will fade into history.  Simple as that.  If French is so bloody grand, it will survive.  If being a hunter/gatherer is so fantastic, people will head to the forests in droves.  
I see plenty of Scottish games, Ukrainian festivals, Caribanna, and other displays of cultural unity around this country.  To have a culture enforced by law and supported artificially by Federal funds is as sad as leaving your grandma gurgling away on a life support machine.  Pull the plug, and let nature take it's course.  
Would it not stand to reason that if the Indian Act was scrapped, there would be a polarizing of native interest?  You would have one group that would rally around and make sure that the lessons and traditions would never be lost.  Then there would be a group that was only "native by convenience" (for lack of a better term) and would probably let their heritage slide.  But would the first group really lament the loss of the second?  
And if you FN's are saying that life is so terrible and that the public sector is so much better off than you, why not join it?  Hell, it would probably do the rest of the kids a world of good to have an infusion of native kids to be along side in the cultural exchange scheme of things.    
In the mean time, it's going to take a lot of convincing for me to see native issues as anything but another special interest group wanting to have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## Klc (29 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> I would like to see the source for those numbers as well.
> Public school divisions in the province receive between $6,000 - $10,000 per pupil, depending on their location and tax base (prov pays percentage and they raise a varying percentage through their school board).  In essence we are supposed to do the same job with 2/3rds of the money (or less).  In my case we get half of the money per pupil that the provincial schools down the road get.



I'd like to see a source on this one as well - I went to a crumbling manitoba public school, and if they were getting this much money, we wouldn't have had to shut down a dozen vocational programs, or require sizeable "Materials/Lab Fee"s to take the remaining specialty courses.


----------



## ArmyRick (29 Nov 2006)

Zipperhead Cop, good points brought out in the real world.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Nov 2006)

Doesn't giving one man a lump sum of money with orders to dish it out as he see's fit seem a little dangerous?
Makes it pretty easy to misappropriate the funds?

I can't speak for stats on schools and what X amount of money students are given.
I know when I went to public school where we had a considerable number of FN students they never had to pay a dime for anything. School supplies- paid for.  I remember in law class one guy laughing about his $400 calculator that he got it for free. Another I was told had an $800 calculator though that seems a little high to me. In any case this stuff was sold to other students. I remember them bragging about getting allowances for clothes and lunch.
In Ottawa a buddy of mine from the reserves was pissed. FN students in her university class were bragging about how their going to school for free and got money on top of that for living expenses and a free room in the dorm.  IT apparently wasn't osap either.

I'm not sure the mechanics behind that stuff mind you but at the time it came across as pretty unfair.
FN kids in my highschool defiantly were not living in poverty. At 15 to 18 they had the best clothes, drove new cars and would pull out wads of $50 and $100 bills in class. Big joke was to pay someone $5 or $10 to count their cash for em.


----------



## Jacqueline (29 Nov 2006)

> FN kids in my highschool defiantly were not living in poverty.



That's a funny thing because the high school I went to was just the opposite.
I don't know why. All I know is most of the younger FN kids would get involved in criminal activities just to "get something to eat."


----------



## Jacqueline (29 Nov 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> State sponsored support of any culture is ridiculous.  If the culture has value, it will last.  If it doesn't, it will fade into history.  Simple as that.  If French is so bloody grand, it will survive.  If being a hunter/gatherer is so fantastic, people will head to the forests in droves.
> I see plenty of Scottish games, Ukrainian festivals, Caribanna, and other displays of cultural unity around this country.  To have a culture enforced by law and supported artificially by Federal funds is as sad as leaving your grandma gurgling away on a life support machine.  Pull the plug, and let nature take it's course.



OK but Canada is not the only nation facing these problems. As a matter of fact, no nation with a history of colonisation has been able to solve the problems it's indigenous population faces. It is really a complicated issue. In North America, South America, Africa, Australia, Northern Sentinel Island (Andaman), Amazon basin interior (Papua).

Maybe state sponsorship is ridiculous but it is happening, and someone in power is supporting it.
All of the nations above are also feeling the same strain, and it might be coincidently, but all these nations have also been invaded. So what happened a couple hundred years ago is what this generation is paying for again. What can I do? What can I say?

The world's changin everyday, time's moving fast. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't attempt to hold on to their past.


----------



## UberCree (29 Nov 2006)

Flawed Design, Wow, free stuff?  Someone tell me where I can go to get free stuff and rolls of money!!!    
Man and I thought for a second that some folk were moderately educated on Aboriginal issues ... nope.  Nothing like good old anecdotal evidence to start prejudice.


Here's a report on poverty released just recently by AFN.  I double dare you to read it!  
http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/SR-FS.pdf


As it stands today, and Aboriginal child born in Canada has a greater chance of dying from suicide than finishing college.  

If you simply don't care about issues like that, about issues that hold Canada back from being an icon in a globalized modern world ... well then maybe you should renounce your Canadian citizenship and move somewhere that people are only judged by how much money they have.  Where survival of the fittest rules the day and there are NO social problems.  Somewhere in South America maybe?  I dont know.  
In fact some of you have some real problems with Canada and our judicial system.  Maybe you should think twice about calling yourselves patriots if you disagree with the very foundation of Canada's constitution ... that recognizes Aboriginal rights to sovereignty (nationhood) and treaty rights.  Some of you need to suck it up and move on perhaps.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Here's a report on poverty released just recently by AFN.  I double dare you to read it!
> http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/SR-FS.pdf



Gee, how compelling.  A dare.  Okay, I read it.  A one page stand alone PDF file with unsubstantiated statistics from unnamed sources from an organization with an agenda.  Yep, pretty flawless info that one.  :



			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> As it stands today, and Aboriginal child born in Canada has a greater chance of dying from suicide than finishing college.



Sounds like they are going to some shitty colleges.  
But seriously, how is that an "us" problem?  There are kids across this country, hell across this planet that grow up in dirt poor poverty and don't wax themselves.  Sorry, that statistic strikes me as more of an indictment of your family unit than some national responsibility.  What are the suicide statistics for, say, Chinese immigrants that come here, live 15 to a two bedroom house, work 18 hour days and still go to school full time?  
I really have to wonder what sort of convoluted sense of entitlement brings somebody to think that their child killing themself has anything to do with elected officials or printed legislation  ???



			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> If you simply don't care about issues like that, about issues that hold Canada back from being an icon in a globalized modern world ... well then maybe you should renounce your Canadian citizenship and move somewhere that people are only judged by how much money they have.  Where survival of the fittest rules the day and there are NO social problems.  Somewhere in South America maybe?  I dont know



Wow.  And you got pissy for the racist undertones of the LCBO comment?  "Why don't you go back to your own country"? Nice.
Nobody judges anyone in this country except for how they conduct themselves.  My job allows me the luxury of seeing that every segment of Canadian culture has it's elements that suck.  Arseholes are translucent, and take on whatever colour they touch.  ACT like a normal citizen and get TREATED like a normal citizen.  That has nothing to do with being native.



			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> In fact some of you have some real problems with Canada and our judicial system.  Maybe you should think twice about calling yourselves patriots if you disagree with the very foundation of Canada's constitution ... that recognizes Aboriginal rights to sovereignty (nationhood) and treaty rights.



".......and now I'm taking my dream catcher and going home!!  Pthhhhhhppt!"  [INSERT SOUND OF HUFFY, STAMPING MOCASINS TROMPING OFF]
Recognizing EVERYONES rights is one of the great things about our country.  However, many of us are getting sick of the Orwellian "some animals are more equal than others" attitude.



			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> Some of you need to suck it up and move on perhaps.



OH, THE GLISTENING IRONY!!!!

edit for spelling and grammar


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2006)

We see a strange convergence of issues here. The ultimate source of the problem(s) with native protesters and Quebec separatists is the idea of "Ethnic Nationalism", which is a polite way of sayig tribalism. Ethnic nationalism is exclusionary for many reasons, but in essence the modern Canadian form is a means of creating a smaller pond so the fish within can seem relatively larger. Outsiders must be excluded since they are unknown quantities who might become potential challengers for influence and power within the community.

WRT reservations and native students, different bands behave differently, some band councils and chiefs work hard for the band while others are in it for themselves and their circle of friends, which probably explains the noted disparity between different groups of students. Regardless, being on life support like that is degrading and demoralizing, and for that reason alone the current system should be scrapped. reservations could be converted to municipalities or counties depending on circumstances, and the really non viable ones stuck in the middle of nowhere should be disbanded and the people evacuated to where they can become self supporting and self sufficient.

Of course to do this is to negate ideas of "First Nations" and "Quebec" as a nation, and embrace civic nationalism and the idea of Canada as a nation in place of these ideas.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Nov 2006)

The federal government budget for 2006 called for about $223,600M in total expenditures.  Current population is estimated somewhere over 32.5M.  Subtract the 1/30th of the population that is aboriginal (a slight overestimate), leaving a little over 31.4M people.  Since I've underestimated the number of non-aboriginal people at each approximation (the denominator in the money/person ratio), the federal per (non-aboriginal) person expenditures proposed for 2006 had a rough upper bound of $7,121.  If we knock off the public debt servicing charges and look only at the program spending ($188,800M) the per person upper bound is near $6,013.  So $15,000 per person in federal spending is just more bullshit being passed on as fact.  All these figures are easily found on gc.ca web sites and the sniff test requires about Grade 4 arithmetic ability.  Don't be shy about questioning what you hear or read before you parrot it.


----------



## bdog (29 Nov 2006)

part of the issue is that many First Nations not believe that they surrendered their independence either to the UK or Canada and therefore need agreement which should be abided by the government.


----------



## Jacqueline (29 Nov 2006)

That still doesn't explain why certain cultures are poorer than others. This fact is confusing. I'm completely baffled by it. It _is_ true.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Nov 2006)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> That still doesn't explain why certain cultures are poorer than others. This fact is confusing. I'm completely baffled by it. It _is_ true.



How do you figure?  By all native accounts, there are some reserves and communities that thrive and do well.  When faced with a lack of success, the rest of us don't get to navel gaze and say "the Fed isn't doing enough for me".  
Assess, plan, act.  Keep it simple.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Nov 2006)

>Here's a report on poverty released just recently by AFN.  I double dare you to read it!

OK, I've looked it over.  I'll stipulate to all the facts.  So: what prevents an aboriginal person or family from pursuing and attaining the approximate standard of living as the average non-aboriginal person or family in the same region or going to where the opportunities are greater?


----------



## Jacqueline (29 Nov 2006)

I was talking majority. If you're really interested, I can get some links tomorrow about the poverty thing. 

Like UberCree said, suicide rates are higher in Aboriginals, than any culture in Canada. Yes, they also are high in the Chinese under those circumstances. These are tragedies, but when someone mentions something like Aboriginal suicide, I can't automatically associate it with the suicide rates of every group of people. I took a trip to Nain, Labrador last January and during my stay, 2 suicides have occurred in the small town. Including my sister's boyfriend, and an ex-military man. 

So, what these people are going through seems to be an issue of lost purpose. And why is it occurring in Ab.'s? Even the genius asks his questions.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Nov 2006)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> Yes, they also are high in the Chinese under those circumstances.



You missed my point.  I am not aware that there is any sort of significance between poverty and the Chinese.  My point was that they seem to overcome adversity and do what they have to in order to better themselves, and ultimately become credible and successful.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Nov 2006)

> Do the 6 Nations (and the Cree for that matter) accept the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?





> In fact some of you have some real problems with Canada and our judicial system.  Maybe you should think twice about calling yourselves patriots if you disagree with the very foundation of Canada's constitution ... that recognizes Aboriginal rights to sovereignty (nationhood) and treaty rights.  Some of you need to suck it up and move on perhaps.



So 6 Nations and the Cree recognize the Supreme Court and the Constitution?  They are Canadians? So for them Canada is a country of nations?  Are the 6 Nations a nation of 6 nations within the nation of First Nations within the nation of Canadians?  Can they make treaties with foreign powers?


----------



## Jacqueline (29 Nov 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> You missed my point.  I am not aware that there is any sort of significance between poverty and the Chinese.  My point was that they seem to overcome adversity and do what they have to in order to better themselves, and ultimately become credible and successful.




OK point taken.

In my opinion, they ( like every normal human being ) overcome adversity alot better because they feel that they have a purpose. _In my opinion._
Obviously, it's not easy taking it from the bottom to the top when a person's friends are dieing or always intoxicated or slightly faded. 
Just one problem among many.


----------



## niner domestic (29 Nov 2006)

Kirkhill, why don' t you read about the 6 Nations yourself.  (pay very close attention to the section on the Warrior Society) http://www.sixnations.org/  I believe the website answers your questions.   

Edited so that link would work.


----------



## probum non poenitet (29 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Wow, free stuff?  Someone tell me where I can go to get free stuff and rolls of money!!!



... why, your nearest Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre, of course! ...


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Nov 2006)

> Our lands were never conquered by outsiders. We never consented to American or Canadian authority over our territories.


http://sixnations.buffnet.net/Culture/



> The word "Iroquois" is not a Haudenosaunee word. It is derived from a French version of a Huron Indian named that was applied to our ancestors and it was considered derogatory, meaning "Black Snakes."


http://sixnations.buffnet.net/Culture/?article=who_we_are 

Thanks for the link niner domestic.  I especially found the information on the hijacking by the Warrior Societies interesting, right enough.

And as to my questions, I put many of them up as rhetorical.   I was under the impression that the Confederacy did not recognize Canadian (or US) suzerainty and I still understand the situation that way.   That would leave them open to making treaties with foreign powers other than Canada and the US.  An interesting situation if the Warrior Societies succeed in subsuming the "traditionals" and the Grand Council of Chiefs.

Also, given that the Iroquois name, like the words Eskimo and Dogrib, is a derogatory name given by the Huron enemy would suggest that it might be difficult to create Gordon Campbell's Nation of First Nations.  My understanding of history is that the Confederacy exists north of the Great Lakes for two reasons:  the Algonkian Hurons were obliterated, largely by Confederacy action, and the vacant lands were granted to the Confederacy by the Crown after the Revolutionary War.

Am I reading that the same way that you do?


----------



## niner domestic (29 Nov 2006)

The Hurons  (they prefer to be called Wendats as Huron is another derogatory title meaning rough from the French word, hure) were part of the Iroquoian linguistic group, so upon their defeat in the wars of 1648-49, they were absorbed into the 6 nations confederacy.  Hardly the stuff the history books like to tell.  I'm not suggesting that the wars were not brutal but the land grab fairy tale is just that, a fairy tale as the Iroquois had already taken up settlement in the area we now know as Ontario/New York.  (not their fault their territory fell along the 49th parallel.) The whole English/French thing happen almost a century later, long after the Huron ended up as part of the confederacy.  Brebeuf wrote about them: 

I am glad to find that this is a language common to some twelve other nations, all sedentary and numerous. These are the Conkhandeerrhonons, Khionontaterrhonons (Tobacco), Atinouandaronks (Neutrals), Sonontoerrhonons (Senecas), Onontaerrhonons (Onandagas), Ouioenrhonons (Cayugas), Onoiochronons (Oneidas), Agnierrhonons (Mohawks), Andastoerrhonons (Andastes), Scahentoarrhonons, Rhiierrhonons (Eries), and Ahouenrochrhonons. The Hurons are friendly to all except the Sonontoerrhonons (Senecas), Onontaerrhonons (Onandagas), Ouioenrhonons (Cayugas), Onoiochrhonons (Oneidas) and Agnierrhonons (Mohawks), all of whom group under the name Iroquois. And yet they are already at peace with the Sonontoerrhonons (Senecas) since they defeated them last year in springtime. Delegates from the entire area have gone to Sonontoen to ratify this peace, and it is said that the Onontaerrhonons, Ouioenrhonons, Onoiochronons and Agnierrhonons wish to become parties thereto. 
http://www.mohicanpress.com/mo08016.html

There is an urban myth that the US constitution is modelled after the Great Law of Peace.  I've only had the honour of having heard the great law read out loud once, by Jake Thomas and it took 3 days. It was pretty impressive.  I have no doubt that those who follow the great law, will deal effectively with the warrior's society in due time.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> There is an urban myth that the US constitution is modelled after the Great Law of Peace.  I've only had the honour of having heard the great law read out loud once, by Jake Thomas and it took 3 days. It was pretty impressive.  I have no doubt that those who follow the great law, will deal effectively with the warrior's society in due time.



The American Constitution had a lot more to do with Enlightenment philosophy, English Common Law and a nod to the Res Publica Roma than anything else.

As for the last line, if our elected officials were to enforce the *Criminal Code of Canada*, the Warrior's Society would be far less of an issue for all of us.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Nov 2006)

Thanks for the continuing lessons niner.  I was always under the impression that the Wendat (Huron) were part of the Algonkian language group along with the Cree.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## niner domestic (29 Nov 2006)

a_majoor: As I said, I consider it to be an Urban Legend with some coincidental imagery to the Constitution, however, some authors believe it to be true.  Perhaps if you read the Great Law, you'd see the connections yourself.  Best translation is the Handsome Lake one or Jake Thomas.  


Iroquois and the U.S. Constitution 

By the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the Iroquois had practiced their own egalitarian government for hundreds of years. The Iroquois reputation for diplomacy and eloquence reveals they had securely evolved a sophisticated political system founded on reason, not on mere power. Accounts of the "noble savage" living in "natural freedom" had inspired European theorists John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to expound ideas that had ignited the American Revolution and helped shape the new direction of government. 

But the Founding Fathers found their best working model for their new government, not in the writings of Europeans, but through their direct contact with the Iroquois League; for the Great Law of Peace provided both model and incentive to transform thirteen separate colonies into the United States. 

George Washington, after a visit to the Iroquois, expressed "great excitement" over the Iroquois" two houses and Grand Council. Ben Franklin wrote, "It would be strange if ignorant savages could execute a union that persisted ages and appears indissoluble; yet like union is impractical for twelve colonies to whom it is more necessary and advantageous." 

At Cornell's conference, Dr. Donald Grinde, Jr. of Gettysburg College presented evidence that Thomas Jefferson adopted the specific symbols of the Peacemaker legend. The Tree of Peace became the Tree of Liberty; the Eagle, clutching a bundle of thirteen arrows, became the symbol of the new American government. 

Grinde also brought the revelation that "one of the framers, John Rutledge of South Carolina, chair of the drafting committee, read portions of Iroquois Law to members of the committee. He asked them to consider a philosophy coming directly from this American soil." 

The Great Law of Peace laid out a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" with three branches. The Onondaga, the Firekeepers, are the heart of the Confederacy. Similarly, the U.S. presidency forms an executive branch. 

The League's legislative branch is in two parts: Mohawk and Seneca are Elder Brothers who form the upper house, while Oneida and Cayuga are Younger Brothers, similar to the Senate and House of the United States Congress. The Iroquois" equivalent of a Supreme Court is the Women's Councils, which settle disputes and judge legal violations. 

From: http://www.championtrees.org/yarrow/greatlaw.htm


----------



## UberCree (30 Nov 2006)

I have read and heard some interesting ideas on the 'influence' theory (Great Law influence on the U.S. Constitution) over the years from some very informed people.  It makes sense to me ... soft power in action.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2006)

> The Great Law of Peace laid out a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" with three branches. The Onondaga, the Firekeepers, are the heart of the Confederacy. Similarly, the U.S. presidency forms an executive branch.
> 
> The League's legislative branch is in two parts: Mohawk and Seneca are Elder Brothers who form the upper house, while Oneida and Cayuga are Younger Brothers, similar to the Senate and House of the United States Congress. The Iroquois" equivalent of a Supreme Court is the Women's Councils, which settle disputes and judge legal violations.



I didn't want to be tendentious but this begs dissection by analogy.

For analogy to be exact then applying the Great Law of Peace's government "of the people, by the people and for the people"  would result in The English, the Firekeepers at the heart of the Confederacy and would form the executive branch.

The Scots and the Quebecois, the Elder Brothers would form the Senate while First Nations and Pre-Trudeau immigrants as the Younger Brothers would form the Commons.  Post-Trudeau immigrants would be absorbed into the Confederacy the same way that the Wendat were absorbed.  The really interesting bit would be having the Supreme Court appointed by the Council for the Status of Women.

With all due respect, given the division of roles based on National origin and gender, it seems that the Great Law is the antithesis of a democratic code.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## niner domestic (30 Nov 2006)

The only reason I am still not convinced it's not an urban legend is that Handsome Lake and his Code (Great Law translation) appeared around the time of the US revolution as well as Lake was heavily influence by the church.  Since I do not speak any of the Haudosaunee languages fluently, I can only rely on this and Jake Thomas' translation to read/hear the Great Law.  I can not draw a comparison to Lake's version (which has been touted to be heavily influenced with Christian doctrine which he in turn, created his own religion) to the content and meaning of the original Great Law spoken in its original language.  So the question is, did the Great Law influence the Constitution or did the Constitution influence Lake's translation?   http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/parker/cohl002.htm

The Mik'maq have a similar problem with the translations of Silas Rand the Baptist missionary, of their Catholic Missal.


----------



## rmacqueen (30 Nov 2006)

From the CD Howe Institute http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_66.pdf



> In a forthcoming Commentary, Drost and Richards review evidence, drawn from the 1996 census,
> about incomes among off- and on-reserve aboriginals. The median 1995 income among the onreserve-
> identity aboriginal population was $8,900; the analogous figure for off-reserve aboriginals
> was $12,400 — 39 percent higher (yet still far below $19,400, the 1995 median among
> nonaboriginal Canadians).



As for the AFN report, all stats given there are verifiable from other sources and are not strictly from AFN studies.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Nov 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> From the CD Howe Institute http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_66.pdf
> 
> As for the AFN report, all stats given there are verifiable from other sources and are not strictly from AFN studies.



Okay, maybe I need to have someone explain what is the point of being on a reservation?  I thought it was to pursue a traditionally native lifestyle?  So if you are hunting and fishing and living off the land, why would you need an income that is comparable to that of the rest of Canadian society?


----------



## niner domestic (30 Nov 2006)

Ah yes, Trudeau and his Indian White papers, changed to ironically the Red Book by our old friend Jean.  You know, it's interesting that in 1967, the G&M asked the same questions that are being asked by a few people here (talk about not researching before asking!) They quoted a government official on Oct 21, 1967 as follows:  

"As a rule the economic development programs that the Branch supports are the marginal, low-profit enterprises like freshwater fish cooperatives. They’re useful, but it was my experience that whenever anyone proposed that the Indians themselves run some larger enterprise — such as building their own resort community instead of leasing to a developer, or organizing a company to exploit their own oil and gas resources — the idea was dismissed, because of fear that established companies would put on pressures against so-called unfair competition from the Indians, backed by the government.

"Indian band capital funds totaling $30 million are on deposit in Ottawa. Oil and gas alone on Indian reserves is estimated to total $2 billion.

"How is it that such rich people are so poor? Why can’t Crown corporations or commercial corporations be set up, primarily under Indian control but with expert outside help, to exploit these resources? Why can’t the Indians hire their own management talent?"

And again in the 60s, the most comprehensive study on the socio-economic conditions of First Nations found in 1967: 
The vast majority of Native Indian people suffer incredible, soul-breaking poverty. The government’s Hawthorn-Tremblay study, published in 1967, found that of a sample survey of over 22,000 families in Indian communities across Canada, 74 percent made less than $2,000 in 1964; 47 percent made less than $1,000 a year. (Remember, those are family incomes.) Over half the Indian population is chronically unemployed: the survey reported that 61 percent of the workers held jobs less than 6 months per year; 23.6 percent for less than two months. The Indian unemployment rate is 10 times the national average.

As a result, more than one-third of the households in the Hawthorn-Tremblay survey depended for their livelihood on meager welfare grants from the Indian Affairs Branch — and this figure doesn’t account for the large number of bands providing their own welfare funds. The federal government allots about 25 percent of its Indian Affairs budget to welfare payments, as against the 10 percent it devotes to "economic development" on the reserves.

Most government services are either non-existent or of scandalously poor quality. Total spending of the Indian Affairs Department averages out to $530 per treaty Indian, a year (1967) ; whereas the federal government spends $740 a year on the average non-Indian Canadian, not to speak of the provincial and municipal government services (e.g. education, health, agriculture, roads, etc.) which our quarter-million treaty Indians do not have access to.

Nine out of 10 Indian homes on reserves have no indoor toilets; barely half have electricity; nearly 60 percent live in houses of three rooms or less.

It is estimated that more than 30 percent of the inmates in Canada’s jails and training schools are Indian, although Indians account for less than three percent of the total population. The number of Indians in federal penitentiaries has increased five-fold since 1950 to more than 2,500.

While the average Canadian can expect to live to the age of 62, the Indians’ life expectancy is only 33 for men, 34 for women. The mortality rate among Indians increased by eight percent between 1965 and 1968 alone. The mortality rate among Indian pre-school children is eight times the national average.

Yet Indians are the fastest growing ethnic group in Canada, with an annual population increase of five percent. Half the Indian population is under the age of 16, close to twice the proportion among non-Indians.

This phenomenal population increase, combined with rapidly declining job opportunities for Indian workers — half of whom are engaged in relatively traditional and marginal economic activities like fishing, trapping, hunting, and agriculture — means a tremendous pressure on the Indians to leave the reserves and head for the cities in search of work.

In Manitoba, for example, about half of the province’s 80,000 Indians and 30,000 Métis are now subsisting in substandard conditions in Winnipeg; 10,000 have migrated to the city during the last 10 years, most of them in the last three years. But in the cities, the employment prospect is scarcely better than on the reserves. Only three percent of Winnipeg’s inhabitants, the Indians and Métis account for 12 percent of its welfare cases.

And let's not forget Trudeau's plan for "Indians" in the 60s as well: 

the Indians must assimilate. They must, as Prime Minister Trudeau put it recently, "become Canadians as all other Canadians." His government’s aptly named "white paper", which projects the outright abolition of Indian treaty rights within five years, spells this out in more detail. At the same time, this society every day reveals how unwilling and unable it is to "assimilate" the Indians. Even when destroyed as a people, they are completely rejected as individuals, the unemployed, underpaid victims of racism.

The essence of the white paper is the proposal to remove Indian lands from the protection against alienation now contained in the Indian Act provisions. Not only does this close the door to attempts to encourage economic development of the reserves, it is the prelude to a massive land grab of these six million acres, much of it choice land near the cities, by real estate speculators and industrial consortiums.

From: http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/1961-/Red%20Power/Red_Power_1970.htm

Then we can move right along to the 90s and review the RCAP findings - all 9 volumes of them.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/index_e.html

And ZC, if you still require more substantive literature, go read the numerous commissions on FN child welfare, housing, incarceration, criminal justice system, wrongly convicted, residential schools, environmental and health risks.  

Then if you still think you have the answers to the problem, fire them away to the PMO, I'm sure he and his INAC Minister would be happy to take them under advisement.


----------



## Roy Harding (30 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> ...
> And ZC, if you still require more substantive literature, go read the numerous commissions on FN child welfare, housing, incarceration, criminal justice system, wrongly convicted, residential schools, environmental and health risks.
> 
> Then if you still think you have the answers to the problem, fire them away to the PMO, I'm sure he and his INAC Minister would be happy to take them under advisement.



Nice diatribe.

Didn't answer ZC's question, however.


----------



## niner domestic (30 Nov 2006)

Then perhaps Roy you'd like to answer his query about needing an income.  I was addressing post number 120.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Nov 2006)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Nice diatribe.
> 
> Didn't answer ZC's question, however.



Agreed.  I see a lot of place settings at the pity party, and precious few solutions being offered.  And if you want me to agree that Trudeau was a dick, I am already there.


----------



## Roy Harding (30 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Then perhaps Roy you'd like to answer his query about needing an income.  I was addressing post number 120.



Fair enough (although that fact wasn't apparent in your previously mentioned diatribe).

I'm headed for bed, and therefore won't respond tonight.

Wait, out


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2006)

One of the factors which crushes native people living on the reservation is that in many cases our concepts of accountability, rule of law etc. end at the front gate. I'm sure we have all heard of the horror stories of chiefs and their circle of cronies living the high life, and maintaining power by dispensing perques like housing, jobs and welfare cheques to their friends and supporters. In many ways this resembles the situation in third world nations like Haiti rather than what we expect in Canada.

Of course, pointing this out, or suggesting that "we" as the donors of this money should be able to hold bands accountable usually results in cries of racism rather than an RCMP investigation resulting in jail time for the miscreants.

Suggesting that "third levels" of government, or calling bands "Nations" really are non starters as far as being effective solutions. Native people are *people* first and foremost, and will behave the same way you or I would under similar circumstances. The only way to bring these people out of poverty to enjoy the wealth and privileges that we have is to drop the notion that they are somehow different from other Canadians. Reservations should be converted to townships, counties or municipalities depending on their local circumstances, and band councils brough under the control of the local equivalent of the Municipal Act of their respective provinces. I can personally attest to the efficiency of this, while doing driver training in Alberta back in the 1980's we often drove down roads with "third world" reservations on one side and really nice farms and ranches on the other side. In many cases the owners of these farms and ranches were natives who left the reservation behind (and notice the key word: "owned"), since they were now living and interacting in the world of free markets and Rule of Law they learned and acted on the same sets of behaviours and assumptions that we do, and were successful in doing so.

Yes the transition will be tough, but millions of immigrants came to Canada with only a few dollars in their pockets, poor command of the language and invalid qualifications (i.e. education not recognized in Canada), yet still thrived and prospered, indeed people still do so today from China and India, so this is not impossible.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Nov 2006)

+1

Stand by for a resounding lack of response............


----------



## Trinity (30 Nov 2006)

Majoor

On face value... that sounds simple  yet effective.  

However the underlying principle is what Trudeau said..  assimilate.


How can we ensure their culture/heritage stays live if we ask them to assimilate
to into a city.  Non natives could move into this city like any other city which I'm
sure won't go over very well.  I have a few other thoughts of how this wouldn't
go well... I just can't find the proper terms to express them.

I'm not shooting the idea down.  Like you said, it would be difficult for them to adapt.
Is there a way to allow them become a city and not lose their heritage, cultures, values
because like I said this could be interpreted as assimilate.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> How can we ensure their culture/heritage stays live if we ask them to assimilate
> to into a city.  Non natives could move into this city like any other city which I'm
> sure won't go over very well.  I have a few other thoughts of how this wouldn't
> go well... I just can't find the proper terms to express them.


They would guarantee their culture/heritage the same way that Italians, Chinese, African and other groups have maintained theirs, all without BigBrother State ensuring that it did.  A collection of personal and collective pride would do it.  If they don't have the personal or collective pride to maintain their culture, then it wasn't worth that much to them.


----------



## Jacqueline (30 Nov 2006)

> Yes the transition will be tough, but millions of immigrants came to Canada with only a few dollars in their pockets, poor command of the language and invalid qualifications (i.e. education not recognized in Canada), yet still thrived and prospered, indeed people still do so today from China and India, so this is not impossible.




I agree. You have some good points.  However, Aboriginals feel like this in their home country. And why is it the same deal in other countries where there has also been colonization? And why is the suicide rate so high among the indigenous people all over the world?


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Nov 2006)

Reserves.

Sorry Miss Jacqueline I don't mean to be trite.

I understand how serious the problem is, but I can't help but think we expose aboriginals to all the trappings of modern society and then stick them on some piece of 'skeg and say "here's home, you're special, cheque's in the mail, now bugger off".

However, Urban Reserves.... now there's an idea (IMHO)...


----------



## Jacqueline (30 Nov 2006)

Yes, and that is what needs to be changed. The problem is getting the idea across.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Nov 2006)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> I agree. You have some good points.  However, Aboriginals feel like this in their home country. And why is it the same deal in other countries where there has also been colonization? And why is the suicide rate so high among the indigenous people all over the world?



Perception is reality.  IMO it is worse to jam a bunch of bummed out characters into an isolated compound (reserve) to tell each other over and over how bad they have it.  I will stand to be corrected, but from what has been being said the most successful natives are the ones who leave the Res and get with the business of living.  
As for the suicide thing, why do you keep harping on it?  If people are hopeless, how is throwing money at them going to help?  And if the money is thrown en masse at one guy that has the ultimate say in who gets it or not, how is that helping a community?  The suicide issue is a "you" problem.  Only the native community can fix it.


----------



## UberCree (30 Nov 2006)

Throwing money doesn't solve the problem, neither does forced assimilation.  Some of the 'solutions' you guys are throwing out have been proven ineffective, if not dramatically harmful, time and time again.  

What is working, on a case by case basis, is long term economic development coupled with increased self-governance rights.  Good governance and economic development, on our terms.  Sounds rational to me.


----------



## UberCree (30 Nov 2006)

As for mass relocation of Aboriginal people to urban centres?  What would then happend to Canadian claims of sovereignty over the vast stretches of uninhabited land in the north?  Even from a purely national interest / national defense perspective it makes sense to me to have people living all over Canada, even in remote areas.  If we don't, someone else will.


----------



## niner domestic (30 Nov 2006)

There lies the fundamental difference between what the non-native tries to understand and fails to do and what the FN knows and accepts.  Non-natives can only use their experiences of immigration, global movement, colonization and conquering to establish parameters of what is "best for the redman."  The solution is always the same, pick a century, decade, or moment and it only repeats itself - "move the Indian and all will be well. Make them the same as us and we won't have to deal with otherness, only sameness.  We did it, we survived, we conquered we inflicted our values onto the indigenous population". - I hear the non-native say- same old, same old. First Nations never left, we never ran, we didn't enmasse leave the country of our ancestors for better places as we love the land of our ancestors.  We stayed. Even when our very existence was threatened, we stayed.  Non-native people don't get that.  They don't get there is no solution - we don't need a solution, we never left in all the attempts to by non-natives to assimilate, criminalize, separate, dehumanize and segregate us from our land.  You won't be seeing a mass exodus of Indians leaving the continent, or our lands so your solutions won't work because they require us to find something more important to us than the land. In 10,000 years not much as compelled us to leave, the land is what holds us.  Until the non-natives come to understand that, there will always be a difference.    


Cpl Caldwell, You want an Urban reserve? Look no further than Toronto and Los Angeles.  LA is the biggest urban rez in North American and TO is second with an off reserve population of over 50,000.


----------



## UberCree (30 Nov 2006)

Very well said.


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Nov 2006)

Just for the record, and _I do not think I am being accused of it,_ but just for the record....

I am not advocating mass relocation.

I am saying that without re-inventing the whole paradigm (which probably needs to be done...but whatever).. 

_Just to float an idea here... _ could the landclaims process not be a titch more productive if, say, we said, "Okay, all you Williams Treaty guys, we'll cede you Downsview Base as a Reserve, (we'd really like to see accountable government as a 'quid pro quo', by the way) this way you can stay "Indian" and partake in our society....."

This way people could migrate, not be relocated, as they see fit....

Folks who want to live off 'Res' in Tronna are still welcome to do so...

Now I understand your statement on Tronna and LA, but I would submit, even based to some degree on your arguments, that one of the plights of the urban native is, separated from his (sic) society, criminalized or discriminated against by the whites, the aborginal ends up in a really bad spot. I think I am saying an urban reserve gives you (again sic)  your land, your culture, and the other things important to a peer-group society and allows aboriginals the chance to participate in the economy .


Has not the new urban reserve in Saskatoon gone some way to validating such a hypothesis?


_<*Edit*, Treaty Six is wrong, my bad, I'll go with the easiest reference, changed to Williams Treaty, sorry...>
<*Edit:* the new urban reserve is in Saskatoon, not Edmonton, once again ,, my UpperCanadian mind is challenged by Western Geography>_


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> In 10,000 years not much as compelled us to leave, the land is what holds us.  Until the non-natives come to understand that, there will always be a difference.



Then quit complaining.  

History and tradition are all well and good, but reality is judged in the here and now.  I have a glorious Scottish tradition that I can speak to, but my family didn't raise me to believe that when our clan got dicked over by the British 500-odd years ago that it was a reason to pin all my personal shortcomings on.  
Hold on to your past, but only the good parts.  If you want to make things better, come up with a plan and execute it.  I will be the last person to tell anyone to get off of their Reservation and I agree that forcing people into urban centers is not a great plan.  But why not un-designate the reserve and make it a municipality like the rest of everywhere.  Whoever is there currently gets to own their property and simply gets with the program.  Doubtless there would be concessions for hunting and fishing, but if infrastructure and community organization is the biggest challenge, why not become part of a system that is proven to work?  You need not fear anyone else will be running things ie) whites, since the only people who actually live in the municipality would already be all native.  Getting a native mayor or native city counsel would be a pretty simple task.  
Make all the excuses you want to.  Blame anyone and everyone.  It's your gig to run, but if you don't like how things are going you may want to try to think out of the box (or circle as it were).
Good luck.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Throwing money doesn't solve the problem, neither does forced assimilation.  Some of the 'solutions' you guys are throwing out have been proven ineffective, if not dramatically harmful, time and time again.


I disagree.  Look at A_Majoor's post again.  Immigrants who were DIRT poor, couldn't speak english and weren't even qualified to drive a bicycle have made it here.  How?  By pulling up their socks and getting on with it, not by complaining that the White Man is to blame for all their woes.

On the other hand, reverting to early 20th Century methods of carting off natives to cities, forcing them to abandon their culture, etc is definately not the way to go.

Of course native culture is important.  But, in reality, if they want to live life as it was prior to the White Man coming over, then fine, do it.  Just don't ask me for handouts.


----------



## niner domestic (30 Nov 2006)

ZC, Why don't you travel to my home territory and point out to me where the reservation is? I have never lived on a reservation, my community is called a village, always has been and always will be with a population of 800.  We have a mayor, we have council members and we even have Pugwash, the garbage collector. We have corporate offices in Whitehorse and a three tier government.  But I assume that in your vast experience of FN, you knew that about most of the non-proclamation territories right? That you simply, in a moment of forgetfulness, forgot that not all FN communities are reserves and full of sad people, right?

As for complaining, you honour me with your valued opinion of me. I have only tried to emulate myself after yourself and it appears I have succeeded.  

Now a question for you ZC.  In a previous post, I included a link by the Six Nations.  In their site, they have gone to great lengths to name names of those they feel are responsible for creating acts of civil disobedience and as well, have gone to great lengths to give a somewhat detailed dates and places of incidents.  So with that information, what have you done with it? It is my understanding that one of your major complaints with the natives is the Caledonia barracading of a public road and ensuing problems.  Given that the Grand Council of the Six Nations is willing to "up the info" on those they feel responsible, have you done anything about it - in your powers as a police officer? Good luck with that.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2006)

> We did it, we survived, we conquered we inflicted our values onto the indigenous population". - I hear the non-native say- same old, same old. First Nations never left, we never ran, we didn't enmasse leave the country of our ancestors for better places as we love the land of our ancestors.  We stayed. Even when our very existence was threatened, we stayed.  Non-native people don't get that.  They don't get there is no solution - we don't need a solution, we never left in all the attempts to by non-natives to assimilate, criminalize, separate, dehumanize and segregate us from our land.



Respectfully niner, while I fully understand your need for recognition and your right to defend that which is yours I would much prefer that we kept the hypocrisy of racial stereo-typing out of this discussion.  There was no paradise before the whiteman, as your own Great Law attests.  The archaeological record further supports the contention that people moved and conquered, assimilated, absorbed, enslaved and slaughtered before the whiteman showed up here.  The historical record of west coast natives shows this.  The Haida have a well earned reputation on the coast comparable to that of the vikings.  Nor were the Blackfoot on particularly good terms with the Assiniboine or the Flatheads when Palliser crossed the Southern prairies in the 1850s.

And within southern ontario there is an alternate history of relations between the Iroquoian Confederacy and the Huron/Algonkian alliance.  (That apparently is the source of my confusion over the linquistic group of the Hurons or Wendat)

Here is the story of the wars of Pre-Champlain southern Ontario as told by the Mississauga of the Algonkian Ojibway Cree at Rice Lake.  It isn't in complete conformity with your Confederacy's view.

http://www.ricelakecanada.com/A_WEBPAGES/histserpent.html

Again, this is not to denigrate your rights and desires to live the life you choose.  As a conservative I fully support that concept.  However the consequences of your decisions must be yours alone.  Dealing with a changing environment, both geographical and social, is something that we all have to contend with.  In the past your ancestors have contended with those forces using exactly the same tools that the whiteman has used.

Cheers again, Chris.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> There lies the fundamental difference between what the non-native tries to understand and fails to do and what the FN knows and accepts.  Non-natives can only use their experiences of immigration, global movement, colonization and conquering to establish parameters of what is "best for the redman."  The solution is always the same, pick a century, decade, or moment and it only repeats itself - "move the Indian and all will be well. Make them the same as us and we won't have to deal with otherness, only sameness.  We did it, we survived, we conquered we inflicted our values onto the indigenous population". - I hear the non-native say- same old, same old. First Nations never left, we never ran, we didn't enmasse leave the country of our ancestors for better places as we love the land of our ancestors.  We stayed. Even when our very existence was threatened, we stayed.  Non-native people don't get that.  They don't get there is no solution - we don't need a solution, we never left in all the attempts to by non-natives to assimilate, criminalize, separate, dehumanize and segregate us from our land.  You won't be seeing a mass exodus of Indians leaving the continent, or our lands so your solutions won't work because they require us to find something more important to us than the land. In 10,000 years not much as compelled us to leave, the land is what holds us.  Until the non-natives come to understand that, there will always be a difference.
> 
> 
> Cpl Caldwell, You want an Urban reserve? Look no further than Toronto and Los Angeles.  LA is the biggest urban rez in North American and TO is second with an off reserve population of over 50,000.



This post says it all for me........count the friggin' 'we'[s}.

I'm sorry Niner but YOU didn't do any of the things you mentioned above just as I didn't do any of the things you mentioned my ancestors did.   
When I talk of people coming over here 100's of years ago I sure don't count them in my "we".

My 'we' started the day I was born............................


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2006)

> Now a question for you ZC.  In a previous post, I included a link by the Six Nations.  In their site, they have gone to great lengths to name names of those they feel are responsible for creating acts of civil disobedience and as well, have gone to great lengths to give a somewhat detailed dates and places of incidents.  So with that information, what have you done with it? It is my understanding that one of your major complaints with the natives is the Caledonia barracading of a public road and ensuing problems.  Given that the Grand Council of the Six Nations is willing to "up the info" on those they feel responsible, have you done anything about it - in your powers as a police officer? Good luck with that.



Further questions for you niner - first of all I don't know about ZC's jurisdiction and how it interacts with the 6 Nations - but are you suggesting that a municipal, the provincial or even the federal police force has jurisdiction on 6 Nation's lands? Or are you requesting assistance in the same manner in which the Government of Afghanistan has requested and received assistance from the Canadian government - To maintain order in the absence of a local ability to maintain order?  Has the Grand Council made that kind of request for assistance?


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2006)

If the Grand Council is willing to "name names" are they also willing to use their powers of citizens arrest or the local band police to arrest the trouble-makers and deliver them to the OPP and justice system?

The real problem seams to be more political than anything else, I have spoken with frustrated OPP officers who would be more than happy to arrest the trouble makers but have reason to fear their political masters will not back them up in the event of trouble. If a band of Hell's Angels were to decend on the Six Nations reservation, barracade a road and take over some buildings to make a clubhouse, what would the response be by the band council? I would hope the council would take effective steps to remove trespassers, and support the band police in their efforts.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> ZC, Why don't you travel to my home territory and point out to me where the reservation is? I have never lived on a reservation, my community is called a village, always has been and always will be with a population of 800.  We have a mayor, we have council members and we even have Pugwash, the garbage collector. We have corporate offices in Whitehorse and a three tier government.  But I assume that in your vast experience of FN, you knew that about most of the non-proclamation territories right? That you simply, in a moment of forgetfulness, forgot that not all FN communities are reserves and full of sad people, right?



Well, Huzzah for Pugwash.  
I was under the impression that we were talking about the reserve system.  If you want to shift direction, do so but don't get all miffy about it.  Again, YOU are the one complaining about your communities not me.



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> As for complaining, you honour me with your valued opinion of me. I have only tried to emulate myself after yourself and it appears I have succeeded.



I have no opinion of you.  I don't even know you.  "You" are pixels on my computer screen.  All I am debating are your points.  If you need to take it personally, go ahead.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> Now a question for you ZC.  In a previous post, I included a link by the Six Nations.  In their site, they have gone to great lengths to name names of those they feel are responsible for creating acts of civil disobedience and as well, have gone to great lengths to give a somewhat detailed dates and places of incidents.  So with that information, what have you done with it? It is my understanding that one of your major complaints with the natives is the Caledonia barricading public road and ensuing problems.  Given that the Grand Council of the Six Nations is willing to "up the info" on those they feel responsible, have you done anything about it - in your powers as a police officer? Good luck with that.



Sure, I'll just grab a cruiser, head down the 401 and start pulling down barricades.  :  I am going to Afghanistan to risk my life with gunfire.  I don't need that aggravation in Ontario if I can avoid it.  But rest assured all that is needed is a green light and there will be some decidedly unsmug individuals littered about.  And I would be thrilled to be in on that one.  
And in your own words "those they *feel* responsible".  Well, I guess we are all responsible aren't we?  Might as well put my own name on the list.  
Where was the cooperation when two elderly tourists got attacked?  When reporters got attacked and had their drivers licences taken under the threat of "now we know where you live"?  When an observer from the Michigan State Police was almost killed with the same car he had been riding in when it was carjacked by domestic terrorists?  Where was the cooperation when two OPP officers on their way to the detail were waylaid by Six Nations Police for driving on a road they supposedly not allowed to be on and then were charged with Trespassing?  
Don't be so quick to point the self righteous finger.  The worst examples you can point to are from decades and centuries ago.  Mine are from months ago.  
But you keep on keeping on.  You kid yourself that you are on a flawless course of action.  You tell yourself that it is all everyone elses fault and make sure you teach your children and grandchildren how to shirk personal accountability and dwell on things that happened when we lived in log cabins.  

And *you* have good luck with that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2006)

>And why is the suicide rate so high among the indigenous people all over the world?

Boredom, purposelessness, a sense of displacement and alienation.  Stone age hunting/gathering, with or without shades of plant and animal domestication, is a full-time job.  Newer technologies reduce the task times to meet basic needs to fractions of former durations.  Then what does one do with time, especially in remote areas and without any in-demand skills with which to obtain money with which to buy the leisure products and services of the modern world?

Adaptation to modern technologies and different socio-political structures, including methods of governance, doesn't necessitate losses of culture.  But, "Root, hog; or die" is sound advice to anyone.  Your life is what you make it.


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Nov 2006)

Sheesh, early twentieth century farming, with full-on plant and animal domestication is a full time job. 

But I agree 100% with your post Mr Sallows. 

That's why I would argue a solution allows individuals to _voluntarily_ participate in the economy and that protects the culture is _a_ solution.


----------



## Jacqueline (30 Nov 2006)

Good idea.


----------



## ambex (30 Nov 2006)

First off I would like to note that I have not read all posts, so if someone else has brought this to light my bad.

Mr. Phil Fontaine re: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/27/first-nations.html?ref=rss

"It is our hope that when parliamentarians rise to speak to this issue that they will state very clearly that they recognize the unique status and unique rights of First Peoples and that this motion in no way is designed to diminish those rights," he said.

"Any action that elevates the status of one segment of Canadian society over another is completely wrong. There is a real appreciation in Canada that we don't do nation building in this way."

I dont have an english major but that sounds like an oxymoron.

I personally think special rights and status based on blood is stupid. While horrible things have been done to aboriginal groups in the past we have to realise that continued special status and rights will only serve to encourage resentment towards aboriginals. A case of this would be a few years back when aboriginal fisherman were fishing during the off season on the east coast while other fisherman in the area had had a reduction in their catch limits that year. As I recall this resulted in several violent clashes. (This is what I recall reading in the news, if there are facts missing regarding this incident please bring them to light.) I for one would like to see an apology from all levels of government including a representative from France and England. Lets have apologizies all around, make nice and get on with our lives as *equals* in Canada and set an example for the rest of the world to follow.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2006)

>That's why I would argue a solution allows individuals to voluntarily participate in the economy and that protects the culture is a solution.

That's fine, but is there someone who will be expected to provide shelter and basic services and various modern tools to the individuals that don't volunteer to participate in the economy, or will they deal with those needs themselves as part of their choice to live traditionally?


----------



## rmacqueen (30 Nov 2006)

I find it interesting how natives have become a commodity to be moved around at will.  Too expensive to provide safe water, move them.  Too many children dying, move them.  How many non-natives would allow the government to move their entire town just because  it was easier?  The answer is none, yet it is acceptable to uproot people who have lived in the same area for decades, or longer, rather than actually solve anything.  Just another item on the to do list.  Hmmm, I seem to recall we did that to the Japanese in the 40's.

As for Caledonia, 6 Nations had filed a *legal* claim against the site in *1995* that is still outstanding.  If it had been a non-native filing a legal challenge to the ownership of land you can bet that any development would have waited until it was settled.  But, because it was a native claim, the Ontario government went ahead and granted title to the developer and then issued building permits, even though the land was under dispute in the *courts.*  I can't even build a garage if my neighbour complains it is too close to the property line let alone start building on land were my ownership is being legally challenged.

Some have suggested that the reserves should be run like a municipality.  That is a great idea except that is known as "self government" and everytime that comes up there is a huge uproar from those that don't care to actually understand.  The FN have been trying to get that for years but then politics becomes involved, and people carry on about special status for natives, and the issues dies.  Many have attempted to start businesses on the reserves but it is difficult to do when they can't get loans because they live on a reserve.  When the band does figure out how to make some extra money to improve the reserve, non-natives usually find something to complain about it.

This sort of behaviour also hurts us in other ways.  The FN in this country signed treaties in good faith.  The were not afforded a lawyer to read them over before signing and, until the 70's, they were not allowed to challenge them legally.  They abided by the terms of their treaties, many of which were given as rewards for cooperation, and moved on to the reserves.  Over the years the terms of the treaties have been consistently violated by non-natives and especially by the government.  Land stolen, resources taken without compensation, etc.  Now we, as a nation, are going all over the world trying to convince people to live in peace and that they should listen to us because we are honest.  Then they look at how little our word means when it comes to the FN.  How can we be trusted?

Then we sit here and wonder why they don't just assimilate, join the rest of us.  Perhaps they should, because then the FN would actually have *more* rights.  Of course, they would have to leave their ancestral home behind and never return for more than a quick visit.  They wouldn't be allowed to move back to the place of their birth because it would be on the reserve.  But, then again, it comes back to them being a commodity.  Rural Canadians live for generations in the same small town but non-natives must leave and never move back.

I have seen talk about tax money being used inappropriately by some bands.  Although this is true in some cases it is not like that is unique to natives.  In Ontario it was just published that the Children's Aid Society has been doing exactly the same thing we are accusing certain bands of doing, using tax money for fancy cars, trips, etc, yet no one is suggesting that Children's Aid be eliminated, just that the system be fixed.  Yet, because of a few corrupt people, we should get rid of reserves?

And ZC, before you climb on your high horse about the natives occupying the site in Caledonia, the non-natives on the otherside are not lilly white either.  I can name you at least 5 white supremacists from London that have been down there a number of time protesting the natives and trying to stir up trouble.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> I find it interesting how natives have become a commodity to be moved around at will.  Too expensive to provide safe water, move them.  Too many children dying, move them.  How many non-natives would allow the government to move their entire town just because  it was easier?  The answer is none, yet it is acceptable to uproot people who have lived in the same area for decades, or longer, rather than actually solve anything.  Just another item on the to do list.  Hmmm, I seem to recall we did that to the Japanese in the 40's.



Hmmm, "decades, or longer", but getting safe drinking water wasn't that high on the priority? OK lad, give us how you would solve them instead of  the standard 'white man's guilt trip", cause I have no guilt.


----------



## Jacqueline (30 Nov 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hmmm, "decades, or longer", but getting safe drinking water wasn't that high on the priority? OK lad, give us how you would solve them instead of  the standard 'white man's guilt trip", cause I have no guilt.



Why _should_ you feel guilty?


----------



## rmacqueen (30 Nov 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hmmm, "decades, or longer", but getting safe drinking water wasn't that high on the priority? OK lad, give us how you would solve them instead of  the standard 'white man's guilt trip", cause I have no guilt.


No, but the attitude that we should simply uproot an entire village shows an attitude of ownership of natives, that we can do whatever we feel like, even if we wouldn't accept it ourselves.


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Nov 2006)

i got news for you, white people have been uprooted in the past as well so get over it. First example I will provide is Meaford. The base was acquired from european immagrant farmers in the 40s during the war. Give me some time to research and confirm some more situations.


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Nov 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> No, but the attitude that we should simply uproot an entire village shows an attitude of ownership of natives, that we can do whatever we feel like, even if we wouldn't accept it ourselves.





			
				rmacqueen said:
			
		

> I find it interesting how natives have become a commodity to be moved around at will.





			
				nine domestic said:
			
		

> The solution is always the same, pick a century, decade, or moment and it only repeats itself - "move the Indian and all will be well.





			
				 UberCree said:
			
		

> As for mass relocation of Aboriginal people to urban centres?



 I AM NOT ADVOCATING UPROOTING ANYONE. I AM ADVOCATING GIVING ABORIGINALS A LAND RESERVE IN OR NEAR A CITY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO VOLUNTARILY MIGRATE TO , IN ORDER TO VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATE IN THE ECONOMY AND GET AWAY FROM THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS THAT ARISE FROM BEING ECONOMICALLY DISENFRANCHISED. WHILST STILL MAINTAINING A PIECE OF LAND TO LIVE ON,  PRACTISE THEIR CULTURE AND STEWARD AS THEY SEE FIT! 

Brad Sallows: Yes I think that it would require investment by INA to establish infrastructure.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2006)

Sounds like a good gig.  You pay for my house, and I live my life the way I believe my cultural heritage recommends.


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Nov 2006)

Yes. But here's the kicker, once it's done, it's done.

Get some established communities up running with a chance at making it, BUT in twenty years when you need a new water plant, 'talk to the hand'.

I guess I'm saying let's get rid of this welfare state, but in doing so, let's set up the model and then the Aboriginal community can start running it. 

This idea, while somewhat odd by some standards, and only partially baked by any standard, is a lot better (to me) than pouring cash into areas where there is little or no economic viability and the social problems based on isolation and the lack of economic opportunity are endemic.

Does it negate the idea of Indian Act cheques, no, does it mitigate infrastructure grants completely, no, but it mitigates them.

Oh yeah and like I said above, self government means democracy 'quid pro quo'.

By the way, keep the existing reserves if folks want to go there for summer vacation or take a year away from the urban crush to fish and hunt great or evens stay there permanently, just stop coming asking for tonnes of money.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2006)

>How many non-natives would allow the government to move their entire town just because  it was easier?

How many towns have had problems which might commend such a drastic solution?  It's not a case of eminent domain (eg. building the St Lawrence Seaway).  I'm aware of many (non-aboriginal) communities across Canada which have slowly disappeared because the "way of life" no longer remained (the mine closed, the mill closed, the fish ran out, not enough young men came back alive from the war).  But how many have been regarded as ecological or social disasters?  (Also, one of the people from Kashechewan referred to the town as a "rat-hole" - what's the residents' view?)  For any small community in Canada, on what does it support itself?  Can it support itself?

>That is a great idea except that is known as "self government" and everytime that comes up there is a huge uproar from those that don't care to actually understand.

The uproar is generally from people who believe - rightly or wrongly - that something higher than a municipal level of self-government is concerned.

>Many have attempted to start businesses on the reserves but it is difficult to do when they can't get loans because they live on a reserve.

There's no remarkable injustice involved in that objection.  You generally can't get a loan if you don't have collateral, unless the target of the loan can itself secure the loan.  Living on a reserve has nothing directly to do with it.  Indirectly, the situation is that most people living on a reserve are not personally permitted to hold title to reserve land as collateral.  But most people start life without collateral, regardless where they live, and progressively earn collateral.

>Then we sit here and wonder why they don't just assimilate, join the rest of us.

It occurs to me that when non-aboriginals say "assimilate" they really just mean "join the modern economy and self-support".  Few today actually want aboriginals to throw aside their culture.  When a band builds a casino or a mall or an industrial park, it is joining the modern economy.  No-one confuses this with a loss of culture or decries "assimilation".  Is there some reason an individual can't do what a band does without being assimilated?

>Yet, because of a few corrupt people, we should get rid of reserves?

With respect to the number of people involved, is it a few?  None, some, many, all - there's a difference.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2006)

>Yes. But here's the kicker, once it's done, it's done.

Not a chance.  It gets used until it's unsuited to human use, and then the outcries for compassionate resolution of the problem are renewed (and that's the way most people are irrespective of heritage).


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Nov 2006)

> It gets used until it's unsuited to human use, and then the outcries for compassionate resolution of the problem are renewed (and that's the way most people are irrespective of heritage).



Quite Possibly. But if the group using it has taken ownership, pays (property) taxes to keep it up, and has (local government level) authority I am not sure if in twenty years when that new water plant is required if the population _around_ such an entity might just be a bit less compassionate at throwing cash at it for compassion's sake. 

That's the real bugger in it all isn't it? Would such an idea go toward breaking the existing mentalities or just send them into hibernation? I dunno


----------



## UberCree (1 Dec 2006)

Seeing some of you try to "solve" the Native problem (via economic theory, forced assimilation, threats, etc.) is about as educational as watching the Polaris Group "solve" the military problem.   

The disconnect is astounding.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Seeing some of you try to "solve" the Native problem (via economic theory, forced assimilation, threats, etc.) is about as educational as watching the Polaris Group "solve" the military problem.



Ouch!!! Now that hurts.  ;D


----------



## ambex (1 Dec 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Seeing some of you try to "solve" the Native problem (via economic theory, forced assimilation, threats, etc.) is about as educational as watching the Polaris Group "solve" the military problem.
> 
> The disconnect is astounding.



So because I am white that means nothing I say is relevant? Prejudice is a two way street friend.


----------



## Trinity (1 Dec 2006)

ambex said:
			
		

> So because I am white that means nothing I say is relevant? Prejudice is a two way street friend.



I'm actually quite disappointed in you ambex.

You've posted once in this thread.. I checked all of your posts.

His comment is not directly pointed at you.
Also, you have no right to drop the race card, especially being white.

Your comment is cheap, insulting, and trolling.

Your comment wasn't meant to encourage dialogue... it was meant to
start a fight.  And I'm stopping it.   Everyone back on topic... and let
a mod come and erase the last few posts including mine.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I'm actually quite disappointed in you ambex.
> 
> You've posted once in this thread.. I checked all of your posts.
> 
> ...



C'mon. We've been skirting, using fancy words and being just PC enough in this whole thread to stay just outside those bounds of being "racist", It's all crap and a crutch. People need a 'Hand up" not a "Hand out" to steal a phrase. Once that has been given, they thrive.... or die. Like every section of the cities that retain their culture. The 'Little Italys", Little Saigons", the "Polish Quarter", have all done well and retained culture, heritage and identity. They've done so by depending on each other, trusting each other, helping each other and working hard. It's worked for every segment in society today............save one. Why can't the Aboriginals accomplish the same standard? This is no longer my problem, and really never has been. As has been stated earlier, what happened a thousand, a hundred, or even fifty years ago, is not my fault. I have no guilt and see no reason to have to pay for it. I'll give anyone a chance, but if you don't grab the rope, don't expect me to keep making circles with the boat until you decide you've made your point. I'm truly sorry, in a humanitarian way, for what's happened previously. The Aboriginals are not the only ones that were abused by priests and nuns. They don't have a corner or precedent when it comes to being subjugated, humiliated and decimated by another sector of the world societies. That's happened to thousands of cultures and civilisations world wide since time began. If you want to live totally in the old ways, fine. Give up everything we've brought. Gas, hydro, firearms, the gambit. If you wish to retain even the tiniest part of this civilisation and period of time, get on with it and join it. Personally, I've had enough of all your PC sparing, on both sides, There's nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage and customs, no matter what they are or their origins, but I'm not financially or morally responsible for maintaining or succoring them, .....at all....ever.....and never will be.


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Dec 2006)

OK Ubercree, we military folk know nothing about aboriginal affairs. Please tell us what a workable and realistic solution would be, short and long term.


----------



## cplcaldwell (1 Dec 2006)

UberCree: *for the FIFTH TIME I am not talking about forced relocation.*

I am talking about creating a reserve in a city that would allow natives to retain the benefits of reserve life (i.e having the cultural and social support network that is important to the aboriginal culture) whilst having the benefits of being close to the centers of economic activity in this country. 

Again, I would point out the beneficial aspects of the new reserve of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation at Saskatoon.


----------



## rmacqueen (1 Dec 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> I am talking about creating a reserve in a city that would allow natives to retain the benefits of reserve life (i.e having the cultural and social support network that is important to the aboriginal culture) whilst having the benefits of being close to the centers of economic activity in this country.



That is kind of what 6 Nations is just outside of Brantford, Ont and the Chippewa of the Thames on the outskirts of Sarnia, Ont.  What this has created is the Caledonia standoff, based on native claims to the land, and a land claim in Sarnia based on the gradual shrinking of the reserve to build chemical plants.  Now, it would be nice to say we could build this sort of thing but why would any of the First Nations trust us to live up to the agreement since, as seen on this thread, a large portion of the people think we should be ripping up our agreements with the natives.

It also still wouldn't help the economic situation either as the problems are systemic.  The fact that anyone on a reserve cannot get a bank loan limits their ability to generate income.  Non-natives usually start creating a credit history by getting a credit card or car loan using a co-signor.  This is not an option for natives on the reserve, the system makes them dependent on government cheques.  Oh, and since, even if it was an urban reserve, they would have no way to get to work, how can they improve their situation?  This isn't only a native issue either, I see it in the small village I live in.  People move here because without a car they cannot work so can get welfare without a hassle.


----------



## UberCree (1 Dec 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ouch!!! Now that hurts.  ;D


;D

I knew the words "Polaris Institute" would lighten the tone.   ;D

If I had answers, I'd be the first to tell you.  My answer would involves increasing bold eagle so every FN youth was a conscript, but I dont think that would fly.


----------



## cplcaldwell (1 Dec 2006)

> Now, it would be nice to say we could build this sort of thing but why would any of the First Nations trust us to live up to the agreement...



Quite right, a real problem.

It's clear that some framework exists to allow us to move forward. The reserves you mentioned are,at first glance and given my limited knowledge, candidates to move forward on.

There are problems that are systemic, and I quite agree that if we are going to say to aboriginals, 'come participate in the economy', we must give them the tools to build equity and credit in order to do so.

So I ask you, and I have no preconceived notions and am not lying in ambush with a smart *** answer : what are the obstacles to giving these tools, the ability to generate equity by owning property, to have and earn credit, and so forth?

Now, I know the current structure of the Indian Act is the obvious answer, but what, on all sides, is holding the changes that would be necessary?


----------



## rmacqueen (1 Dec 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Now, I know the current structure of the Indian Act is the obvious answer, but what, on all sides, is holding the changes that would be necessary?



Politics and public perception.  Again I point to the reaction whenever anyone brings up self-government when really all the FN want is the powers of a municipality.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Oh, and since, even if it was an urban reserve, they would have no way to get to work, how can they improve their situation?  This isn't only a native issue either, I see it in the small village I live in.  People move here because without a car they cannot work so can get welfare without a hassle.



Why is it a lot of those who use the "white mans guilt" as a weapon to defend the good people of the First Nations write the most stupid condensending things that I have ever had the misfortune to read in my life??

"ONLY"?? ......Not to mention the underlying [among others] "they won't be able to drive??    

Your defence underwhelms me.......


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Politics and public perception.  Again I point to the reaction whenever anyone brings up self-government when really all the FN want is the powers of a municipality.



What reaction??...............as long as, like a municipality, the political process is open to anyone, its a great idea.


----------



## rmacqueen (1 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Your defence underwhelms me.......


Mr Monkhouse, I have read many of your posts in this thread and in everyone you are rude and confrontational.  Until this point I have refrained from responding to your taunts and insults toward others, as well as myself,  because you are a member of the directing staff but, I have had enough.  Your manner and tone is not even worthy of a petulant child.  I have seen others post on here in a more civil tone and been warned about the tone of their posts and, I believe, were you not in the position you are in on this site you too would be.  You attack anyone who disagees with you, you taunt and insult and, in the end, you add very little to the actual discussion.

For further info I would direct you to http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

I will not respond to anything further you post as it is not worth my time.

End of Rant


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Dec 2006)

Macqueen, I disagree with you on Bruce's comments.


----------



## Trinity (1 Dec 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Macqueen, I disagree with you on Bruce's comments.



I like Bruce..

But I can see how rmacqueen may feel that way.

Queen has been typing out long posts/ideas and Bruce
has been doing one or two liners cutting them down. I looked
through the entire thread and for the most part Bruce hasn't posted
all that much.. but did have a nasty spat with domestic niner which
seemed to end quickly and seem to be in retaliation.  

And.. well.. Bruce doesn't mix words.  

So I understand why rmacqueen feels way.... but I'm afraid he'll
have to learn how to deal with alledged bullies in debating.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen,

Just so you know,....I separate my duties as Staff from my posts as a member here.

NO one has ever been banned/warned just for disagreeing with me......nor will anyone.


----------



## rmacqueen (1 Dec 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> So I understand why rmacqueen feels way.... but I'm afraid he'll
> have to learn how to deal with alledged bullies in debating.


I have no problem dealing with bullies but I do expect a certain comportment by members of the directing staff, especially when I have seen others placed on warning for lesser infractions because of the tone of their posts


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Dec 2006)

Sorry, but there was no "tone" to my post.......its pretty black and white, IMO, your post was condensening to a whole lot of good people and therefore I gave it what it deserved,...distain.

Read what you wrote again.........


----------



## Scott (1 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> I have no problem dealing with *bullies* but I do expect a certain comportment by members of the directing staff, especially when I have seen others placed on warning for lesser infractions because of the tone of their posts



Ease up there. I see no "bullying" here, you are complaining about cheap shots and then you deliver one.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> rmacqueen,
> 
> Just so you know,....I separate my duties as Staff from my posts as a member here.
> 
> NO one has ever been banned/warned just for disagreeing with me......nor will anyone.



Did you miss this?

Once again, I'd hate to lock this because of a pissing match.


----------



## ambex (1 Dec 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I'm actually quite disappointed in you ambex.
> 
> You've posted once in this thread.. I checked all of your posts.
> 
> ...



Your right, it wasn't ment to encourage dialogue, but if you think I am the only person here who has "dropped the race card" your wronge. You yourself just dropped it - "especially being white." I didnt say it to start a fight I said it as a counter-point, and I realise it wasnt necesarily directed at me. Lets get back on topic.


----------



## Trinity (1 Dec 2006)

One cannot drop the race card... when dealing with ones own race.

Dropping the race card is claiming discrimination because someone 
of another usually oppressive race is acting over another.

You're white, I'm white.  There is no race card played.  I'm telling
you as another white person, I found your comments in poor taste.  


edit..  the especially cause your white comment was linked to
stuff I deleted from my post before posting it.. btw

Because... everything in this society is geared towards the white young male
and since we're white young males, we don't recognize this.  It must be
very different to be Ubercree sitting and watching us debate how to deal
with his races... almost surreal actually.   That may help explain how it
wasn't a race card comment...


----------



## rmacqueen (1 Dec 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> Ease up there. I see no "bullying" here, you are complaining about cheap shots and then you deliver one.


The reference to bullies was not mine but responding to post #200 by trinity

I have said my piece now back to the subject at hand


----------



## ambex (1 Dec 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> One cannot drop the race card... when dealing with ones own race.
> 
> Dropping the race card is claiming discrimination because someone
> of another usually oppressive race is acting over another.
> ...



Point taken. One counter-point though, just because we are both white does not mean that we cannot be racist towards other white people. A racist comment is racist wether you say it against someone of your own "race" or another. (I dont like the word race unless we are talking about the entirety of the human race.) Please do not take this as me saying that you are racist. I am young not dumb.   
There have been times on this and other forums as well as in the real world where I have taken offence to comments regarding my "race" (wether directly or indirectly), as we all know it is not a good fealing, I apologize if anything I posted was offensive to UberCree or anyone else.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Dec 2006)

A short point: "racism" is over-used; a better term would be "culturalism" since it is usually cultural differences that are at the root of different perceptions.

>It also still wouldn't help the economic situation either as the problems are systemic.  The fact that anyone on a reserve cannot get a bank loan limits their ability to generate income.  Non-natives usually start creating a credit history by getting a credit card or car loan using a co-signor.

It's not a systemic problem.  The order goes something like this: acquire jobs skills and education; acquire career- or lifetime-oriented employment; acquire assets and establish credit history.  If you drop out of public education and can't hold your attention to a job, you've fucked yourself.  No-one else has done it to you.


----------



## foresterab (1 Dec 2006)

Okay...first time posting so be gentle.  

I deal with natural resources and first nations daily.  I'm white, was raised in the north around Cree and Dene'thai comunities and have worked with Ojibiway, Cree, Stoney, Chipewayean, Beaver, Dene'thai, Sioux and Slavey reserves along with the numerous Metis communities around.  I've also was educated at university in a couple of major centers so have seen a lot of Canada.    What I find interesting here is the education all sides are learning and I still learn myself.  

For those that want to learn all I can provide is some advice:
1) The cultures and tranditions of each cultural First Nation are vastly different.  Confusing Iroquis for Sioux for Cree customs gets you in a lot of trouble at times and may permanantly damage your credibility if you are trying to build a relationship.
2) Understand the history of those first nations locally and (if) a treaty was signed.  There is a big difference between the lifestyles of folks in the Robinson-Superior treaty versus Treaty 8 due to both first nation and european goverment objectives of the time.  Also..no treaty is 100% accepted.  Where I currently work we are dealing with 5 VALID land claims as those communities did NOT sign Treaty 8 even though their neighbors did.
3) The role of family.  This was something that I did not understand until working overseas but family is key.  Unless the family and community support a proposal (name the subject) you have a very tough battle.   
4) While many natives argue the white man does not respect natives I've had many terrible experiences with the reverse.  My family is tied to the land and follows many of the same customs as the first nations.  However...treat the experience as dealing with an individual and not the family or first nation or race.  I made this mistake in my youth and took many years to recognize it and change.
5) Wealth is a relative thing.  You can say that people on reserves are poor or underfunded but I would argue that it is more a reflection of local wealth. Many northern communities (wealth aside) are in rough shape and face the same local cultural pressures first nations do.  Likewise many near more prosperous communities seem to much better.
6) Relationships can be frusterating.  In many regards I prefer dealing with those communities undergoing the land claim process as the roles of the "little government" or province and the "big government" or feds is much cleaner than those who work through applying federal legislation on a provincial mandate (education?) with differing levels of funding.
7) as mentioned in a earlier posting it's about perspective.  95% of people you don't hear about but you do hear about extremetists in any field whether they are enviromentalists, politicians, non-government organizations and those are who shape our experiences.
8) knowledge is key. Education of both yourself and the client is crucial.  However you must commit to the process to build the trust needed.  Meeting an illiterate elder who does some trapping, handing him a cheque and some paper in a foreign language gets you no where and only builds resentment.  Meeting him and arranging a pre planning meeting through the community (to arrange for a translator) at a location of his choice to find out what you may be impacting in advance of operations and his/her concerns is a much differnt story.
9) Don't split hairs and try to debate laws or rights.  Concentrate on issues and leave the laws to the lawyers.  You don't get respect for spewing regulations.  This is why bringing OPP (as per the original article) or the military in sours relations so much.  You may not like it but spewing laws and trying to intimidate a party doesn't resolve the solution.   In Caldonia...both parties are guilty of this flaw in my opinion.
10) Money doesn't normally provide the "hand up" as refered to.  However having the patience to understand the differences in culture and work towards the strengths of those backgrounds gives people the bosot they need.  We deal often with illiterate fire crew leaders who know the buisness inside and out..but are hampered by their education.  So partner them with a young kid that doesn't know anything about the fireline, make him do the paperwork with the leader, and both gain respect - the elder gets the formal recognition of his leadership and you are acknowledging a potential future leader.  Think the Sgt. and OC or 2nd Lt. relationship...if both work together the troops do well.

You and I can't change the world or history of Aboriginal people today.   But trying to follow these basic guidelines sure has made my life much easier and helped put many "conflict", "media events", "land claims" into perspective.

Hope it helps.


----------



## cplcaldwell (1 Dec 2006)

Very much so.

I have a PM or two on this issue and with this post and a few others would like to follow up, perhaps tonight. 

I think it's clear much learning is to be done, on all sides. From that understanding may follow.  Finally, someday, perhaps a solution or more correctly a set of solutions.....will arise


----------



## TCBF (1 Dec 2006)

foresterab,

Thanks for that post, and now that you know we are here, drop by now and then.

Tom


----------



## foresterab (1 Dec 2006)

TCBF....

Now that I know this is here you'll see me reading posts at least a lot.  Too many veterns of all ages have influenced me and my career not to try to learn as much as I can about the forces and hopefully return the favor.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2006)

Great initial post foresterab.  Hope to hear more from you.

Cheers.


----------



## rmacqueen (2 Dec 2006)

+1 foresterab, excellent observations


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> If I had answers, I'd be the first to tell you.  My answer would involves increasing bold eagle so every FN youth was a conscript, but I dont think that would fly.



I have had the pleasure of instructing several recruits of native extraction, and in every case they were outstanding candidates because they were SOLDIERS and not natives. They recognized that in the military environment they needed to adopt the customs and behaviours of soldiers, and did so to great personal and professional effect.

On the other hand, I have also instructed soldiers from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds (including "white") who were unable or unwilling to adapt themselves to the military culture, and who were therefore a drag on the system at best, and dangerous liabilities at worst.

The lesson is that adaptation and "assimilation" is needed to succeed in 21rst century Canada (as it has always been), and if you don't want to adapt, then you won't succeed or thrive. There is no reason that a person cannot celebrate or maintain their parent cultural traditions (as noted, there are ethnic clubs, communities and even neighbourhoods in most Canadian cities) while still being Canadians.


----------



## rmacqueen (3 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I have had the pleasure of instructing several recruits of native extraction, and in every case they were outstanding candidates


Perhaps this was because of their culture not inspite of it.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Perhaps this was because of their culture not inspite of it.



I have also had outstanding soldiers who were also Hindu, Sikh, Islamic, Jewish, Japanese, Romanian, British, male and female, Maritimers and Quebecers........I have also had the extreme misfortune of dealing with complete wastes of oxygen who were of Hindu, Sikh, Islamic, Jewish, Japanese, Romanian, British, male and female, Maritimers and Quebecer extraction.

It's all about the person.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Perhaps this was because of their culture not inspite of it.


What's next, "Irish Candidates who couldn't drink enough whiskey or eat enough potatoes?"
For the record, I've seen no attributes in candidates/soldiers/superiors that was attributable to race, but I must admit that my fellow soldiers who are female _generally _ smell nicer than males.


----------



## rmacqueen (3 Dec 2006)

Captain (Army)  Scarlet said:
			
		

> What's next, "Irish Candidates who couldn't drink enough whiskey or eat enough potatoes?"
> For the record, I've seen no attributes in candidates/soldiers/superiors that was attributable to race, but I must admit that my fellow soldiers who are female _generally _ smell nicer than males.


Ah, but culture is not race and culture definitely has an effect on attitude.  A group living in adversity grows up with a different attitude than one growing up in luxury.  You often see a different attitude from rural people versus urban.  People in B.C. like to say that people from Ontario live to work, while people from B.C. work to live.  Two different cultures.


----------



## UberCree (3 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The lesson is that adaptation and "assimilation" is needed to succeed in 21rst century Canada (as it has always been), and if you don't want to adapt, then you won't succeed or thrive. There is no reason that a person cannot celebrate or maintain their parent cultural traditions (as noted, there are ethnic clubs, communities and even neighbourhoods in most Canadian cities) while still being Canadians.



Part of the definition of being 'Canadian' is that we do NOT have to assimilate.  The Multiculturalism Act(s) (federal and provincial) are evidence of this.  You may disagree with this part of our identity and wish everyone to assimilate WASP values, but Canada is defined by its multicultural heritage (Its multi-NATION status  ;D).  By pushing for assimilation, you will create conflict, distrust and balkanization.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Dec 2006)

Did he SAY "WASP values"??

Ubercree,
You seem like a decent enough person,......................how can you justify tossing out that race card and then expect others [ like the LCBO clown] to not toss it back?  We were almost back on some sort of track again.........


If I may put forward what " assimilation" means to me, it is the common goal for the common good of ALL Canadians.
Yes, in the past I know this[assimilation] meant something totally different and hideous, but I'm not talking about making someone into something else, just making Canada into something 'more together' so that we don't Balkinize in the future.

It's really too bad that I have learned more Native Sons culture working in prisons than I ever learned in school.........and thats wrong.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2006)

>You may disagree with this part of our identity and wish everyone to assimilate WASP values,

To answer that question, I'd have to first see what you imagine are WASP values.  There were some very pro-NDP (and Marxist) ancestors in my family tree a couple of generations back, but of the "fair day's wages for a fair day's work" variety.  That anyone should expect to live, let alone live well, without a fair day's work would not have occurred to them.  Is that a WASP value, or do you refer to trappings such as attending an Anglican church and revering the Queen?


----------



## exsemjingo (5 Dec 2006)

foresterab said:
			
		

> 9) Don't split hairs and try to debate laws or rights.  Concentrate on issues and leave the laws to the lawyers.  You don't get respect for spewing regulations.  This is why bringing OPP (as per the original article) or the military in sours relations so much.  You may not like it but spewing laws and trying to intimidate a party doesn't resolve the solution.   In Caldonia...both parties are guilty of this flaw in my opinion.


The Caledonia protesters know what they are doing.  I guess the authorities could have been even more understanding, but never the less, only the protesters are breaking the law.
Further, you cannot lump all Natives together.  There is a difference between legitimate political action and forming blockades.


----------



## foresterab (5 Dec 2006)

Exsemjingo,

I've learned the lessons the hard way about grouping all natives as good or bad.  However due to where I live I'm only able to get the news coverage of the Caldonia situation and most likely don't have all the details and definately not all the perspectives.

What's going on in Caldonia is something I've had to deal with multiple times in my career...averaging about 1.5 years between incidents.  These have mostly been with assorted Oji-Cree or Cree communities but the objective is the same.  A dramatic interuption of normal events to gain media coverage to focus attention on their objective...similar to extreme environmentalists chaining themselves to trees to prevent logging.

Why I say both parties are guilty (and I  know I'm missing some information so I hope I have the key stuff) is that I belive a lien was in place against the land but the Provincial gov't overruled it.   Land claim negotiations are incredibly tricky...one we're dealing with has 5 different semi-official boundaries all of which are on the table and debated depending on the issue at hand.    I don't know if this lien was for the whole development area, a portion of it, or was in the process of filing.   Either way...if this occured the gov't is at fault for failing to resolve the issue prior to sale/release of the lands.

The Caldonia protesters are a fault for failing to follow the legal options (up to and including class action suits) to resolve this.  A court injunction against the developement would have settled this issue. And don't kid yourself....lawyers would have been lining up to take the case.

By putting a blockade up you are just about garunteed to recieve media attention...and unfortunately this often means deals are cut and the issue is resolved short term (ie. the land claim is granted).   What some individuals don't realize is the breach of trust/respect that occurs after such acts...events like this can very quickly poison a band/reserve/cultural name permanently.   While the local Caldonia protesters may have a single objective of protecting a piece of land they may not have thought out the long term consequences.

It is unfortunate but when working for a provincial government the politics around first nations are so intense that no matter what the rules say politics dictate otherwise.  It's not right...but it's a fact of life.  In Ontario having just completed the review of the Ipperwash shooting this is a very sensitive environment and the OPP does not want to go through the experience again so is trying to bluff their way through.  

The other thing to consider is that what exactly are native only rights versus common Canadian rights for all and how they relate has undergone massive changes in the last few years.   The courts are slowly re-establishing the ground rules but with the current state of flux many things I dealt with 5 years ago no longer apply...and I now do many new things differently.

Take Caldonia for what it is...a civil disobediance with huge politics involved and a desire for the police to have it occur peacefully.   

I don't know if this helps but maybe it's another perspective to give some food for thought.


----------



## UberCree (5 Dec 2006)

You seem to have a well balanced and fresh perspective.  Glad you joined us.

I found this the most interesting.
"By putting a blockade up you are just about garunteed to recieve media attention...and unfortunately this often means deals are cut and the issue is resolved short term (ie. the land claim is granted).   What some individuals don't realize is the breach of trust/respect that occurs after such acts...events like this can very quickly poison a band/reserve/cultural name permanently.   While the local Caldonia protesters may have a single objective of protecting a piece of land they may not have thought out the long term consequences."

Do you think that the whole Oka escapade hurt the Mohawk (akwasana, kanawaka) 'reputation' or actually helped them in regards to land claims?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Dec 2006)

Now THATS a tough question..........hmm, think right now or watch the Leafs?

Sorry Ubercree, but tonight is for mind-numbing, I will revisit this tomorrow.


----------



## foresterab (6 Dec 2006)

UberCree..

Mmm...Oka.  That one I'm not so sure on mostly because of it being quite a few years ago now and many of the details are now fuzzy.

I guess the way I look at it is from three perspectives:
1) for the radicalized elements of the Mohawk peoples who belive in the Mohawk way only and fight the white man all the time...it was a win.  What I'm not sure about is how this may or may not tie into the warrior societies of the six nations but it definately provided a rallying cry for some of the more extreme views within the culture.
2) for the average member of the reserves...it was a loss.  The scrutiny and blatent disregard of Canadian law (land claim dispute aside) means that many view the entire reserve as either a) someone who can't be trusted b) someone who is dangerous or c) someone who is criminal.  These people are none of those views but it does influence the thinking of the outside especially those who are not in the area and don't get the full perspective.
3) for the armed forces it was a loss.  It was a mission that had virtually no way of making the armed forces appear in a positive or even neutral light but it was one they were mandated to undertake.  In my mind this would have been much better handled by police officers...unfortunately since it involved federal lands provincial police forces are always respected/effective.

Although the incident ended semi-peacefully I think the breach of trust between the european and Mohawk cultures was so sharp that to this day members of the Mohawk reserves may be held to a higher level of scrutiny by law officials and provided an opening for many illegal organizations.  By proving they had the arms and the will to stand up to the police many criminal organizations then exploited that will for their gain by funnelling monies/drugs/contraband through the reserves....something that has proven true through the cigarette and gun smuggling investigations.  If the protest had not occured many large criminal organizations would not have paid attention to a) where it was located geographincally and b) the actions of some of its members.

As I mentioned above that it's something that's pretty fuzzy to me so I'll refer to something closer to home here with some of the cree communities.  As I live in Alberta there is a ton of oil and gas activity accross the landscape and consultation occurs in many forms and levels of quality.  Some companies I've had dealing with are excellent and very heartfelt and honest when it comes to dealing with registered traplines who are often held by native peoples in various communities.  However...these companies approach all new trappers the same way and it is interesting to see how things evolve.  Those trappers that refer to the communty for handling things tend to stay the same or get the minimum input.  Those that deal with the company themselves (with or without translators..the company offers many options and does the negotaions where the trapper choses) tend to have a fair amount of say in the planning process and get many of their values protected - excellent relations that last a long time.  Then there is the third crowd that doesn't say anything during the planning process...waits until the approval is just about to be granted.....and then throws all kinds of "road blocks" up to gain a better deal.  This third group is only involved for 1 or two seasons before negotiations are so hostile the company bypasses them entirely (which they can given due cause) and gives them the absolute minimum.

Apply that same logic to land claims...either you talk and bash something out, take the minimum because someone else does the work, or fight it for a short term goal and get left behind in the future.  It's ugly.....but so are the laws around first nations/provinces/culture clashes/differing histories etc etc etc..

Here's some positive news though I heard on a talk show that relates to an earlier post on native housing on reserves.  Apparently through the Indian Act there is a provision for something like a "certificate of occupancy" which basically translates to a mortgage issued through the reserve to an inhabitant (must be status to qualify).  I'm not sure which reserve it is but apparently one of the Six Nations reserves in southern ontario has been applying this to their residents and have started up a real estate company to handle the boom.   Obviously lots of issues good and bad here but it was some positve news regarding reserve life for once.


----------



## UberCree (6 Dec 2006)

Cirtificate of possession is what my reserve is looking into as well.  Finally something that would allow people to own their own home.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2006)

> 1 Bedroom Flat For Sale in Cowplain, WATERLOOVILLE, Hampshire
> Simply stunning brand new development of two ground floor apartments and one first floor apartment, high specification throughout, private gardens and parking. The properties are offered with a share of the freehold and 999 year lease.
> 
> Ref: NNW0754
> ...



Here's one way it is done in the UK.  The "Owner" holds the property on a 999 year lease from the Crown.  A share of the freehold means access to the commons and an ability to control access.  The owner can sell the property at any time during the lease while the Crown retains nominal property rights.  This allows the owner to use the property as collateral and build equity but allows the Crown the right to control the development of the property or expropriate it in the community's interest (roads, training areas, golf courses etc).

That would allow the reserves to retain their land and control sale but still allow the householders the use of the property as collateral.

Obviously it works because 999 years is an astonishingly long time horizon while the 99 year leases, as has been found in Tsawassen? come up for debate far too soon.


----------



## TCBF (14 Dec 2006)

It's not the same.  Land must be owned, or property rights erode even further. Without property rights, there can be no true democracy.

Tom


----------



## foresterab (14 Dec 2006)

Well...this is where it gets ugly.

The Indian Act states that reserve lands are granted to the community/nation/band....but individual ownership is not permitted.  This has caused major issues with financing and credit establishment for on reserve natives and complicated the whole ownership/rights question.

The Certificate of Possesion as I understand them grants the legal equivalent to a morgage to an indvidual through the Indian Act.  What this means is that even though the individual is in "possession" of the house they are an appoited caretaker of a segment of the common lands (the property)  meeting both financial morgage requirements of possession and Indian act requirements of common ownership.

Ubercree might know more on this subject as I've only caught a quick 20 minute talkshow on it last year and have probably rewrote the laws trying to explain this.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Dec 2006)

Will banks lend money on the basis of such a Certificate?  What does the bank repossess if a loan defaults?


----------



## TCBF (14 Dec 2006)

You either own it or you don't.

Another trouble is, the Indian Act won't let bands BUY land to add to a reserve, either.  Most Canadian reserves are far too small to be economically self sufficient.  The USA gave their reserves much larger 'Reservations' in most cases.


----------



## foresterab (14 Dec 2006)

okay...getting fuzzier on the details here but my understanding is that the banks love these.  

First the lands are federal lands and can't be sold off so it's just the house involved and hence tends to be smaller dollar amounts.  Secondly due to treaty payments there is a gaurenteed cash flow coming in that can be used against the loan.  
Thirdly the band works as the credit reference I belive so that if the loan signee defaults it's up to the band to handle the shortfall....this is unfortunately one of the big drawbacks to the system.

It's still a pretty new concept and has only been applied in S. Ontario to date that I'm aware of so the exact details and process are still largely unknown.  I know talking with the locals around here nobody has heard of it.

In regards to reserve lands...TCBF is correct.  Reserves can not buy adjacent provincial lands and transfer them to federal land status without basically re-opening the treaty.   However they are allowed to base a buisness of the reserve and purchase assests off the reserve to provide a cashflow to the local bandmembers...hence why one local reserve has hotels in at least three different communities I know of.  In addition one must also consider the size of the population at the time of signing the reserve...in the Treaty 8 area where I work there are lots of little reserves but they were designed around 1-5 people...not the current 500 several generations later.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Dec 2006)

A house backstopping a loan probably won't be good enough - too liable to depreciation and damage and too hard to effectively repossess, relocate, and resell - but a reliable third-party guarantee might be.  Lenders can be remarkably indifferent to everything except the value of the collateral.  However, if your loans are underwritten, it's harder to build your own credit rating.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Dec 2006)

Interesting conversation - this one slipped by though:



			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> I am an advocate of the 'citizen plus' model.



You and I were both born in Canada - how come you get a "+" and I don't?

As well, doesn't identifying "citizen +" make it easier to identify "citizen -"?


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Dec 2006)

That would be us immigrants, according to some around here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2006)

Citizen+: ancestors immigrated prior to 1492.
Citizen: born in country, ancestors immigrated since 1492.
Citizen-: not born in Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2006)

Citizen-: not born in Canada

Normally that would be me but thanks to a little known clause in the BNA inserted by Sir John A. MacDonald and ratified by Alexander MacKenzie, as a Scot I am a Citizen x2   ;D >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Dec 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Do you think that the whole Oka escapade hurt the Mohawk (akwasana, kanawaka) 'reputation' or actually helped them in regards to land claims?



I won't presume to speak for anyone else. but............

If it were my option? I would NEVER, EVER, sit down with the thugs that hijacked the process (the Warriors). Civil disobedience by ANY other group in Canada would have been dealt with, short and swift. The standoff at Oka only proved out what the Aboriginals have held with all along. WE are UNTOUCABLE. The White Man's law does not apply to us. As such we are not subject to their rules, and can do anything we want. We'll get anything we want with protest, occupation and violence if necessary. We'll fund our cause with smuggling, of cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, goods, and people. We'll make our own subservient and press gang them to our cause with threats of violence and alienation. You're with us or against us. 

When they can prove that their society will work democratically, and without strong arm, organized crime tactics, I'll be more than willing to let them patrol themselves, and give them autonomy. Right now their reserves are rampant with nepotism and greed. We keep throwing money at the problem, and the Band Councils starve their own while the leaders drive Eddy Bauer Limited Editions. Traditional hunting and fishing doesn't mean wiping out a herd of caribou to sell on the black market, or netting the entire run of spring salmon coming up the Frazer. For a group that claims to be the watch dogs of MOTHER EARTH, you're doing a pretty lousy job. Consider the burning of tires and the setting fire to the bridge in Caledonia, as one example. Just like everything else in life...........respect is earned. Without it, they have nothing, and when they have nothing, it's no ones fault but their own.

Everyone else has to learn and live to make ends meet, gain an education and compete with society. That is simply the way of the world..........for all cultures on the face of this huge earth. Broken down to it's singularity, Canada's Aboriginals are treated no more, or less, than spoiled children. Their fault, our fault, who knows, but it's time to get past that. The days of complaining about abuse and mistreatment are over. The new generation has no excuse. You make it in the world, as thousands of Aboriginals do, with Fortune 500 companies and Co-ops, or you sit around drinking, smoking or huffing gas, waiting for your next welfare check. Sorry, we don't call it welfare. It's Unemployment, or allowance of some sort. Maybe that's part of the problem. If we called it for what it really is, maybe some would be ashamed to collect it and rejoin society.

Bottom line is, today's society is no longer responsible for the plight of the Aboriginal. People on this forum, like Ubercreee, if I may, are proof positive that they can do something with their life, if they choose. If they won't do it on their own, maybe it's time for some tough love. Out of the house, backs turned, until they prove that they can progress like the rest of the world.

That's my thoughts. What I've posted are what I believe, and I'm sorry if anyone is offended, it was not my intention. You can post your beliefs, which is only right and natural. I believe what I wrote, and have for many years. I will read what you post, however, I will not debate what I've written. It will be up to someone to convince me otherwise.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Dec 2006)

I have an idea
Why not adopt the "Starship Troopers" model. (the novel, NOT the movie)
We are all civilians.  We all have the same rights.
We can earn our way to become citizens, with accompanying privelages and responsibilities, through some sort of service, be it military, police, social services, whatever.
Not one part of this based on genetics or race or anything like that.

OK, so since that isn't going to happen, I'll just sit back and keep watching.


Ende


----------



## observor 69 (15 Dec 2006)

Another aspect of this problem that angers me is Indian tribes want it both ways on reservations. They insist the reservation must continue to be in some isolated location ands then complain they haven't got the full range of social services. Good medical, education, clean water and jobs are not sustainable in remote northern locations even though the feds have plowed millions into trying. Move the reservation into the proximity of a community that can provide these services and provide a future for Indian children.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Dec 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Citizen+: ancestors immigrated prior to 1492.
> Citizen: born in country, ancestors immigrated since 1492.
> Citizen-: not born in Canada.



1492 is an arbitrary date, no?  Considering the arrival of the Europeans was the 5th major migration to the Americas, how come they can't have a "+" either?

This whole thing reminds me a Israel/Palestine lite - everyone is so focussed on the past and events of hundreds (or thousands) of years ago that they aren't willing to sit down and deal with the real issues on the ground.


----------



## foresterab (15 Dec 2006)

Infanteer,

I'm not really sure about the 1st vs 5th migration and the exact details of how human settlement of north america occured.  I can recommend two books for you related to this subject though talking about native cultures pre-european contact.

1491 by Charles Mann - very easy read and deals mostly with central and south america but does touch on North america some
Wilderness and Political Ecology  by Charles E. Kay & Randy T. Simmons - this is more a collection of research papers and can get overly technical at times but is a very different take on landscape/ecology management over the years based upon archeology work.

All I know is that the more I read into things the more complicated it gets as to who did what to whom when....and it becomes apparent as to how much information was lost.  The history books are written by the victors after all.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Dec 2006)

foresterab said:
			
		

> All I know is that the more I read into things the more complicated it gets as to who did what to whom when....and it becomes apparent as to how much information was lost.  The history books are written by the victors after all.



..and if any of those people are still alive then it matters,...if not than pffft.

Yea, lets be as moronic as those who march around Ireland/England because of some battle that was fought  against those who could be todays next-door nieghbors.........calling them Stooges would be an insult to Curly, Larry and Moe.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2006)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Another aspect of this problem that angers me is Indian tribes want it both ways on reservations. They insist the reservation must continue to be in some isolated location ands then complain they haven't got the full range of social services. Good medical, education, clean water and jobs are not sustainable in remote northern locations even though the feds have plowed millions into trying. Move the reservation into the proximity of a community that can provide these services and provide a future for Indian children.



In this are they that much different that people that want to continue to live in logged out clearings, mined out camps and fished out outports?  I don't fault any of them for the desire to stay put.  On the other hand, if you choose that lifestyle then you need to be aware of the trade-offs.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Dec 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In this are they that much different that people that want to continue to live in logged out clearings, mined out camps and fished out outports?  I don't fault any of them for the desire to stay put.  On the other hand, if you choose that lifestyle then you need to be aware of the trade-offs.



...and therein lies the rub.

FN (as a group) broadly demand all of the services, free of charge, regardless of where they live, and a tax free allowance every month to go along with it. When I lived in isolated communities, it was a given that there was no surgery ward nearby, that water had to be boiled, that all the roads were gravel etc. We dealt with it, and when people brought up points at town council meetings "why don't we have paved roads like the whites in the south" the mayor/chief/councillor would answer "you can, but you'll have to pay 2,000$ a year in municipal taxes to fund it, just like the non-treaty residents of this town" 

The counter - argument is that if FN were to move to a major centre for work/school/services, that they would lose touch with the land and their culture. Perhaps, but to take my own heritage as an example, my ancestors left Scotland because of poor economic and political conditions there as a result of the limey ;D English government of the day. They moved to south eastern Ontario, farmed the land, and ate haggis, wore kilts and played bagpipes right up until the present day. Was it difficult? Probably, but I've moved several times in this country for school, work and with my parents - and they did too.

I fail to see why FN choose not to do the same.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2006)

>1492 is an arbitrary date, no?

Yes, but I was being sarcastic.  I suppose by now I've made it clear here that I don't believe some animals are more equal than others and don't easily suffer the fools who think differently.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yea, lets be as moronic as those who march around Ireland/England because of some battle that was fought  against those who could be todays next-door nieghbors.........calling them Stooges would be an insult to Curly, Larry and Moe.



It's pretty scarey when you look back on tours and remember the Greeks and Turks on Cyprus were PO'd about events in the 1500's, and the Serbs regarded the Battle of the Field of the Blackbirds in 1366 with the same regard as actions that took place in 1992. That "we" are starting to fall into that trap is something to be devoutly avoided.


----------



## DocBacon (15 Dec 2006)

My work takes me to many out-of-the-way places in Canada, from the high arctic to the US border.  Many of these places are FN communities and, *in my experience (read: an unscientific, semi-random sample)* Most are not places I would choose to move to unless I had to.   What I have found is:

1. Filth.  Weeds grow everywhere, the mud holes in the roads are not filled, public areas are wastelands, and anyplace is a good place to drop your garbage.  Can anyone say "tragedy of the commons"?  Just down the road there might be a postcard-perfect Metis or mixed community, but the res is absent any sign of stewardship.

2. Racism.  I have been warned that "whitey" is not welcome at the bar.  I have lived in a motel surrounded by an 8' fence topped with concertina - needed to keep the locals from stealing vehicles or breaking into the motel.  I have been told that if I don't take my helicopter out of town I'll be shot at.

3. Nepotism.  While evacuating a FN community on the shores of James Bay, I  was told by the local plumber that the town's water supply fails it's quality requirements because the son-of-someone-important running it is unqualified.  Before and after the installation of a new treatment plant, the same problem remained.   The community across the river was also evacuated, not because of a flood threat or unsafe water, but _because the other guys got a trip to town so we should too._  

4. Child abuse.  Members of remote communities north of Yellowknife would poison their kids to require a medevac to the big city each fall.  The kids recover, the family is put up in government housing for the winter, and the next spring we fly a plumber up to the communities to repair the frost damage to the abandoned homes.  Year after year, same families, same communities.

5. Environmental abuse.  Goose hunt-camps serviced by helicopter that require slingloads of over five hundred pounds to bring back the take from each hunter.  Narwhal hunts with power boats used to herd pods of animals onto shore - where the tusks are cut off and the rest left to rot.  Families paid to go hunt for a week, on lands claimed but not awarded, in order to embellish traditional use history.

Now tell me again how these, and many other things I've seen that disgust me, are not valid criticisms when viewed through my cultural lens, or some such nonsense.  You're damned right something has to be fixed, and there's nothing to be saved from the current system.  You'll never see that on the evening news, and if I voice my experiences I'm called a racist.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Dec 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >1492 is an arbitrary date, no?
> 
> Yes, but I was being sarcastic.  I suppose by now I've made it clear here that I don't believe some animals are more equal than others and don't easily suffer the fools who think differently.



I know.  I was highlighting it for everyone else to see.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Dec 2006)

DocBacon said:
			
		

> Now tell me again how these, and many other things I've seen that disgust me, are not valid criticisms when viewed through my cultural lens, or some such nonsense.  You're damned right something has to be fixed, and there's nothing to be saved from the current system.  You'll never see that on the evening news, and if I voice my experiences I'm called a racist.



My personal favorite(s) are the "traditional harvests" of musk - ox and caribou. 

Musk - oxen are lured into a trap by creating trails of hay, flown in from the south via c-130 and thrown out the back. Once 2-300 are corralled, they shoot them all and send the meat to Japan. No consideration for cows, calves or bulls. 

Caribou (although this has'nt happened in quite a few years) are machine gunned from helicopters for valuable antler velvet in the spring. 3-4oz of velvet collected, carcasses left to rot. Wolf populations explode following year. "Hunters" sit in trucks and shoot animals as they cross dempster hwy, taking tongue, and other choice cuts, remainder left for scavengers.

When the porcupine/bluenose caribou herd began to decline, the FN immediately blamed it on oil and gas exploration and demanded compensation.

The list goes on, but Doc is right - if FN are to be equals in every sense of the word, it must be recognised that they are just as greedy and corrupt as the rest of us, and require the same rules to be fully integrated.


----------



## Jacqueline (15 Dec 2006)

Hunting is definetely excessive, especially when it comes down to the cold hearted clubbing of seal pups up north. Although I don't know anyone who has left a fresh carcus to rot, I have to agree that killing under those circumstances isn't at all necessary.


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Dec 2006)

Go, good point you brought up. Hunting en mass like that is very near sighted and a quick ticket to extinction.

Enough with the excuses.

Docbacon, straight to the point. Good point.


----------



## DocBacon (15 Dec 2006)

Miss J:

Hunting everywhere in Canada is regulated (for better or worse - the spring bear ban is an example of bad management) except where the FN are involved.  Again, in my own experience, FN hunters have shown the same respect for animal populations as the first European hunters whose excesses we decry today.  Stewards of the environment indeed - their historical restraint is a fiction: only technical restraints kept the FNs from killing off more species (ever heard of Buffalo Jump Head Smashed In ?).  Once those, and the legal and moral restraints are removed, we see demonstrated the same rapacious nature of man in the FNs as in any other population.

Singling out the visually unappealing but regulated seal harvest as an example is specious.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Dec 2006)

Please, not another seal hunt debate!   
Thanks for the straight goods, Doc.  Although, my white mans burden is struggling to find ways to blame myself for all the points that you made.   :

I would be curious if one of our FN posters could give us a brief outline of early native interaction between nations and tribes.  From what I recall from my history (doubtless a discreditable and skewed Brit colonial view) it seemed as though fighting, conflict and territory takeover was very much a part of native life?  I spent a week living at St. Marie among the Hurons when I was in grade 7, and I remember the various historical accounts of how much inter-native conflict there was.  And the whole warrior thing?  Seems warriors would tend to suggest wars...

So I guess I'm just curious.  Was the process of making treaties and coming to peaceful settlements with the early natives a mistake?  Would the natives have been better dealt with to have engaged them and defeated them?  As I recall, a defeated villiage might end up becoming part of the conquering group, and they accepted it.  Intermarriage would occur and things got back to normal until the next big battle.  So being so war oriented as they may have been, could it be that they were not prepared to accept the consequences of what they were agreeing to?  
I would certainly not presume to be anything of a history scholar, so I will stand to be corrected.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Dec 2006)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> Hunting is definetely excessive,


No, that's not what we're saying. I hunt, but I only leave entrails behind, using every edible part of the beast.

_Industrial_ hunting is excessive, especially when it is not required, and drives species to extinction.



> especially when it comes down to the cold hearted clubbing of seal pups up north.


Actually, the harp seal hunt takes place farther south than Edmonton, off the coast of Nfld, for the most part. 

It is a legal, humane, and sustainable industry, full stop. Don't bring your shallow cute animal activism here - this is a serious discussion, and you would'nt give a flying **** about those seals if they looked like lamprey eels.



> Although I don't know anyone who has left a fresh carcus to rot, I have to agree that killing under those circumstances isn't at all necessary.


People don't usually broadcast those types of things around, because wasting meat is a crime. From the tone of your posts, I'm going to guess you've never actually been hunting for anything, to have the opportunity to see it happen.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2006)

"That would be us immigrants, according to some around here. "

- In the words of the infamous Sgt (born in Frankfurt am Main) Gerhard N______, "My family has had problems with immigrants ever since we came to this country!" 



Tom


----------



## rmacqueen (16 Dec 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Was the process of making treaties and coming to peaceful settlements with the early natives a mistake?  Would the natives have been better dealt with to have engaged them and defeated them?  As I recall, a defeated villiage might end up becoming part of the conquering group, and they accepted it.  Intermarriage would occur and things got back to normal until the next big battle.  So being so war oriented as they may have been, could it be that they were not prepared to accept the consequences of what they were agreeing to?
> I would certainly not presume to be anything of a history scholar, so I will stand to be corrected.


The reality is that defeat of the the FN in battle would, given what has taken place in the ensuing decades, been better.  So many of the problems now faced are the result of the treaties made and the restrictions placed on both sides by the treaties.  Add to that the slow erosion of treaty lands leading to disputes on ownership, the legal commitment by the federal government to continue to fund them and an inept bureaucracy administering it and you have today's situation.

FN's peoples often cannot do things to improve their lives because of restrictions placed on them by the Indian Act.  The government, over the decades, has created a bloated system that seems incapable of meeting the needs of the reservation system.  Look at the situation in Kashechewan, where the federal government built the water treatment plant downstream from a sewage lagoon.  Will the idiot who made that decision face any consequences?  Doubtful.  So many of the decisions the federal government makes in regards to a reservation seems to be a toss off, do whatever is easiest because it is just a reserve.  Many of these communities have unqualified people running the various facilities as well, not because of who they know or are, but because the government builds the plants and then never trains the people to run them.   

When Walkerton was hit by E. Coli leaving 7 people dead, no one suggested that we close the town and move them but it is constantly brought up for FN communities.  The same holds true for northern logging towns that are suffering because of mill closures.  They all want government money to try and keep the towns alive and no one suggests moving the towns en-mass, yet it is constantly being brought up in regards to FN communities.  Why the double standard?  Again, the reservation system has created a mentality of ownership amongst non-FN.  Our tax money pays for them to live there so we should be able to do what we want with them.

So, I agree, supporting and making peace with the Europeans, and signing treaties in good faith, is the cause of the problem.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> FN's peoples often cannot do things to improve their lives because of restrictions placed on them by the Indian Act.  The government, over the decades, has created a bloated system that seems incapable of meeting the needs of the reservation system.  Look at the situation in Kashechewan, where the federal government built the water treatment plant downstream from a sewage lagoon.  Will the idiot who made that decision face any consequences?  Doubtful.  So many of the decisions the federal government makes in regards to a reservation seems to be a toss off, do whatever is easiest because it is just a reserve.  Many of these communities have unqualified people running the various facilities as well, not because of who they know or are, but because the government builds the plants and then never trains the people to run them.


Riiiiiight.

So when the Chief fires the water plant guy from Oshawa who was running a state of the art facility, and replaces him with a relative who does'nt know how to do the job, is that our (collective "our") fault too for neglecting to supply him with training in HR, management and ethics?

If you remember, the water plant in Kashechewan was repaired in 2 days for $3000. Problem? Zero maintenance, it broke and made everyone sick. Additionally, the Chief had been allotted money from Ottawa for operations and upkeep and elected to spend it elsewhere.



> When Walkerton was hit by E. Coli leaving 7 people dead, no one suggested that we close the town and move them but it is constantly brought up for FN communities.  The same holds true for northern logging towns that are suffering because of mill closures.  They all want government money to try and keep the towns alive and no one suggests moving the towns en-mass, yet it is constantly being brought up in regards to FN communities.  Why the double standard?  Again, the reservation system has created a mentality of ownership amongst non-FN.  Our tax money pays for them to live there so we should be able to do what we want with them.


It is the residents of the reserves themselves that demand evacuation, and a lengthy stay in southern centres in hotels!!! They demand extra special treatment, not us!

Do you really think the feds want to be on the hook for transport and housing of hundreds of FN people? Do you have any idea what that costs?


----------



## DocBacon (16 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Look at the situation in Kashechewan, where the federal government built the water treatment plant downstream from a sewage lagoon.  Will the idiot who made that decision face any consequences?  Doubtful.



Not quite true.  I've helped evacuate Kash because of flooding (I've even risked my life by climbing off my chopper onto the river's breakup ice to hoist a drunken idiot into the cabin - he wanted to walk to Albany even though only half the river had ice).  The story about the water inlet and sewer discharge is just that: a story.  The whole Kash flood hazard could have been prevented with the closure of two valves (the ones that prevent the storm drains from backflowing into the town when the river rises outside the berm).  That wasn't done in the fall, nor in the early stages of breakup before the river rose to cover the valves.  Still, a few dozen sandbags could have covered the storm drains inside the berm, and avoided the evacuation rush, but nope: we're going to the big city instead.  Also while I was there I spoke to the Arctic Rangers, who arrived two days after me and my two medium heli's to relieve me of the task of crowd control and loading, they just shook their heads and made disparaging remarks about the stupidity of some people. 

By the way and off topic, the Rangers really got things organized.  They brought in the three C's, imposed order and teamwork, and made haste without panic - just what you'd expect from CF personnel.

Should the "idiot" who built the plant get s**tcanned?  Nope: there are only a few areas of ground high enough to build on for about 80k inland (Ft. Albany across the river could be expanded, but the two villages were converted by different brands of missionary and they won't even allow the refugees from Kash to stay in town overnight)  so the water and sewer plants are arranged oddly - but not their respective intake and discharges.  

Fact is, the only good excuse for evacuating anyone from Kash was that the airstrip was under water for a day and therefor out of action until it could be graded, compacted, and re-certified (48 hrs); until then, any medical emergency would require heli medevac and as a precaution you could justify the evac of about 100 people.  Instead we airlifted about 1800 out by heli to Albany airstrip, where a fleet of chartered prop-jobs flew the "refugees" south to places where they could be put up in hotels, and fixed wing ac flew most of the rest out in the following days once the strip was operational.  Some people left home without their winter clothes so that they could impose a need on the government to supply them with new gear once moved.  Some of these people were still in places like Thunder Bay, Geraldton, Long Lac, and Cochrane in September.

All the time the media was reporting on the "humanitarian crisis" here at home.  I saw the tv crews, introduced the CBC producer to the people who spoke to me about the facts behind the lies presented by the Council, and was told they would look into the story.  The only thing they did was ask us to fly the helis lower on the river crossings to get better shots for the news coverage of the disaster.

Now really, who should get canned, the CBC producer or the Council?


----------



## Jacqueline (16 Dec 2006)

> GO!!! said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2006)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> Oh, so you think it's cute?  :



No, but you seem to. You seemed to be on the fringe of where the PETA people start their useless arguments. Hunting is about killing, and it is never pretty. Taking everything usable from the prey is ethical. Slaughter for velvet or gall bladders is a travesty. If the fur is to be used, and the most proficient way to harvest it, with the least damage, is with a club, so be it. If your squeamish about such things, you have a right to not participate. You don't have a right to condemn someone else who is pursing a lawful activity. No matter how distasteful you view it as.

Let's put the thread back on track please.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Dec 2006)

OUTSTANDING discussion, in a level of detail I'm not used to seeing in MSM (not surprising, given the crowd here).  Just a few points to clarify, though...



			
				rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Look at the situation in Kashechewan, where the federal government built the water treatment plant downstream from a sewage lagoon.  Will the idiot who made that decision face any consequences?  Doubtful.



A picture (or, in this case, a Google map) can speak better than 1K words....
Kashechewan Water System



			
				rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Many of these communities have unqualified people running the various facilities as well, not because of who they know or are, but because the government builds the plants and then never trains the people to run them.



Just to set the record straight, Indian Affairs provides funding to First Nations for design and construction (as well as operation and maintenance) of water and wastewater facilities, and First Nations manage the construction and operation of same - INAC doesn't build or operate such facilities.  First Nations are encouraged to include training provisions in construction contracts as part of the construction/commissioning process.  INAC also provides funding to First Nations, Tribal Councils (technical advisory bodies providing services to groups of First Nations) and other technical service providers  for a variety of programs to train water and wastewater treatment plant operators.

Interesting observations, indeed, about the media's take vs. what was happening on the ground.  All I'll say in a public forum is that a lot of what was said about the situation didn't make it to the eyes/ears of the media consumer...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Dec 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Interesting observations, indeed, about the media's take vs. what was happening on the ground.  All I'll say in a public forum is that a lot of what was said about the situation didn't make it to the eyes/ears of the media consumer...



O M G !!!

You aren't trying to say that the MSM in Canada would leave out information that may cast a special interest group in an unfavorable light are you?!?!?  My faith in the _unbiased_ media would be shattered!


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Dec 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> O M G !!!
> 
> You aren't trying to say that the MSM in Canada would leave out information that may cast a special interest group in an unfavorable light are you?!?!?  My faith in the _unbiased_ media would be shattered!



I figured people here wouldn't understand.....  ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Dec 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> I figured people here wouldn't understand.....  ;D



Don't worry.  We know you're one of the good guys.  Must be lonely.


----------



## Jacqueline (28 Dec 2006)

OK I have a question... Some people think that the status card is unfair. What's the difference between a University discounts card or a military discount card or a tax exempt for some immigrants? Since they both exclude groups of people they should also be unfair right?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Dec 2006)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> OK I have a question... Some people think that the status card is unfair. What's the difference between a University discounts card or a military discount card or a tax exempt for some immigrants? Since they both exclude groups of people they should also be unfair right?



Perhaps you could start a new thread for that.  This one is supposed to be about the unlawful occupation of land by a group of criminals.


----------



## UberCree (28 Dec 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> This one is supposed to be about the unlawful occupation of land by a group of criminals.



Couldn't have said it better myself.

 ;D


----------



## TCBF (29 Dec 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Couldn't have said it better myself.
> 
> ;D



- Now, why do I think UberCree's reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek, so to speak.  Could be he was refering to a slightly larger scale of occupation?

- There is a chap at SFU who disdains the current aboriginal leadership, claiming they are tools of the settlers.  'Settler' was also the phrase used by various 'liberation' groups in Africa.  As in "One Settler - One bullet."

- The 'Stolen Land' concept is an interesting one.  Given the to and fro of human migration in the Old World, it is doubtful an international court would view the entire European colonization of the Americas as illegal.   No doubt, there are instances of treaty violations, abrogations, or no treaty in place - but that hardly, in the context of the mobility of humanity, constitutes stealing a continent.

- Far worse damage is being done now by an Indian Act that entrenches the petty despotism of Reserve politics than was done by colonization.  Colonization uprooted and strained Aboriginal Tribal culture.  The Indian Act mandated Bantu-stans will destroy it forever.


----------



## Klc (29 Dec 2006)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> What's the difference between a University discounts card or a military discount card



Nobody was ever born with the 'right' to a university discount or military discount card...


----------



## Jacqueline (29 Dec 2006)

Okee dokee I see. Sorry I didn't mean to stray off topic.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Dec 2006)

Miss Jacqueline said:
			
		

> OK I have a question... Some people think that the status card is unfair. What's the difference between a University discounts card or a military discount card or a tax exempt for some immigrants? Since they both exclude groups of people they should also be unfair right?



"Discount cards" are based on voluntarily belonging to an organization - race, sex, ethnicity, or religion doesn't factor in on one's ability to get the privileges of such a card.

As for immigrants, they have different legal standing in Canada.  They may be exempt from certain things, but they are also denied certain rights and privileges that a Canadian citizen would be entitled to.  This is a legal position - being an immigrant is, again, not dependent on coming from any certain ethnic group, only that you not hold Canadian citizenship (at the moment).  

For two people born in Canada on the exact same date (for the sake of the argument), why should we, in a 21st century democracy, enshrine racial or ethnic differences in law?


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Dec 2006)

Someone owes me 38 years of back pay for all the immigrant bonuses I'm apparently entitled to.


----------



## TCBF (29 Dec 2006)

"For two people born in Canada on the exact same date (for the sake of the argument), why should we, in a 21st century democracy, enshrine racial or ethnic differences in law?"

- Well, "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others." - George Orwell.

- Because it is good politics.  Divide and conquer.  We are 33,000,000 diverse victim groups.  All of the non-western immgroups that have been used to pack the GTA ridings full of pliant third world voters are themselves compliant little minions come election day.  The 'unintended consequence' of this is that the feds packed the GTA with groups that come from socially conservative cultures.  When they eventually wake up, they will realize they have been duped into deconstructing the remnants of a conservative Protestant 1950s era Toronto, and have allowed it to be replaced with an anti-family, pro-gay, anti-religious elite that is an anathema to their original 'old country' culture.  Wait for it.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Dec 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As for immigrants, they have different legal standing in Canada.  They may be exempt from certain things, but they are also denied certain rights and privileges that a Canadian citizen would be entitled to.  This is a legal position - being an immigrant is, again, not dependent on coming from any certain ethnic group, only that you not hold Canadian citizenship (at the moment).



As well, those benefits are not for life.  They are just to help the immigrants get a leg up and on their feet once they get to our country.  And you know what? By and large they actually use it to better themselves.  I rarely see people that are new arrivals that have been here longer than five years that haven't worked their arses off and are not on welfare for life.  Unlike many of the white/black/native people who I see, who are multi-generation welfare recipients, and feel they are SO entitled to the cradle-to-grave freebies that are the hallmark of living in Canada.


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Jan 2007)

TCBF, very good point. Alot of those people (recent immagrants) vote liberal/NDP out of fear and ignorance.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2007)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> TCBF, very good point. Alot of those people (recent immagrants) vote liberal/NDP out of fear and ignorance.



Or is it really a 'misplaced sense of Loyalty'?  Many of these immigrants are coming from Third World countries where 'Democracy' may not have been in one of its' finer forms, and as such feel a sense of loyalty to the Ruling Party in Canada at the time of their arrival, and the benefits and freedoms that they received on arrival.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2007)

This opinion piece by Gordon Gibson, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, caught my eye because I think it touches on one of the most severe crises facing Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070822.wcogibson0822/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Is integration the better option for Indians?
> 
> GORDON GIBSON
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...



A couple of points, from my perspective:

1. Aboriginal Canadians constitute a major _*underclass*_ in our country – a very fast growing underclass but, in the main, one which is not _advancing_, upwards, from its position of extreme socio-economic disadvantage; and

2. Aboriginal leaders are, almost universally, *conservative*: so conservative as to be almost communistic.  They hold extreme _statist_ views and emphasize _collective_ rights over any and all *liberal* individual rights – even to such _inherent_ and _natural_ individual rights as the right to privacy and to private property.

Any fair reading of history teaches that conservative, _statist_ societies/nations tend to founder and collapse – further disadvantaging their members/citizens.  In the case of Aboriginal Canadians that means that their _leaders_ have likely put them on a course leading to an even worse situation – if that’s imaginable.

I believe that young, poor, poorly educated Aboriginal Canadians represent a major security threat – at least as dangerous as young, poor, poorly _socialized_ Muslims in Canada.

I have no idea about the *right* answer to Aboriginal Canadians’ plight.  I am worried that the ‘_solutions_’ proffered by Aboriginal leaders and most Canadian politicians are wrong.  I am also fairly certain that any _*solution*_ will be hideously expensive – think of a sum roughly equal to the defence budget being required year after year, for decades, to provide redress for real grievances and to provide real long term opportunities.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2007)

IMHO, the problem was, the problem is, the problem will continue to be that the Gov't (at all levels) wrings it's hands wondering what can be done, throws money at the darned thing and moves on to other important issues... such as lunch ( me cynical?)
So the Gov't pays for a bunch of new houses, on a new reservation, and places the same people (Amerind) into the place - so the place can get rundown just like the last one.
Change is required.  Giving aid the way it's been done is not the cure, it perpetuates the cycle.

People need to work, people need to feel that their contribution to society is an important cog in the big picture machine.  So long as you give something for nothing, nothing will change.

(rant off)


----------



## Roy Harding (22 Aug 2007)

I live in an area with a significant native population (Terrace, BC).  I don't have numbers - perhaps I'll dig some up later.  Suffice to say for now that the presence of the Nisga'a people is a significant factor in this area.

In the past, I've lived in urban areas (Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon) where my only exposure to native folk was the stereo-typical drunken bum on downtown streets, and to a lesser extent the native gangs prevalent on the public transport systems.  Since moving to Terrace, I've been exposed to a different side of native people.  Many of the businesses that I deal with locally are owned and operated by native folk.  They are a significant proportion of the work force.  As cliche as I know it sounds, many of the friends I've made here are native.

I've made the following (unscientific, and purely opinion based) observations:


Those natives who choose to remain on the reserve seem destined to continue the drug riddled, poverty stricken, welfare lifestyle - it is they who are the local hooligans and n'er do wells.
Those natives who have chosen to leave the reserve, and make a living - either through entrepreneurial endeavour, or joining the mainstream workforce, have achieved the same middle class lifestyle that I enjoy.  They worry about the same things I worry about, and whine and moan about the same things I whine and moan about. 

Many of my friends here travel back to their homes on the reserve for a visit - in much the same manner as I used to travel back to my great uncles farm.  They attend cultural events, and have formed culture based clubs in town - they have, in many cases, a much more profound and in depth understanding of their culture and history than their fellows who choose to remain on the reserve, under the thumb of the band council.

My point is that I think E.R. Campbell is generally correct.  As long as natives continue following leaders who are conservative - their lot will not improve, and the society which exists on the reserve will continue to foment radicalized, unthinking, troubled young folk.


Roy


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2007)

I witnessed an interesting social experiment a number of years ago when the Quebec Gov't did some land claims settlements for the James Bay accord... whereby the Provincial hydro authority got hold of & flooded a large part of ancestral hunditn ggrounds.

Amerindian communities got their fair share of the $$$, kept some $$$ and divvied up the rest between the families that lived on the reservation.  Some new houses, lots of new cars & trucks & apliances... then nothing.

Inuit communities formed the Makivik Corporation to take and administer their $$$.  No individual got a cheque.  The corporation bought out and began administering businesses (eg; Air Inuit) they started up businesses that would build the houses, provide water services to the communities, provide sanitation & garbage disposal, etc.
In some communities, they hired hunters to go out & bring back fish & meat for the infirm & old people in the villages.  

I can't say it was perfect but, from what I have seen, the Inuit still have their $$$ nest egg while the Amerind don't


----------



## 3rd Herd (22 Aug 2007)

Anyone remember the Rena Virk case ? I was just getting into teaching when that occurred and was in a school adjacent to the school involved. I throw this out as the case has made it's way through the system and through the media. The immediate impact in the school system was a lot of soul searching and then a mad scramble to get what ever psych demi god in to give lectures/presentations to staff or students. And yes all for a fee.

As to the issue at hand my last teaching assignment or second to last was in three schools fed by five different reserves. In one reserve the adolescent suicide rate was/is 60%(Ahousit). Our guidance counsellor who was a wonderful lady retired early after years of battling this problem. The problem, no hope. I also wound up covering for another teacher for a couple of weeks on a remote island were they bring the entire family for six weeks. The adults are put through detox and a spectrum of counselling, job skills, quality of life skills. The children brought six weeks of work, assignments etc and had a normal school day in a two room school. Try teaching k-12 all at the same time, multi tasking at its finest. Then after the school day had either individual counselling, or group counselling much of the same content as the adults. After dinner there was counselling with the families as a whole. If my memory serves me right I think they had a 93% success rate. There were students/families from across Canada. Noticeably there were several aboriginal groups absent, again referring to memory I think Six Nations. When I asked how come, the elder "Grandfather" relpied they have it together and rhymed off a dozen or so other groups that were the same. Their Band councils saw the writting on the wall and changed things. But the problem with some Band councils is the "traditional aspect" particularly on the West Coast and the "Divine Right of Kings" attitude. Potlach is an example of that. So if you cannot change things because since time began this is our heritage the resulting effect is No Hope. On the positive side of things should I get back into teaching the first place I will seek employment is going to be at a reserve school. It just got kind of hard not knowing if that homework assignment was going to be turned in on Monday morning, despite all the intervention skills we used. Just as an after thought for those in the social work field I have the contact information for the island program and references to another very successful program in the Williams Lake area.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2007)

Hopelessness
This is what happens when you marginalize a segment of society.

The gov't toke a number of Innu children out of Hopedale (?) a couple of years ago.  They were gas sniffing & lost to the world.  They went thru a native detox centre in Manitoba (?) came thru with flying colours.... and then they went home.  Although the entire population was moved to a shiny new village, everything went back to what had been.... pert much all of the kids were back on Gas fumes, parents on the booze.... Hopelessness!!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> ... *The problem, no hope* ...



Bingo!

And hopelessness breeds despair and despair breeds outrage and outrage breeds violence, and, and, and ... which is why I think disaffected, disadvantaged, dis-_everything else_ Aboriginal kids pose a *HUGE threat* to our internal peace and security.


----------



## 3rd Herd (22 Aug 2007)

geo,
that is why I tossed the reference of Williams Lake into this. The whole reserve went dry and got their act together. Again memory I think it was a three year task. Having said that nobody is perfect especially with addictions but they tackled the issues as a whole and insured the necessary resources were in place to deal with relapse. Somewhere in the orange kisks(s) boxes I use as my filing cabinets I have a CD they produced which is priceless.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2007)

Short of dismantling the $$$ handouts AND the Reservation system, I have serious doubts we will see ourselves clear of this problem anytime soon.


----------



## Roy Harding (22 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Short of dismantling the $$$ handouts AND the Reservation system, I have serious doubts we will see ourselves clear of this problem anytime soon.



EXACTLY.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2007)

3rd
Towns going "dry" is nothing new.  When I was travelling the Great White North (77 to 85), there were many Inuit communities in the Baffin and Northern Quebec that ran their plebescites, gave direction to the RCMP to inspect incoming goods for "contraband".

As stated above, the Makivik corporation has given the oportunity to able bodied people to work & earn a salary.  Augmented by what he hunts & the handicrafts he might carve, there is hope, there is a reason for living.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Short of dismantling the $$$ handouts AND the Reservation system, I have serious doubts we will see ourselves clear of this problem anytime soon.



So why not go for it?  Set a dead line and stick to it.  I seem to recall someone forwarding an idea with regards to a sliding scale system for getting natives to end up buying and owning their own land on the existing reservations.  Set up whatever counselling/detox/safety nets you need and then give them a goal; get your crap together, because the boom is going to drop.  Give it ten years?  Then that's it.  The Indian Act gets struck from the books.  
Doubtless, there would be people who would "slip through the cracks" and would turn out poorly.  And the land grabs disputes would still have to be resolved (albeit this solution would take scads of cash, so I'm sure the Fed could come up with some brilliant plan, ala Dolton Estates)  But I can't see this turning out with any expectation of success without some sort of "tough love" solution.  If they could do it on their own, would that not have happened some time in the last forty-odd years?  Might seem harsh, but it would be better than the sad, lingering death they are experiencing now.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2007)

The tribal chiefs' only "power" is in representing a body of people.  If they have no clients then they have no reason to exist.  Much like a lawyer from Regina I could name that has made a practice of sucking up government funded class action lawsuits..... nuther story.

The chiefs are the problem.  Louis XIV solved his version of the same problem by turning them into Gentlemen of the Bathchamber and putting them on a pension.  The Hanoverians allowed the Lairds to keep the land and ship their tenants to far away places (Canada and Manchester) so that the Lairds could make money raising sheep and running shooting parties.

Get rid of the chiefs in the equation.  Co-opt those women that claim that the Chiefs are a Whiteman's Mistake in any case.

With the best will in the world an individual "leading" a band of 80 or so, half of whom live in town in any event, is NOT a leader of a nation.


----------



## krustyrl (23 Aug 2007)

> Much like a lawyer from Regina I could name that has made a practice of sucking up government funded class action lawsuits..... nuther story


   =  T.M..?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2007)

No Pack Drill.


----------



## Yrys (22 Apr 2008)

Mohawk protesters set up blockade in eastern Ont. town



> Dozens of aboriginal protesters blocked off a main street through Deseronto, Ont., after a Kingston, Ont., developer announced plans to develop a property that is part
> of an ongoing land dispute.
> 
> An old RV continued blocking the intersection of two gravel roads Monday afternoon, and protesters plan to maintain the blockade until the developer changes his plans, said
> ...


----------



## geo (22 Apr 2008)

Hmm... wonder if and when the OPP will (not?) make a gaffe
Will we have a "new" and improved Oka ???

Anyone wanna bet that the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver will be "interesting times" ???


----------



## Yrys (22 Apr 2008)

Some journalists are already writing aricle saying that as 2008 Olympics is a good time
to make people aware of Tibet, 2010 O will be a good one for the aboriginals ...


----------



## George Wallace (22 Apr 2008)

Ipperwash

Caledonia

Deseronto

They are moving your way Yrys     >


----------



## Haggis (22 Apr 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ipperwash
> 
> Caledonia
> 
> ...



Remember:

Akwesasne

Kahnesatake

Kahnawake

They're closer than you think, George.


----------



## larry Strong (22 Apr 2008)

Found in the Mountain View Gazette.

http://www.mountainviewgazette.ca/editor1.html



> Editorial
> Send army into Hobbema to reign in violence
> Dan Singleton, Mountain View Gazette
> The shooting of a two-year-old girl at Hobbema last week should be a wake up call for the federal Conservatives. In fact, it’s high time for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to start showing some backbone instead of sitting on the fence.
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Apr 2008)

Larry,

That's all very good, and I sympathize with the people on the reserve, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon. The Federal Government does not have the legal authority to intervene and certainly the Canadian Forces can not respond without a legitimate request or direction from the appropriate civilian government agency.

It sucks, but that's how it works.

Brian


----------



## geo (22 Apr 2008)

Same as with the Mohawks.....
It requires local police & government authorities to lose control of the situation AND turn around to ask the Feds to bring in the big guns.......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2008)

So, let me see if I have this right. 

First Nation Warriors (I use the term loosely), break the law, seize private property, defy court orders and intimidate the rest of the population, across Canada. They say we have no business in their affairs, or on their (so called) land.

Now, First Nations communities have a problem on their land, with their illegal gangs, and they want US, the society they are holding hostage, to come in and sort it out for them? Should not their OWN Warriors sort it out?

Oh wait. Maybe that's the problem.

Maybe it's time the town(s) took a pick handle to the local bullies.

At least the body starts to breath again after you pass out from holding your breath. :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Should not their OWN Warriors sort it out?



They've gotten to have their cake and eat it too for a couple of decades now.  Why should this be any different?  Of course, nobody mentions that the only reason a house gets shot up in a drive by is because the people inside it are involved gang activity.  There's a good chance their "warriors" are the ones engaged in the shootings and _this is _ how they are sorting it out.    Crazy thought:  don't have your kids live in the same house you do when you are in a native gang (or any gang for that matter).
And don't ever think that the OPP are lacking in desire to go in and clean house.  They just need a green light but that requires political will, which we lack in this country/province.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2008)

ZC,

You didn't read far enough 


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Oh wait. Maybe that's the problem.


----------



## Greymatters (23 Apr 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> They've gotten to have their cake and eat it too for a couple of decades now.  Why should this be any different?  Of course, nobody mentions that the only reason a house gets shot up in a drive by is because the people inside it are involved gang activity.  There's a good chance their "warriors" are the ones engaged in the shootings and _this is _ how they are sorting it out.    Crazy thought:  don't have your kids live in the same house you do when you are in a native gang (or any gang for that matter).
> And don't ever think that the OPP are lacking in desire to go in and clean house.  They just need a green light but that requires political will, which we lack in this country/province.



There doesnt seem to be any attempt to move in that direction on the Western side of the country.  How likely is it in your area?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> There doesnt seem to be any attempt to move in that direction on the Western side of the country.  How likely is it in your area?


You couldn't find the guts of political will here, if you eviserated the whole McGuinty cabinet and ran the results up a flagpole at Queen's Park.


----------



## Greymatters (24 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You couldn't find the guts of political will here, if you eviserated the whole McGuinty cabinet and ran the results up a flagpole at Queen's Park.



Hehe, thats a pretty clear picture...


----------

