# Won't Stand on guard for thee - a man's opposition to the Canadian flag & anthem



## McG (14 Mar 2005)

> Won't Stand on guard for thee
> Saskatoon Star-Phoenix
> Saskatoon
> Printed 21 Mar 05 in the Edmonton Journal
> ...


----------



## Spanky (14 Mar 2005)

I hate it when people do that :rage:  This guy wants it both ways.  He'll collect all the benefits citizenship provides and then piss and moan about how his heritage is not respected and how he is a citizen of another nation.  Screw him!


----------



## Horse_Soldier (14 Mar 2005)

Perhaps someone needs to remind this gentleman that respect begets respect and contempt begets contempt.  He may not feel anything for the Canadian flag and anthem, but out of politeness, he should show it the same respect as he would no doubt wish non-aboriginals to show his eagle staff.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Mar 2005)

I'm using this as a lead in to a comment on what I see as a significant problem.

Aboriginal Canadians constitute a large, growing _underclass_ the members of which, despite billions of dollars being tossed at them, are falling further and further behind by almost every useful measure of social status or social progress.

Young aboriginal males are, generally, poorly educated, underemployed and bitter.

Poorly educated, bitter, idle young men are ripe for the picking by whichever political demagogue comes along and touts violence as a _first resort_.

Soon (20 years, maybe less?) aboriginals will constitute an absolute majority amongst the residents of Saskatchewan; when that happens Saskatchewan will become the first major political subdivision in the _Western world_ in which the level of academic achievement of the _majority_ is declining while its criminal conviction rate _increases_.

Some pretty senior officials in Ottawa believe that some form of aboriginal _rebellion_ is a greater threat to our _peace, order and good government_ than the one posed by _al Qaeda_.   I have heard it postulated that the country must be ready and able to deal with three or four simultaneous crises, each equivalent in size, scope and intensity to _Oka_ in 1990.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Mar 2005)

They need to get over it.  They may have lived here for thousands of years, but they didn't build any cities, railroads, dams, power stations, they overworked the land and killed off the buffalo in large numbers.  The white man came along and took it from him, and that's that.  Not that we haven't done our own bit of harm with pollution and industrialization, but I think we're much better off now, living to the age of 65 or 70, and in peace with our neighbours, with infant mortality at the lowest its ever been, than the way things used to be.

He can put up an eagle staff and bark at the moon all he wants, what does he think we should do - hand it all back?


----------



## Canuck_25 (14 Mar 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> They need to get over it.   They may have lived here for thousands of years, but they didn't build any cities, railroads, dams, power stations, they overworked the land and killed off the buffalo in large numbers.   The white man came along and took it from him, and that's that.   Not that we haven't done our own bit of harm with pollution and industrialization, but I think we're much better off now, living to the age of 65 or 70, and in peace with our neighbours, with infant mortality at the lowest its ever been, than the way things used to be.
> 
> He can put up an eagle staff and bark at the moon all he wants, what does he think we should do - hand it all back?



 Well, its not just a problem there, we on the coast deal with it too. They dont consider themselves as Canadian, but first nations. I say pull out the 7.5 billion dollars out from under them, eliminate reserves, specail status and let them live like Canadians. 

 The only problem would be that it is illegal to do that.


----------



## camochick (14 Mar 2005)

I dont agree with this mans aproach to his very valid issue. If he would show respect for the flag and the anthem then maybe he could try and work with his board and get a first nations flag in there as well. 

As for natives in Canada, the government created this problem and so far all they have done to try and correct it is throw money to them in hopes it will go away. If the government would take an active role in trying to fix the problems that first nations have instead of trying to make it go away perhaps we wouldnt have issues such as these. The government and the bans(who are the ones for the most part mismanaging the money they are given) need to work together to try and fix the social problems on reserves and with our native population. It's great for the rest of Canada to sit on their high horse and whine about how the natives get all this stuff for free and we took their land fair and square but what is that doing for this problem. They are people just like us, and perhaps if given the chance and the proper guidance they can rid themselves of their social problems.


----------



## Marty (14 Mar 2005)

We hear many natives talk about the "old ways" ...I am a big fan of the old ways as well  ( for me its Recce in a Lynx) , anyway I don't see anybody living in tents made of deerskin , eating whatever they can kill ....or not eating when they don't have any luck. I just don't see how the present day  Natives in Canada have been that hard done by.,
 I had to bye my own Powersaw and Skidder to go to the woods , I wish my Great Great Great Great Grandfather (not sure if thats enough Greats ) had signed a treaty back in the 1700 s  saying that the Gov two or three hundred years later had to give me a Skidder or for that matter a Lobster licence complete with a shiny new boat. 

If the coin of the Realm is good enough to spend , the flag of said Realm  should be deserving of RESPECT


----------



## P-Free (14 Mar 2005)

Personally, when I stand for the national anthem, it isn't just because I am Canadian, it is honour the men and women who keep us safe and protected. 

And whenever I stand, I see people all around me, people not even born in Canada but have immigrated here, standing proudly.


----------



## GGboy (14 Mar 2005)

Here's the thing: if this guy's Anishinaabe-Cree his ancestors have been in northern Sask for a couple hundred years tops. The Cree moved into the northern prairies in the late 1700s and early 1800s by means of what we would call ethnic cleansing today: pushing the Assiniboia, Blood and other nations south and west.
Not sure where the Anishinaabe (Ojibway) angle comes in, since they're a Great Lakes nation.
Point is, while I have a lot of sympathy for the problems native people face, blaming Canada is just too easy. That flag represents a country that has, while not perfect, done a great deal and spent a great deal to try to address those problems.
I suspect this fellow's just grandstanding.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (14 Mar 2005)

Heres an idea, give him his plot of land, make it a territory and cut off all borders to it to trade, importing/exporting, and communication lines. See how keen he is on protesting about Canada while he starves in the dark confined to his home. Of course, then he'll be able to honour his heritage any way he wishes... :



Im Scottish/Irish, you dont see me protesting that theres no Tartan on the flag or that the Anthem has no recognized piper riff dedicated to the Emerald Isle!? If everyone did, there would be an awful lot of people with bad postures and worn out pockets...


----------



## sdimock (14 Mar 2005)

I don't see that this mans protest has any real purpose other than to annoy the other trustees.


----------



## camochick (14 Mar 2005)

I dont agree with what this man is doing, but I dont agree with the sentiment that natives are second class citizens (and no I am not saying everyone thinks this way, but some do). What if a group of people came here to Canada today and said, hey you cant speak your language, you cant practise your religion, you must all live in communities where tuburculosis is rampant, the houses are crap, the water is dirty and some ban is going to mismanage your money, oh and we will send you to a residental school where you will be abused physically, emotionaly and sexually. But hey, we will throw some money at you so dont complain. I have a friend who is fully aboriginal but looks white so he doesnt like to tell people he is native because people automatically have a stereotype about him. He works, he doesnt get tax free status nor does he use his status to fish, hunt or get any other sort of freebies. Why in a country we like to say is so great does a person have to hide who they are because people have these automatic assumptions about them. The problem can be fixed, with a little effort from all sides.


----------



## Gunnar (14 Mar 2005)

Keep it simple:   Everyone who wants to be a Canadian, sign here.   Everyone who doesn't, sign this piece of paper instead.   It simply states that you renounce all benefits of Canadian citizenship, that your SIN is void, that all government-issued ID is revoked, that all welfare, UI and other government-sponsored programmes no longer apply to you.   Futher, you are no longer eligeable to represent the Canadian people in any area, which means you are no longer on this board, and thus, no longer a problem for us.   God Save the Queen!

Oh, you meant you wanted to be of your nation AND our nation?   Sounds a lot like eating your cake and having it too....


----------



## S McKee (14 Mar 2005)

I really get sick of listening to this we were here first bit, considering recent archaeological evidence suggests that people of European decent the Solutrean peoples from the region of modern day southern France were here thousands of years (pre Clovis) before the peoples that crossed the Bering Land Bridge. I feel sympathy for the aboriginal peoples and what they've gone through in the past, but much of their present woes are due to their own mismanagement and corruption in reserve counsels.


----------



## Long in the tooth (14 Mar 2005)

As Edward Campbell has pointed out below, several parts of Canada are set to have a significant percentage of natives in the near future.  This includes Winnipeg as well as SK.  I agree that this pending 'underclass' bodes ill, but I'm also concerned that those paying taxes may soon get fed up, and violently.  When a race based benefits system exists, don't be surprised when you have racial animosity.

The representatives of Gladstone and Disraeli certainly did not promise natives freedom from taxes in perpetuity, although that is being 'read into' treaties.  As far as I'm concerned, I was born Canadian just like first nations (whatever that means) people were, and for a buck thirty four they can get a coffee at Tim's just like me.


----------



## camochick (14 Mar 2005)

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=274


----------



## dutchie (14 Mar 2005)

So let me get this straight. White people came here and displaced/fought the Natives and won. We acted improperly, and now have to grant them special rights not afforded to the rest of us because of this mistreatment, and because this is their native land. Kind of a 'They were here first' idea. BUT, the Natives themselves displaced/killed other natives and occupied their land. Does that not remove their claim of 'me first'? Further, it's not like they are indeed 'native' to North America, they are immigrants too. They just happened to (im)migrate here before we did. 

My family has been here since the 50's, does that give me special rights over other citizens who immigrated here in the 60's? Of course not.

We are compensating for prior racism with knee-jerk retaliatory racism.


----------



## Strike (14 Mar 2005)

It's one thing to be upset about what happened to one's people way back when, it's another to reject any REAL help (other than just plain cash) when it's offered.  When it was reported that several bands had been mismanaging moneys given to them by the government, this same government wanted full disclosure of how any future money was spent.  Oh, can't have that.  It's against self government.  Come on people, you can't have it both ways.

Success by an Aboriginal band is very achievable.  Look at the Mambertou (sp?) band in the Maritimes.  They are known as one of the wealthiest business communities in the area.  Companies are lining up to get contracts with them.


----------



## T.I.M. (14 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight. White people came here and displaced/fought the Natives and won. We acted improperly, and now have to grant them special rights not afforded to the rest of us because of this mistreatment, and because this is their native land.



Actually it's because the Crown signed legally binding treaties with them _guaranteeing_ them certain rights.  Those rights were subsequently ignored for a very long time, but now the Canadian government is trying (being forced) to live up to the old treaty obligations.

We got a briefing on Aboriginal issues on arriving in the North and it was quite an eye opener.  It's a very complex issue, and one that's made particularly hard to discuss rationally because everyone on all sides feels so strongly about it, one way or another.

That and due to the events of the past the current situation is a right mess.  I'm told it is improving though.


----------



## Canuck_25 (14 Mar 2005)

Well, im not sure about the rest of Canada, but here, the natives are quite wealthy (the ones that have jobs.) They enjoy so many benfits over the rest of Canadians that its only a matter of time people start speaking up. Im talking about no income tax, no sales tax, goverment handouts (provincial and federal), easy access to university (can enter with lower grades than the average Canadian), more scholarships and burseraries for natives, monthly payment to attend highschool ($60), specail status for native students at schools (native room, native classes.) Thats only a little bit.

 It gets frustrating. Why should we have to pay for new houses every 10 years? Im serious, ive talked to contractors and they cant believe the amount of corruption and waste in the system. End it. Why should a Canadian of chinese origen, japanese origen, indian origen, french origen and British origen have to pay for waste. I cant believe people will complain about the sponsorship scandal when this *** is going on.

 I have native friends, some think the system is a joke. They think it promotes racism because it creates anger amoung other members of the community. One of them saw the CF's native program as a insult to Canadians, because they were told that they could enter the CF easier than other Canadians.





 Its total crap

 OO ya, if you dont believe me, pick up a CF recruitment form, it asks you your race.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2005)

Simple solution; if this jamoke says he is not a Canadian Citizen, then cut him off from all the various benifits Canadian Citizens have access to, including his government paycheque and any pension monies he may have been eligable to prior to his self forfiture of citizenship.


----------



## TCBF (14 Mar 2005)

Ah yes, but you see, this "citizen of the world" cr_p the pols have us following has downgraded the value of being a citizen.  Anyone washing up in a boat has the same rights as you and me.

Tom


----------



## Shec (14 Mar 2005)

I don't condone what the School Trustee did and said, but the majority   reaction on this thread leads me to ask:   Did it ever occur to some of you that perhaps if your comments didn't represent the main stream the problem wouldn't exist?      Furthermore, like most prejudices yours are rooted in much ignorance.   For instance, 

How many of you have ever read a Treaty?    While open to interpretation they meet all the tests of contract law - offer, acceptance, and consideration.   

How many of you know that Canada's Indian Act was the model for South Africa's Apartheid laws?   Isn't that something to be proud of?          Small wonder there is a legacy of alienation and bitterness.

However the good news is the Human Development Index shows that the gap in the standard of living that seperates Aboriginal Canadians from the rest of the population has closed from 179 in 1981 to 115 in 2001.      So our tax dollars are not being flushed down the toilet.   

And the opportunity to re-write the Treaties as a   land claim gives First Nations the opportunity to do something the Indian Act denied them - land ownership.   Which BTW is the key to economic development.

We Canadians like to preach tolerance and aid overseas.    How about a little in our own backyard?


----------



## badpup (14 Mar 2005)

Hmm Interesting........
My forefathers were evicted from the ancestral land in Scotland, perhaps I should apply to the UK Gov't for a land grant, schooling, and cash to support myself. :


----------



## TCBF (14 Mar 2005)

The reason those "Ghettos" exist is that the money targeted to solve the problems gets stolen.   Pols all the way back to Trudeau - and his Indian Affairs minister Chretien - said this doesn't work, we have to mainstream them.   Prob is, if we dismantle the taxpayer funded feudal Bantustans we call reserves - the gravy train that keeps the chiefs and powerful in SUVs will get derailed.

The powerful are rich, and the rest barely exist.   

Why do YOU tolerate this?

What use is living in one of the best countries in the world, and not wanting to be a part of it?

Note: We are not responsible - morally, ethically, or monetarily - for the sins of our fathers.

Tom


----------



## dutchie (14 Mar 2005)

Shec said:
			
		

> I don't condone what the School Trustee did and said, but the majority   reaction on this thread leads me to ask:   Did it ever occur to some of you that perhaps if your comments didn't represent the main stream the problem wouldn't exist?      Furthermore, like most prejudices yours are rooted in much ignorance.



Nice. Start your post by accusing us of being racially prejudiced. 



			
				Shec said:
			
		

> How many of you have ever read a Treaty?    While open to interpretation they meet all the tests of contract law - offer, acceptance, and consideration.



So I have to have either read a treaty, or be an expert in the field to question the common sense of it, or it's obvious contradiction (recognizing previous injustices by creating injustice)?





			
				Shec said:
			
		

> How many of you know that Canada's Indian Act was the model for South Africa's Apartheid laws?   Isn't that something to be proud of?          Small wonder there is a legacy of alienation and bitterness.



So, what exactly does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Islamic fascists use the Koran to justify terrorism...should we condemn the Koran?



			
				Shec said:
			
		

> However the good news is the Human Development Index shows that the gap in the standard of living that seperates Aboriginal Canadians from the rest of the population has closed from 179 in 1981 to 115 in 2001.      So our tax dollars are not being flushed down the toilet.



Explain please....179 of what? 





			
				Shec said:
			
		

> And the opportunity to re-write the Treaties as a   land claim gives First Nations the opportunity to do something the Indian Act denied them - land ownership.   Which BTW is the key to economic development.



Is there something in the Indian Act that forbids Indians (Natives) from owning land? 





			
				Shec said:
			
		

> We Canadians like to preach tolerance and aid overseas.    How about a little in our own backyard?



We also preach education, but that didn't stop you when you posted.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (14 Mar 2005)

What I find amusing is his last name, Linklater.   This is a fairly uncommon name as it originates in Orkney.   Orcadians provided 416 out of the 530 Hudson's Bay agents in 1799 and that tradition continued for centuries.   This means there's a lot of Orcadians in the woodpile up north.   If it wasn't for a caucasian man that came to Canada to help the gather the natural resources of Canada the complainer would never have been born.

So in my mind he is actually turning his back on half of his heritage.   Must suck to hate half of yourself.


----------



## TCBF (14 Mar 2005)

"Orcadians in the woodpile"

I got it.  But I am fifty.

Tom


----------



## beach_bum (14 Mar 2005)

badpup said:
			
		

> Hmm Interesting........
> My forefathers were evicted from the ancestral land in Scotland, perhaps I should apply to the UK Gov't for a land grant, schooling, and cash to support myself. :



Yes.  My family came from Ireland.  Perhaps I should go after those who took my families lands.  Oh wait!  Look at the way they were treated when they came to Canada.  No one would hire the Irish!  They were treated worse than dogs.  I would like to be compensated for the anguish and suffering my family suffered.


----------



## T.I.M. (14 Mar 2005)

> So I have to have either read a treaty, or be an expert in the field to question the common sense of it, or it's obvious contradiction (recognizing previous injustices by creating injustice)?



Well, you can question the acts of the Crown at the time they signed the Treaties, but the fact is they're still legally binding documents, and they commit the Canadian government to provide and guarantee certain rights for the Aboriginal people.

That the Canadian government has failed to provide what was agreed to until recently is less a contradiction brought about by belated morality, and more an expression of the growing legal and political power of the Aboriginals to fight for what was promised.


Most Canadians don't really understand the issues.  I certainly didn't before I came up to the North.


----------



## Sheerin (14 Mar 2005)

> "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" - Volatire



Man, I love Canada. 

No sarcasm.



> They need to get over it.  They may have lived here for thousands of years, but they didn't build any cities, railroads, dams, power stations, they overworked the land and killed off the buffalo in large numbers.  The white man came along and took it from him, and that's that.  Not that we haven't done our own bit of harm with pollution and industrialization, but I think we're much better off now, living to the age of 65 or 70, and in peace with our neighbours, with infant mortality at the lowest its ever been, than the way things used to be.



So what if they didn't build cities, rialroads, damns, or whatever?  These are all recent inventions, and were all born out of necessity.  If the natives of North America needed to build them they would have.
As for the comments on cities, look at their south American counter parts, they produced massive cities.  In the Southern US there were many large residential areas that were occupied for many generations.  In BC there is the Indians of the Lillooet region who for thouands of years had extremely complex social and economic systems that were based on the salmon.  There is one site at Keatley Creek that was occupied for a significant amount of time (many generations over many hundreds of years).  

Are we better off now?  I don't know.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2005)

I probably wouldn't feel so angry about it if the billions we spend on Aboriginal Affairs filtered down to the people who need it, maybe they could pull themselves up. However, in most cases, they're used as pawns by their own, kept in servitude, squalor and poverty by the 1% of their band leaders, who squander most of the money on themselves and relatives, then claim WE'RE screwing them.


----------



## Canuck_25 (14 Mar 2005)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> Yes.   My family came from Ireland.   Perhaps I should go after those who took my families lands.   Oh wait!   Look at the way they were treated when they came to Canada.   No one would hire the Irish!   They were treated worse than dogs.   I would like to be compensated for the anguish and suffering my family suffered.



 You have a point there. Or what about the non native school children on reserves, they were abused too. Actaully, the abuses werent as wide spread as some might believe. My grandma taught at one in Alert Bay, she never ever abused the childern, she taught english.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (14 Mar 2005)

I am one of many first generation Canadians in this country, and as such, I am immensely proud to be able to wear the uniform of this great nation. It is true, that man works in the civil service sector, and he accepts a pay check from the government of Canada. So he should stand proper and face the Canadian flag as the National Anthom is played. 
With no intention to offend any Native person here, I do believe that they cry fowl and in the words of my Biology teacher "whine" too much. They are Canadian citizens and should only be treated as such. If they want equality, then it means taking the billions of dollars we invest in them each year, and closing down all reserves and treat them as such...as equals. That, however, is just my opinion and I would invite anyone who would want to put there's here as I have had the oppurtunity to do so.

Let the flag continue to fly high.  

Dan


----------



## ZipperHead (14 Mar 2005)

I'm fairly surprised at how upset people get over this issue, on both sides. Like it was stated, a lot of people's prejudice is based on ignorance. Like T.I.M, I had to take a Cross Cultural Awareness class (I took mine when I worked at the Whitehorse cadet camp a few years back, which exists primarily for the "northern" cadets). It really opened my eyes to why groups (not neccesarily Aboriginals, but specifically tribal groups) act the way they do compared to what we consider "normal". I had a lot of preconceptions about Natives shattered or at least explained (I wish I could remember the name of the professor who taught us, but he was amazing..... by FAR the best course I have ever had in the CF).

I myself have never read a Treaty (who has time nowadays  ;D), but I'm sure the majority of the people who are outright opposed to any Treaty rights never have, so how do they know what is right, and what is wrong? I grew up in BC, in a fishing community, and I was annoyed no end that there were 16 year old native kids wearing $300 shit-kickers and driving their own cars to school, as they worked on a family owned fishing boat, that had ultra low interest payments, and were usually paid off in a few seasons, if not one good one. Many of my friends (non-native) fished as well, but it was more diificult for them as they didn't get the same benefits. Mind you, you didn't see too many poor fisherman (back then)..... But, at least these natives were working to get their money, and I would say the majority do, but everybody likes dwelling on the bums. Can anyone say "white trash"? It's easier to identify natives by their skin, so they stand out if they are the guy standing on the corner, loaded, bumming for change. I see a lot of young white kids doing that in big cities, but that doesn't bother people.

I think that the native communities need to show more solidarity and more effort at policing themselves. An example of this, is the Oromocto First Nation. Their reserve butts up against the north end of the base here in Gagetown, and a lot of their homes are visibile from the road. Some are in a shite state, and if they wanted any repsect from me, they would keep them in good order. There are some homes that show a pride of ownership, but too many look like people living in them don't give a rat's arse. If they policed themselves (like some communities, usually hoytie-toytie ones, but also blue collar ones, do) and at least presented the image of living in decent standard, people would show a little more respect. 

As a counter-point, I will mention a time we had to get land clearance while training in the civvie world in Alberta. We wanted to use a piece of property to set up for the night and went to the nearest houes. It reminded me of Cletus' house on the Simpson's. Rusting cars everywhere, and fridge with no door in the front yard. I was afraid to walk across the deck, as it was rotting away. I knocked on the door, and Joe Dirt answered. Nice guy (white), but not a whole lot of pride in his house. He directed me with vague directions to the land owner of the area we wanted to use. Anyway, this farm was immaculate, with golf course style lawn, tools hung properly, everything in order. Turns out they were Dutch immigrants, and brought with them European style pride in their property. This doesn't mean you have to be European to have pride, as we all know that the Natives were once proud, but when you give people everything, and have them not know what it's like to work for something (ie handouts), they take it for granted, and just want more, the easy way (sounds kinda like all the rumbling ref our last pay raise.... WE WANT MORE, AND WANT TO DO LESS!!!!!)

I think if people took the time to find out what the treaties provide(d), people would be a little more willing to accept (well, maybe not accept, but be more tolerable of) what they are asking for. Mind you, when land claims in any given area exceed 100% of the area, I think that people are getting a little greedy. But if you are going to throw out a bone, you better expect a lot of fighting over it.

I feel a certain amount of sympathy to the Natives over the loss of "their" land, as I'm fairly certain that our forefather's probably weren't the most ethical in their dealings with an "uncivilized" group of people, whose concept of money wasn't on par with the European's. But by the same token, that was a long time ago, and if we are paying for the sins of our fathers, would it be right to continually punish any Native misdeeds carried out that long ago as well? "Sorry, your great-great-great-great-grandfather stole a horse. Time to pay up (with interest)!!!"

I see a lot of emotion being shown over this, and as I've been reminded by mods (and others here, on unrelated issues): show some respect, and remember that people other than CF members, or sympathizers, read this, and it could easily be taken out of context, and cast the CF in a bad light. That's my Dudley Do-Right act for the day....

Al


----------



## Long in the tooth (14 Mar 2005)

Allan - your comments seem very well balanced.  How do we move forward?  I hate to overuse 'win-win'; we can all move forward here.  I see hope clearly in the APTN.  My kids enjoy this!  What is a greater endorsement than this?  While I believe that injustices have been done, entitlementlism can't go on forever.  The barrel is getting empty and both sides are going to have to give until it hurts.  In good faith.

Let's stop the rant, postive suggestions please.


----------



## Shec (15 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Nice. Start your post by accusing us of being racially prejudiced.
> 
> So I have to have either read a treaty, or be an expert in the field to question the common sense of it, or it's obvious contradiction (recognizing previous injustices by creating injustice)?
> So, what exactly does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Islamic fascists use the Koran to justify terrorism...should we condemn the Koran?
> ...




As T.I.M. pointed out above, a treaty is a legal document.   Therefore its clauses,   which reference among other things tax exemptions, housing, economic development, health, and education to Indians in exchange for peace and land-use, are binding.   Furthermore, they are binding in perpetuity.   "For as long as the sun shall rise and the rivers shall flow" is a phrase common to all of the treaties. 

The Indian Act took the treaties a step further and created the reserves on Crown land where residents were made wards of the state and private land ownership is prohibited.   If you don't own the land, developing it and borrowing against it is difficult.   

The Human Development Index measures and compares differences in quality of life between a reference population, in this case Canada as a whole,   vs. the target population, in this case registered (ie. status/on reserve) Indians.

In 1981 Canadians as a whole scored .806 on a scale that tops out at 1.00.     That same year registered Indians scored .627.      .806   - .627 =   .179.   That difference is the gap between the 2 populations.     

20 years later, in 2001,   Canadians as a whole scored .880 and registered Indians scored .765, the difference being .115.

Within the Aboriginal population itself   the magnitude of the difference has declined from .179 to .115   over 20 years, an indicator that progress is being made.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (15 Mar 2005)

I have to agree with the general atmosphere of this thread... it ain't right.  You live in this country, you follow it's traditions and beliefs.  That man would not be here today if not for a lot of the things that this country has done for his people, for ALL people for that matter.

My mom summed it up best.  When you keep throwing money at "The Aboriginal Problem", you create a situation where you are enabling failure.  There is rampant misuse of funds, and a sense that the country owes me a living.  Let's face facts.  Our forefathers very likely DID take advantage of the native man way back then.  But let's move on.  Why should our generation, and future generations continue to pay for mistakes that were made over 100 years ago?  I tell you this, I feel cheap when I have to borrow money from someone to pay a bill, or make ends meet.  I can't begin to understand what it must be like to be just given money, vehicles, homes, etc.  I had to work to get what I have.  I say we end this division of Canadian, and Native.  The very idea make us separate in our own nation.  Set an agenda, and say, there will no longer be a separate class of status for anyone in the country.  All will simply be Canadians.  I'm sure there would be some hard times and growing pains, but could you imagine what this nation could be with all of us working as Canadians towards a common goal?  

By the way... look up "native" in the dictionary.. "a person born in a certain place or country."  Last time I checked, that was me.


----------



## dutchie (15 Mar 2005)

Shec said:
			
		

> As T.I.M. pointed out above, a treaty is a legal document.   Therefore its clauses,   which reference among other things tax exemptions, housing, economic development, health, and education to Indians in exchange for peace and land-use, are binding.   Furthermore, they are binding in perpetuity.   "For as long as the sun shall rise and the rivers shall flow" is a phrase common to all of the treaties.



Laws are rewritten all the time. Times change, and some laws are no longer reflective of the society over which they govern. I feel that this is the case here. Case in point, in the Southern US, there once were laws restricting the rights of people based on race. Should they have abided by those laws blindly? Obviously not. Times change, and society becomes more and more enlightened...in most cases. 

The treaties and the Indian Act are completely outdated. They were written after a long armed struggle between Euros and Indians, and I feel they have guaranteed limited integration of Natives in mainstream Canadian society. The language and tone of the treaties and the Act freeze the relationship between Euros and Natives to one of confrontation. The very fact that it is called a treaty is indicative of this. Treaties are supposed to be between two nations, and until Natives are viewed, by themselves and others, as being first and foremost Canadians, this subtle adversarial relationship will continue and prosperity for Natives in this CANADIAN society will never occur.

Why should we continue to honour those treaties blindly? They are a mistake. How can any rational person justify granting rights based solely on race? It is completely immoral. I defy anyone to present a sound argument to the contrary. I feel that they should be ripped up and replaced with agreements that reflect current society, and above all be fair to all.


----------



## Shec (15 Mar 2005)

Land claims and self government negotiations are all about replacing the treaties and the Indian Act.   

Blackhorse 7's goals are all well and good but how do you achieve them?   

Do you cut them off now, violating all legal obligations and expectations and provoking unrest, probably violent unrest?    

Or, recognizing that progress has been made over the past 25 years, continue to build upon that momentum until the gap has been closed and self-sufficiency and self-determination has been realized?     

BTW, when that happens full participation by Aboriginal peoples in the economy instead of doling out welfare will re-inject at least 1% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product, the value of Canada's productive output, back into the economy.


----------



## goodform (15 Mar 2005)

These questions will not necessarily reflect my private views, but are meant to provoke thought.

Firstly, are land claims and self gov't effective means of replacing the treaties and Indian Act? I know quite often there is no perfect solution, but can the mentioned items be ammended or replaced by more effective systems?

To those who want to "cut them off", was it your intent to say just that? Or do you mean find a progressive system to ween them from the current? How long should/will it take?

I am from SK and have seen the excesses and waste that can come about from the existing circumstances. Schools that are new already beginning to be destroyed, a school 15 years old being torn down. People living in squalor while all of the vehicles at the Band's office were no older than 2 years or 10,000km. The difference in Native people from the South compared to the North.

What specifically can be done to lessen/stop waste, change peoples lives, and make all concerned more productive? And no, not everyone can join the army  ;D


----------



## dutchie (15 Mar 2005)

The first thing we can do is get rid of self-government. We rejected self-government for the other minority 'distinct' group (Francophones), why are Natives any different than other Canadians? 

How can Native groups expect to fully participate in Canadian society if they seek self-government? You can't have it both ways. You are either Canadian, or you are not. If you wish self-government, then soverignty is the only answer. I would oppose that completely, obviously.


----------



## Shec (15 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> The first thing we can do is get rid of self-government. We rejected self-government for the other minority 'distinct' group (Francophones), why are Natives any different than other Canadians?
> 
> How can Native groups expect to fully participate in Canadian society if they seek self-government? You can't have it both ways. You are either Canadian, or you are not. If you wish self-government, then soverignty is the only answer. I would oppose that completely, obviously.



Don't confuse self-gov't with sovereignity.   Rather, it is comparable to municipal/regional government within the national framework, something that all Canadians enjoy including the Quebecois.  

Furthermore,   its a matter of choice and people tend to get the kind of government they deserve.     If a First Nation can cut a deal with the nearest municipal gov't for services, fine.   

Remember Aboriginal people have had 300 years of us doing it to them and doing it for them and look at the mess that has created for all concerned.   Is there a better alternative to land claims and self-gov't.?     Maybe,   but no one has identified it yet.     So we (Canadians as a whole) go with what we've got and work out the kinks as we go along.     At least change is occuring and change = progress.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

Shec said:
			
		

> Don't confuse self-gov't with sovereignity.     It is comparable to municipal/regional government within the national framework, something that all Canadians have including the Quebecois.



How come it gets referred to as a "Third Level of Government" - something separate and distinct from Federal and Provincial governments that the most Canadians seem to get by with....


----------



## dutchie (15 Mar 2005)

Of course. But the difference between the Self-government sought by Natives and the self-government of municipalities is huge. IMHO, the Native self-government sought is closer to sovereignty than the autonomy of municipalities/cities. I also feel that further segregation of Natives, either forced or voluntary, is counter-productive to improving the plight of Natives.


----------



## goodform (15 Mar 2005)

How would you solve land issues then? Have the Crown surrender some or all of the lands on which reserves sit?


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

LeGars said:
			
		

> How would you solve land issues then? Have the Crown surrender some or all of the lands on which reserves sit?



Sounds good to me.  If done properly, these people will have real capital in that they, and not the Crown, own the land in which they live on.  Perhaps this needs to be done democratically; if a band votes that all land to be given to its members will be held communally in a trust, then so be it.  If it votes for each individual to take their share in the community, then that should be acceptable as well.  As long as you get all the resources out of the hands of band councils and chiefs, who seem to be the only ones prospering off of it while others mire in abject poverty.


----------



## Shec (15 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sounds good to me.   If done properly, these people will have real capital in that they, and not the Crown, own the land in which they live on.   Perhaps this needs to be done democratically; if a band votes that all land to be given to its members will be held communally in a trust, then so be it.   If it votes for each individual to take their share in the community, then that should be acceptable as well.   As long as you get all the resources out of the hands of band councils and chiefs, who seem to be the only ones prospering off of it while others mire in abject poverty.



That is what comprehensive land claims are all about - give folks tenure to the land base their reserves occupy and the opportunity to form a recognized government to manage it.     One of the problems right now is that Band Councils are creations within the Indian Act to liase with the Fed.  Legally they do not have to be recognized as legitimate governments by provinces and industry the way muncipal gov'ts are.   30 years ago if someone wanted to deal with a reserve, according to the letter of the law they had approach the Indian Agent,  not the Band Council,  directly.

 The third level of gov't in this country you asked about is simply the muncipal level of   government.     All self-government will accord is the right to zone property, tax that property, police it, clear the snow, pick-up the garbage, develop the infrastructure to service it and those other same services that municipal governments provide in communities across the country.   It has nothing to do with federal responsibilities such as national defence, foreign policy, etc.

The trick is to encourage the creation of   responsible democratic government and that is why one hears so much about accountabilty.   That is also why the creation of a governance centre was a feature in the last Federal budget and some interesting pilot projects are being carried out.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

As a political entity, I believe that they are part and parcel of the Provinces and are covered under Provincial legislation (someone correct me if I'm wrong).  If "self-government" is not a "Third Way" of government but simply a municipal organization, then doesn't it make sense to put reserves under the Provincial municipalities act?

As well, the main reason I'm leery of "Self-Government" is that many examples I've seen are exclusive.

Municipalities have only requirement - that you live within the boundaries.  Will I, as a Canadian citzen, be able to move into a "Native municipality" that is on former reserve lands and have full rights as a member of that community, or will I be barred from doing so because I am not a status member of the band?

This seems to be the case in Westbank - I heard speakers, Native and non-Native, talk about the fact that the few members of the band were the only ones able to vote on issues relating to the leasing and local by-laws - the 6,000 or so non-Natives living on Westbank land were effectively shut out from taking part in the process of local governance.

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=1468
http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=318
http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/jul0998can.html


----------



## Shec (15 Mar 2005)

Provincial relations with Indian country reflect what is going on in the country as a whole.   Lots of bickering over who is responsible for what, etc.   Some provinces say "give us the $ Indians get so we can deliver to all". and others are not the least bit interested in what they see as Federal off-loading of a responsibility.

Your question about non-status rights on reserve is one of the governance challenges.     It has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court but the fact that people on both sides are talking about it advances the issue.
As i understand it only the band members vote on land-use, after all its their land.   But once they decide to lease the land to a non-member that person is legally entitled to full enjoyment and servicing of the property consistent with the terms and conditions of the lease.  And if not the lessee can pursue normal legal remedies for breach of contract.
.


----------



## Brando304 (15 Mar 2005)

Maybe I'm just cold hearted, but the way I see it is: If they want to live here, they live as Canadians, just like the rest of us. If you don't like it, leave. Same thing with the seperatists in Quebec; If you want to leave, then leave. But leave Canada here.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

Brando304 said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm just cold hearted, but the way I see it is: If they want to live here, they live as Canadians, just like the rest of us. If you don't like it, leave. Same thing with the seperatists in Quebec; If you want to leave, then leave. But leave Canada here.



Leave to where?

The "Love it or Leave it" approach is only useful to a certain extent....


----------



## Brando304 (15 Mar 2005)

I don't know, perhaps the high arctic?   ;D


----------



## goodform (15 Mar 2005)

The Arctic isn't so bad, it's the dry that gets you...

I agree with Infanteer, you can only go so far with love it or leave it, but that doesn't mean love it or have a hissy fit as I feel this man did. I don't think that the office he holds is the best place to start overt protest.


----------



## Strike (15 Mar 2005)

Brando304 said:
			
		

> I don't know, perhaps the high arctic? ;D



Actually, that may not be a bad idea.   If anyone has succeeded with the whole idea of self-government, it may well be Nunavut.   The whole idea of that territory is to make decisions based on the Inuit culture.   Will it affect this culture negatively or positively?   Inuit and non-Inuit are all given equal opportunity both in and out of the house and, best of all, there is no party line.   Everyone is an independent.   How much better can it get?


----------



## putz (15 Mar 2005)

Here's my $0.02 on this (if it matters at all I'm a white guy 1st gen. Canadian):

I used to repo's on reserves.  Most of the people that I dealt with (with the exception of the debtor themselves) were very understanding people. 



			
				Shec said:
			
		

> Provincial relations with Indian country reflect what is going on in the country as a whole.  Lots of bickering over who is responsible for what, etc.  Some provinces say "give us the $ Indians get so we can deliver to all". and others are not the least bit interested in what they see as Federal off-loading of a responsibility.
> 
> Your question about non-status rights on reserve is one of the governance challenges.   It has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court but the fact that people on both sides are talking about it advances the issue.
> As i understand it only the band members vote on land-use, after all its their land.  But once they decide to lease the land to a non-member that person is legally entitled to full enjoyment and servicing of the property consistent with the terms and conditions of the lease. And if not the lessee can pursue normal legal remedies for breach of contract.
> .



From people that I spoke with on the reserve, and the many native friends that I have, it seems that the younger generation (mid 20's) recognize that the system needs an overhaul.  There is still animosity from the way that Europeans treated them but the majority do not go around "blaming whitey" (no disrespect).  The older generations are still VERY Leary of dealing with white people, the younger do not necessarily want to form their own nation, most are just concerned about getting off the government money bottle.  The treaties are open to interpretation.  Speak to several people and you'll get several variances on what the treaty means.  Have any of you here spent time on a reserve (other than just driving through one?), spoke to the people on a reserve or dealt directly with a band office and their members?  On that topic, band offices control the reserve much like a town hall, sometimes the band members are elected, sometimes (in the case of some reserves and the chief) the power is passed through the family.  Sometimes the band office says/does things that the members do not agree with.  AS for the funding on reserves all I can say is this... while some house are run down you can always tell which  houses belong to the chief and band members.

BTW non-members can stay on a reserve or work on a reserve if they have permission from the band.  Once asked to leave (unless yo have a FEDERAL Court document) you must leave the reserve.  If not you can be fined and arrested for trespassing.  Also, most reserves do have there own policing forces.  They are unarmed, called peace officers, and I do believe enjoy the same power as a police member when ON the reserve.


----------



## Shec (15 Mar 2005)

putz said:
			
		

> Here's my $0.02 on this (if it matters at all I'm a white guy 1st gen. Canadian):
> 
> I used to repo's on reserves.   Most of the people that I dealt with (with the exception of the debtor themselves) were very understanding people.
> 
> ...



What you say about having to leave when asked is technically correct under the Indian Act.   Of course under that same Act technically you would need the permission of the Indian Agent, if you could find one because they have gone the way of the dodo bird,   to go on reserve in the first place.     But for the most part those days are going fast because what you say about the younger generations recognizing things need to change is bang on.   Fortunately too the numbers of youth staying in school, going on to university, and returning to the reserve to help improve thing is increasing significantly.


----------



## ZipperHead (15 Mar 2005)

> Maybe I'm just cold hearted, but the way I see it is: If they want to live here, they live as Canadians, just like the rest of us. If you don't like it, leave. Same thing with the seperatists in Quebec; If you want to leave, then leave. But leave Canada here.



I would hope this was said in jest. 

What is "living like a Canadian"? Living in a house? Living in a log cabin? Living in an apartment building? Living under a piece of cardboard on Yonge Street? Going only to Catholic Church? Going to a mosque? Canada is made up of a great number of cultures (European, Asian, African, all of the America's, etc). The way I live is quite possibly different than the way you live. 

And where are the Natives going to leave to: they are from here, at least going back 10,000 years. Kind of hard to deport them, isn't it? 

Telling people to love it or leave it is easy. What will you do if/when all the things that you may find "Canadian" change: legalization (or complete banning) of marijuana, same-sex marriages allowed, or banned; gun laws made stricter or relaxed completely, etc, etc. Will you leave here? Or will you stay to try to make a change? Guess what the Natives are doing?? 

Al


----------



## TCBF (15 Mar 2005)

Good post Al.

So, as Canada slowly devolves into a third world sub arctic banana republic (no fault of the natives), where does everyone plan on going - to Berkeley, or the barricades?  Flight or fight?

Tom


----------



## Blackhorse7 (15 Mar 2005)

Shec,

Don't get me wrong, there is NO way you could do this right now (the cut off thing..), without open revolt.  And I am happy to see the well thought out comments that posters have to these problems.  I was more thinking along the lines of a gradual move towards a unified Canada.  I don't think a 20 or even 15 year timeframe would be too unreasonable.  I just hate the aspect that I am having to pay and suffer through things that some jerk did hundreds of years ago.  That, and the fact that I hate seeing a nation divided.  Let me give an example.

I go to a call on the Reserve to Subject "A"'s house.  He has been broken into by a well known criminal who lives on the Reserve as well.  When I go arrest this Subject "B", he says I am arresting him because he is native, despite the fact his fingerprints are all over subject "A"'s house.  Subject "A" is happy at justice being done.  But next week, Subject "A" is intoxicated and causing a disturbance in the local bar.  I attend, and arrest him for being drunk in public.  Subject "A", who just last week was happy that I had caught the person who broke into their house, now says I am arresting HIM, because he is native.  I get that all the time.  Right away the Race Card comes out, with no thought to the fact that I am arresting them FOR BREAKING THE LAW.  It has nothing to do with who they are. 

Racism is a two way street.  You can be a racist, or be accused of being one, even if you are not.  What I would like to see is an end to those beliefs, and an end to the Native/white divide.  If that teacher would stand and face the flag with pride, I would have no problem doing the same for him, with his beliefs.  It's about respect, blind to differences.


----------



## Gunnerlove (15 Mar 2005)

I am always shocked by how someone can stand up and say we should do (insert simple action here) and everything will be fine. If all of our problems were that easily solved they would have been solved a long time ago. The Canadian government has made some very poor choices regarding natives, and we are now reaping the rewards and will be for generations. Reform is needed (reform should be a constant) however drastic changes to policy rarely produce the benefits intended.

Just imagine how much money we could save annually if we totally cut the natives off. I am sure it would almost cover the first month of of holding our now horribly destabilized country together. You took cause and effect into consideration, right guys?

As Canadians it is in our best interests to avoid alienating and marginalizing large portions of our population.


----------



## Canuck_25 (15 Mar 2005)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> As Canadians it is in our best interests to avoid alienating and marginalizing large portions of our population.



 2%? that is a quite minimal part of our population. Also consider this, 2% spread across 6000 km, it wont destablise the country. Chirst, Canadians of Indian origen out number the native population.


----------



## Sgt.Fitzpatrick (15 Mar 2005)

If he doesn't like Canada's heritage then he can leave Canada.Also this so disrespectful and rude. It ironic how people like this like Canada and say it's their land but can be so rude.But on the other hand his people have bind thought a lot so you can't toally blame for being so bitter.


----------



## badpup (16 Mar 2005)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> As Canadians it is in our best interests to avoid alienating and marginalizing large portions of our population.



This is just what the Liberal minded among us would have us believe, the fact of the matter is that the LARGEST portion of the population is marginalized, and alienated. have you ever been denied something because you are a white anglo saxon male? I have.
 I am not a racist, I am an equalist, I believe in absolute equality for all, male, female, white, and non white, I believe that Canadian society today is not too much different than South African Aparthied in that we allow the minority to dictate to the majority.
Things do need to change before there is a revolt, and I do not think that the revolt will be from a minority group within Canada, but rather a fed up majority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2005)

Another thing that makes one go _â ?Hmmmmâ ?_ from today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050317.wmartin17/BNStory/National/



> Send an aboriginal to Rideau Hall
> 
> By LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Thursday, March 17, 2005 Updated at 12:00 AM EST
> ...



This statement: _â ?... in the United Nations quality-of-life index, Canada always rated at or near the top of the countries deemed best to live in. But as for the nations within, the Indian reserves, the story was darkly different. They would place 63rd on the list, Third World status.â ?_ is what worries, indeed, frightens senior bureaucrats.   Under-classes have rebelled in the past, sometimes (Canada in the '50s and '60s) it has been a _quiet revolution_, at other times (Detroit, South Central LA, Brixton, Oka etc) the rebellions, though short-lived, have been violent.   Under-classes have little to lose.

I accept that aboriginals are making some progress but a recent _Globe and Mail_ series by columnist Roy MacGregor presented some stunning examples of ongoing failures.   One that sticks in my mind was his note than in one Saskatoon school the graduating class had been nearly 50/50 aboriginal/white when they started in Grade 1 but, by graduation, the ratio was something akin to 2/50, or something like that.   That is a recipe for social unrest, maybe violent social unrest, maybe violent social unrest on a scale that might challenge the Canadian Forces' capability to win, as it must, whenever it is called out _in aid of the civil power_ and, _de facto_, becomes all that stands between the sovereignty of our elected governments and mob rule.


----------



## Wils21 (17 Mar 2005)

I have a First Nations women staying in my home at the present.  She is getting social assistance and is at the doctors three times a week(using our healthcare plan).  I told her about the situation with this gentlemen.  She agreed and went one step further and said Im not Canadian this is my land.  Why should we respect someonelse who occupys our land.  My response to this is we came we saw you sold it to us.  If ya got ripped off, sorry but that wasnt me or any one in my family.  So why do I have to pay for you to be on welfare and go to the doctor.  Take away their benefits.   We are all equal we should all the get the same benefits.  If this woman wasnt such a good friend to the family I'd throw her out on her a*s.


----------



## Shec (17 Mar 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I accept that aboriginals are making some progress but a recent _Globe and Mail_ series by columnist Roy MacGregor presented some stunning examples of ongoing failures.   One that sticks in my mind was his note than in one Saskatoon school the graduating class had been nearly 50/50 aboriginal/white when they started in Grade 1 but, by graduation, the ratio was something akin to 2/50, or something like that.   That is a recipe for social unrest, maybe violent social unrest, maybe violent social unrest on a scale that might challenge the Canadian Forces' capability to win, as it must, whenever it is called out _in aid of the civil power_ and, _de facto_, becomes all that stands between the sovereignty of our elected governments and mob rule.



I didn't read the referenced Globe & Mail series.   While focussing on "stunning examples of ongoing failures" did MacGregor mention that the 2001 Census reports that between 1996 & 2001 the number of aboriginal people who graduated from secondary school increased from 27% to 35%?     And did he mention that in the 10 years 1988 - 1998 Aboriginal enrollment in post-secondary educational institutions doubled?  Or did he prefer to concentrate on the negative?     

Of course there are going to be failures.   If there weren't we'd all be living in a perfect world.   Its interesting that the failure cited above happened the same town as the offending school trustee's actions and remarks.     Does that raise any eyebrows?


----------



## air533 (17 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2005)

Shec said:
			
		

> I didn't read the referenced Globe & Mail series.   While focussing on "stunning examples of ongoing failures" did MacGregor mention that the 2001 Census reports that between 1996 & 2001 the number of aboriginal people who graduated from secondary school increased from 27% to 35%?     And did he mention that in the 10 years 1988 - 1998 Aboriginal enrollment in post-secondary educational institutions doubled?   Or did he prefer to concentrate on the negative?
> 
> Of course there are going to be failures.   If there weren't we'd all be living in a perfect world.   Its interesting that the failure cited above happened the same town as the offending school trustee's actions and remarks.     Does that raise any eyebrows?



I found the MacGregor series, which ran at the very end of 2004, in the _Globe and Mail's_ archives at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041230.SASKATCHEWAN30_COPY/BNStory

*I was wrong* - poor memory; the school story was from Raymore, a small town, and there were one in six youngsters in the school are aboriginal but there are no aboriginals in the graduating class, not one.

MacGregor cited good news, too - lots of it, but he also found many, many signs of worry and he said, _â ?It would be stunningly naÃƒÂ¯ve to suggest Saskatchewan's many woes are now history. It still has the highest murder rate in the country, more than double the country's per capita rate, and the highest rate of alcohol dependency of any province. Its prisons are filled, largely with young aboriginal men. It has problems keeping young people in the province, let alone in school.â ?_ and _â ? It is, of course, a tough challenge. Those stereotypical images -- the drunken Indian, welfare, abuse, tax avoidance -- pour effortlessly in casual conversation out of some of even the most innocent-looking white youths.â ?_

If, perhaps, you are part of the DIAND bureaucracy then perhaps you should look up MacGregor's series; it was illuminating and I don't want to overemphasize the bad news aspect except, obviously, to strengthen my thesis that we, Canada and the Canadian Forces, need to be prepared to _contain_ another _Oka_ or two.


----------



## Shec (17 Mar 2005)

I don't dispute your thesis - points well taken.  And thanks for the link to MacGregor's series


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (17 Mar 2005)

Here in BC, many of the bands have settled land claims and been given self government.  Now they are not wailing against how unfair we are treating them, but trying to do the same job, with the same revenue as we were trying to do for them.  Some bands are doing well, and some are robbing themselves blind.  It seems abuse may have more to do with human nature than racial origin.  Again, many native women are experiencing problems with bands following more "traditional" practices, that offer women far less protection than our legally mandated equality.  What is truly amusing (or disturbing) is that the "traditional" practices are often not traditional to that band, and ignore the status that their own heritage did grant to women, especially elders.  Many natives are now moving forward, governing themselves like a cross between a province and municipality, and doing their own people, and Canada, great service.  Other regions are running themselves like banana republics, and further impoverishing their own people.  With self government, the responsibility for protecting themselves from exploitation falls squarely on the bands themselves; it is time they clean their own houses.  While the idiot who spawned this particular forum showed disrespect for his nation, and opened his own people to ridicule, I think it important that we in this forum recall another truth.  Back in the good old days, we could not draft status Indians, and they didn't enjoy many of the rights that we as Canadians both demanded and expected.  This DID NOT STOP LARGE NUMBERS OF NATIVES FROM PROUDLY SERVING OUR NATION IN ALL OF ITS WARS.  Considering the disgraceful conscription riots, and the mass protests of conscript soldiers against being deployed overseas in the Second World War, shows Canada is getting far more out of that 2% of its citizens who are native, than of the (unknown but probably higher number) of non-native Canadians who fought against answering their nations call.  The sight of this Native fool offering disrespect for our flag, anthem, and nation is disgraceful; but we offer a greater disgrace if we fail to acknowledge the great service that many fine Native Canadians have done our flag in the past, and continue to do today.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Mar 2005)

MJT, well stated!


----------



## Bomber (17 Mar 2005)

2 percent of our population is roughly 600 000 people, roughly the size of Ottawa, before the amalgamation.  I am watching a lot of people throw out some pretty harsh comments here like "leave Canada" and stuff like that.  If there was something that you believed in, what would you do to protect or preserve it?  If you believed in the notion of "Canada" would you join the military?  Take a stand for what you believe to be right?  Or would you just sit there, suck it up and ignore your surroundings.  This guy obviously is trying to get a point across, and is succeeding very well at it from all posts this is generating.  Do I believe in what he is doing?  I don't know, I love the flag and this country very much.  Do I want to live in a country that lets him do it?  Yes.  For everyone that is complaining about how "we are paying for what some guys did hundreds of years ago"  Residential schools, the place where young first nations people were taken from their parents, and forced to forget and ignore their heritage, family, language, and traditions, finally ceased operations in 1996.  And it is estimated that there are currently 92 000 living Canadians that attended Residential Schools.  What happens to the students and the population as a whole is called intergenerational impact where entire generations cannot relate to one another.  Parents are reunited with Children that they do not know anymore, but don;t have strong parenting skills because they previously had no kids.  Kids know nothing of their parents and any interest towards their culture, language and heritage has been "punished" out of them.  Instead of telling this guy to get out, we should be looking for a way to make him proud of this nation.  As was stated earlier, there are plenty of reasons to be proud of it, and many First Nations people are proud Canadians and very professional soldiers.  But can anyone else see that there are things to not be proud of, or even to be ashamed of?  The wrong message is now being sent when some young Cadet Sgt is telling this man to leave it if he doesn't love it. 
We all walk by the 17 year old drugged out kids wearing torn combat pants and dyed hair, to much make up and facial piercing, wearing Canadian flags as patches on their torn little jackets, looking at you, a proud soldier, as though you have a toaster on your head, or with outright contempt.  This doesn't bother us, because this is their right, and we don't really think anything of it, white trash is what most of us would say.  We sell the flag as underwear in fashion stores, is that not worse than a man asking for respect for his heritage?  This man is trying to draw the publics attention to something that is very important to him.  Maybe a little like what we all do here with our threads of "Tac Vest Crap Vest" and "where did my Tank go".  To sum up a bit of a rant, maybe start a poll next time of support or not, let people stand up for what they believe in, you would expect the same courtesy extended to you.  And don't go to strong about saying how tired you are of dealing with this problem, because reading about people being mistreated, ignored, abused, and marginalized while you drink your large double double is not dealing with anything.  Maybe write him a letter, shock him by telling him that some Canadians care about him and his rights.

Figures cam from http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Mar 2005)

> Back in the good old days, we could not draft status Indians, and they didn't enjoy many of the rights that we as Canadians both demanded and expected.  This DID NOT STOP LARGE NUMBERS OF NATIVES FROM PROUDLY SERVING OUR NATION IN ALL OF ITS WARS.  Considering the disgraceful conscription riots, and the mass protests of conscript soldiers against being deployed overseas in the Second World War, shows Canada is getting far more out of that 2% of its citizens who are native, than of the (unknown but probably higher number) of non-native Canadians who fought against answering their nations call



Excellent point MJT. I think that the PPCLI did well to name the drill hall in Wainwright the Tommy Prince Drill Hall. The stories of his exploits (I used one as an example of "thinking outside the box" just yesterday at work) make me proud to be a Canadian soldier. I know a lot of red-necks who say a lot of rude things about Mr Prince, mainly because he was Native, ignoring what he did for Canada, and instead focussing on how he died. The sad fact is that he did a lot for his country, especially the reputation of the PPCLI and natives as a whole, but once he was back in Canada, he was "just another drunk Indian" (as the red-neck's, past and present) state. 

Bomber, good post. I think that there are better means of getting a point across, but other than being rude, he didn't do anything worse than many people do nowadays. There are people who disgrace the flag, in the ways stated before (as a patch, as underwear, letting it shred to pieces on the flagpole, etc), and even people who burn it, shit on it, whatever. That get's more attention than what they are protesting, and I guess it is counter-productive, as people remember the act, not the subject of the protest. 

Remember: this isn't pre-Saddam Iraq, or Idi Amin's Uganda, where I recall reading a story about a young boy who was caught with money in his shoe, and was beaten for "stepping on" Idi Amin's face (which was on the money). If he has something to protest, that is his right. He may need some assistance in finding a more productive means of showing his displeasure, but as some people are all aflutter over it, maybe it was more effective than even he would have suspected. 

Al


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Mar 2005)

Replying more towards the beginning of the thread, there was a native (indian?) girl in my law class in highschool who made a point of not standing for the national anthem.
Furthermore she made a point of telling everyone that she wasn't Canadian or American.  Any chance to get, she would argue. Mind you, she didn't refuse free school supplies (expensive calculator, backpack, pens, binders etc..).

At first that kinda really pissed me off. How dare she not stand for the anthem, how dare she not bla bla bla.  Now I couldn't give two shits. If this guy wants to protest however, more power too him.


"If you don't love it, leave" 

fuuuuuuuuuuuck off. 
I really get annoyed hearing that. I understand the sentiment BUT i think it should be
"If you don't love it, do something about it"
I hear mean americans commenting on this (not a slam, just observation). So I have to accept things how they are or just leave?
Hell I think the Liberals are right the fuck out of her. Does that mean, if i dont love them (being the current government in canada) i should leave?  No way.  Just a stupid phrase that bugs me.
If someone bitches and complains but doesn't lift a finger to do anything about it their just wasting oxygen.


----------



## Canuck_25 (17 Mar 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Residential schools, the place where young first nations people were taken from their parents, and forced to forget and ignore their heritage, family, language, and traditions, finally ceased operations in 1996.   And it is estimated that there are currently 92 000 living Canadians that attended Residential Schools.   What happens to the students and the population as a whole is called intergenerational impact where entire generations cannot relate to one another.   Parents are reunited with Children that they do not know anymore, but don;t have strong parenting skills because they previously had no kids.   Kids know nothing of their parents and any interest towards their culture, language and heritage has been "punished" out of them.   Figures cam from http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/



 Well, bomber, may i ask you where do you live?


 Also, i would like to point out that a large amount of native childern were not forced by the goverment to attend the schools, but their parents actaully sent them. Yes, some were forced, but not all. My mother attended one of these residential schools with native and white childern. She or the other students were not beaten, just taught english, math and history. She wasnt wipped, chained, sexaully assaulted and harrassed and neither were the other students. My Grandmother taught at the residential schools on the coast, and none of these alleged incidents occured under her eyes. 

 Anyone here hear about those British childern (600 of them?) who were taken from their parents and sent to residential schools in Australia after WW2? Those students were sexaully assaulted, beaten and harrassed. They arent on welfair and living in poverty today. After they left the schools, they had no home to return to. The lived in Australia for the rest of their lives, had jobsm, like any ordinary Australian. An example of what bullshit this whole native issue is.


----------



## Bomber (17 Mar 2005)

I live in Ottawa.


----------



## camochick (18 Mar 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Well, bomber, may i ask you where do you live?
> 
> 
> Also, i would like to point out that a large amount of native children were not forced by the government to attend the schools, but their parents actually sent them. Yes, some were forced, but not all. My mother attended one of these residential schools with native and white children. She or the other students were not beaten, just taught English, math and history. She wasnt wipped, chained, sexaully assaulted and harrassed and neither were the other students. My Grandmother taught at the residential schools on the coast, and none of these alleged incidents occured under her eyes.
> ...





Yeah the whole native issue is crap, I mean, whats a couple hundred years of raping of a culture, they should buck up and be like the rest of us, . Who cares that they live in substandard housing on reserves that are considered ghettos without clean water? Hey, why dint we just throw them some money for the rest of their lives, let their bans mismanage that money and say we did our part so what else could we do. :

Yeah of course those 600 children had a hard go of things in that school ( I have never heard of this but i will take your word for it), lots of kids have hard lives and that needs to be addressed too. But the government, no matter how long ago, made a mess of the aboriginal population and so far they have done nothing to correct it. 

Not all natives are on welfare. My friend is a native he works more hours than most do and he works hard. But he wont tell people he is native because he can get away with passing for white. Why does he do this? Because he doesn't want people to judge him right off the bat because he is native. We had an interesting discussion the other day about how it seems that racism against natives seems to be an accepted practice in Canada. Not everyone practises it but a some do. Instead of bitching and moaning about how natives get this and natives get that and blah blah blah why dint people do something about it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Mar 2005)

> Who cares that they live in substandard housing on reserves that are considered ghettos without clean water?


Theres PMQs on native reserves?



> Yeah the whole native issue is crap, I mean, whats a couple hundred years of raping of a culture, they should buck up and be like the rest of us


You know, there are quite a few cultures and races around the world that have been royally shit on. Yes they should buck it up. They can choose to fight the government for a (half assed) appology about what happened 200 years ago, or they could spend that time and resources on making things better for themselves today and their children tomorrow. If someone lives in the past they are going to stay there.




> But he wont tell people he is native because he can get away with passing for white. Why does he do this? Because he doesn't want people to judge him right off the bat because he is native.



If your friend is too ashamed/afraid/concerned to admit his herritage, as a native american, why should anyone else bother to concern themselves over it?



> We had an interesting discussion the other day about how it seems that racism against natives seems to be an accepted practice in Canada. Not everyone practises it but a some do.



I don't think it's accepted, thats silly.  There IS racisim towards natives, just like theres racisim towards jews, blacks, whites, chinese, indians, muslims.  When you play the 'who is singled out more' your really dumbing down the argument. Racisim is racisim. I went to a highschool with a high native population. 
"Fuk you white boi, i'll shoot you with my AK". I've heard that a few times and reported it to the teachers. You would think making death threats would be taken serious? Nope. They didn't want to use the big R word. They liked to turn things around and in my case, make it seem like it was my fault for being threatened, i didn't reach out to so and so and treat him special. racisim is racisim and harassment is harassment. 

Someones culture or a race's past should never be an excuse for how they behave today, period.  Look at the balklands. Your village attacked my village in 1400, you owe me, im going to take revenge on you.  An extreme example I know but i think it's accurate enough.

Get rid of the the band councils.
Get rid of native reserves and any special privilages they get. Treat them like *Canadian or American Citizens*. Give them all the rights and taxes and bennifits and problems that come along with it.  
If they want to be canadian citizens and embrace their past/herritage, just like chinese-canadians, indian-canadians, black-canadians, french-canadians, german-canadians, american-canadians do, then they will. If not they won't.   Make the playing field level and see what happens.


----------



## Canuck_25 (18 Mar 2005)

Well, here you are, the "lost childern."

 This is a really disturbing case, it's sick.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/03/24/60II/main40269.shtml


----------



## camochick (18 Mar 2005)

> Theres PMQs on native reserves?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rage (18 Mar 2005)

I am a soldier first and I thought ALL CF members knew this! I cannot believe the crap that is being posted regarding native people! I am First Nation and I am proud! But, more importantly, I am a soldier and the common colour is green. My Unit is awesome, we are truly a tight group of men and woman who see each other as family. Thank GOD I am not in a Unit with some of these posers who are posting this crap.


----------



## putz (18 Mar 2005)

i just want to make somethings clear.  As far as I am concerned noone that has posted here is being a poser.  The majority of people posting here are not just posting on a racist and biased attitude the majority of people that have posted here are basing THEIR PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS based on first hand accounts.  No one (except for the few jacka** that have posted) are attempting to start a flame war or bring out racism and prejudice.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (18 Mar 2005)

rage said:
			
		

> I am a soldier first and I thought ALL CF members knew this! I cannot believe the crap that is being posted regarding native people! I am First Nation and I am proud! But, more importantly, I am a soldier and the common colour is green. My Unit is awesome, we are truly a tight group of men and woman who see each other as family. Thank GOD I am not in a Unit with some of these posers who are posting this crap.


       Now thats the kind of Native that has been joining since Christ was a Corporal.   A few men and woman like these are worth the price of a few oddball whiners.   If we had the same proportion of motivated soldiers to protesting weirdos from the other races of Canada, our ranks would top 100,000.   As a good Canadian Scots whiteboy, I take a good long look at the racial makeup of our squatter/treehugger/eternal-protester-of-something before I point my finger at others races.   We are Canadian Soldiers, the last persecutable minority.   We come from a hundred backgrounds, as many faiths, and stand together in a unity that our civilian brethren seem not to be able to match.   If the civilian bozo wanted to offer disrespect to the flag to prove a point, well I seem to remember a Canadian premiere in Atlantic Canada doing the same; it did not reflect the attitude of his people either.   To be free, a country must permit all forms of peaceful political expression, and stupidity is the lifeblood of politics n'est pas?


----------



## air533 (18 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## Canuck_25 (18 Mar 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Now thats the kind of Native that has been joining since Christ was a Corporal.   A few men and woman like these are worth the price of a few oddball whiners.   If we had the same proportion of motivated soldiers to protesting weirdos from the other races of Canada, our ranks would top 100,000.   As a good Canadian Scots whiteboy, I take a good long look at the racial makeup of our squatter/treehugger/eternal-protester-of-something before I point my finger at others races.   We are Canadian Soldiers, the last persecutable minority.   We come from a hundred backgrounds, as many faiths, and stand together in a unity that our civilian brethren seem not to be able to match.   If the civilian bozo wanted to offer disrespect to the flag to prove a point, well I seem to remember a Canadian premiere in Atlantic Canada doing the same; it did not reflect the attitude of his people either.   To be free, a country must permit all forms of peaceful political expression, and stupidity is the lifeblood of politics n'est pas?



 I recall when the newfoundlanders pulled down the flag from goverment buildings, many in the rest of Canada were angry about it, calling newfoundlanders "welfair recipients" and "lazy newfies." People start calling it racist simply because it involves one race. Let me tell you this, that is a line of crap. The goverment and the native people are making this a racial issue. The natives want to be defined a seperate nation within canada, made of a seperate race. That is horse shit. Anyone tried living on a reserve being non native, good luck. Last thing we need is people seperating themselves based on race and origen.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2005)

Canuck makes a good point - why should any Canadians be treated differently (whether good or bad) based on ethnicity or heritage?  Why shouldn't there be a "Department of Scandanavian-Teuton (with a bit of Scots) Affairs" for me?


----------



## dutchie (18 Mar 2005)

If treating someone poorly because of their race is wrong because it's unfair, than treating someone favourably because of their race is equally wrong. To me, that means that the favorable practices and attitudes given to certain groups (such as Natives) are just as wrong _in principle _ to the unfavourable practices and attitudes towards them in years past.


----------



## ZipperHead (18 Mar 2005)

> If treating someone poorly because of their race is wrong because it's unfair, than treating someone favourably because of their race is equally wrong. To me, that means that the favorable practices and attitudes given to certain groups (such as Natives) are just as wrong in principle  to the unfavourable practices and attitudes towards them in years past.



I agree with this. This is what is more divisive than anything else. This is what causes the "us vs them" attitude. Face it, there are a lot of non-native people that are hard done by, but they are provided for by our socialist society. I am not saying that in a negative way (socialist society): as a society we should look out for those that are less fortunate, but to group people and say "let's give group A money just because" doesn't accomplish anything, other than the undesired effect of having to eventually wean them off the public teat. 

Yes, "we" took the land from "them" (depending on your definition of "took"). But, to be honest, I wasn't part of "we". I wasn't born yet. And for that matter, I am only second generation Canadian (my family is from Finland), so none of my forefathers were involved with the stealing, purchasing, leasing, whatever, or the land that is Canada. So, where do I fall into this? Should I feel "white mans guilt"? 

I don't know enough about the treaties and land claims to form an educated opinion on whether they are right or wrong, but I can only try to filter what comes through on the media. I would hope that this can be solved within my lifetime, or at least my children's lifetime, so that there can be some healing in the rift that has grown over the centuries between "us" and "them". But, as a pessimist, or realist, I know that human greed (from all parties concerned) will probably never allow this. 

air533 mentioned that Natives are disadvantaged as a people group socially and economically. That is somewhat true, but if they are given, and accept monies from the people of Canada, how they use that money is up to them. If someone gives me ~$4500 a month, and I piss it away, that's my problem. If I spend the money wisely, on housing, food, pay my debts, invest for my future, put money aside for my children, well done me, right?!!? Well, guess what I do? Am I disadvantaged? No. I provide a service to my country, and I am compensated for it. Natives were given compensation (Treaties) and yes, it is wrong if they are not honoured, but what of any monies, and beneifts, they receive, or received in the past? I suppose they could pay all the money (and benefits) back, with interest, in return for the rights that they want. Can't see them wanting to do that......

There has to be a point where we move on, and not look backward, but look forward. Imagine if every time that the CF got a payraise, they had to go back and give every soldiers widow and descendants the equivalent of what that soldier would make in today's money for their service way back when. Canada would be bankrupt. Everything has to end (the wrongs of the past) and we have to start again somewhere. 

Al


----------



## Guest (19 Mar 2005)

Traditions include respect for the flag
Re: School trustee takes issue with the flag (SP March 12), I take issue with Vernon Linklater's refusal to stand during the playing of our country's anthem. Linklater does not represent the Thunderchild First Nation and it's traditions. As a member of the Thunderchild First Nations original family, we are taught to have respect for cultures and traditions of those around us. Our elders have always taught us that we are to be full of love and to seek the role of peacemaker and ambassador for all of our people. If a non-Native person were to walk into one of our traditional ceremonies and disrespect it, I am sure a cry of racism would be flying out of Linklater's mouth, so why then would he disrespect other traditions? More specifically, why disrespect those traditionals of the very country that we live in? If you were to attend a powwow you would observe the flags of all nations present are carried and shown, including that of our great country. So I plead to all those who read the story, please do not allow people like Linklater to further drive a wedge between our people, because the majority of us respect the rights and traditions of others, as was taught to us.
- Jesse Thunderchild
Saskatoon


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (19 Mar 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> Traditions include respect for the flag
> Re: School trustee takes issue with the flag (SP March 12), I take issue with Vernon Linklater's refusal to stand during the playing of our country's anthem. Linklater does not represent the Thunderchild First Nation and it's traditions. As a member of the Thunderchild First Nations original family, we are taught to have respect for cultures and traditions of those around us. Our elders have always taught us that we are to be full of love and to seek the role of peacemaker and ambassador for all of our people. If a non-Native person were to walk into one of our traditional ceremonies and disrespect it, I am sure a cry of racism would be flying out of Linklater's mouth, so why then would he disrespect other traditions? More specifically, why disrespect those traditionals of the very country that we live in? If you were to attend a powwow you would observe the flags of all nations present are carried and shown, including that of our great country. So I plead to all those who read the story, please do not allow people like Linklater to further drive a wedge between our people, because the majority of us respect the rights and traditions of others, as was taught to us.
> - Jesse Thunderchild
> Saskatoon


Jesse,
     Do not worry.  We do not take the actions of Linklater to be indicitive of the Thunderchild first nation.  Most of us have served along side many first nations people, (and some respondants are first nations soldiers), and have learned to judge a people by their deeds, and the first nations of Canada have shed more than enough blood along side of us to earn our respect.  As far as keeping faith with your traditions, I am an Asatru, a Norse Pagan, and have kept my faith through all the years of my service.  At no time did I show disrespect for the Christian trappings of many of the ceremonies that we were involved in; as you say, respect the rights and traditions of others.  I have the greatest respect for the first nations people who work to keep their cultural traditions alive, these are the people fighting for the first nations, not the shouting protesters.  For all the harm Linklater has done, the visability of his protest is nothing compared to the visability of the ranks of first nations people whose who walk beneath their tribal banners and the maple leaf on Remembrance Day, just as our other veterans march beneath their service banners and the leaf.  It is by them that we judge you.


----------



## Zipper (19 Mar 2005)

Well said...

Should Natives consider themselves as a separate "nation" within Canada, or should that very notion be scrapped and they become full Canadian's with all that comes with it?

As you said mainer, you have separate belief's and ways of thinking then what is traditionally thought of as Canadian. But you ARE Canadian. So is that 3rd generation Italian in Toronto, and that 6th generation Chinese in Vancouver. Do they both identify themselves with their past culture?

Yes. They learn their old native language, speak it with family and friends, and even celebrate their holiday's in that fashion. They may even go to schools specific to their old cultures.

But they are Canadian.

So why does this not seem to transfer? Because they do not want it too? Or because we do not want it too?


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2005)

> why should any Canadians be treated differently (whether good or bad) based on ethnicity or heritage?



EDIT:
 I don't think there is much more that needs to be said. As long as you give group B special treatment over group A, your causing problems no matter how good your intentions are ie women in the combat arms (infantry). The biggest amount of complains i've read both here ad nasium and in other forums is that group F is treated differently than group M.


----------



## arminfo (27 Mar 2005)

so  bomber is saying if someone comes and  take his kids and beats them into submission force them to some weird forign culture wash out their mouths with soap for speaking their own language it   would  be   fine   well perhaps   thats  fine for his kids   but  natives of  north america dont understand the concept of subsevientism they dont  give in so    what your are trying  to beat out of our babys is the ability to be a real person  but i understand your lack of ability to understand


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Mar 2005)

...and this has happened to you personally? Grow up and add something  to this conversation about todays problems, not stuff you read in a book from years past.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Mar 2005)

arminfo said:
			
		

> so bomber is saying if someone comes and take his kids and beats them into submission force them to some weird forign culture wash out their mouths with soap for speaking their own language it would be fine well perhaps thats fine for his kids but natives of north america dont understand the concept of subsevientism they dont give in so what your are trying to beat out of our babys is the ability to be a real person but i understand your lack of ability to understand



My lack of ability to understand is the result of our poor Education System to properly educate people in the use of correct Spelling and Grammar.   Four lines of typed words with not Capitalization, no Punctuation, no Grammar, Broken and Fragmented words and statements.   How do you communicate?   I don't understand what you are trying to say.   Are you Trolling?   This has been a rather civil discussion of the attitudes of a person from a Reserve who happens to have "European Blood".   Now you have murkied the waters with disjointed crap that is not at all relevant to this discussion.   ???


----------



## Love793 (27 Mar 2005)

As much as I disagree with this gentlemans stance, we must remember that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (that ironically we defend), gives him the rights to his beliefs and actions.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (27 Mar 2005)

The only thing standing between the natives being treated like everybody else, and the status quo are the treaties.  Many bands have already settled their land claims, accepting modern accords to replace the treaties signed by HMG, in some cases before the BNA act made a Canada.  They remain special in the eyes of the law until the last landclaim is settled, and the last treaty replaced with modern accords drafted along current constitutional models.  The natives are not special because they want to be, they are special because our gov't made them that way by drafting the treaties in the first place.  Had Canada (British Empire at the time) offered the first nations people full and equal citizenship way back then, then we would not be having this discussion.  The gov't of the day chose to make them a special status that denied them many of the rights and responsibilities of real citizens, and failed to put an expiration date on them, too damn bad.  If we made a treaty, then we are bound by it until both sides agree to something else.  I disagree with it.  We do live in a nation of laws, and if our gov't makes some stupid, shortsighted ones (ie the treaties) then we have to grin and bear it.  I look forward to the day, when all Canadians will be equal before and under the law.  I also look forward to winning the lottery, the former is more likely, but not by a large margin.


----------



## Zipper (28 Mar 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> If we made a treaty, then we are bound by it until both sides agree to something else.



Actually governments break treaties all the time. They are only pieces of paper after all. They can break this one too if they had the gumption.

However I do agree with you on all other points. I just have some small hope that it may be in my life time. 

Either one.;D


----------



## Guest (11 Apr 2005)

Story gave wrong idea of trustee's intentions

The sub-headline in the story, School trustee takes issue with flag (SP, March 12) incorrectly said that I sat during the national anthem. I have always stood up during playing of O Canada, and will always continue to do so. My intention never was to disrespect the flag or the anthem. Contrary to the story, I have never participated in or initiated a "silent protest" in my life. This article didn't describe the essence of my conversation with the reporter or its wider context. The story may lead people to jump to wrong conclusions about who I am. As a young man, I participated in boxing and proudly represented Canada in many international competitions, winning bronze medals at both the Commonwealth Games and the World Cup of Boxing. I'm fortunate to have been sober for 23 years, and am a proud member of the Thunderchild First Nation. I'm happy to live in the Westmount neighbourhood where my wife and I own a home. We have four sons, all of whom attend public schools. My entire share of education taxes goes to support public schools. My intention in seeking the postion of trustee during the 2003 election was to work to address the challenges and hardships carried by many of our community's youth. We must find the will and the resources to ensure that they will succeed in life. Too often, the media focuses on conflict and disagreement. First Nations people often use a talking circle to ensure understanding and consensus. I propose a circle for all who would have a say in what we do.

Vernon Linklater
Trustee, Ward 2


----------



## Gramps (11 Apr 2005)

"Actually governments break treaties all the time. They are only pieces of paper after all. They can break this one too if they had the gumption"

True but, is'n the Charter of Rights and Freedoms just a piece of paper too? Where do we draw the line?


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (12 Apr 2005)

Wow quite the read.

I had a long reply written, but upon editing it, I realised that I could not restrain myself from swearing every second word. I'll Try again later when I have cooled off some.


----------



## sdimock (12 Apr 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> Story gave wrong idea of trustee's intentions
> 
> Too often, the media focuses on conflict and disagreement.
> 
> ...



Welcome to Army.ca

I have seen the media use the focus of a story for dramatic effect rather report facts.

To the point that even though I've been a witness I wasn't sure they were talking about the same event.

Drama, conflict and disagreement, I think they figure they can't sell without it.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

Chimo


----------



## onewingwonder (12 Apr 2005)

First, I've been perusing this board for some time, but this is my first post. Considering some of the comments which I've read on this thread, I felt it absolutely necessary to register and comment. I served the Crown both in Canada and in the UK, and have the scrolls, plaques, T's etc. on my walls to show it. My father, his father and uncles, all of their fathers and most uncles and so on, and so on have served the Crown in uniform. Many died for the people of this country, others were destroyed emotionally etc. You all know the drill. As far back as can be documented, even before this country was known as Canada, my family has served.

And I am Aboriginal. Did I attend a residential school? No, but my father and both his parents did. Did my wife go to residential school? No, but 2 of her siblings did, both her parents, all of her aunts and uncles. My wife, on the other hand, was lucky. She was only taken from her family by the Canadian system, sent to the States and used as labour for "well-meaning" white folk. Forced to live in a closet with her sister, in the basement for 2 years and taken out to work or to show the nice Social Workers that all was OK. And this, when she was only 8.

Now, in all honesty, are you asking people who've lived this to forgive and forget? To simply get on with their lives and be good "Canadians"?

As to other "facts" being brought up, some of you need a serious education. Well over half of regsitered Indians live and work off-reserve. They pay every single tax you do. The only people who don't pay income tax, are those who live and work on-reserve. PST and GST are no different. Provinces make their own laws with regards PST. Some allow "Indians" to not pay PST, but you need to live on-reserve to benefit. Everyone pays GST, unless goods are delivered on-reserve. At the same time as paying these taxes, Bands must also pay to send kids to schools off-reserve. In essence, a double tax. How many here are forced to pay $5K to send their kids to High School?

The situations that exist on-reserve are due, *completely*, to successive Canadian Governments. You (meaning the Cdn Govs) set out deliberately to destroy a people and then complain later on that they can't control their destinies. You destroy entire cultures, by every/any means possible and then wonder why the communities are so disfunctional. You starve, poison, steal and cheat to your heart's content and then wonder why entire generations drink/drug themselves to death. You teach people that their way of treating the entire community as one big family, as taking care of everyone equally, as being wrong. That the pursuit of personal gain, property and prestige are the right things. Then you complain that "leaders" of the Bands are treating their people unfairly.

That is the reality of the situations as it stands. How many realized that the majority of INAC money goes not to the Bands or people, but into the bureaucracy?

Their were no Indian Wars here. Colonial governments wrote up self-serving documents called Treaties, forced them down the throats of "Chiefs", then proceeded to break them. And have continued to do so to this day. Canadian politicians are gutless, refusing to take responsibility for their, or their predeccesors' actions. When actions end in the Supreme Court, with Government losing, they complain to the electorate that it is not their fault, but the damned courts. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is Canadian Democracy.

Aboriginal people fight for what they know, and Court's have agreed, is right and yet are labelled criminals. Native "insurrections" must be quelled. The Democratic Dominion of Canada must send more troops to Kanehsatake, than they do to Kuwait. Certain police officers commit murder and assassination, but Aboriginal people should respect the rule of Law. If that is to be expected, if Aboriginal peoples are to be proud to be Canadians, then we need something other than the status quo to be proud of.

Not meaning to denegrate others' achievements, but you would be hard-pressed to find any citizen of this country who is more loyal to this land and her people than Aboriginals. If some show a certain disrespect, you had better believe there is a good and valid reason to do so. All of our ancestors, yours and mine, shed blood on the same battlefields, both here and abroad. Yours returned as heroes, ours returned as...second or third-class citizens. We could die for this country and her people, but we COULD NOT VOTE!

I could go on, but should leave it for now and wait for comments both good and bad. But I will leave you with this final thought: No, it wasn't you who committed these acts against Aboriginal People. But, maybe your neighbour, maybe your Great Aunty Gertrude, maybe your local police Chief, maybe your MLA or MP, maybe the nice old Nun who teaches your daughter music. Maybe they did. And they, ladies and gentleman, should be held accountable. In the great scheme of things, we are *all* responsible. To ignore this fact, is to repeat history.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Interesting post.  Some of it is correct and some of it I take issue with.

Bottom line is, as you said, we are all responsible.  If we sit here and bitch about the past, nothing will get done except for finger-pointing.


----------



## onewingwonder (12 Apr 2005)

What in particular do you take issue with? Maybe I can change your mind. 8)


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Actually, when I reread your post, I do agree with most of what you said (residential schools, taxes, government paternalism, denial of citizenship) but, and I just may be reading it wrong, I disagreed with the general tone of the post which seemed to imply that there was some sort of Government plot to destroy Native's in Canada.   The "Clash of Cultures", replete with fighting, coercision, and underhanded dealings, is present whenever societies mingle (it's part of being human, I guess) - the Native societies of North America seemed to do well in fighting and displacing eachother prior to Europeans showing up.   Not condoning what went on, but I refuse to accept that there is something unique about the problem or that "The Government" or "Whites" as a whole had some sort of goal of reducing the Native population of Canada to bondage.

Ok, perhaps I do take aim at one statement:



			
				onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Aboriginal people fight for what they know, and Court's have agreed, is right and yet are labelled criminals. Native "insurrections" must be quelled. The Democratic Dominion of Canada must send more troops to Kanehsatake, than they do to Kuwait. Certain police officers commit murder and assassination, but Aboriginal people should respect the rule of Law. If that is to be expected, if Aboriginal peoples are to be proud to be Canadians, then we need something other than the status quo to be proud of.



Some members of this board have been personally involved with these incidents (Oka, Gustafson Lake) and they can probably address the issue better, but I feel that any group of Canadians, regardless of background, who arm themselves to the teeth and start shooting at soldiers and LEO's are breaking the law, pure and simple.   There is no excuse for this within Canada.

As well, I again stress that we are all responsible.   The problem that Natives in Canada face *here and now* are not only the fault of the White Man or the Government.   I believe (you can disagree with me) that the "Indian Industry" is alive and kicking - you alluded to it somewhat with mention of the money that INAC takes in.   Somehow, when a Council gets in and its members take in 6 figure salaries while 80% of the band is on welfare, I fail to see how this is strictly the governments fault.


----------



## Sub_Guy (12 Apr 2005)

I am fed up with all of this.   I should not be paying for something that happened 300 years ago.   Sure the natives have the treaties, and all that jazz, sure I stereotype all the time, but come on here it is harder not to.

The system set up for the Native population is horrible, I live in Duncan BC, where the Cowichan tribe has a wealth of money, but it doesn't filter back down into the native community.   Driving through the reserve and looking at the housing, over 50% of the housing is run down, and looks horrible.   I feel that if someone never has to work for anything he owns, then he isn't going to have any pride at all in anything, I mean why would they?   All they have to do is wait and they will be given something else.

I know that there are natives out there who are proud of their heritage, and it shows.   I love to see that, and it doesn't bother me at all when I see it, but when I am walking out of the superstore, and a drunk native is asking for my loonie from the shopping cart, I get pissed off.   I mean canadians give you money for everything you need, schooling, housing, BOOZE, but you are out here begging for my loonie?   Get Bent.

We had a native on one of the frigates I was serving on in 2001, and she had a crab trap with her.   The Commanding officer allowed her to throw the crab trap off the side of the ship, in local waters.   I have no idea what you need for a crab licence, but she didn't hold one.   Now I am picturing me sitting in my little boat, with this big grey (robin egg blue) ship, and there is a sailor throwing off a crab trap.....I disagree with this practice.   Does the army allow native infanteers to shoot moose on the range?   

I have been told that I (white guy ancestors have been here since the 1700's) have been oppressing the natives!   Once again I disagree.   If it was the white man that signed all these treaties, and it is the white man keeping them down, then I think that anyone who moved to Canada after the treaties have been signed, shouldn't have to pay squat..............

Clearly it isn't working, and we need a change.   I don't feel that natives represent what this nation is, and as only 2% of the population is native, it really bothers me how the other 98% have to give them money, and deal with the accusations of oppression.

Crime is high in Duncan........ I will let you guess why........If he won't stand for the flag or show respect, let him, part of living in a free country is the ability to express yourself.   Although I don't agree with it.   It is better than pointing a gun at his head and ordering him to show respect.


----------



## onewingwonder (12 Apr 2005)

> I know that there are natives out there who are proud of their heritage, and it shows.  I love to see that, and it doesn't bother me at all when I see it, but when I am walking out of the superstore, and a drunk native is asking for my loonie from the shopping cart, I get pissed off.  I mean canadians give you money for everything you need, schooling, housing, BOOZE, but you are out here begging for my loonie?  Get Bent.



Thank you for approving of our pride. :

As for the remainder of this quote, it is a clear and racist comment. Canada has given me nothing other than what other citizens get and I have given considerably more to this country, through my service, than the huge majority of non-aboriginal Canadians.

If your former Boss approved her use of the crab pot, whose fault is that. As well, are you saying that no individual has ever fished off the sides of any HMCS?

As opposed to telling you to get bent, I simply counter with: get educated and grow up.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Ok, first of all, Sub-Guy - that was a pretty unconstructive rant.  I come from a town with 4 Reserves where things are pretty bad, and I can feel your frustration towards individuals, but onewingwonder is correct when he identifies Government paternalism as one of the real important factors of casuality.

Second of all, onewingwonder put up a response to my earlier post which, in an attempt to "quote", I instead "modified" and ruined.  I let him know and apologized, but here is the response (with much of his original and now lost post quoted):



> If I wasn't so lazy in my retirement, I would dreg up all the archival documents which prove that it was the various colonial governments intentions to commit cultural genocide and in numerous cases physical genocide. If you deliberately set out out to destroy a people's religion, language, social structure and culture through theft, political intrigue, murder and kidnappings, then yes, I would have to call that a plot. Just so that I'm not being seen as using too broad a brush to make my points, I would never, and have never, blamed "whites" for anything. After all, mum's folks are from Northeat England near the Scots border.



Ok, it's the "Whites" thing I was more concerned about.

I still feel that "plot" seems to point to scheming bad guys pulling puppet strings - I think that what happened between the Natives and the European settlers was what happens when societies collide.  Nasty and brutish, yes, but nothing out of the ordinary in terms of the march of civilization  :-\.



> In a regular context, I would agree. But nothing about Oka was regular(as for Gustafson, "Wolverine" and the boys were wrong). If the government sent an armed force to help desecrate your parents graves, would you take up arms? I would say that any person would.



You're right, it was unusual - the way I understand it there was ambiguity on who had the land (in legal terms, which are important) and an internal dispute within the band.  

However, my ire is more directed towards the the "Warrior Societies" that took up arms against both Police and Soldiers (and murdered a LEO) and turned up the violence level when they showed up - not on in my books, especially watching videos on how these fellows conducted themselves.  Interesting, while googling the Oka, I found this condemnation of "Warriors" by the Six Nations:

http://www.sixnations.org/Threats_to_Traditional_Governments/



> As to the "Indian Industry", I completely concur. An industry created by governments, for governments plain and simple.



Oh, I didn't mean to say that it was just Natives - I guarantee you that there are bureaucrats out there that would go to the stake to defend the Department of Indian Affair's 7 billion dollar budget.  But I don't feel that this is a "Government Only" scheme - people are people, regardless of background, and some (including Natives) will take the opportunity to get themselves ahead at the cost of their neighbours.  

That being said, it is clear that the Government has the ability to pull the plug on the industry.  The problem is that, whenever people try to change the system, they usually get labelled as racists - this is where the Natives in the Industry come into play; they have no qualms against calling down proposals for reform when it means their sacred cow will get killed (I think the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has put forward a few decent ideas and I remember their presenter getting called down for various reasons by angry Natives).


----------



## onewingwonder (12 Apr 2005)

Infanteer,

apology was not needed. As stated, cerebral flatulance is alive and well in my addled brain.



> I still feel that "plot" seems to point to scheming bad guys pulling puppet strings - I think that what happened between the Natives and the European settlers was what happens when societies collide.   Nasty and brutish, yes, but nothing out of the ordinary in terms of the march of civilization



True. The problem being that the puppetmasters were the colonial governments. Settlers often found themselves caught in the middle and were often lied to in the same way as aboriginal people. You just need to look at the whole Selkirk Settlement/Red River "Rebbellion" issue.

As for Kanehsatake/Oka, the municipality overstepped it's legal bounds by calling in the SQ and contravening an existing court-order. A completely peaceful "protest" existed at the time, often involving nothing more than a large,stuffed Snoopy doll sitting in a pickup. As to how the situation ended up where it did, it again goes back to government apathy and mis-management of the lands. As a result,a man doing his job, was killed unecessarily.

I, fortunately or unfortunately, have more than a layman's knowledge of the Warrior Society of those times. I will however, not comment specifically on that aspect, other than to say that they did lose the support of the majority of the community (and yes, the Confederacy itself) in how they went about putting forward their agenda, losing sight of the true issue of the moment. At the same time, it shows a peoples incredible frustration at always being put on the back burner. The issue of whether Little Johnny can have free day-care being more important to the Governments than whether an entire people will be able to hold onto the tiny pice of land left over.

I am loath to do so, but feel it necessary in this context, to point out that on occasion soldiers wearing HM's uniforms have acted as bad, or worse. I am also loath to call many of those who called themselves "warriors" as true Warriors. SHYTE...said I wouldn't do that. :-X

Canadian bureaucracies must be amongst the most degenerate in the world, regardless of department. I'll leave it at that, lest I put my foot in my mouth and insult any who may be here. Not my intention.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone, regardless of race who uses that card to cover up their own inadequecies, is a wanker. It has become, to my utter dismay, the bane of this fluffy-bunny-slippers society which we currently call Canada. But, I will also say that any individual who will stereotype an entire group of people (with widely different cultures) into one pot based on BS and prejudice, should be placed in no-man's-land, destined to dodge the bullets for eternity. As you may note, I truly despise fluffy-bunny-slippers.

Edit: BTW Infanteer, you have destroyed my preconceived notion that all ground-types were of the knuckledragger variety. You nasty man, you. And they say an old dog can't learn new tricks.


----------



## Gramps (12 Apr 2005)

This is for onewingwonder.
 All I have to say about all of your posts here is    "Well Put"


----------



## onewingwonder (12 Apr 2005)

Gramps,

I appreciate the comment. As an old Rock Ape (RAF Regiment) Sgt. once told me, in my yoof, if you can't learn something from someone else every day and educate someone else, then "you ain't worth the spit I put on my boots...Sah!".


----------



## Gramps (12 Apr 2005)

I was just re-reading many of the posts here and I am shocked and apalled at the amount of racism that many of the people with whom I serve are showing. Many people will say that they are not racist at all and use lines like " Im not racist my best friend is (place any ethnic group here)". I also find that in this country and most of North America it is okay to be racist as long as you are talking about Native Peoples or Middle Eastern People and it disgusts me to no end.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> I was just re-reading many of the posts here and I am shocked and apalled at the amount of racism that many of the people with whom I serve are showing. Many people will say that they are not racist at all and use lines like " Im not racist my best friend is (place any ethnic group here)". I also find that in this country and most of North America it is okay to be racist as long as you are talking about Native Peoples or Middle Eastern People and it disgusts me to no end.



I don't think it is racism per se (ie: I hate X), more it is a degree of frustration regarding a very real problem.

Many non-Native Canadians see drunks and beggers, and wonder why, with all the money and energy put into the issue that there is still problems.   That they get angry about it (and resort to the "Indian" cliche) does not surprise me.

It's on the other side as well - many Natives are pissed about how their community has ended up and see non-Natives as basically going on as if they don't give a shit.   That they get angry about it (and resort to the "Stupid White Man" cliche) does not surprise me.

I'll be completely honest and say that it is a two way street here ("Indians get everything handed to them" or "You're just doing this because I am an Indian", to name a few).

So, be careful about throwing around the racism card - I sense that the issue *here and now* is more about anger and frustration then it is about hatred and bigotry.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Apr 2005)

>many Natives are pissed about how their community has ended up and see non-Natives as basically going on as if they don't give a crap.

At this point in time, non-Natives are being asked to butt out and let the Natives solve their own problem in their own way.  There remain plenty of mistakes to be made, but ownership of the problem by the afflicted is often a prerequisite for success.  I doubt everything will be resolved in a generation or even two.  I think the major problem remains unaddressed - too much time on too many hands.


----------



## Sub_Guy (12 Apr 2005)

Natives in Canada are given more oppourtunities than another Canadian out there, is that a racist statement?  Or a Fact?  I would tell anyone who wanted my loonie to get bent, it just so happens that I have yet to encounter caucasian in that parking lot.  98% of Canadians have to work to send thier kids school, and then there is 2% of the population that is given every oppourtunity and they usually don't make the most of it.  Meaning that the only thing holding you back is YOU.   

We use race all the time to describe people, watch the evening news and you will hear all kinds of descriptions for criminals is that racist?

You bet I am a little angry at the whole subject, because I have to work my butt off for what I have, and when I drive through town and see new houses that are beat to crap, and having to save for my kids future, knowing that there are others out there who don't have to work as hard or expect it, because this was their land..........................  It won't last forever, as eventually more people will get fed up, especially as more immigrants come to the country, laws change, treaties can and will change, block all the roads you want.  
I still beleive that any immigrant to this country after the treaty was signed shouldn't have to pay anything towards the native treaties.   The numbers are there, higher pregnancy rates, higher rate of drug & Alcohol abuse, higher imprisionment rates.  Are all those a result of racisim?  No they are a result of leaders in the communities, not solving the problem locally.  You can't expect Ottawa to step in when your tribal leaders aren't there to back it up.   Again Cowichan Tribes is a prime example, the money stays up top and doesn't filter down.  Does it make sense to have a select few living the good life while over 50% of YOUR tribe are living below the poverty line?  But I am sure that I am just being a racist for pointing all this out....... The numbers are there, and there is a problem.


----------



## onewingwonder (12 Apr 2005)

Sub_Guy,

again,a thoroughly racist post. Are you a racist? I don't know, as I don't know you. But, putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4, I would say absolutely.



> Natives in Canada are given more oppourtunities than another Canadian out there, is that a racist statement?   Or a Fact?


Apparently you have personal experience, could you please enlighten me? However, I have noticed that although you are quick to post "statistics", I see no sources, nor have I seen any answers to questions asked of you and therefore, expect none to be forthcoming.


> watch the evening news and you will hear all kinds of descriptions for criminals is that racist?


Depends on the context, now doesn't it?


> and when I drive through town and see new houses that are beat to crap, and having to save for my kids future, knowing that there are others out there who don't have to work as hard or expect it, because this was their land


This is, unfortunately, an undeniable fact. In many communities there is no pride of ownership. Know why that is? Because the people do not own their own homes, in most cases. They belong to the Government. But of course, this doesn't occur with non-aboriginal communities, correct?


> treaties can and will change, block all the roads you want


Again, true. Treaties have changed, with the assistance of the learned ladies and gentlemen of the Supreme Court, they have been strengthened in favour of aboriginal people. The reason? Because, for the most part, aboriginal leaders of the time signed Treaties in good faith whereas, again for the most part, colonial representatives were acting in anything but good faith. And no doubt if a road gets blocked you will volunteer to help round up the pesky, insubordinate Injuns won't you.


> the money stays up top and doesn't filter down


unlike with "Canadian" politics you mean?


> But I am sure that I am just being a racist for pointing all this out....... The numbers are there, and there is a problem.


As a matter of fact, you are quite correct...on both points.



> 98% of Canadians have to work to send thier kids school


Really? Considering your spelling and grammar, can I assume that you were not one of them who was sent? If you would like, I could send some of *my* tax dollars your way. It would be my pleasure...honest.

The term to remember here, ladies and gentlemen, is "institutionalization". If you call a person crap, lock them up, continue to call them crap, treat them as incompetant fools, withold even the basic human rights afforded to all others(religion, language, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, the right to own property, CITIZENSHIP, the right to VOTE etc),   including new immigrants, then suddenly get the galloping guilts, throw money at the situation (while continuing the previous treatment) the outcome becomes obvious. Not being able to come up with a more appropriate (and less derogatory) analogy, I will use the following: what you get is the inmates running the asylum.

As was pointed out a few posts ago (by Brad Sallows), people in such dire straits do NOT want outside help. It only causes more problems. You (aimed directly at Sub_Guy) have not LIVED the problem. You are on the outside looking in saying "TSK, TSK Martha, didn't I tell you they were incapable of doing anything right".

What it comes down to, Sub_Guy, is that YOU are perpetuating the myth that it is the abusee's fault, and not the abuser. Until that thought process changes, whether with you or government, the situation will never change.

Oh...and buddy...can you spare a toonie? :-*

Infanteer,


> So, be careful about throwing around the racism card - I sense that the issue here and now is more about anger and frustration then it is about hatred and bigotry.


In many cases this may be true. In the case of the above, I fear it is not. My apologies to you however, if you feel offended in any way.


----------



## camochick (12 Apr 2005)

I agree with most of your posts onewingwonder, but it seems that you are quick to say that the aboriginal population has nothing to do with their current situation. Yes, the government has and is screwing up, so are the bands who are mismanaging the money they are given. People have to help themselves as well, it's easy to whine about the government or the white man keeping you down but there is a responsibility on the individual to want to help themselves.
    I can understand why sub_guy is so frustrated. I am constantly harrassed in my neighborhood for money and smokes, heck i even got chased by a few natives cause I wouldnt give them money. But I also see the other side of things so I am not going to judge everyone by the few I have had problems with. I think there is a definate call to better educate people about the native population and the life for on reserve and off reserve peoples.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Keep the "racist" accusations and ranting off this thread - let's try and keep it constuctive.

If it turns into a bunfight, I'll just lock it.


----------



## onewingwonder (12 Apr 2005)

Camochick,

actually, if you re-read my posts (I know, I know, they are somewhat lengthy) I have never said the following:


> the aboriginal population has nothing to do with their current situation


 or 





> the white man keeping you down



On the contrary, I have said that we are all responsible for the situation that currently exists. As for the second statement, I believe I made myself very clear on that issue. Hi Mom. 

I get harrassed by non-native panhandlers every time I'm in town, but I don't paint all non-natives with the same brush.

My question must be: why is it that people seem to think that a problem of this magnitude can be cured overnight?? The current system, in one similar machination or another, has been in place for 400 years. Yet society seems to think the problem can be solved over afternoon tea. Again, I will support Brad's statement that one, or even two generations (God forbid even more)will be required to hopefully ameliorate the situation.

Oh, Oh.  Seems I've been given the yellow card on my very first day. Seen.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Oh, Oh.  Seems I've been given the yellow card on my very first day. Seen.



I wasn't referring to anyone in specific (so no, you don't get your yellow card yet  ) - the general tone of the thread seems to be taking a rather nasty edge as people get (justifiably) worked up.

Just trying to keep things civil.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Canuck_25 (12 Apr 2005)

Well, ive read a bit of this post, and ill post my impute again.

 Fact -- Canadians of native heritage have better opportunites to gain goverment jobs based on their race. Proof- Look at a CF recruiting form.

 Fiction -- natives are lazy. Well, i know a few hard working Canadians who are of Native heritage. All of them live off reserve.

 Fact -- Native Canadians can enter post secondary institutions with lower grades. It's true, even a court battle has been fought over it, and the non native lost.

 Fiction -- Calling someone racist because they disagree with a system that is based on race, **** off.


   I hate the way people throw in the racist card when someone has something to whine about. Think of a better strategy buddy.

 Well, lets look at other countries. Australia has a similar issue, as does New Zealand. Both deal with it in different ways. Both countries attempts are unsuccessful and conflict between non natives and natives errupt frequently. Australia and New Zealand are using the same strategy as Canada, seperate the two groups based on heritage and what should you expect?   

 It's odd how newly arrived immigrants can prosper so easily, and non natives have such a difficult time establishing themselves in the REAL capitalist world. The oppinon from some Natives i recieve is that they desire to live like their ancestors. How unrealistic is that? In today's modern world, countries across the world are becoming closer togeather, multiculturalism is becoming vibrant, and people across the globe are becoming ever more similar. Now when i hear "I would desire to live like my ancestors" what a insane comment. That is suggesting that you live in a small commune, wearing cedar clothing, spearing fish, and living in a house shared by everyone in your community. Im sorry to say, but that is something so unrealistic that it's a fantasy. Reminds me of the guys who dress up as wizards and pretend they have magical powers. If you want to live like your ancestors, use all that goverment money to set up "native survivor."

 Im sorry, but the way your ancestors lived 1000 years ago is not modern. If i said that, I would be packing my bags to england and become a serf!

 To some all this up, I suggest one thing, abolish reserves. I dont care if it's a gradual move, or a immediate one, just do it. It's racist to seperate a group f people based on race, it is racist to give benifits to a certain group, it is racist to favour a particular group based on race. If anything, the goverment and the native people are racist.

 Now ill be expecting some " You stole our land" and such. Well, my ancestors (black Irish) were forced from Ireland by English landlords. Should I go claim the land that is entiltled to my family?   If the Native people are going to hold a grudge over 100 years of history, then they should suck it up and get on with their lives. The Japanese Canadians did when they were removed to the interior during WW2, they had their possesions sold, and basically had to start over after the war.   Im sure history has plently of examples of this.


----------



## onewingwonder (12 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I wasn't referring to anyone in specific (so no, you don't get your yellow card yet   ) - the general tone of the thread seems to be taking a rather nasty edge as people get (justifiably) worked up.
> 
> Just trying to keep things civil.
> 
> ...



Infanteer,
actually, if you knew me you would know that considering the subject matter, I was being civil. :warstory: However, I must say that I do have a problem with individuals of any ilk who have sworn an oath, under the Constitution, and then condemn parts of said Constitution that do not suit their fancy. In this respect, I see no differance between them and the yoof protesters who burn the Canadian flag.

I will make this pledge, from this point on, to remain the utmost of gentlemen. Honest Injun.(I'm just asking for it, aren't I?)

Unfortunately, Canuck_25s post went through while I was typing, so will amend this post. I fear however, that lock-down is imminent.

Canuck,



> Fact -- Canadians of native heritage have better opportunites to gain goverment jobs based on their race. Proof- Look at a CF recruiting form.


 True, as do many other minorities. Has it gone too far. Maybe. Again, as mentioned, I'm no fan of the fluffy-bunny-slippers society we currently live in.


> Well, i know a few hard working Canadians who are of Native heritage. All of them live off reserve


 Won't even touch this one.


> Native Canadians can enter post secondary institutions with lower grades. It's true, even a court battle has been fought over it, and the non native lost.


 Not familiar with the case, but I can add, that this is NOT an across the board policy of Universities. If a school chooses to do so, they can fill their boots.


> Calling someone racist because they disagree with a system that is based on race, **** off.


 I also disagree with the system, which I've stated. But the comments were not geared at the system, but at a group of people.

With regards to individuals wishing to live in the past, well that is unrealistic. As you've stated yourself, this is not limited to aboriginal peoples, so your point is really moot, wouldn't you say? However, the term insane would seem somewhat inappropriate and harsh. If people see no future, they feel the answers may be in the past. And believe me, many aboriginal youth feel they have no future. Do I agree with them. Absolutely not,but that is what institutionalization does.

If you can show me any place where aboriginal people really had any choice in being put on reserves, I'd love to know about it. Fact is, anyone who refused immediately had their heritage stripped from them by the Government. Reserves, dear sir, were not our idea.


> If anything, the goverment and the native people are racist.


 While I concur, somewhat, with the first, I would like clarification as to how you feel reserves make native people racist. Honest question, not baiting you. Simple fact is, there are as many racist native people as there are racists of other skin-tones. However, rules which can be construed as being racist on-reserve, are government rules enacted by various Canadian governments.

Stole my land? Nope. My ancestors had their asses roundly whipped by the Mohawk and Seneca. They msitakenly supported the French, when the Dutch and English were clearly the power brokers. Live and learn, eh? However, having been deeded land, *in perpetuity* they found their agents, at government request, selling off these same lands illegally. That is the system which still remains.


> Well, my ancestors (black Irish) were forced from Ireland by English landlords. Should I go claim the land that is entiltled to my family?


 Had it not been by force, but by way of legally binding contracts (Treaties), then absolutely. To do anything less would be considered criminal by your descendants. Unfortunately, the Irish were not given that option, nor were the Scots.


> hold a grudge over 100 years of history,


 What you are not grasping, is that we are not just talking of 100, 200, 400 years of history. We are talking about yesterday, and last week, and 5 years ago. This is not ancient stuff, but current events.

What I can say in regards to the whole issue of racism in this country(or in the UK), is that I was never, ever, faced with the issue from other members whilst in uniform. Never. As one young guy said in a previous post (Native kid, I believe): we are all green (or bleed green. Sorry, don't want to lose this to check.) In my case, light blue. The uiniform is the big equalizer. At least, it is meant to be.

Infanteer, please keep this going. I believe that it is an eye-opener for all, including myself. No pain, no gain.


----------



## Canuck_25 (12 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> If you can show me any place where aboriginal people really had any choice in being put on reserves, I'd love to know about it. Fact is, anyone who refused immediately had their heritage stripped from them by the Government. Reserves, dear sir, were not our idea. While I concur, somewhat, with the first, I would like clarification as to how you feel reserves make native people racist. Honest question, not baiting you. Simple fact is, there are as many racist native people as there are racists of other skin-tones. However, rules which can be construed as being racist on-reserve, are government rules enacted by various Canadian governments.



 Well, my step brother (non native) worked on a reserve. Now, this guy was a city kid, open to all diversity. He was very open minded. He went for a job that was offered by a native band to work on a reserve. At first, he enjoyed his job, and began to look at a future in the community. He looked into buying a home and soon discouvered that he couldnt, because he was non native. Other events in the community (related to race) had him leave.




			
				onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Stole my land? Nope. My ancestors had their asses roundly whipped by the Mohawk and Seneca. They msitakenly supported the French, when the Dutch and English were clearly the power brokers. Live and learn, eh? However, having been deeded land, *in perpetuity* they found their agents, at government request, selling off these same lands illegally. That is the system which still remains. Had it not been by force, but by way of legally binding contracts (Treaties), then absolutely. To do anything less would be considered criminal by your descendants. Unfortunately, the Irish were not given that option, nor were the Scots. What you are not grasping, is that we are not just talking of 100, 200, 400 years of history. We are talking about yesterday, and last week, and 5 years ago. This is not ancient stuff, but current events.



 Funny how events in northern Ireland today are connected with the land grabs in which i spoke.



			
				onewingwonder said:
			
		

> What I can say in regards to the whole issue of racism in this country(or in the UK), is that I was never, ever, faced with the issue from other members whilst in uniform. Never. As one young guy said in a previous post (Native kid, I believe): we are all green (or bleed green. Sorry, don't want to lose this to check.) In my case, light blue. The uiniform is the big equalizer. At least, it is meant to be.



 Too bad Canadian soceity can't be the same. As for skin colour, it dosn't matter to me. It's like red hair, small feet, or whatever. It's the fact that the native people have severe trouble intergrating into Canadian society, and that some dont even want to! What is stopping a native person from buying a house, renting a appartment, or getting a job? Nothing really. I know those of Native heritage who own a appartment, live in a house and have a job. Why not force the others to do the same, instead of dumping more money into those inefficent shitholes to improve their standard of living.


----------



## Gramps (13 Apr 2005)

I am just curious as to why so many people believe that people of other cultures (not just Native) have to assimilate to so called "Canadian" culture. I believe that Canada is a truly Multicultural country and not a giant melting pot like so many other "Western Nations". To me that is one of the many things that makes our country great. It would be so boring if everyone were the same.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (13 Apr 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> I am just curious as to why so many people believe that people of other cultures (not just Native) have to assimilate to so called "Canadian" culture. I believe that Canada is a truly Multicultural country and not a giant melting pot like so many other "Western Nations". To me that is one of the many things that makes our country great. It would be so boring if everyone were the same.


For starters, because a country needs a national Identity, and if your going to be a citizen you should recognize your primary allegence to the country. Canada is a multi-ethnic multi-cultural country. There is not a problem with recognizing and accepting difference, and it needn't conflict with national unity. 

What does conflict with national unity is having ghetoized distinct societies within our borders. This mostly becomes an issue with more extreme muslim communities* and also in some native populations that feel no obligation to the country or it's government, yet still feel that the government owes them much much more than it owes other citizens. 

So, while we don't necessarily need a melting pot, we do need to get rid of the ridiculous culturaly-realtivist notion of blind acceptance towards different cultural charachteristics when they conflict with our Canadian Values. We also cannot afford to continue to sacrifice fundemental equality in the face of 'politicaly-correct' practices that favour minorities.



*(if your a citizen that is preaching or adherent to a philosophy that is against everything my country stands for, you're persona non grata in my books)


----------



## Gramps (13 Apr 2005)

Fair enough but I would like someone to describe "Canadian values".


----------



## camochick (13 Apr 2005)

The biggest problem in my opinion, when it comes to relations between native and non natives is ignorance. People on the outside, on either side, dont see how the other lives. Non natives feel that natives are getting a free ride, while natives are seeing their living conditions as sub par. I am totaly for abolishing reserves. Let the native people have their status, their treaty rights, but get rid of reserves. You can't expect people to understand each other or try to understand each other when you segregate a whole group of people.


----------



## onecat (13 Apr 2005)

"You can't expect people to understand each other or try to understand each other when you segregate a whole group of people."

You that is touchy subject, one can look your statement in many ways.  Getting rid of the reserves is an easy way to take away there rights and what limited powers Native Canadians have.  Once their all mixed in where does their voice go?  Also its their land, You just can't take it away anymore.  Just look at Oka, and that was for a goft course.  For most Natives. moving off the reserve means losing there culture and their languages, their way of life.  Dumping reserves is not going to help.

what most Canadians don't understand is that the Native Canadians were here first; they have treaties that give them special rights.  Rights they deserve as they sold off their land or had it taken from them.


----------



## camochick (13 Apr 2005)

I guess I should have said that instead of getting rid of reserves, allow natives to leave the reserve and still have all the same rights they received living on the reserve. I wasnt talking about taking away anyone's land, you obviously didnt read my post well enough. I just think that many natives stay on the reserves because they can have the rights promised to them, and many of these reserves resemble ghettos, perhaps getting away from the reserves would allow them to better themselves.


----------



## DogOfWar (13 Apr 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> For most Natives. moving off the reserve means losing there culture and their languages, their way of life.   Dumping reserves is not going to help.



I ve met a handful of natives that can speak there language. They havent any idea of their culture generally either. My uncle moved back to the Rez so he could get a "free house". He didnt care one way or the other about the "culture". None of his 9 kids speek the language or know the culture either,


----------



## DogOfWar (13 Apr 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> what most Canadians don't understand is that the Native Canadians were here first; they have treaties that give them special rights.   Rights they deserve as they sold off their land or had it taken from them.



Ive read evidence stating that the Irish and the Vikings were also here first. I suppose they should be given treraties as well. Creating a second class citizenry under the guise of "they were here first" is more racist then anything else. You might as well say "once the community self destructs and they're gone its all ours MUah ha ha"


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

Before replying on specific points, I will answer the seemingly prevailing one: Reserves. Reserves were created for one reason, and one reason only: to keep Indians under control and AWAY from society. All the attendant factors flow from that very simple point. Remember it folks. Every single rule under the Indian Act controlling life on-reserves were made, not to protect Indians, but to protect the Euro-Canadian Society. Slowly, and I mean very slowly, certain rules were relaxed. Took 100+ years until, in the scheme of things, very recently.

Native people do NOT like reserves, as such. But the attachment is there for the simple fact that it is all that is left. And there is the very real fear, that if reserves were abolished, then these tiny chunks of land would soon disappear as well. This is not paranoia, but was government policy. Split up the land, give each adult a tiny plot and see what happens. In very short time, the land is gone and so are the people.

Canuck_25,
what happened to your brother is regrettable, but remember, his not being able to buy (or build) a house, is government policy not the people's. As for racist attitudes, unfortunate, but a fact of life in this country. In my community (my wife's, technically speaking), I would say that over half of the spouses of those between 20-40 are non-native. Just as with any community in this country, attitudes differ.


> It's the fact that the native people have severe trouble intergrating into Canadian society, and that some dont even want to! What is stopping a native person from buying a house, renting a appartment, or getting a job?


A question for an answer: why would native people want to "integrate"? Canada does not want us, never has. Look through what I've said before about the treatment dished out and ask the question again. As for a house etc. there is nothing stopping us, or any other Canadian for that matter...other than a large portion of society. Up until the late 60's, a registered Indian could not own property, without giving up your status. An Indian could not become a doctor, or lawyer, or engineer, or police officer, or military officer without giving up status. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.


> Why not force the others to do the same


Because this is supposed to be a fair and democratic society.

Camochick


> You can't expect people to understand each other or try to understand each other when you segregate a whole group of people.


 Quite correct, but look at my first paragraph. We didn't ask to be ghettoized, the option for anything else was non-existant.

Beadwindow:

of course few know their language, or culture. But we didn't give them away, they were stolen. Can't you grasp that? THEY WERE STOLEN. Entire generations had their entire heritage stripped and beaten away. For those who have said, "oh, well my grandma taught at a native school and she never did that", well, thats great. But there were grandmas who did, many of them. And yes, similar things were done in orphangaes, or other church-run schools with non-native children. And by God you should be friggin' outraged! 

The free house issue is also somewaht of a red-herring. No "free" houses have been built using government moneys for more than 10 years. All houses being built fall under 2 sections of CMHC, who provide the co-signer needed at banks. Those who move into the house (notice I didn't say own) pay the mortgage. These 2 section programs are available to EVERY Canadian, with the exception that everyone else owns the home.

AS to the Irish/Viking bit, you have mis-read the evidence. No-one has ever said that the Irish/Norse were here first, but that they were the first Europeans, pre-dating the Spanish, French, English et al. Some evidence may exist that a possible caucasian society existed over 40,000 years ago, but so far has not been proven. However, even if it were, as a society they disappeared. That of course, was not the case when Europeans arrived here. The land was settled and used. European monarchies, with the Catholic Church, could not even at that time just waltz into a territory and lay a claim if it was occupied. So they invented the law of Terres Nulles (empty, unoccupied land). Which of course, it was not. The same happened with Australia.

Again, I will re-iterate: it has taken 400 years to get to where we are now. Why do people think it can be changed overnight? Only when Canadian Society actually accepts native people, and native concerns, can we even begin to start solving the problem.

And while you are on your next winter-ex, wearing your mukluks, snowshoes and pulling a toboggan, think about what this society really is, and whose beliefs it was founded on.


----------



## Bomber (13 Apr 2005)

I have noticed a strange trend.   People with less money than the rest of the people around them will beg for money.   Living in Ottawa, I don't see to many "people off reserves" chasing me for money.   What I do see is 14-18 year old white kids bumming money, smokes, "grants for the research on the effects of pot on the teenage mind", and anything else I might have.   People keep saying that they live near reserves and so they have a problem seeing all this mis-spent money.   If you live near a reserve, guess what, you might see more Native people in dire straights.   Here is the flip side, if you live in a big city, with no reserves, by the logic presented, you would assume that only white people's kids can be in bad financial situations.   live in Ottawa, I have the downtown core and the subburbs to complain about.   When I was in highschool, guys would skip so they could go and beg for cash at the Weirdo (Rideau) Centre cause they made 40 bucks a day doing it.   They lived a couple of blocks form my house in the burbs, but still panhandled.   You often see the "No food, no money, every little bit helps, God Bless" guys walking around the traffic lights with earphones in their ears, or with a cell phone clipped on their belts.   I don't know really what I am trying to get across, but when I see this, I don't think "lazy white kids" because I don't know the situation.   Unless you know, intimately what is going on in a persons life, I can't see how you can be their judge.   Everyone goes on about the 2 percent of the society, like I said in a previous post, that is still about 600 000 people.   You can say anything you want about how few that number is, but you can't treat 600 000 people like they are less than human, and expect them to love you in return.   Dogs don't return the love, so why would people.   

Onewing speaks with a bit of authority, he has first hand knowledge of the issues, a guy that "drives through town" does not have first hand knowledge.   The inmates running the asylum was the best analogy of this problem that i have ever heard.   Everyone keeps throwing around a statement of "stop throwing the race card" and "this is a heated issue"   I agree, but to come off and state what you believe is fact, without any support, in an attempt to generalize or marginalize a person is racist.   If you see a drunk Native person, and say "all natives are drunks" Jeff Foxworthy would offer you a life time membership to the You might be a redneck club.   Had you said "after seeing him fail a Breathalyzer test, I concluded that the man was drunk" you would be stating a fact.   How can you tell a man is drunk, perhaps he suffered some form of head injury while being "enlightened" with a 6 pound good book in a residential school.   

I don't think there is a problem with the "they were here first" argument. Look at it more like, "They were here first, we made deals for land, then changed our minds, took more and abused the hell out of them, and now we are faced with a problem that needs to be solved, but we aren't making a real effort to fix it."   Saying to abolish the resesrves sounds a bit like regressing.   Saying that my uncle is a native and he just wants the free house so he moved to the res, is also a lame argument, something that could only be argued when there is no one but native people on social assistance in the entire country.   No one on this board can convince me that first people are lazy, stupid, or out only to serve themselves.   I see everyday that there are lazy, stupid, and self serving people everywhere in this country and of every colour and background.   

Write to you MP's about this problem, asking them to put a bit more effort into this, as opposed to changing the definition marriage.   Only when people really want to solve a problem does it get solved.   People need to see that when you are in a deep hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging.   And don't try to fill the hole with money, you won't get out for a long time.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Apr 2005)

Quote,
Up until the late 60's, a registered Indian could not own property, without giving up your status. An Indian could not become a doctor, or lawyer, or engineer, or police officer, or military officer without giving up status. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

Yup, you are going to use rules that were made long before most present Canadians were even born to make them feel as though they are guilty of something,

...Lets get this straight {RANT ON} I HAD NO CONTROL OVER THINGS THAT HAPPENED BEFORE I WAS EVEN BORN ,JUST AS YOU [for lack of a more suitable term, sorry] HAD NO CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENED. DON'T GIVE ME THE "CULTURE STOLEN THING" AS I GUESS IN THAT CASE MY "CULTURE" IS BACK IN ENGLAND SOMEWHERE. MY " CULTURE" STARTED THE DAY I WAS BORN AND WILL END THE DAY I DIE, HOW I CHOSE IT TO BE IS MY DESICION, AND MINE ONLY. I WILL NOT APOLIGISE,   HOWEVER I WILL ALSO NOT FORGET THE BAD DESICIONS THAT WERE MADE YEARS AGO AND WOULD LOVE TO MAKE "EVERYONE" FEEL AS THOUGH THEY BELONG HERE..........AS EQUALS. [RANT OFF]

I'm tired now......


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Apr 2005)

Quote,
_I don't think there is a problem with the "they were here first" argument. Look at it more like, "They were here first, we made deals for land, then changed our minds, took more and abused the heck out of them_,

Bomber,
Good post for the most part, exept this. Who the heck is we? I can assure I nor anyone I know did these things so stop using a racist comment like that, cause thats what it is, lad.
I'm curious if in your mind first-generation Sri Lankin's immigrants are actually Canadian's as I can't see how they could be responsible for some of the "abuse" you mentioned........or are they not included in your definition of "WE"?


----------



## DogOfWar (13 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Beadwindow:
> 
> of course few know their language, or culture. But we didn't give them away, they were stolen. Can't you grasp that? THEY WERE STOLEN. Entire generations had their entire heritage stripped and beaten away. For those who have said, "oh, well my grandma taught at a native school and she never did that", well, thats great. But there were grandmas who did, many of them. And yes, similar things were done in orphangaes, or other church-run schools with non-native children. And by God you should be friggin' outraged!



The Scottish side of my family had there culture stripped, the language stripped, and there last name stripped by the french in a certain area- should I hold them accountable? No. If I wish to have my "idnetity" back I have to pursue it on my own. The same goes for pursuing my MicMac heritage. I shouldnt try and hold the rest of the country accountable for things that happened 400 years ago. At some point the debt must be repaid. Or should my one set of grandparents be sending repairations to my other grandparents forever?

However I agree that it isnt a matter of "abolishing" reserves and all the programs. At this point in time doing so would be a death sentance to native peoples. But personal responsibility must be slowly given back to the native people.


----------



## Hunter (13 Apr 2005)

They are called reservations, not reserves.


----------



## Bomber (13 Apr 2005)

Then, we was Europeans, colonial governments, church, etc
Now, we is Canadians, even first generation immigrants, all Canadians

This isn't a Native problem, or a white people problem, or a Sri Lankan problem.   It is a Canadian problem.   We are all responsible to get it fixed.   No one group can fix it, and only everyone together can solve it.   When people first come here form their own land and become first Generation Canadians, they do indeed get to inherit the good and the bad that is going on.   It would be like retirees not paying the same taxes, cause they aren't going to school, or young workers not paying for health care cause they are as sick as the retirees.   Canada has a problem, so I figure that all Canadians  have this problem.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Apr 2005)

...and you think by flaming whatever you consider "WE" is helping?
I'll quote you again, tell me you don't see something wrong with this statement then,

I don't think there is a problem with the "they were here first" argument. Look at it more like, "They were here first, we made deals for land, then changed our  minds, took more and abused  the heck out of them,

...I can assure you that I did no such thing.......


----------



## Bomber (13 Apr 2005)

If there is a more simplified version that someone can use to explain this, please let me see it, I am not trying to flame anyone, just looking for information.l

I was trying to simplify a complicated problem, in my head I was talking like a colonial government administrator.  It would sound more like "They were here first, we(the government of the time, elected by the people of the time) made deals for land, then changed our(the successive governments, voted in by the next generations) minds, took more and abused(http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/) the heck out of them."  I don't go out of my way to create conflict or "flame" anyone.  I am trying to get other people to look at a problem in a more objective manner, and expose people to a different opinion.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Apr 2005)

Quote,
[the government of the time, elected by the people of the time) made deals for land, then changed our(the successive governments, voted in by the next generations)

...now that I can live with.   I just take great offense to how the word "we" and words like it are used to describe what happened back then. I find no difference in that stero-type or the "lazy/ drunken Indian stero-type"
Neither is acceptable.


----------



## Island Ryhno (13 Apr 2005)

I dunno, this whole, dig a deep hole and fill it with money bit gets rather annoying. Are Natives not grown ups like the rest of us? I have financial responsibilities, if I decide to drink or smoke or gamble or f*ck my money away then I have to face the consequences, do Natives? I'm so far in debt over education that I nearly worked myself silly (full time student, full time job, part time job) just to get by and make a better life for myself. I didn't have a priveleged childhood, my father never made more than $30,000 a year and my mother about half that and they raised 4 boys, we had food, barely, the bills were paid, barely, and neither my father or my mother were drunks or gamblers or such. The point I'm making is that lots of people get a shitty hand to start with, I could have called it quits a long time ago because of my life. To be quite honest with you it's difficult to watch people wallow in self pity because of what's been done to them. Given the opportunities that Natives have every day, a crack at whatever in the world they want, I'd be a pretty well off guy right now. This reserve structure is a long past due project that needs the plug pulled, hey lots of people have fended off poverty to become something, on their own without government giving them houses and money and everything else, why can't Natives fend for themselves?


----------



## Gramps (13 Apr 2005)

Island Ryhno. Statements like the ones you had just made are the type of statements that I was referring to in some of my earlier posts. Not grown ups?? That is just insulting. " a crack at whatever in the world they want" sure as long as its not in your back yard right? So you go to school and have two jobs. Who cares, join the club so did I and the rest of my family as well as most of my friends. Do you know any Native People? Lets not forget what happened to the Beothuk in Newfoundland.


----------



## Island Ryhno (13 Apr 2005)

So what your saying gramps is that they shouldn't take responsibility for themselves, yeah I work, yeah so do you and everyone else you know apparantely.Tell me what I have in my backyard that Natives cannot have. The fact of the matter is, they've been given tons and tons of money and it's been mismanaged for years, the whole situation is not working, as a matter of fact it seems to be getting worse.  There never seems to be any responsbility taken, it's always the fault of the government or white people from 200 years ago. Yes I do know native people and your a**hole remark about Beothuk in Newfoundland didn't go unnoticed either but I will not get into a flaming match with you. I suppose it's my fault about the Beothuk.


----------



## camochick (13 Apr 2005)

Wow alot happens when you go to bed. First of all Bomber, you climbed a very high big high horse and you really need to come down. The guy who said his uncle moved to the reserve just to get a house, well it is his uncle, so wouldnt he know. I live in Edmonton, I don't see very many white bums. It's sad, but it's a fact. I in no way judge all natives by the ones I see on the street. You're generalizing alot of people and doing the same thing you claim we do to the natives. 
      I guess I see now how political correctness is sucking away the heart and soul of the world. Island Ryhno is right. Lot's of people get a shitty break in life, and lots of people manage just fine. I know the native issues run deep and there is alot more to it, but he is right in the fact that it isnt just the responsibility of the government to fix the problems. Gramps, calling someone a rascist is harsh. 
    I think that it's sad that everyone can't just get along. In an ideal world we would all be like the freakin carebears, but sadly that will probably never happen. I however, refuse to feel the "great white guilt". BY that I mean, I'm tired of every problem in the world being blamed on the white peoples so I refuse to feel guilt for crimes I didnt commit. Sure, we need to fix the problems of society, but stop making me feel bad for stuff I didnt do.


----------



## Gramps (13 Apr 2005)

You are right that was an a**hole remark and maybe was a bit inappropriate. I'm not saying that Natives shouldn't be responsible for themselves. As far as I am concerned everyone should be. I would just like people to try to look at things from someone else's point of view. If we all did this there would be a lot less hostility in this country when it comes to such issues. I will agree with you on the intent of my last remark but I wont apologise for making it. Cheers


----------



## Canuck_25 (13 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Canuck_25,
> what happened to your brother is regrettable, but remember, his not being able to buy (or build) a house, is government policy not the people's. As for racist attitudes, unfortunate, but a fact of life in this country. In my community (my wife's, technically speaking), I would say that over half of the spouses of those between 20-40 are non-native. Just as with any community in this country, attitudes differ.A question for an answer: why would native people want to "integrate"? Canada does not want us, never has. Look through what I've said before about the treatment dished out and ask the question again. As for a house etc. there is nothing stopping us, or any other Canadian for that matter...other than a large portion of society. Up until the late 60's, a registered Indian could not own property, without giving up your status. An Indian could not become a doctor, or lawyer, or engineer, or police officer, or military officer without giving up status. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.Because this is supposed to be a fair and democratic society.



 Why is it such a problem to "give up your status"? I see the whole status issue as a crutch the native people lean on. Im sorry, but we cant all reflect on our heritage everyday. This country grants everyone to practice what ever they believe in, but in reality, it dosnt really work that way. Giving up your status is not giving up your heritage. I see sikhs wearing turbans, and they dont have status cards. You can express your heritage at your OWN time. Form groups or clubs, have meetings, or hell, have specail art in your home. People express their heritage everyday, and it dosnt prevent them from functioning in society.


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

WEll, Bloody Heck! I have just spent the better part of an hour writing up possibly the best thing I've ever written on the subject, and the bloody thing timed out on me! Lost in Cyberspace.

However, seeing as numerous posts have popped up since I started to reply, it may be for the better. Still, Bloody Heck.

I will comment anew, but leaving out most everything, because certain points were cleared up by others, and harmony agin reigns in the Kingdom.  I understood that Bomber was using the Royal "we", and so does Bruce now. Well done gents.

My final paragraph may very well answer the following from Bomber, or at least I hope it can:


> If there is a more simplified version that someone can use to explain this, please let me see it, I am not trying to flame anyone, just looking for information.l



During and following WW1 and 2, and other conflicts certain soldiers were termed as cowards, or shell-shocked, or they had lack-of-moral-fibre. We now call this PTSD. Other occupations carry those same risks: doctors, EMS, police and even social workers are all at risk. If not treated, the individual and EVERYONE around them suffers. There are many then, and unfortunately many now, who simply say SUCK IT UP. While there are those whose mentalities can do this, there are just as many who cannot. The horrors seen, and acted out, in the name of civilization, peace, sovereignty etc etc are not the norm for the human psyche. It is not normal to kill another human being; It is not normal to have to treat a 2 year-old sexual abuse victim; it is not normal to beat someone for speaking a language other than your own. The human mind reacts, sometimes well, sometimes not.

So, what we have here is a situation of not an individual with PTSD, nor a small group of people. What we are talking about is an entire race (for the lack of a more appropriate term), bound together by certain cultural values, or language, or appearance who are suffereing from INSTitUTIONAL PTSD brought on by generations of abuse of virtually every variety.

I'll put this up now, so as not to risk losing this small part of the original again.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Apr 2005)

I tried to go through this, but I don't have the energy.  Instead of bickering back and forth (some arguements good, some very poor), why don't we put forward ideas on a solution and see whether people from different walks of life can agree upon them.


----------



## larry Strong (13 Apr 2005)

Spanky said:
			
		

> I hate it when people do that :rage:   This guy wants it both ways.   He'll collect all the benefits citizenship provides and then piss and moan about how his heritage is not respected and how he is a citizen of another nation.



Geez what other part of our society do we see using this argument. ;D

As I am not a computer God and don't know how to place multiple quotes I will just try and mention some other statements I have noticed.

One member said to just divide the reservation lands up and give it to the members and they can use it as collateral, most resreservations are either out of the way, (thus property values probably would not buy the powder to blow them up) or the land is of such poor quality or full of "skeg" or swamps, that the previous applies to this also.

The "racist" thing,   well every one that can, uses that card to their favor, because we have turned in to such a "fuzzy bunny slippers (man I love that one )" society, that the powers that be won't challenge what ever brought it on for fear of offending or being called "R". We have actually turned into a society of spineless wonders.

What's going to solve this issue...damed if I know, I imagine this thread will be going on long after I am dead. I think what might work is give each native X# of dollars a year, for treaty rights and cut them loose, this would save the country a ton of money as most of Indian Affairs would no longer be needed, and in my view thats were a sizable portion of the billions go. The prosperous reservations could split there land amoamongste members that want to farm or what ever it is that makes that reservation prosperous.

I realize this is pretty simplistic but it is just my .2 cents worth. It's been an interesting read.


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

Canuck_25,


> Why is it such a problem to "give up your status"? I see the whole status issue as a crutch the native people lean on. Im sorry, but we cant all reflect on our heritage everyday. This country grants everyone to practice what ever they believe in, but in reality, it dosnt really work that way. Giving up your status is not giving up your heritage. I see sikhs wearing turbans, and they dont have status cards. You can express your heritage at your OWN time. Form groups or clubs, have meetings, or heck, have specail art in your home. People express their heritage everyday, and it dosnt prevent them from functioning in society.



Personally, for me, it isn't a problem because it was taken away by the government when my GGreatgrandfather was a child. The government wanted the prime real estate belonging "in perpetuity" in SW Ontario. So, they took it. Crutch is not the word I would choose, obviously, but I understand your meaning. That bloody little card, to many Indians, has become a vital link to who they are. Again, this was a Government decision and not that of the people themselves. Not having that card, in many cases, means not having your heritage, regardless of close family ties. Why? Because that is the way the government wants it. With all aboriginal people fighting amongst each other, the government doesn't have to deal with "the problem", they need merely say that obviously as the aboriginals can't decide, we will do it for them. Now, I'm 41, I have two living parents and have no desire to have anyone act in such a paternalistic fashion towards me, my wife or children.

As for the second to last of your sentences, I'm going to assume that it wasn't truly mean to sound so condescending as it, in fact, does. An Indian Club!? Special Art in my home!? You really must be joking...aren't you?

Edited to comment on posts during writing. Apparently, I'm just not fast enough. 

Larry,

the problems associated with your solution are, indeed, simplistic and would cause more harm than good. It is the exact solution that the government has tried to force on people over many generations. I'll think over a better reply later, so as not to leave it hanging.

BTW the fluffy-bunny-slippers comes from that movie in the late 80's (can't for the life of me think of the name. Had Charlie Sheen and was a spoof of Dances with Wolves, Top Gun, Police Squad etc. His "Indian name" was Fluffy Bunny Slippers. But it really does fit, as pointed out, what has become a spineless society.

Infanteer,
It seems the bickering has subsided to a great degree (the yellow card hangs over all, not least yours truly) and now constructive ideas have and can flow.


----------



## larry Strong (13 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Canuck_25,
> That bloody little card, to many Indians, has become a vital link to who they are. Again, this was a Government decision and not that of the people themselves. Not having that card, in many cases, means not having your heritage, regardless of close family ties.



Why?


----------



## Bomber (13 Apr 2005)

camochick, I don't get this big horse thing, I am saying that this guy offering an example of his uncle moving back to a reservation for a free house is not a decent argument.  I knew of a guy from highschool that was on welfare and sold drugs because he didn't like working.  This is nothing more than one example.  And doesn;t indicate all the people in a group.  Citing a single example of something is fine, but it is only one example.  You may see very few white bums in Edmonton, but that is all I see here.  Not a generalization, but from what I can see on the Streets of Ottawa, the majority of people are men and women, between 15 and 35, white, and beggin for money.  I am not trying to find fault to lay blame, cause it is like trying to agree with that book "Who killed Canada's Military" All Canadians aren't at fault, but it is Canada's problem.


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

Larry,


> Why?


Many, many reasons. Most of which, you guessed it, have to do with the Indian Act. There are thousands who should have the card who don't, and thousands who do have the card and shouldn't. The governments, in their constant re-defining of who an "Indian" is, have kept aboriginal people fighting since the first Indian Act was written up. It is a control mechanism, plain and simple, used by both government and certain Indian "leaders". Look back to my post re. PTSD.


----------



## larry Strong (13 Apr 2005)

Thanks
My granddaughter is part Cree. To her father his "blood", is only important in that he could work in the States, and what he can get for free from the feds. I might be sticking my nose where I should not, but to me family and heritage is extremely important, and I plan on making sure she knows her heritage if possible.
And I am a mutt Part Belgian, part Newfie born in Italy, what a mess :, But 100% Canadian


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Apr 2005)

Onewing - thanks for your replies. They have certainly made me re-evaluate my thinking, and have also shed  light on some misconceptions.

Some points, and questions, if I may....


Assigning blame - I understand your bitterness. Maybe not in the same visceral way that you do, but I understand it. Everyone acknowledges a problem it seems. Do you think assigning blame at this point helps to find a "cure", or does it simply help reinforce your points in defining "the problem"?  Personally, in any argument like this, I don't know what we are supposed to do, regarding the "sins of our fathers". I think thats what Bruce and some others were alluding to. That train of thought can go on, in pepretuity. Before us, this tribe did that to another tribe, the French did this to the Scots, the Normans did this to the Gauls, the Franks did this to the Celts, the Mongolians did this to the whomever. Can't all of us trace our lineage back to a point where our people were ravaged and oppressed by another? I guess, I enjoyed reading your posts on an illustrative and educational level, but if these arguments are made for another purpose.... "you owe us"...  like I said - I think we can all make that argument, if we go back far enough.

Question (not rhetorical, I really don't understand this part) - I grew up in a small town, next to a Maliseet Reserve (reservation?). The most affluent/happy/well to do (my perception) were band leaders, and those who had moved off of the Reserve. Most of the folks who moved off were very successful business people, Doctors, teachers, etc., in our Community. When people move away like that, do they give up their status, or card, or whatever the term is? I guess I'm wondering what was involved, when people moved off, like that.

That does lead to a rhetorical question - If people can choose to move off (and hopefully be successful), why don't more folks just make that choice? Do the other Tribe Members feel like the ones that move off are traitors (not the best word, perhaps)? I guess - is there a stigma attached to those people, because they are choosing to be assimilated, rather than stick with their culture? I know I'm not wording that the best, but hopefully you understand my gist, and can explain more the intricacies associated with moving away from the Res.

Thanks again for your posts. I've enjoyed them.


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 Apr 2005)

Here are some sources that were requested........

Aboriginal teen pregnancy rate higher than non-aboriginal teens (slightly date)

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dca-dea/publications/reduce_teen_pregnancy_section_1_e.html#some


In Saskatchewan, Aboriginal adults are incarcerated at 35 times the rate of non-aboriginals, where they make up 77% of the total prisoner population 
http://www.prisonjustice.ca/politics/facts_stats.html


Call me what you want, insult my intelligence, I didn't join the Navy because I was number 1 of my graduating class.   I do know that I can sit here all day and pull up study after study backing me up.   There is nothing racist about studies, they are a good indication of a problem, and we should work towards solving it.   Do I think that taking a certain portion of the population and isolating them from everyone else is going to solve that problem?   No.    I don't know if isolating is the word to use, but that's how I see it from the outside.   I have never lived on a reserve, but I have lived in communities that have large native populations.   In Duncan (again from the outside looking in) I see a failure in community leaders, and as a result it seems that there is a certain portion of the cowichan tribe population that is reaping all the benefits, and an even larger portion of the population suffering from poverty, drug abuse, alcholoism, teen pregnancy, domestic abuse.    Sure all of those problems are a factor for Non-aboriginals, so we have to find a long term solution that works for everybody.   

You know there was a quote in our local paper last year which bothered me, I forget the actual numbers from the article but I will sum it up for you.   They high school mentioned how many students graduated, then it went on to mention the number of natives in the graduating class, singling out the natives. example "There were 234 students in the graduating class, 23 of which were ______".   As a non-native I found this disturbing, because how is someone supposed to be a part of something if they are always being singled out.   Question for anyone on here, in situations like that how does that make you feel?

The Cowichan tribes are very wealthy, and since I have lived in Duncan they have started to funnel some of that money into sports programsand it is starting to show, as the Cowichan Eagles (representing Canada) just won International Indoor Soccer Tournament championship in Belgium, they won all of their games and beat England for the championship    
The Cowichan tribes also put together a bid and won the right to host the North American Indigenous Games in 2008 in Duncan.   Do you think I am going to be there cheering our boys on?   You bet your ass I am.


I hope my grammer and spelling don't offend anyone else on here, btw it's a loonie not a twoonie...............


----------



## dutchie (13 Apr 2005)

I have just read the last 459 pages (or so it seems), and I only have one (albeit simplistic) point to make.....for now.

We can all talk about how you stole from me, I work harder than you, etc, etc, etc. But to me, the biggest and most important issue is equality, the rest are details. 

No one, no matter when they arrived, what they built when they got here, how hard they work, etc, should be treated any differently based on their race. That means you are either a Canadian or you are not. No tax exemptions, no reservations, no nothing. Just as I can not be tried for a murder my great grandfather committed, I cannot be held responsible for the theft/mistreatment of Natives by their Colonial masters. 

To grant someone something based on their race is just as racist and wrong as taking something away based on their race. To me, that means that we are committing just as heinous a crime by granting Natives tax exemptions (for instance) as the Colonial masters were when they mistreated the Natives. The severity is merely degrees, the violation is the same.


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

I have tried to ressurect some thoughts on my post which were lost, but I have failed miserably, I think. When I wrote the original I was definately "in the zone". I think however, that that door is closed and locked and what the following represents is my attempt to get under the door. There will be no quotes, or answers directed to individuals, as this is written offline, so as not to lose what little coherence may remain in my thoughts. I have also noted several new replies, so my apologies for there being no directed answers. I will do so however, seperately.

It seems to me, that the issue is being taken extremely personally by many, on both sides. For those who are "angry", I really need ask why? "Tax dollars wasted". Absolutely. But I have pointed out that the huge majority of aboriginal people in this country pay every single tax that you do. Their tax dollars send you to school, or your children, pay for your medicare and whatever other benefits flow to you and yours by way of taxation. That is a fact folks. And, for the most part, waste is at government level, not within communities. Of course, that waste and corruption is there, and rampant, in many communities. Aboriginal "leaders" learned well from government.

Am I angry? Certainly! Having served this country and her people, I am angered at the amazing lack of education of the issue(in this country, as a whole), the stereotypes being bandied about, and what can only be considered an almost complete lack of compassion for people who have been treated, virtually from day one, as the garbage of society. But I am as angry, possibly even angrier, that there are many aboriginals who continue to play the "blame whitey" game and refuse to take hold of opportunities.

"I didn't do it, why should I pay?" A valid point with, I believe, a relatively simple answer. Citizenship. Something which seems to be severely lacking in western democracies is the concept that, along with Constitutionally guarenteed Rights, comes responsibility. It doesn't matter if you are native-born or an immigrant. All of us bear those responsibilities, as citizens. Even more so for those who have in the past, currently do, or hope to in the future wear the uniform. Each of us has the right to voice our opinions, which I see as another responsibilty of citizenship. Without questioning all those in power, we have no democracy. Dissent is democracy and is meant to keep those in power honest.

Wearing the uniform makes that burden even heavier. The right to free-speech is curtailed somewhat and necessarily so. By swearing that Oath, you are saying that you will protect this country and her Constitution with your life. That is no easy burden for the strongest of individuals. An even heavier burden if you disagree with government policy. If we (and I do mean WE) just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution that we agree with, then we have dishonoured ourselves, the uniform, our buddies and all that we say we stand for. We will allow ourselves to be sent to shyteholes around the world by our masters, to help the downtrodden and weak and yet, we turn our eyes from similar abuses, perpetrated by our own governments, at home. I see no honour in that whatsoever.

Am I, who has had the concepts of honour and service drummed into my head since childhood, simply to turn my head at abuses in my own country? (and I do not just mean with aboriginal people). Am I to ignore the physical and emotional scars which my wife carries because those scars were inflicted by well-intentioned "white" people, acting under the authority of the government? Can I ignore the 16 yr old girl who showed up on my doorstep 2 nights ago, having been sexually abused by a nice non-aboriginal man, because she was a "dirty, dyke squaw"?

Were I to ignore these things, or similar events, because "I didn't do it" or "It's not my fault", I would be no different than the scum who perpetrated the events. I will re-iterate from a previous post of mine, you(the Royal you) must stop blaming the abused, and blame the abuser.

I will state categorically that these comments, nor any previous ones, are meant to cause harm to anyone here, unless they were in reply to an obvious personal attack. But, I will say that uneducated stereotypical comments should not be tolerated by anyone, no matter who they are aimed at.

"We, reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage, and Integrity, do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you to..."

Words to remember and live by, ladies and gentlemen.

Your humble ex-servant
Onewingwonder


----------



## dutchie (13 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> "I didn't do it, why should I pay?" A valid point with, I believe, a relatively simple answer. Citizenship. Something which seems to be severely lacking in western democracies is the concept that, along with Constitutionally guarenteed Rights, comes responsibility. It doesn't matter if you are native-born or an immigrant. All of us bear those responsibilities, as citizens.



Couldn't agree more. Part of that Responsiblity is a requirement to pay taxes, it is not 'optional'. I agree, also, that most Natives pay taxes, but the fact that taxes can be avoid is more the issue, not whether or not that 'option' is exercised. 

Without equal responsiblities, you will never achieve equal rights.


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

Caesar,


> Couldn't agree more. Part of that Responsiblity is a requirement to pay taxes, it is not 'optional'


Ah, but it is, you see. Says so in documents currently protected under the Constitution. Could that change? Absolutely, but both parties to the original documents must agree, as some have.

I would also point out large corporations, they've got many options than anyone not to pay taxes.


----------



## dutchie (13 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Caesar,Ah, but it is, you see. Says so in documents currently protected under the Constitution. Could that change? Absolutely, but both parties to the original documents must agree, as some have.
> 
> I would also point out large corporations, they've got many options than anyone not to pay taxes.



Ok, perhaps I shouild have said that paying taxes SHOULDN'T be optional. 

As well, your point regarding Corporations is not relavant, as we are referring to individuals, not groups. Besides, show me a Corporation (Non-Native of course  ), that doesn't pay ANY taxes.


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

Caesar,


> As well, your point regarding Corporations is not relavant, as we are referring to individuals, not groups. Besides, show me a Corporation (Non-Native of course  ), that doesn't pay ANY taxes.


But we ARE talking about a group, aren't we. Status Indians, living on-reserve. As for corporations, there are so many loopholes that they can use, that many pay nowhere near what they should be. All "legal", of course, but hardly fair. You would also find it impossible to find a status Indian who pays NO tax. Simply isn't possible, which was a point I've tried to make. Taxes are in/on everything and everywhere. It would be impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## dutchie (13 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Caesar,But we ARE talking about a group, aren't we. Status Indians, living on-reserve. As for corporations, there are so many loopholes that they can use, that many pay nowhere near what they should be. All "legal", of course, but hardly fair. You would also find it impossible to find a status Indian who pays NO tax. Simply isn't possible, which was a point I've tried to make. Taxes are in/on everything and everywhere. It would be impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaff.



You can dance around it all you like, but the fact remains, Status Indians are not required to pay Income Tax (under certain circumstances), based on race. 

Re: Corporations. The individuals who make up those corporations pay income tax, unless they are Status of course. That is the point.



			
				onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Caesar,But we ARE talking about a group, aren't we. Status Indians, living on-reserve.



Right, but were talking about individual 'rights', not the taxation of Corporations. Don't try and deflect attention away from an obvious double-standard in logic and racist 'right' by comparing tax breaks to Corporations and Tax Exemptions to Canadians based on their race. 

Racism is not restricted to negative acts, it includes benefical ones as well. Please address this, or at least acknowlege it. How is the principle of prejudice any different? How can you claim to have a 'right' as a Native Canadian, but abdicate your responsiblities as a Canadian? You said it yourself: 





			
				onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Something which seems to be severely lacking in western democracies is the concept that, along with Constitutionally guarenteed Rights, comes responsibility...All of us bear those responsibilities, as citizens.



Please explain how you can say that and defend income tax exemption (or any other special 'right', like Native fisheries).


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

Caesar,
first off, having been born with two left feet, I cannot dance and therefore never attempt to.


> Status Indians are not required to pay Income Tax (under certain circumstances), based on race.


This statement is both true and false. They are not required to pay taxes, based on legally-binding contracts initiated by government, in order that government could aquire property. The fact that they are of a different race, in my opinion anyway, is secondary.


> The individuals who make up those corporations pay income tax


Many do, many do not. That is why the whole concept of offshore companies is so tasty. Just ask the PM.


> Right, but were talking about individual 'rights', not the taxation of Corporations. Don't try and deflect attention away from an obvious double-standard in logic and racist 'right' by comparing tax breaks to Corporations and Tax Exemptions to Canadians based on their race.


The first statement is somewhat tough to explain, but Aboriginal & Treaty Rights are not individual rights. They are collective. As to where corporations came into it, I introduced it simply to try and answer a previous post that might draw an analogy which could be more easily understood.


> Racism is not restricted to negative acts, it includes benefical ones as well. Please address this, or at least acknowlege it. How is the principle of prejudice any different?


I concur completely, and I don't believe that I've said anything different. 


> How can you claim to have a 'right' as a Native Canadian, but abdicate your responsiblities as a Canadian?


Maybe I'm just being thick here, but if an individual or group of individuals, is acting within the Law of the Land (the Constitution), how can that be seen as dodging a responsibility as a citizen? I understand what you are saying, but you seem unwilling to recognize the fact of the Law.


> Please explain how you can say that and defend income tax exemption (or any other special 'right', like Native fisheries).


I don't believe that I have defended income tax excemption. It is a fact of Law. With regards the Fishery, I could defend that quite handily, but have no interest in wiping out the bandwidth of this board. To put it simply: government initiated legally-binding contracts. Then broke those contracts. Then the SC told them they were wrong and that to continue to break the contracts would put the honour of the Crown in peril. Oh, and the fishermen I know (lotta family members) all pay income tax. Go figure.


----------



## Canuck_25 (13 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> As for the second to last of your sentences, I'm going to assume that it wasn't truly mean to sound so condescending as it, in fact, does. An Indian Club!? Special Art in my home!? You really must be joking...aren't you?



 Why not. Ive seen clubs from "magic card club" to "Roman Legion rein actors." People have all kinds art, tools, ect that represent their heritage. Anyone been in a Ukranian family's house? Or how about a Irish household?  The point i was trying to make is that anyone can enjoy their heritage on their own time. The issue of heritage should not prevent people from functioning in society. It shouldn't be a issue. I call it a "crutch" because some natives see leaving reservations as abondoning their heritage. Funny how poeple can migrate across the globe and have no issue with this.


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

> I call it a "crutch" because some natives see leaving reservations as abondoning their heritage. Funny how poeple can migrate across the globe and have no issue with this.


I understood what you meant and agreed. As to the second point, I would be very surprised if it wasn't an issue. You're own example shows that they bring their heritage with them. Unfortunately for all, many also bring along a ton of baggage.

I do not think that I can explain the situation any better than my use of the term Institutional PTSD, for that is what people are experiencing. Native people didn't want it, didn't ask for it, had it forced upon us ,but are being told to forget about it and suck it up. There seems to me to be some seriously flawed logic in there somewhere. Or is it me?


----------



## onewingwonder (13 Apr 2005)

As the pace has clearly slowed from earlier in the day, I would think that it is the opportune time to try and answer some earlier questions.

Sub_Guy,

first an apology for allowing sarcasm to cloud the post that I made earlier in reply to you. Bad habit picked up from the Brits. That "dry" sense of humour does not always go over too well.

Thank you for the links you posted. The reason I asked was not that I thought those particular stats were untrue, but that it does get very tiring always hearing people pull such numbers out of thin air to make a point. Seems it has become a habit for most not having to justify their statements, simply due to the anonymity of these Boards. I am, unfortunately, fully aware that they are true. The problem is not the stats themselves, but how they got as high as they did.

The pregnancy one is culturally based, I would say. Not completely, but somewhat. The prison rate is so high for several reasons. Some of what I know comes from participation in certain round-tables on the issue, and the other comes from talking with many of those currently in prison, or who have been there in the past.

Because of past abuses, a large portion, if not the majority of Native people have a deep seated mistrust of both the police and the judiciary. Considering events which have transpired over the past couple of years, this should come as no surprise. When it is found that police officers shoot a native man, all the while making Indian jokes, it makes all of us wonder(Ipperwash). When we see that other officers have committed murder, although possibly unintentional, it makes us all wonder(Apologies but cannot recal if Regina or Saskatoon). It makes us wonder who is next. And, usually, those authority figures end up getting a mere slap on the wrist, if they end up in Court at all.

On the flip side, when aboriginal people f^ck up and end up in Court, they know darned well that they are headed inside. For the most part, they plead guilty right away, even if they are not guilty. Why? Because history has proven that for years the Courts did not care.

Again, I will point to my post re. Institutional PTSD (maybe I should copyright that term?). If you treat a person as a criminal, they will become one. If you treat them as being irresponsible, they will become so. If you treat adults as children, they'll never take care of themselves. (this is all the Royal you, BTW).



> Sure all of those problems are a factor for Non-aboriginals, so we have to find a long term solution that works for everybody.


From your initial posts, I would not have believe this was the case with you. However, from this one I see that it is. What we hear so often, and I mean daily, is "taxes, houses, fishing, moose" blah blah blah. It is exceedingly rare that we actually here someone say "Hey, guys, what can I do to help?". I don't mean money and I don't mean mere words and I don't mean those freaky, hippy types looking for the latest cause. You know what help we really need. Understanding. Try to understand how WE came to be in the shytty situation that WE are in. Your taxes and my taxes would be taken anyway, so don't think if INAC disappeared it would change. I know it wouldn't. So in reality, I mean actual reality, OUR situation does not affect you. And you are right, what happens from here on in must take EVERYONE into account. It isn't a Liberal problem, or a Conservative problem, and certainly not an NDP problem (bloody opportunists), it is an aboriginal Canadian problem. When we have a real opportunity to become full partners in this country, full CITIZENS in place and not just words, then will the solution be at hand.



> I hope my grammer and spelling don't offend anyone else on here, btw it's a loonie not a twoonie...............


ahem...see apology above. :-[ Consider the toonie interest. (sorry, couldn't help myself ;D)

muskrat89,
you know, I'm not actually bitter, although it probably comes out that way. I would have to say that is actually shame. I am ashamed, as a Canadian and as a former Rupert, that this whole situation still exists to the extent that it does and that if ever came to fruition in the first place; and ashamed as an aboriginal person that so many of us have not done enough to change it. When we actually do assert ourselves, the same old hackneyed arguments are brought and no constructive comments.



> Do you think assigning blame at this point helps to find a "cure", or does it simply help reinforce your points in defining "the problem"?


Unfortunately, for healing to truly begin, and healing is seriously needed, I think blame must be apportioned and the guilty made to "pay". I don't mean money either. I mean an honest attempt at solving the issue, without muddying the waters as they (governments) always do, to truly live up to decisions set down by the Supreme Court (without changing the true meaning of the decisions to suit their purposes), to get rid of every corrupt bureaucrat who has anything to do with aboriginal people. 
[rant]And finally, this being non-negotiable, the Government of Canada must publically apologize to the victims of residential schools, and to all Canadian citizens and to admit they (the gov) are accountable and pay restitution. The restitution to be paid immediately before the victims all die!![/rant]

This country has done some absolutely amazing things around the world. But the "Indian Problem" is Canada's shame.

On a personal level, most aboriginal people don't believe they are "owed" anything, although obviously there are also many who make these statements. What I think we mostly desire, is that government actually live up to its committments and stop dishonouring the Crown. (I know it sounds strange, but most aboriginal people have a soft spot for Auntie Betty and her strange batch of offspring.)

WRT your observations on the Rez (hey, yer an NB boy, eh!?) you are right. The most affluent are the "leaders". I'm the last to even try to explain their behaviour and attitudes other than to say they sick f%^ks. I should try at least, and I'll just point over to the PTSD issue. Almost all are residential school survivors, save several newer generation types, and therefore have no clue as to how to do the job they do. Again, if you always treat people like children, they'll remain as children, knowing that "daddy" will take the heat. It sucks, plain and simple.



> When people move away like that, do they give up their status, or card, or whatever the term is? I guess I'm wondering what was involved, when people moved off, like that.


At this point in time, no. Up until 20 years ago, yes. Only 20 years ago. They grieved, because they knew they could never return. Housing was not available. They couldn't build their own without laying out the full amount of dosh, because it was impossible to get a loan. The hardest hit were the women.



> If people can choose to move off (and hopefully be successful), why don't more folks just make that choice? Do the other Tribe Members feel like the ones that move off are traitors (not the best word, perhaps)? I guess - is there a stigma attached to those people, because they are choosing to be assimilated, rather than stick with their culture? I know I'm not wording that the best, but hopefully you understand my gist, and can explain more the intricacies associated with moving away from the Res.



The simplest answer in many cases is fear. I cannot explain, even to myself, the attachment that we feel for these god-awful scraps of bog and rock. They are...a lifeline. I've known a number of old folks who fear the government so much, that they have never left their community for more than a few hours. Not a fear of kidnapping or the like, but a fear that if they are gone to long, that piece of dirt will be stolen. No joke. Unrealistic...yes. Unheard of...NO.

But, as of today, I believe around 60% of all status Indians live off-reserve, and of course all non-status and Métis. Unfortunately, as some here have noticed in their own communties, many end up in native ghettos.

Stigma. Yes, to a certain degree. I think you'd find that across Canada, in every community though. Parents and families don't like to see their children head into the unknow, It's even harder if you are a visible minority, and in a lot of cities harder still if you are clearly native.

Traitors. No, I don't think so. But for many older folks, it is hard for them to see their children marry non-natives. Not for any racist reason, mind you, but because they know that the resulting children will (now) become "legally" non-native. At the stroke of a pen, an Indian is turned "white".

I had a chat a few years ago with a guy who considered himself "traditional", with regards to all the women moving back to the Rez, bringing with them their non-native husbands. To be honest, it was an argument...a very heated one, at that. He bitched and moaned about them bringing "whitey" into the community, to take away jobs etc. When I pointed out that many of the men on the Rez had non-native wives, including him, all he could counter with was "It's different". In his case, it was different, because his cultural background was a matrilineal and matriarchal society. So, in reality, he should have been the one who should have left in the first place and not those women. It shut him up very quickly, but I didn't change his mind.

I am not sure if I have answered the questions of those I'd missed earlier. If I have not, then my apologies. I will leave you now with a saying that came to me by way of the most distinguished Elder it has ever been my honour to know: A man who lives without self-respect, is only pretending to live; a man who steals another man's self-respect, should never have been born.

His name, by the way, was not Chief Dan George, or Swims with Dolphins, or Dancing Frog, or Fluffy Bunny Slippers. His name was Spoorvart Bailey, my maternal grandfather, born in NE England, on the sea, and an orphan.

By the way folks, my wife says that I should be less confronational and "be nice". Bloody woman, bless her heart, she is more forgiving than I. I'm sure there is a bloody good message in that somewhere.


----------



## Sub_Guy (14 Apr 2005)

onewingwonder

You know I have never used the spell checker option on this, and maybe I should start. 

I do know that from reading my previous posts back to myself, there are some comments that were made that don't represent how I truly feel.  Like most Canadians when it comes to the heritage of our native people, and how things are handled by our government, I am ignorant (uneducated).  I will admit that all of the knowledge (lack of knowledge) I have of reservations and native rights are from non-natives (can't get any more ignorant, uneducated than that).  :-[

I dislike people begging for money,  I don't care what race they are....Last night I was asked again for my shopping cart loonie and the guy was as white as fresh snow.   :-[    <---Thinking back on a previous posts on here, I felt like a tool box, and rightfully so <--- My wife has confirmed that I am indeed a tool box

I will take your advice though and educate myself, as I found these few days to be an eye opener......

For those of you who I offended during the past few days please accept my apology.

I am sorry and embarrassed :-[


----------



## onewingwonder (14 Apr 2005)

Sub_Guy,

not sure if the spell-checker would have done any good. During the writing of my last, I noticed that I had made a number of typos. Tried the spell checker and it did some strange things. It actually added extra letters that shouldn't be there.


> My wife has confirmed that I am indeed a tool box


Maybe that should be the lesson of the day for us testosterone-laden types? God only knows what I may have posted last night if my wife hadn't decided to proof my post. We may indeed have the tools...but they have the box. ;D

Hey, we all need to step back every now and again and *reassess* our attitudes and actions. That is, after all, why Eagle put erasers on pencils.

BTW to prove my point re. spell check, I'm certain that I misspelt "reassess". SC says its fine though. Is it just me?


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Apr 2005)

Thanks, onewing, for the answers.. very informative.

Yes, an NB boy, but alas - now a long way from home. My neighbors these days are Pimas, Navajos, and Apaches


----------



## onewingwonder (14 Apr 2005)

Retired to Arizona? You B$%tard!    I only got to retire to PEI. An island off PEI to be exact.


----------



## Gramps (14 Apr 2005)

There are worse places than PEI. Not many but they are out there.


----------



## larry Strong (14 Apr 2005)

I can think of quite a few....Rainbow Lake/Zama, Wabasca, Ft St John/Ft Nelson,....and the list goes on ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Apr 2005)

Retired? Hardly (I'm only 38 after all) but have been here about 8 years. It's an interesting place, for sure...

Oh - and people who say "But it's a dry heat!" have never been here...   :skull:


----------

