All Things First Nations - CF help, protests, solutions, residential schools, etc. (merged)

[dglad]

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

So the question is, will Ontario:

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

my guess is a

How about:

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

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

Military intervention isn't even close to being justified.

 

[UberCree]

Thank god you are not in charge. 



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

 

[Baloo]

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

 

[cplcaldwell]

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

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

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

 

[dglad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cplcaldwell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[niner domestic]

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

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

 

[cplcaldwell]

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

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

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

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

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

My bit of trivia for the day...

 

[dglad]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cplcaldwell]

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

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

 

[niner domestic]

Your guide was correct:

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

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

 

[Jacqueline]

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

 

[Remius]

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

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

+1

And Piper, that was really bad and pretty offensive.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

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

 

[warrickdll]

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

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

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

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


Edit: Added the word "of"

 

[niner domestic]

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

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

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

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

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

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

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

 

[warrickdll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[3rd Horseman]

Niner Dem,

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

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

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

 

[niner domestic]

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

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

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

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

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