Native protesters

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

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

 

[UberCree]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

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

 

[The_Falcon]

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

 

[niner domestic]

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

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

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

 

[cplcaldwell]

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

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

So the question could be ...

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

OR

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




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

 

[Jacqueline]

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

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

 

[cplcaldwell]

Kind of...

I think that the 'whites' (including myself) take the Royal Proclamation as a baseline...it established the suzerainty of the Crown over all British North American lands. Thus it is an absolutism, not quite the discussion of two crowns implied by Hussein-McMahon...IMHO...

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

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

 

[Jacqueline]

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

 

[cplcaldwell]

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

Outside the purview of the Royal Proclamation of 1763..

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

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

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

 

[UberCree]

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

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

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

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

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

Do I really want to know??

 

[cplcaldwell]

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

The Soverignty Model is a complete non starter...

But what is the "Citizen Plus" model?

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

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

 

[niner domestic]

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

The Constitution, as also the Charter, lays out the following groups as recognizable Aboriginal:  Status (on or off reserve), Metis and Inuit.

Status is defined as per the Indian Act - one can under the 1960 amendments live on or off reserve and still hold status.  Metis is still struggling with what that is defined as but is coming close to a final definition - read self determination.  Inuit is pretty much self explanatory.  What the Feds won't recognize are those FN who are non-status and live off reserve.  Even though Bill C31 afforded the opportunity for those who lost status under the old indian Act to gain it back, not everyone who could be considered status has got their status back.  Those people even though they are FN, are deemed by the Feds to be a non-native and therefore falling outside of their jurisdiction/responsibility.


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

See above, enfranchisement was more than being able to vote, it meant once taken out, the person was no longer considered FN, call it instant white guy making.  So the question could be ...

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

The Indian Act does not confer any rights, only the treaties do that. The IA is legislation to a) define who is or is not an Indian b) who is or is not a band member c) how the personal effect of a deceased Indian person is dealt with by the Minister d) health and dental care limitations e) reserve territory expansion provisions /housing and e) sets out powers of band councils and the election there of of officials.  In the 1985 amendments (Bill C31), the new legislation set out that a status person could no longer abrogate or derogate their status. All the previous reasons that were listed that one could lose their status no longer applies.  BUT as I mentioned earlier, not everyone who is entitled to gain back their status have been afforded that right.  The kicker of Bill C31 was that status was returned to the person who first lost it and then granted to subsequent descendents.  For example, way back in 1939, a woman marries a non native man.  She loses status but that's ok because after 10 years in residential school, she really is quite ashamed to be Indian - she likes it now that she's an instant white woman. Fast forward to 1985 when the Feds say, it's ok now folks, you can all have your lost status back -if- you apply for it.  The woman doesn't want to apply even though her blood quantum is 100%. She may walk like a duck but she's so used to being a goose that goingback to being considered a duck appalls her.  But her children and grandchildren are fine with being a first nation descendent and want the status.  Too bad says the Government, "If your Mother doesn't apply then status will not be conferred upon you.  You'll have to wait until she dies then you can apply." Or there are the cases where the children were apprehended by CAS and adopted out and never told they were entitled to status.  Manitoba lost over 40,000 children to the United States when they were adopted and "sold" off for a hundred bucks apiece to American adoption agencies.  Most of those kids have no clue they are Canadian FN.    OR

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

If they can prove they are a direct descendant of any treaty right, then they can claim it.  ( I believe it was the first Marshall case out of Nova Scotia that settled that point.  I know there was a bundle of cases out of there all dealing with treaty rights, just can't recall which one right now)

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

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

 

[Klc]

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

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

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

(Be kind, I burn easily,  ;D)

 

[dglad]

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

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

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

(Be kind, I burn easily,  ;D)

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

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

 

[Cloud Cover]

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

A good answer. Note further clarification

 

[dglad]

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