Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
It's not a question of not understanding, it's a question of finding it really weird and also a very bad idea from the point of view of unity and equality of the greater "us".
My analogy was pretty close: let's imagine some old documents saying that privileges X, Y, Z were supposed to be granted to Canadiens as part of the terms of the 1760s deals following the Conquest are found to have never been fully complied with, so every single Québécois with a pulse gets a lump sum of $30,000 no strings attached wired into their bank account overnight today in 2020 to "settle" the matter.
You don't think that that happening would be at least somewhat a bit toxic to current Alberta-Quebec or Ontario-Quebec relations? If so then I have a super nice absolutely complete and functional CIBC building to sell you on Victoria Ave. And it's oceanfront, too.
|
If they also had similar interactions in the past that were unresolved, then maybe, but more likely it would give them the incentive to push for a resolution on them. If they didn't have such interactions than they need to understand that this isn't involving them.
People get jealous when their neighbours get a financial settlement for the guy who totaled their car 2 years ago, it doesn't mean they're right to and it doesn't mean it's unfair to them to not get money. There are very specific reasons that land settlements are still being resolved financially a hundred plus years after the land was originally taken, one of them being that the crown that took the land and the band that owned the land still exist to the same extent that they did when it happened, so we don't put this dispute on a timeline that might make sense within your personal life. This isn't individuals getting money; the band gets money and then disperses some or all (or none) of the money to individuals as payments. The federal government isn't the one issuing the cheques for $30,000, the band does that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
The Belgian example works too - in the analogy, some medieval treaty that's been in practice ignored for centuries always clearly said that [Public Good of Significant Value to Modern Belgium] collectively belonged to the Walloons, and this "wrong" never got "righted" over the centuries, so it gets settled financially once and for all in 2020. Again, that would obviously have negative effects on Walloon-Flemish relations and would just exacerbate division and dislike of the other group, no? (That's crystal clear to me at least.)
|
So first off, 1850s to 1950s isn't "medieval". In the case of Ipperwash, there are people alive today who were alive when the land was originally taken. Are there 700 year old people in Wallonia? Did Flanders take large chunks of Wallonia and push all of the Walloons out of those lands, and the Walloons continuously since that land was taken fight to get the land back or get compensation for the land? Because that's what is happening in
this case.
This isn't hush money. This is a land transaction that is 100+ years in the making. And if you think otherwise, I'm going to take one of your properties and pay you for it in 2156.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
People in NS often bring up rights granted by old treaties from the 1700's. As in 1990's court cases may bring up treaties from the 1750's.
The 1752 peace treaty between Britain and the Mi'kmaq in NS included:
That all Transactions during the late War shall on both sides be buried in Oblivion with the Hatchet, and that the said Indians shall have all favour, Friendship & Protection shewn them from this His Majesty's Government.
Cornwallis came up with this treaty, and both sides agreed to it, but people were tearing down Cornwallis statues in the 2010's due to events that happened during the war.
It had fishing rights in it (with no environmental protections; that was not a concern in 1700's NS):
It is agreed that the said Tribe of Indians shall not be hindered from, but have free liberty of Hunting & Fishing as usual: and that if they shall think a Truckhouse needful at the River Chibenaccadie or any other place of their resort, they shall have the same built and proper Merchandize lodged therein, to be Exchanged for what the Indians shall have to dispose of, and that in the mean time the said Indians shall have free liberty to bring for Sale to Halifax or any other Settlement within this Province, Skins, feathers, fowl, fish or any other thing they shall have to sell, where they shall have liberty to dispose thereof to the best Advantage.
Nobody mentions this:
That the Indians shall use their best Endeavours to save the lives and goods of any People Shipwrecked on this Coast, where they resort, and shall Conduct the People saved to Halifax with their Goods, & a Reward adequate to the Salvadge shall be given them.
https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/11.../1100100029041
I think at some point Canada needs to move past 1700's style legal treatment of distinct ethnic groups. And there should be more appreciation that parts of Canada have had fairly balanced treaties for a really long time. It was not a free-for-all of Europeans doing whatever they felt like to indigenous people even in 1755, although the frontier existed for a long time and the rule of law there was weak or nonexistent.
|
You refer to the 19th/20th century treaties as "fairly balanced" but you should know (since you've never actually lived under any of them, like I have for my entire life) that they were negotiated and signed in a process that involved the crown sending semi-literate messengers to chiefs that barely understood English, resulting in a lot of assumptions on both sides as to what the treaties actually contained in them. The native people, as they did for centuries, passed down their understanding of the treaties orally. The government kept it on file but didn't put much effort into actually following through with what it said on paper let alone what the Chiefs interpreted it as saying and therefore agreed to. Again, to use a case from Thunder Bay, look at a map of Thunder Bay while reading this:
Quote:
FIRST - Joseph Pean-de-chat and his Tribe, the reserve to commence about two miles from Fort William (inland), on the right bank of the River Kiminitiquia thence westerly six miles, parallel to the shores of the lake; thence northerly five miles; thence easterly to the right bank of the said river, so as not to interfere with any acquired rights of the Honorable Hudson's Bay Company.
|
Try to draw this on a map. Have fun.
They're not "fairly balanced"; if anything, you could make a case that they should be considered void since neither side that actually negotiated and signed them knew what they were doing at the time. They promised money to a people who had no understanding of money. Is that good faith? Should that kind of agreement have legal standing? If that's the case, give me all your land and I'll let you sleep in the closet and give you $25 a year for the rest of time! In return I'll give you land rights to an area starting at about two miles upstream from the confluence of the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers, on the right bank of the St. Lawrence River thence northerly six miles, parallel to the Ottawa River; thence westerly five miles; thence southerly to the right bank of the St. Lawrence River. Enjoy!
So, I do agree that the treaties should be re-negotiated. BC is doing that right now (that's why that guy in Vancouver had money in his bank account—it was from a treaty negotiated in the past few years), and the rest of the country should do it too now that everyone is on the same page in terms of understanding English and knowing what "economy", "money" and "rights" are.