First Nations in Canada

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

If they want to be represented by the hereditary chiefs, no problem, all they have to do is elect them to the elected positions of actual power.

Agreed.

You could even have a meta-democratic system. The band can have a hereditary chief but they need to vote every so often on whether to keep that system or implement something else. Individuals should also be allowed to leave bands and join other bands without being penalized.

There needs to be a way for the system to evolve over time and incentives need to be put in places so that governing bodies are responsive to the needs of their constituents. The Government of Canada has this built in with elections. The old native bands had this because they were unstable on their own; if you really disliked the band you could leave and if a band didn't function well it was conquered. Hereditary chief + GoC backing is an unholy union where state power and bureaucracy leads to less flexibility and responsiveness in governance of the native bands.

[lio45]

I'm far from a constitutional scholar, but I'm wondering if the thought experiment I outlined in my previous post would work or not. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on these matters will answer eventually

Scenario: AB Premier Kenney decides, with the blessing of the current legislature in Edmonton and the current population of AB, to abolish the provincial parliament and turn the province into a hereditary monarchy. He becomes King Jason I and the Alberta throne will pass to his oldest kid when he dies or retires. The levers of provincial power are all concentrated in the hands of whoever is Provincial King/Queen from now on. Alberta is still a Canadian province though, so federally, there are still elections, and it's represented in Ottawa by a delegation of MPs (nothing has changed there), but on all matters of provincial jurisdiction, Jason I is now omnipotent (though only as long as He doesn't try to do anything that clashes with Federal laws, obviously). Whenever the provincial premiers are gathering somewhere to discuss interprovincial relationships, it's all elected premiers minus one, and a representative of the House of Kenney. For the people in other provinces, it doesn't really change anything.

So, does Ottawa send the army to stop this? Or is it perfectly constitutional?

[vid]

Non-FN Canadians: We have plethora opinions on how First Nations should be organized and governed!

First Nations people: How about the way we've always done it?

Non-FN Canadians: No, not that.



I struggle here because on one hand I want to see us achieve reconciliation but on the other hand I understand that because the two sets of worldviews involved are so opposite from each other, "reconciliation" literally means "taking two opposite world views and turning them into a third worldview which is accepted by both sides" and honestly, I don't see that happening. Ever. It literally cannot happen. It's impossible. Reconciliation isn't dead because it was never alive to begin with. And for every great idea we come up with to "solve the Indian question" or "decolonize", there are just as many opinions on achieving peace between Israel and Palestine or ending the schism of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Both are equally impossible because both sides in both cases will only accept the elimination of the other side.

[lio45]

Okay but what would be your take on this:



Non-FN Canadians: We have plethora opinions on how First Nations should be organized and governed!

First Nations people: How about the way we've always done it?

Non-FN Canadians: Maybe...? Tell us more.

First Nations people: Well, traditionally, we put everyone interested in being the next Chief in a perimeter, everyone has war paint on and a tomahawk, they fight to death and the last one alive is the one that the Great Spirit has designated as our new Chief.

Non-FN Canadians: Sorry but no.

[milomilo]

One option would be to say, OK the hereditary rule stays, but now each first nation is an actual nation separate from Canada that now has to set up its own passports, public sector etc. That seems absurd, but it's an option.

Or you could have them be equivalent to provinces, or to municipalities. In those options, they are still subservient to the federal government, as BC is now - they "don't want" the TMX pipeline, but as part of the deal of being in Canada, they don't get to have a veto over everything.

In my opinion though, even if it is patriarchal, white privilege, whatever, I don't think hereditary rule has any place in modern society and we should not give any legitimacy to it.

[Acajack]

100% sure Canada is the only place in the western world right now where educated enlightened progressive people are debating democratic decision making by elected people vs decision making by hereditary rulers by birthright, as if they were equivalently desirable.

[lio45]

It's racist to suggest that autocracy has some drawbacks compared to democratic systems...? lol

Someone gave a great nonwhite-nonwestern example earlier in the thread (may even be you): Japan.

Japan used to have an Emperor. This was the "traditional Japanese" model, "the way they'd always done it". This Emperor was all-powerful. Could execute you if you displeased him. And then the Japanese decided to be Anti-Japanese Racists, they genocided the old ways, adopted the modern Constitution of Japan, and now they have an elected Executive branch - they're a democracy. (Surely white people must have forced that down their throat at some point? Mere Orientals couldn't possibly have come up alone with something that civilized.)



(without looking it up, in fact I do fear the Americans may have had something to do with forcing Post-WWII Japan to become a democracy - maybe someone has an even better example of a nonwhite nation that evolved into a democracy naturally?)

[vid]

Just to be clear, it's unanimous here: Fuck the queen, hope she dies, vive la republique canadien?

If hereditary rule is bad and wrong I want to make sure Canada is good and right, that's all.

As for the other posts, fuck it, I'm tired. Some people might say the idea of democracy itself is white supremacy but also the claim that non-whites can't practice it due to some inherent factor is also incredibly fucked up and honestly this kind of shit calls for a 40 minute (as a minimum) Youtube video essay with pink and teal lights and I don't even know what software you use to do that let alone use it to make that shit so daddy's gonna pop some nyquils and fall asleep now byeeeee

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's racist to suggest that autocracy has some drawbacks compared to democratic systems...? lol

Someone gave a great nonwhite-nonwestern example earlier in the thread (may even be you): Japan.

Japan used to have an Emperor. This was the "traditional Japanese" model, "the way they'd always done it". This Emperor was all-powerful. Could execute you if you displeased him. And then the Japanese decided to be Anti-Japanese Racists, they genocided the old ways, adopted the modern Constitution of Japan, and now they have an elected Executive branch - they're a democracy. (Surely white people must have forced that down their throat at some point? Mere Orientals couldn't possibly have come up alone with something that civilized.)



(without looking it up, in fact I do fear the Americans may have had something to do with forcing Post-WWII Japan to become a democracy - maybe someone has an even better example of a nonwhite nation that evolved into a democracy naturally?)

I think in the Modern Woke Worldview, the democratization of Japan by those horrible American colonialists was bad, and only the Samurai should have any legitimate power.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by lio45

...maybe someone has an even better example of a nonwhite nation that evolved into a democracy naturally?)

Taiwan!

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by vid

Both are equally impossible because both sides in both cases will only accept the elimination of the other side.

Billions and billions and billions of dollars taxed from the economic activity of non-First Nations folks and freely given to First Nations peoples, plus virtually every Canadian public institution there is falling over backwards to provide every possible economic and cultural opportunity to First Nations that you can imagine...

But we non-First Nations people will "only accept the elimination of the other side"? Seems our genocidal project hasn't been very effective.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

You could even have a meta-democratic system. The band can have a hereditary chief but they need to vote every so often on whether to keep that system or implement something else. Individuals should also be allowed to leave bands and join other bands without being penalized.

This seems reasonable

[vid]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Billions and billions and billions of dollars taxed from the economic activity of non-First Nations folks and freely given to First Nations peoples, plus virtually every Canadian public institution there is falling over backwards to provide every possible economic and cultural opportunity to First Nations that you can imagine...

But we non-First Nations people will "only accept the elimination of the other side"? Seems our genocidal project hasn't been very effective.

The Canadian economy is based on a country that exists on land that was taken either by theft or coercion and much of this discussion has been focused on "how can we, non native people, eliminate the traditional governance of the people we took this land from so we can do to it anything we please?"

But, yeah, I'm the delusional one and you're the victim. I've been the victim many times before, I know how good it feels.

Originally Posted by Hali87

This seems reasonable

By which metric? I mean, will we get to build this pipeline or not?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

Just to be clear, it's unanimous here: Fuck the queen, hope she dies, vive la republique canadien?

If hereditary rule is bad and wrong I want to make sure Canada is good and right, that's all.

As addressed already a couple pages ago (see post below), yes, if the Queen decided she wanted to start ruling Canada with an iron fist starting in 2020 (drastically increase our taxes to selfishly fill up her coffers, make weed illegal because she can, etc.) then fuck that.

But since she has zero power in practice, it's not really problematic that she continues to exist. Similarly, symbolic, useless, "potted plant" First Nation Hereditary Chiefs would be just as tolerable as the Queen; as long as anyone with actual power is elected that's what matters.

Originally Posted by lio45

Easily addressed by a slightly amended statement - "hereditary chiefs having any actual power is an idea we find unpalatable". We're fine with them existing, having a ceremonial role, and seeing their picture here and there within the context of their tribe.

If the Queen of England took a firm position against the (approved by Canadian authorities) Trans Mountain pipeline, wouldn't we tell her to shut up and mind her own business? We probably (hopefully) would. But she's wise enough to not ever do that, so moot point. Let those hereditary chiefs be like her.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

The Canadian economy is based on a country that exists on land that was taken either by theft or coercion...

Correction: land that was conquered fair and square at some point in the past. Like pretty much every single corner of this planet.

(I always find it impressive to realize that Québécois already have nearly 1/3rd of the "time claim" on Canada (the original colony of Canada, now more or less Quebec) at this point (~0.5 millennium) of the Anglo-Saxons' claim (~1.5 millennium) on the probably-not-ever-formally-ceded-by-Brittonic-Peoples territory nowadays called England.)

[vid]

The irony that the monarch can't use their reserve powers is why it's pointless to rely on it as a fail safe against an actual totalitarian ruler. To go back to your Jason Kenney hypothesis, he doesn't need to declare himself king because our system has already made him one. The only caveat is that he has an expiring term, but otherwise, there's no real difference. The queen holds the power, but she's powerless to control how he wields it.

I wonder, if it were the other way around, that the elected council opposed the pipeline and the hereditary chiefs wanted it built, how would we frame this discussion? Merely presenting this hypothetical within this context spoils it so don't even bother answering because any answer you give will be dishonest. Simply reflect upon it in silent thought.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by vid

By which metric? I mean, will we get to build this pipeline or not?

Well I mean this goes way beyond this one specific pipeline.

My impression is that most, if not all, necessary parties have agreed to allow the pipeline. If the hereditary chiefs do in fact have some legal claim to the land (where it's in their name) then of course they should have been consulted as well, and should be consulted before allowing the pipeline to proceed. It's not clear to me what the exact situation is here in terms of who has what rights/responsibilities regarding this specific piece of land.

But I think beyond that, part of reconciliation is allowing First Nations to have control over how their own institutions work, and these conversations need to start ASAP because they will be very tedious.

My own opinion is that we currently have a bit of a crisis, we should be making an effort to get the trains moving again ASAP, but we should also address all of the things that have come up during this strange episode.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

I wonder, if it were the other way around, that the elected council opposed the pipeline and the hereditary chiefs wanted it built, how would we frame this discussion? Merely presenting this hypothetical within this context spoils it so don't even bother answering because any answer you give will be dishonest. Simply reflect upon it in silent thought.

I have paid incredibly little attention to this - all I know is that the "natives are restless" for some reason (pipeline-related, I think) therefore trains have stopped functioning around here. I can assure you that my extremely firm preference for Elected over Hereditary has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with which side happens to want what in some one-time issue.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by vid

..."how can we, non native people, eliminate the traditional governance of the people we took this land from so we can do to it anything we please?"

What if it were the opposite? What if the hereditary chiefs wanted the pipeline but the democratically elected leaders didn't? Would people quietly acquiesce to the chiefs' will in that case, or would people be clamoring to praise the benefits of democracy then?

Originally Posted by vid

But, yeah, I'm the delusional one and you're the victim. I've been the victim many times before, I know how good it feels.

You're projecting. I've never claimed that I'm a victim. Those billions and billions and billions of dollars? We've been able to afford it.

But naturally, pursuant to probably the only piece of hard and fast truth that I've learned never changes, no good deed goes unpunished. Which is not to say we shouldn't have given First Nations people so much money, it's just, well, it would be foolish for non-First Nations people to expect any gratitude for that.

That's not how human nature or the world works.

As for the so-called "theft" of land in the Americas, that happened centuries ago and was how things were done by all peoples, including First Nations peoples. I sense an emerging lack of patience about the cloying homilies to life before pre-European contact. Lots of useful idiots are playing patty-cake with their cute declarations about "ancestral lands" before meetings and events, but Canadians aren't total pushovers. There will be a limit to how many Caledonias we will endure.

It will be interesting to see when and if that limit is reached.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by lio45

Correction: land that was conquered fair and square at some point in the past.

Are you sure about this? When were the Wetʼsuwetʼen conquered, exactly? And by whom?