First Nations Issues

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

Your proposal is to kick 34 million~ people out of their homes/jobs/lives and hand it back to 2 million~ native people and you consider this "fair"?

Your next proposal is to scrap everything Canada is built off of and then change it to indigenous law/customs which are at best poorly defined?

k...

the indigenous population is what, around 1.5 million? why would they need that many houses/jobs for themselves? plus, there are literally thousands of empty homes/suites in Canada that should be given to house people who are homeless/in need of safe housing. most Canadian's don't own their houses/property anyways, they are owned by the banks (who are owned by the ruling class).

also, indigenous laws/customs are not "poorly defined". two of our largest/most well regarded schools (UBC and UofT) have programs in indigenous law. there are written cree/inuit/anishinaabe/etc law manuals. and honestly, most of them are just about sharing/using the land responsibly, living communally, and taking care of people who can't take of themselves.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I assume you're referring to English common law. Dude that's bat shit insane. You're proposing something that would destroy our society completely.

(P.s. the land was taken from people who have been dead for 200 years. Are you suggesting that we seize privately held land ?)

there are many societies that don't use English common law that are much healthier/as healthy as ours. why should english common law be the standard? it was developed in a completely different time for a completely different society.

it was taken from groups of people, who do still exist today. and yes that is what i'm suggesting (and that doesn't equate "kicking" people off their land. there is a difference between private and personal property.)

[JM5]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

guys i would stop for a second and open ur minds a bit, headhorse is not some idiot
and as he said go read that book by the albertan meties auther he linked...

first nations future is canadas future and its time we stop shorting education and healthcare period..

Thanks for moving this over 1ajs.

I in no way wanted to give the impression that I consider anyone on this thread an idiot. Quite the contrary. It's everyone's imperative in life to convince others to do things in a way which will be of benefit the first party.

BUT, it's also everyone else's imperative to think for themselves, forego emotional manipulations which lead to feelings of unfounded guilt and to clearly and categorically say "NO".

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by JM5

The land was not "taken" from people, treaties were negotiated and signed. Choose: either the treaties are legally binding documents or they are fundamentally unfair and should be scrapped. I'm okay with either choice but NOT with having things both ways whenever it suits you.

The people the land was "taken" from have passed on since then. There is precedence for returning land to the descendants of former owners (see post communist countries) but that was based on a documented and proven systems of ownership, none of which exists in this context. The reality is that bands and tribes certainly used the land and often defended it against outsiders but a hunter gatherer sense of using land cannot be compared to the farmer sense. For example: did the tribe own the land they made use of or did the deer which also made use of the same land own it? Neither has a stronger claim than the other and both were pushed off the land and persecuted by farmers. The intensity of utilization is a fundamental difference, by your logic I could claim to own the national and provincial parks because I fish there, but that would be ridiculous. Another fundamental difference is personal ownership: a farm may be occupied by a family and an apartment building by many tenants but both are owned by a single person or corporation. This was not the case with aboriginal bands and turning bands into corporations today does not turn back time to make them corporations before the arrival of Europeans.

As an immigrant to this country, I accepted that I will assimilate into the Canadian (i.e. British) system of governance and laws which is a fundamental part of why my parents chose this country to come to. Now that I'm here, having paid my dues, been accepted and become a citizen, when people ask if I'm willing to forego that culture and replace it with aboriginal culture, I vote "NO" and I'm sure a vast majority of citizens feel the same.



The term "reparations" often illicits revulsion, conveying the laughable idea that those who did nothing wrong should for some unknown reason pay retribution to those who did not suffer said wrongs. In fact it's actually fairly commonplace. Governments must pay for their wrongdoings from time to time and unfortunately this has to come from taxpayers' pockets. If we can pay 10.5M to a treasonous terrorist, surely we should pay those aggrieved by the misdeeds of past governments. Free boarding school attendees who were FORCIBLY TAKEN against their parents' will should receive settlements. Those proven to have been abused should receive additional settlements because the abuse perpetrated by individual criminals would not have happened were they not forcibly taken. There are probably cases of proven systematic abuse as well. Yes, these settlements should go to the family of those who have already passed away.

Also, fully agreed on the ownership of land issue, see above for my thoughts on it.



Every system of government is a system of oppression from one viewpoint or another. For example, even though we no longer officially/systematically discriminate based on race or religion in this country, we still discriminate based on age or numerous other lifestyle choices. We still imprison people who simply choose to take and use for their own purposes property that others have bought and paid for and have not given expressed permission for the other party to do so. Isn't that oppressive? What about the thief's life circumstances? He surely wouldn't be stealing if he could afford it, or heck, maybe he's a victim of kleptomania! Aboriginal beliefs were often far more oppressive than today's laws. Once again, if asked whether I want to replace one arbitrary oppressive set of rules with another, I and a majority of the citizens of this democratic country firmly say "NO".

Now go ahead and forget about your fanciful, victim mentality b.s. Your selfish intent is clearly showing and it will no longer be tolerated.

the treaties were organized by many different groups and guess what? legal documents have varying differences in their interpretation. i'm advocating that we listen to indigenous people's interpretation of the treaties, rather than just the colonial interpretation.

again, the groups of people the land was taken from still exist. there are still inuit organizations and people. there are metis organizations and people. there are cree organizations and people. why are colonial/individualistic ideas of land "ownership"/stewardship the only valid ones? is the traditional mennonite idea of the commons not valid, for example?

i think you, and everyone else, should "own" the national parks/provincial parks, yeah? isn't that the basis of democracy, where the people have power over the way their state/the land is dictated?? most of your discussion of property is gibberish though, as your definition of private property and who owns it is completely warped.

i disagree that "the state" is oppressive, the problem is the state we have now oppresses the majority for the benefit of the few. the issue isn't the "state", it's who has power in the state. and again, your silly ideas of private property.. how does a free society have areas where you can't go to access the things you need to survive? the entire idea of private property is oppressive because by offering land and thus resources to a select few who have the means to own it, you're depriving others of using it for their guaranteed human rights to food/water/shelter. if someone owns all the water sources in Canada at some point and refuses anyone access to the water, how is that conducive to a free society?

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

Not sure his comment was about open minds. He openly suggested removing 34 million~ people from their land and then removing the entire Canadian government/legal system because treaties are mean.

He sure comes off as "some idiot" with that kind of logic.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

come on, engage with the arguments i'm making. I never advocated removing anyone. i also never said treaties were mean, i'm saying legal documents are open to interpretation and we should listen to multiple perspectives, not just the colonial one.

[headhorse]

I have a few questions for the people who thinks indengous peoples need to just assimilate/conform/stop victimizing themselves, or whatever:

1) 4% of Canada's population is aboriginal, yet 23% of the federal prisons population is aboriginal. why is this happening? do you blame thousands of individual bad choices/bad people, or is the justice system biased?

2) aboriginal people working full time are paid an average of $26 per hour vs $27.41 for non-indigenous? in a fair, market based society, why would this discrepancy exist?

[headhorse]

the hilarious thing is how much some of you love your "private property" like cars/businesses/houses that are majority owned by fucking banks, thus giving you no actual entitlement to under your definitions.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by headhorse

there are many societies that don't use English common law that are much healthier/as healthy as ours. why should english common law be the standard? it was developed in a completely different time for a completely different society.

it was taken from groups of people, who do still exist today. and yes that is what i'm suggesting (and that doesn't equate "kicking" people off their land. there is a difference between private and personal property.)

Well the other options are civil law and religious type law. So, are we supposed to become a theocracy or adopt a system of law pioneered by Republican Rome? Common law is probably one of the greatest achievements of humanity for a variety of reasons and it would be foolish and arrogant to think that we're smart enough to artificially create somethi g better.

Also what do you think happens to people once their land gets seized? Wtf man. If that doesn't sound like "kicking" people off their land I don't know what does.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Well the other options are civil law and religious type law. So, are we supposed to become a theocracy or adopt a system of law pioneered by Republican Rome? Common law is probably one of the greatest achievements of humanity for a variety of reasons and it would be foolish and arrogant to think that we're smart enough to artificially create somethi g better.

Also what do you think happens to people once their land gets seized? Wtf man. If that doesn't sound like "kicking" people off their land I don't know what does.

no, the options are the various indigenous forms of law that exist and that I already mentioned? come on. plus, i have a secret to you, most of the ways human societies have developed have follow similar trajectories... the needs of a society and the ways to deal with issues are often the same and thus there are lots of similarities in different types of laws/customs. it's not going to be completely out there and unheard of.

again, why would people need to be kicked off? in Winnipeg alone there are 6,000 empty units of housing. more than enough for everyone.

if people have more land/property than they need? yes, that land should be taken and the resources/profit used for the betterment of everyone in our society.

[headhorse]

I mean, come on people, this is a fucking urban development forum. we all sit on here complaining about the lack of development/poor uses of land, while also arguing about how fucking important it is that the freedom to not use a land to its full potential exists? how much has land speculation done to improve the quality of our city? how much better would our city be if we developed it in a way that was best for the citizens and not what maximized profit for a Toronto developer?

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by headhorse

I told you exactly how to do it, give the land back to the people who it was taken from.

Above is what you proposed. "Give the land back to the people who it was taken from" which can be defined as ALL of Canada. So your solution is to walk up to Joe's house and tell him to go back to where he came from because British colonials played by different rules.

I'm not sure which "arguments" you want me to engage you on?

1 - If you're ancestors aren't aboriginal you no longer own property
2 - scrap hundreds of years of evolving law/government and impose aboriginal law/rule.

Your proposals are so unrealistic that they're not worth discussing... They verge on racist.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by headhorse

I mean, come on people, this is a fucking urban development forum. we all sit on here complaining about the lack of development/poor uses of land, while also arguing about how fucking important it is that the freedom to not use a land to its full potential exists? how much has land speculation done to improve the quality of our city? how much better would our city be if we developed it in a way that was best for the citizens and not what maximized profit for a Toronto developer?

Because that would mean imposition of a number of measures that would rob people of their freedom as guaranteed by the charter of rights. It might also be the dream of a homicidal ideological group called communists!

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Because that would mean imposition of a number of measures that would rob people of their freedom as guaranteed by the charter of rights. It might also be the dream of a homicidal ideological group called communists!

mm yes, the freedom to... deprive others of their born right to access resources needed to survive... love that i have thee freedom of having to work to pay for something that is plentiful enough that everyone should have access to it.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

Above is what you proposed. "Give the land back to the people who it was taken from" which can be defined as ALL of Canada. So your solution is to walk up to Joe's house and tell him to go back to where he came from because British colonials played by different rules.

I'm not sure which "arguments" you want me to engage you on?

1 - If you're ancestors aren't aboriginal you no longer own property
2 - scrap hundreds of years of evolving law/government and impose aboriginal law/rule.

Your proposals are so unrealistic that they're not worth discussing... They verge on racist.

again, most land is already either owned by a) banks b) the state in the form of crown land. i'm advocating transfer of crown land (state/colonial land)... to control of the first nations it was taken from. and for the ownership of most "private property" (which is again, mostly owned by banks, so not even yours or private)... to the collective whole of society living under that nation and it's set of laws... to be used in a way that is most beneficial to the whole of society. again, you're mixing up private and personal property.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by headhorse

mm yes, the freedom to... deprive others of their born right to access resources needed to survive... love that i have thee freedom of having to work to pay for something that is plentiful enough that everyone should have access to it.

Hey no one is preventing you from going to live in the wilderness and being a hunter gatherer. That is fully within your rights. Being part of the economy and thereby accessing all the modern comforts it provides does entail some sort of contribution. No one is entitled to anything.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Hey no one is preventing you from going to live in the wilderness and being a hunter gatherer. That is fully within your rights. Being part of the economy and thereby accessing all the modern comforts it provides does entail some sort of contribution. No one is entitled to anything.

you're contradicting yourself. you're saying by being part of the economy you get access to all the modern comfort it provides, as long as you're contributing (I guess you mean working?). yet many people who work and thus contribute don't have access to the "modern" comforts, or even basic needs. many places in Canada still don't have access to clean water, despite people working and contributing. many families where both parents work full time still have to access the food bank to have regular meals.

does no one being entitled to anything include seniors? people with certain disabilities? children?

[pegcityboy]

Head horse to answer your 2 questions from a few posts ago , 4% aboriginal population and 23 % in jail ! It sure as hell not from judicial biases , people have to take responsibility for their own actions no matter what race they are ! The other one if aboriginal people are getting payed less an hour for the same work that is totally unfair and should be corrected jus like it should be for any race and gender ! I find it hard to believe that with 2 people working full time that they have to rely on food banks unless they have many kids or some kind of addiction .

[pegcityboy]

BTW Headhorse , one of my cars I own not the bank and my wife and I own our house and cottage! Banks are no longer in play . Not important but you wanted the public to speak !

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by headhorse

you're contradicting yourself. you're saying by being part of the economy you get access to all the modern comfort it provides, as long as you're contributing (I guess you mean working?). yet many people who work and thus contribute don't have access to the "modern" comforts, or even basic needs. many places in Canada still don't have access to clean water, despite people working and contributing. many families where both parents work full time still have to access the food bank to have regular meals.

does no one being entitled to anything include seniors? people with certain disabilities? children?

We start with the basics. You don't begin life with any entitlements, only a set of charter protected rights. Now certain people may have a legal entitlement to certain things based on negotiated agreements between parties but you don't automatically start off with a bunch of things that you get just for existing.

Moreover, comforts aren't rights, they are not guaranteed by some sort of code. One enters the workplace with the goal of obtaining the comforts and wealth they desire, the law allows for any individual to do that. I should have been more clear on that: simple participation in the economy is not going to guarantee "comforts". These are acquired through personal gain, this is NOT the responsibility of the government.

The government's job is to provide a safety net to help individuals who are: a) unable to provide for themselves; and or b) to help people capable of working but have, through various circumstances, either lost their employment and/or do not have enough income to afford the necessities of life. These measures are to help them return to the workforce and obtain gainful employment at which point the idea is that they no longer have to be subsidised by government.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that people are free to live outside of the economy, but they cannot expect to enjoy the same quality of life as those who participate. Once you're in the economy, the only assistance you receive is for extraneous circumstances beyond your control. I don't think it is the government's place, nor anyone else's, to provide luxuries to people pro bono.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by headhorse

the treaties were organized by many different groups and guess what? legal documents have varying differences in their interpretation. i'm advocating that we listen to indigenous people's interpretation of the treaties, rather than just the colonial interpretation.

I also have my own interpretation of the treaties but you probably wouldn't like it, much like I don't like yours. How about we agree to stick with the traditional interpretation?

The point is: I AND A MAJORITY OF CANADIANS DO NOT AGREE TO THE ARBITRARY QUESTIONING AND REINTERPRETATION OF TREATIES OR GIVING A PLATFORM TO ANYONE SELFISHLY WANTING TO DO SO.

Originally Posted by headhorse

again, the groups of people the land was taken from still exist. there are still inuit organizations and people. there are metis organizations and people. there are cree organizations and people. why are colonial/individualistic ideas of land "ownership"/stewardship the only valid ones? is the traditional mennonite idea of the commons not valid, for example?

All of the above types of land use are fully valid and adaptive under certain circumstances. Current circumstances warrant that privately or communally owned intensive use forms should dominate. This means we need agriculture to feed everybody - agriculture replaced hunting and gathering exactly because it supported more people. The Six Nations Confederacy adopted agriculture well prior to European contact precisely to increase their numbers on the small territory they initially held and thereby dominate nearby tribes to gain more territory. It's called a successful cultural adaptation.

Originally Posted by headhorse

i think you, and everyone else, should "own" the national parks/provincial parks, yeah? isn't that the basis of democracy, where the people have power over the way their state/the land is dictated?? most of your discussion of property is gibberish though, as your definition of private property and who owns it is completely warped.

Yes, this is the basis of democracy: the majority of citizens make sure that extremely unevenly educated ideologues such as yourself don't destroy our society from the within.

Originally Posted by headhorse

i disagree that "the state" is oppressive, the problem is the state we have now oppresses the majority for the benefit of the few. the issue isn't the "state", it's who has power in the state. and again, your silly ideas of private property.. how does a free society have areas where you can't go to access the things you need to survive? the entire idea of private property is oppressive because by offering land and thus resources to a select few who have the means to own it, you're depriving others of using it for their guaranteed human rights to food/water/shelter. if someone owns all the water sources in Canada at some point and refuses anyone access to the water, how is that conducive to a free society?

First of all, the Crown owns all waterways over a certain (small) size in Canada for exactly this reason. Secondly, you're calling for a return to the hunter gatherer ideal, which cannot be implemented with this many people - 95% would simply starve, the rest would survive by eating the others after all the plants and animals are eaten. Tragedy of the commons.

Sorry, but things didn't end up this way arbitrarily because some whitey decided a long time ago. Things EVOLVED to work this way due to complex population dynamics over tens of thousands of years (evolutionary time). I actually agree that high population density is unsustainable in the long run, and I also very much agree that current trends in global politics/power dynamics are coming to a head in the much more near term but what you're advocating would make things infinitely worse. It's basically suicide.