First Nations Issues

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by Pinus

Can we take/move all the aboriginal/non-construction banter to a more appropriate thread please, as this one is for the discussion of CONSTRUCTION, as it's designated for?

Thanks

*no convo*
"why isn't anyone talking!"
"because Winnipeg doesn't have a lot of construction and what it does have has dedicated threads"

*non construction convo*
"THIS PLACE IS FOR CONSTRUCTION!!!!"


The only consistent thing the Wpg construction thread has ever seen is people complaining about lack of or too much talking.

That said ANY aboriginal talk on this forum always looks the same:
*something related to aboriginal*
"all natives are lazy"
"all white people are racist"
*convo deleted*

The real topic should be how long until a mod wakes up and actually comes to this forum. Shouldn't take em long to delete the posts.

5-1 odds its deleted by tomorrow
2-1 its deleted by tuesday
10-1 wednesday
25-1 thursday+

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by headhorse

first off, read this article about "free education": http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/de...tion-1.3414183

all the opression against indigenous peoples didn't just happen hundreds of years ago. the last residential school closed in the 90's. then there was the sixties scoop. all the while, Canada has gotten rich off of land that was never "given" to them. also, it's settler canada that is dependent on first nations, as all the wealth we have is from stolen land and resources.

I'm bored so I'm gonna take your bait , just to play devils advocate because maybe this convo can be more than "YOU'RE RACIST!" for once

how do you propose we make up for these peoples "stolen land and resources" as you call it? Ship every non-native to their ancestral homeland?

Are people born here not welcome here based on skin colour? are all immigrants thieves?

You say Canada has gotten rich off of land that was never "given" to them but Canada didn't exclusively murder natives for their land, many treaties were signed, are they all null and void because they're mean?


Just asking honest questions, not trying to flame you, not saying Canada isn't in the wrong and not saying the native population has a point either. Just honestly interested in what your views are on solutions and what constitutes theft and who's to blame.

The moment we hold whole races responsible for the sins of their ancestors we get into some VERY dangerous ground that no one will win...

P.S. - Belated Happy St. Pattys day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My cockroach ancestors would be proud that their plight can be distilled down to heavy drinking, the colour green, and leprechaun's!!!!!!!! You're welcome everyone!

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

I'm bored so I'm gonna take your bait , just to play devils advocate because maybe this convo can be more than "YOU'RE RACIST!" for once

how do you propose we make up for these peoples "stolen land and resources" as you call it? Ship every non-native to their ancestral homeland?

Are people born here not welcome here based on skin colour? are all immigrants thieves?

You say Canada has gotten rich off of land that was never "given" to them but Canada didn't exclusively murder natives for their land, many treaties were signed, are they all null and void because they're mean?


Just asking honest questions, not trying to flame you, not saying Canada isn't in the wrong and not saying the native population has a point either. Just honestly interested in what your views are on solutions and what constitutes theft and who's to blame.

The moment we hold whole races responsible for the sins of their ancestors we get into some VERY dangerous ground that no one will win...

P.S. - Belated Happy St. Pattys day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My cockroach ancestors would be proud that their plight can be distilled down to heavy drinking, the colour green, and leprechaun's!!!!!!!! You're welcome everyone!

I told you exactly how to do it, give the land back to the people who it was taken from. get rid of british colonial law and customs (this should be something most people should support, considering most immigrants weren't even British and didn't follow those laws/customs...) if people choose to follow indigenous law/customs, then what would be the issue? why would anyone need to leave?

I think lots of people are probably due reparations, yeah, that would be one way of returning the wealth. and the treaties are biased, yeah, they were all recorded by only one group, how is that fair? not to mention, most indigenous peoples had very different idea of land ownership and it never meant "this land is yours now, you can do anything you want with it including keeping people from using it if they need to". it was based on the idea we can share the land and mutually benefit.

and we should be responsible for our ancestors systems of oppression if they are still in place, yes. we haven't changed anything.

[headhorse]

this is a book every Canadian should read, imo, written by a Metis person from Alberta: https://www.amazon.ca/Indigenous-Wri.../dp/1553796802

[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. get rid of british colonial law and customs (this should be something most people should support, considering most immigrants weren't even British and didn't follow those laws/customs...) if people choose to follow indigenous law/customs, then what would be the issue? why would anyone need to leave?

I think lots of people are probably due reparations, yeah, that would be one way of returning the wealth. and the treaties are biased, yeah, they were all recorded by only one group, how is that fair? not to mention, most indigenous peoples had very different idea of land ownership and it never meant "this land is yours now, you can do anything you want with it including keeping people from using it if they need to". it was based on the idea we can share the land and mutually benefit.

and we should be responsible for our ancestors systems of oppression if they are still in place, yes. we haven't changed anything.

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...

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by headhorse

I told you exactly how to do it, give the land back to the people who it was taken from. get rid of british colonial law and customs

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 ?)

[JM5]

Originally Posted by headhorse

I told you exactly how to do it, give the land back to the people who it was taken from. get rid of british colonial law and customs (this should be something most people should support, considering most immigrants weren't even British and didn't follow those laws/customs...) if people choose to follow indigenous law/customs, then what would be the issue? why would anyone need to leave?

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.

Originally Posted by headhorse

I think lots of people are probably due reparations, yeah, that would be one way of returning the wealth. and the treaties are biased, yeah, they were all recorded by only one group, how is that fair? not to mention, most indigenous peoples had very different idea of land ownership and it never meant "this land is yours now, you can do anything you want with it including keeping people from using it if they need to". it was based on the idea we can share the land and mutually benefit.

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.

Originally Posted by headhorse

and we should be responsible for our ancestors systems of oppression if they are still in place, yes. we haven't changed anything.

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.

[Tacheguy]

fighting for rights has nothing to do with a "victim mentality". and if you don't think aboriginal people have treaty rights you might want to review the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings on the issue. Trueau and Chretien tried to bring in an assimilation policy framework and it was rejected by the Court. so, like it or not, assimilation is not on. Now we have to learn to live together respectfully and that is our great challenge.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

fighting for rights has nothing to do with a "victim mentality". and if you don't think aboriginal people have treaty rights you might want to review the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings on the issue. Trueau and Chretien tried to bring in an assimilation policy framework and it was rejected by the Court. so, like it or not, assimilation is not on. Now we have to learn to live together respectfully and that is our great challenge.

Lol, read what I said. While you're at it, go ahead and read your treaty rights: I'll personally give you your yearly one dollar from now on.

Sorry, what rights are you fighting for exactly? The regular ones that all citizens including you have; the additional ones that you have that most other citizens don't or the additional right to impose your values and beliefs on other citizens and reclaim property you never owned?

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by JM5

Lol, read what I said. While you're at it, go ahead and read your treaty rights: I'll personally give you your yearly one dollar from now on.

Sorry, what rights are you fighting for exactly? The regular ones that all citizens including you have; the additional ones that you have that most other citizens don't or the additional right to impose your values and beliefs on other citizens and reclaim property you never owned?

Treaty rights. Educate yourself.

[pegcityboy]

Ok back to construction for me now , I hope the hotel / complex gets built this time it will be good for the area . I do however wish True Vikes complex was built instead of the new proposal

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

Treaty rights. Educate yourself.

Whoa, you must be very smart talking like that. I better back off seeing as I don't actually know anything about treaties.

But wait, I just want to make absolutely sure:
https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/11.../1100100028679

Here's the text of Treaty No. 3. Please enlighten me as to which part is not observed by the feds that you're fighting for? Oh wait, it's probably this part:

"Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that within the boundary of Indian reserves, until otherwise determined by Her Government of the Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all laws now in force or hereafter to be enacted to preserve Her Indian subjects inhabiting the reserves or living elsewhere within Her North-west Territories, from the evil influences of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced."

Or maybe it's the $5 yearly that are to be paid to each person (this proves my ignorance, I said $1 earlier). Along with $1500 worth of amo and bailing twine per annum all together for the members under treaty 3.

There are also some obligations that the band members are subject to:

"The Saulteaux Tribe of the Ojibbeway Indians and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:-..."

Also:

"And the undersigned Chiefs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty,... (and not) interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract, or any part thereof..."

As well, there are also strict limits set on the size of reserves. I can see how bands may have been pushed or coerced on to marginal land and I have no major qualms with them claiming more valuable tracts of federal land as long as an equivalent sized (understandably less valuable) piece of land is surrendered, as this seems to be protected by the treaty. Other than that, the treaty does not completely protect hunting and fishing rights on the ceded land at all, it says that these rights do exist but are subject to regulation. Not sure why band members shouldn't be subjected to the same limits and quotas as every citizen - after all, it's about conservation.

[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..

[Wigglez]

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..

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.

[DirtWednesday]

this thread is always so delightful.

[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.