Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[aquapaloosa]

A individual Canadian wrote this:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com%2F2013%2F01%2F23%2Fanthony-sowan-why-idle-no-more-holds-back-the-dream-of-canadian-equality

If you ask me the worst part of the idle no more movement is the participation of spence.  This just after her and the tribal government she runs is proven to have failed money matters miserably.  And they back her as a leader of idle no more! Just plain confusing.  Idol no more should be protesting against spence!!!!  I agree with the fella that wrote the above in that the movement is doomed to fail which would suit spence and other corrupt band leadership just fine.

[alwaysfishn]

Actually I think you missed the history lessons. Or at least you are interpreting them as you see it.
You are talking about some "business" like deals or something like we are leasing their land.
Treaties were setup for many reasons and leasing the land from the FNs wasn't one of them.
They were setup to preserve FNs culture, to have an ally against US that always had tendencies to "drop in".
Treates were setup so that FN we not eliminated which happened in the US and so on.
Last I remember FNs were losing out the land to the "guns" anyway.
Indians knew that Europeans were going to settle in the land whether treaties existed or not so they did one smart thing they could.
They agreed to treaties that would preserve some land for them. And when you look at it, they have an excellent deal.
And yes the moneys given to them are "handouts". Basically a welfare system that is keeping them just above water. Barely.
If they knew better they would not take that money and would learn to become self sufficient.

Sandman, to talk about "sovereign peoples", "use of the land" is to truly not understand the politics of the day.

Now I may sound like I'm anti FNs, which is not true at all.
I would rather they face reality and get with the times.
The times of free roaming the land, hunting and gathering are long over (although I missed those days too  ) and they should get over it already or they will go further and further into oblivion.
Look a the Osoyoos band. They didn't take government handouts and made themselves prosperous thanks to, in large part, a few good men.

Well said!

[bigblockfox]

A individual Canadian wrote this:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com%2F2013%2F01%2F23%2Fanthony-sowan-why-idle-no-more-holds-back-the-dream-of-canadian-equality

If you ask me the worst part of the idle no more movement is the participation of spence.  This just after her and the tribal government she runs is proven to have failed money matters miserably.  And they back her as a leader of idle no more! Just plain confusing.  Idol no more should be protesting against spence!!!!  I agree with the fella that wrote the above in that the movement is doomed to fail which would suit spence and other corrupt band leadership just fine.

Great article

[troutbreath]

http://elysebruce.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/idle-no-more-about-that-fn-trust/

reality check here!

So when chief gets the cash it is all tickity boo? I doubt it. No more than white chief gets a hold of cash. Just a matter of using the money in a good way. Educate people to make the right choices. Or if you want to go tribal on it you only alienate everyone else. Where all people you know.

[StillAqua]

Actually I think you missed the history lessons. Or at least you are interpreting them as you see it.
You are talking about some "business" like deals or something like we are leasing their land.
Treaties were setup for many reasons and leasing the land from the FNs wasn't one of them.
They were setup to preserve FNs culture, to have an ally against US that always had tendencies to "drop in".
Treates were setup so that FN we not eliminated which happened in the US and so on.
Last I remember FNs were losing out the land to the "guns" anyway.
Indians knew that Europeans were going to settle in the land whether treaties existed or not so they did one smart thing they could.
They agreed to treaties that would preserve some land for them. And when you look at it, they have an excellent deal.
And yes the moneys given to them are "handouts". Basically a welfare system that is keeping them just above water. Barely.
If they knew better they would not take that money and would learn to become self sufficient.

If you go to the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada History of Treaty Making, you can read about the treaty process that evolved in Canada. You can also read some of the historic treaties which are very interesting. Pay particular attention to the "Numbered Treaties" that cover the greatest part of Canada's landmass and encompass the Attawapiskat in particular. Certainly the British wanted Treaties to keep the Americans out but that wasn't an Indian aim. Education, health care and Treaty annuities are not handouts; they were negotiated in good faith.
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1314977704533/1314977734895
To quote them:

First Nation groups were not opposed to a treaty process, and in many cases, pressured Canada to undertake treaties in areas when it was not prepared to do so. Aboriginal signatories had their own reasons to enter into treaties with the Crown. On the whole, they were looking to the Crown to come to their assistance in a time of great change and upheaval in their lives. With epidemics and famine striking their people, Aboriginal leaders wanted the government to help care for their distressed people and assist them in adapting to their changing economic reality as the buffalo herds neared extinction and the HBC shifted its operations to the North.

With these reasons in mind, Canada negotiated treaties with the Aboriginal peoples of the Prairies. Based upon the 1850 Robinson Treaties, treaties surrendered large tracts of land by large numbers of bands assembled together for the negotiations. These treaties were more than simple land surrenders as they included to onetime lump sum payments, annuities, specific amounts of reserve lands, continued rights to hunt and fish on unoccupied Crown lands, schools, agricultural implements and cattle, ammunition, as well as medals, flags and suites of clothing. Between 1871 and 1921, the Crown signed 11 treaties, known as the Numbered Treaties, divided into two groups: those for settlement in the South; and those for access to natural resources in the North.

[Sandman]

Sandman, to talk about "sovereign peoples", "use of the land" is to truly not understand the politics of the day.

 

Actually that is the language of the politics of the day as it is the language of the Treaties themselves.  A "Treaty" is a document signed by two sovereign peoples.  The "Indians" in signing the treaty were accepting the Queen's sovereignty and agreeing to "cede, release, surrender and yield up to Her Majesty the Queen and successors forever all the lands included within the [limits of the treaty]." In exchange for this they received the lump sum payment, annuities, the commitment of the Crown to provide education and health care to the FN people, and "Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside and reserve for the sole and exclusive use of the Indians the following tracts of land, that is to say: For the use of the Indians . . . "

Look a the Osoyoos band. They didn't take government handouts and made themselves prosperous thanks to, in large part, a few good men.

They also never signed any Treaties nor surrendered their rights to the lands of Osoyoos either.

[hotrod]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/hon-carolyn-bennett/attawapiskat-court-ruling_b_1732146.html

[troutbreath]

Aboriginals have no claim to sovereignty
  By Barry Cooper, Postmedia NewsJanuary 26, 2013
  The behaviour of Indian leaders and the gestures of the Idle No More movement are expressions of the same pathologies found on so many reserves in Canada. Political pathology is more than the well-known corruption of so-called chiefs. Almost the entire discussion between Indians and the government is based on complaints, assumptions and assertions that have no basis in reality. They are projections of the imagination. Participants in the discussions, however, take them to be the self-evident structure of the common sense world.

Such self-delusion is more than ideology, because it combines the lowest emotions - guilt, fear and resentment - with the most exalted aspirations to rectify injustice and fulfil the wishes of God, the Creator. To put this problem into perspective, recall a classic study published in 2000 by my longtime colleague and even longer-time friend, Tom Flanagan, called First Nations? Second Thoughts.

The fantasy devoutly believed in by many aboriginals, bureaucrats and lawyers, both on the bench and at the bar, as well as by numerous academics, journalists and intellectuals, goes as follows: (1) Aboriginals are privileged because they were here first; (2) there are no significant differences between European and Indian civilizations so that (3) Indians are sovereign nations; accordingly (4) treaties were nation-to-nation agreements that (5) affirmed aboriginal sovereignty and ownership of the land. And finally, when Canadians acknowledge all the above, Indians will prosper.

In reality, every human in the New World came here, or their forebears came here, from the Old World. If ancestral priority works for Indians, why not for non-Indians? In any case, Indians and Inuit shoved each other around; some tribes defined themselves by war-making. By aboriginal logic, Europeans and later Asian immigrants were new tribes pushing their way into the country as their predecessors had done. Nothing new here.

Second, European and Indian civilizations were not equal. That is why Europeans came to the New World, not the other way around. This is because of their technological, military and political advantages that the Europeans developed, including the legal concepts of sovereignty and the state. Machiavelli was the first to apply the term state to politics; sovereignty is a 16thcentury term developed after the wars of religion to describe the new post-medieval regime. The two go together: no sovereignty without states, no states without sovereignty.

Neither tribes nor empires are states. Every new European state claimed the right to establish sovereignty over non-European land by discovery and exploration. They could do so precisely because no sovereign state ruled the territory. Today, Canada, like the U.S., is a sovereign state. Aboriginal claims to the contrary are rhetorical utterances with no force or effect in international law.

Fourth, nation is also a European concept later combined with the legal notion of state. Until 1982, this was understood by Indians and their lawyers. That year, the National Indian Brotherhood renamed itself the Assembly of First Nations, which contains the racist connotation of original aboriginality noted above. In reality, nothing has changed by renaming Indian tribes (however defined) as First Nations.

The mischief and confusion introduced by the new language has inspired aboriginals to assert a special relationship embodied in "treaties."

If you bother to read the documents, it is as clear as can be that they extinguish rather than affirm any loose notion of the sovereignty of so-called First Nations.

The earliest "treaties" contained the articles of submission by the tribes to the Crown; later ones were real estate conveyances paid for by annuities. It took the imagination of lawyers to turn them into the embodiment of sovereign rights when the plain language says the opposite.

Finally, the consequences. The perverse incentives that promise future Indian dependency cannot be fixed by bureaucrats. Economic prosperity and self-respect can come only from property rights and holding jobs. All the other malarkey, to which we have been amply treated in recent weeks, will preserve the management of misery.

Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
 

[adriaticum]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/hon-carolyn-bennett/attawapiskat-court-ruling_b_1732146.html

hotrod, this is a liberal MP. It's hard to know if there is any truth to that or if it's just politicking.
I have a tendency to throw everything in liberal media to the wolves.

[Sandman]

Barry is supporting a Euro-centric view of the world which allowed "sovereign nations" to colonize "tribes" and subject them to their will.

Neither tribes nor empires are states. Every new European state claimed the right to establish sovereignty over non-European land by discovery and exploration. They could do so precisely because no sovereign state ruled the territory. Today, Canada, like the U.S., is a sovereign state. Aboriginal claims to the contrary are rhetorical utterances with no force or effect in international law.

Since it was the European colonizers that labelled these people "tribes" (prescisely to give themselves the right to colonize them) to now claim that they do not deserve to be treated as sovereign peoples because of this label is pathetic in the extreme, as is the claim that European technological superiority justified colonization.  This is a perverse "might is right" argument. 

Fourth, nation is also a European concept later combined with the legal notion of state. Until 1982, this was understood by Indians and their lawyers. That year, the National Indian Brotherhood renamed itself the Assembly of First Nations, which contains the racist connotation of original aboriginality noted above. In reality, nothing has changed by renaming Indian tribes (however defined) as First Nations.

What changed was that the FN Brotherhood created the label, not the European colonizers, (clearly the European Colonizers would not want the Brotherhood to be able to label themselves.  Again, just because you labelled a people a "tribe" doesn't automatically make them one, even if "your" law would hold otherwise.

If you bother to read the documents, it is as clear as can be that they extinguish rather than affirm any loose notion of the sovereignty of so-called First Nations.

How exactly can you "extinguish" something without first "affirming" that it exists?

[adriaticum]

Barry is supporting a Euro-centric view of the world which allowed "sovereign nations" to colonize "tribes" and subject them to their will.

Since it was the European colonizers that labelled these people "tribes" (prescisely to give themselves the right to colonize them) to now claim that they do not deserve to be treated as sovereign peoples because of this label is pathetic in the extreme, as is the claim that European technological superiority justified colonization.  This is a perverse "might is right" argument.  

What changed was that the FN Brotherhood created the label, not the European colonizers, (clearly the European Colonizers would not want the Brotherhood to be able to label themselves.  Again, just because you labelled a people a "tribe" doesn't automatically make them one, even if "your" law would hold otherwise.

How exactly can you "extinguish" something without first "affirming" that it exists?

Sandman, European colonizers would have colonized people in North America regardless of what they called themselves.
They were technologically inferior and would have been wiped out if it weren't for the treaties.

I think there is a notion among some people that they can send Europeans on a guilt trip for something their ancestors did long ago.
They are sorely mistaken.

[Athezone]

Sandman, European colonizers would have colonized people in North America regardless of what they called themselves.
They were technologically inferior and would have been wiped out if it weren't for the treaties.

I think there is a notion among some people that they can send Europeans on a guilt trip for something their ancestors did long ago.
They are sorely mistaken.

The natives have been using the guilt trip routine since their beginning's, why stop now. So tired of the throwing away and the  wasting of the millions that we send their way only to have them come back and continually whine and cry for More. Get rid of the Indian Act, Canada is shared, enjoyed and lived in by many nationalities and we are all Canadian's. Time for the natives to join the family because doing it their way hasn't worked and it sure as hell doesn't look like it will any time soon. Become self sufficient, give back to society, start working and earn respect for yourself and your people. You can still have your heritage. Many nationalities living here still respect and adhere to their's, why can't you. Or is being lazy and fed by the gov't. of the land really the way you want to go. Probably, ehhh.

[Sandman]

I think there is a notion among some people that they can send Europeans on a guilt trip for something their ancestors did long ago.
They are sorely mistaken.

The current protest over the Conservative's Omnibus bill is a "guilt trip" over something our current government is doing, and has been doing for a few years now, not something our ancestor's did "long ago".  People today (and that includes some politicians) want to tear up those agreements made long ago, or alter their terms, etc, precisely because they feel no guilt over what was done to the First Nations living here.  Those First Nations, whose agreements are being criticized, altered, and torn up, are saying they will remain idle no more while this is done.  Those agreements should not be unilaterally altered, any more than the British Government should be able to unilaterally change the BNA Act that brought Canada into existence, not the Statute of Westminster that granted us our independence, nor the Constitution Act that give us the power over our own Constitution, however much they may hold the power to do so.  Such alternations should only be made at the discretion of both parties. While there may be corruption among the Chiefs in leadership, that is no reason to claim the people deserve to have their funds withheld.  That is like saying we should have a tax revolt every time it is revealed one of our politicians is found to be corrupt or one of our governments wasteful of our tax dollars.  From the comments of some the people posting above, it sounds like the chiefs are the only politicians to ever be suspected of corruption. 

[alwaysfishn]

From the comments of some the people posting above, it sounds like the chiefs are the only politicians to ever be suspected of corruption.  

The big difference is that the Canadian politicians are held to account. The FN Chiefs are not being held to account and instead of vilifying the FN politicians, the media and opposition parties point fingers at the Canadian government. In the end it's the FN people that are suffering, but it's their own leaders that are responsible.

This can't be fixed by giving the FN leaders what they are asking for. They have demonstrated that they are corrupt and like any Canadian politician they need to be removed from their responsibility. Unfortunately their system of government will continue to promote these sort of leaders. Of course there are exceptions.

Integrating the FN people into Canadian society is the only solution.

[Sandman]

The natives have been using the guilt trip routine since their beginning's, why stop now. So tired of the throwing away and the  wasting of the millions that we send their way only to have them come back and continually whine and cry for More. Get rid of the Indian Act, Canada is shared, enjoyed and lived in by many nationalities and we are all Canadian's. Time for the natives to join the family because doing it their way hasn't worked and it sure as hell doesn't look like it will any time soon. Become self sufficient, give back to society, start working and earn respect for yourself and your people. You can still have your heritage. Many nationalities living here still respect and adhere to their's, why can't you. Or is being lazy and fed by the gov't. of the land really the way you want to go. Probably, ehhh.

These are precisely the comments I am referring to.  Broad sweeping generalizations are the hallmarks of racism.  

Become self sufficient, give back to society, start working and earn respect for yourself and your people.

 

Many First Nations people already "work" and "give back to society" and have earned the "respect" of themselves, their people and the Canadian communities they live within.  I get to work with some of them every day.

Many nationalities living here still respect and adhere to their's, why can't you.

The short answer is that those "nationalities" chose to come to Canada and join Canadian society, the FN people did not. The FN do not just wish to preserve their cultural identity, they want to preserve their Culture itself.  The other "nationalities" that come here know that somewhere in the world their Culture is safe, their languages spoken, their traditions practiced by millions of other people of their "nationality."  The FN people do not have that assurance that their culture will be preserved if they accept assimilation as you would have it.  While you may disagree with their desire to maintain their right to self-determinism, you cannot deny them it.  

Or is being lazy and fed by the gov't. of the land really the way you want to go. Probably, ehhh.

Such wholesale racism is not worthy a response.