Just saying if we expect natives on reserves to generate wealth, we ought to encourage changes in laws to give them the tools to do so whilst putting an end to the cronyism that occurs now.
give them the tools to do so whilst putting an end to the cronyism
No Casino’s without cronyism ….on Indian lands. We got a number of these “operations” and needless to say they are entirely run by the tribes down to the dishwasher.
Major banks don’t really do business on Indian reservations due to laws that do not apply that protect these institutions. Of course, the tribes could form their own bank or lending institution but it won’t make more money than those casinos…
banks are casinos
Hear, hear!
Thanks for being the voice of reason in my absence Malachi, some very good points brought up.
My two cents:
Never-mind, the residential schools and avoid any debates about “cultural genocide” Garg.
Instead, do all of your calculations, then decide how much the government has paid on average every year. Then divide that number by the total Canadian population in that year (exclude Status Indians if you wish). By this you will obtain the imputed “rent” that immigrants pay to the original occupants of “Canada” each year.
Lets do 2011 just for fun (its the last year for which we have population statistics and the last fiscal year 2011/2012 to be officially “in the books”)
Budget for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2011/2012: $7.4 Billion
Source: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1315184396556/1315184508951#chp1
Canadian population, 2011: 34,484,000
Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm
Divide $7.4 Billion by 34 484 000 = $214.59
Divide $214.59 by 12 = $17.88
Thus in 2011 you, me all of us descendant-of-immigrant" folks. Effectively paid $17.88 a month for the right to live, work, and own property anywhere in the second largest country in the world. This amount was then transferred to the indigenous people who originally inhabited this land and willingly surrendered its use and ownership to immigrants in exchange for, effectively, a rent of $17.88 a month each.
Doesn’t sound like such a bad deal to me.
Canuck12, it took less than two hours to get a down vote for your last post I see. And with my vote it goes back to zero for the time being.
That is gross rent. If you factor in the taxes that natives do end up paying the ‘rent’ becomes even less.
That is gross rent. If you factor in the taxes that natives do end up paying the ‘rent’ becomes even less.
I suppose, but that is difficult to calculate. Perhaps compensated for by the fact that I didn’t subtract all Status Indians from the gross Canadian population.
So I’ve got a hand in my wallet for $20 a month because my skin color’s wrong. Nice…
My direct Family currently pays out $200 a month.
A&A.org members are probably paying atleast a $1000 a month
And any of our children are going to pay that for the entirty of their lives.
Assuming we live 60 tax-paying years @ $215 a year, that’s just shy of $13,000 a person. No matter where they live, or how they choose to live.
Paying benefits for someone because their race is different, paying for benefits they will never receive…
Slave tax.
We paid compensation to the Japanese who were in internment camps during WW II. That was racist, you had to be Japanese to get that money! I protest! :wink:
Democracy for ya. I have to pay for welfare moms because they keep popping out bambinos. That is so unfair because as a man I can never get in on the action……
We don’t always get to pick and choose where our tax dollars get spent.
Many Canadians don’t like that French is forced upon us. Price we had to pay for not having a continuous war with the French, a compromise for confederation. The BNA was also a compromise that we cannot completely do away with, so lets change what we can change and accept some imperfections.
Garg, just marry a native chick…
It’s not like this is the -only- problem with the system LOL.
But I have every damned right to be vocal about it! Â
And don’t get me started on Japanese internment LOL! The big difference being that with Japanese Interment the bill is paid. With First Nations issues there is no end in sight to the payments…
Oh and we should blame the government for every Person that ever died in schools. 10% of Canadian children died due to spanish flu. Where’s my cheque?!??! WHERE’S MY CHEQUE!!?!?!??! Starts banging a drum
WHERE’S MY CHEQUE!!?!?!??!
Bangs Drum
WHERE’S MY CHEQUE!!?!?!??!
Bangs Drum
WHERE’S MY CHEQUE!!?!?!??!
Bangs Drum
WHERE’S MY CHEQUE!!?!?!??!
Bangs Drum
David Jensen runs this place HE is responsible! This was my ancestors cyberspace first!
David pays Gargantua a lump sum to shut-up for now…
The treaties are legal documents of contract law between the Crown and the First Nations.
The first British settlers didn’t “buy” Canada from the First Nations, which is why the bill is never “paid.” They came to terms by-which new immigrants could use the land in exchange for sharing a very minuscule portion of the wealth they generated on that land in the form of housing, healthcare, education for them and their descendants. It has no more to do with race then the fact that you’re father inherited his father’s wealth when he died and you will inherit your father’s. It’s not because you’re white, but its because you’re father wrote in a legal document that he wished you to have it. Same goes for the treaties. (Not to mention the fact that there are over 100 000 Non-Status Indians who receive no more benefits from the government than you and I.) I have a friend who’s great great grandfather, whom she never met, had investments at his death worth over a billion. He wrote in his will, ie: legal contract, ie: treaty, that it was to be kept as an endowment and the wealth it generated would be paid to his descendants. This is no different. We got an entire country, they got free healthcare, housing and education for their descendants. Whooptee-fuckin-do.
It amounts to 58 cents a day. Can you really think of nothing else to be irate about?
NEWSFLASH
The Spanish settled british columbia first.
There are/were no treaties in British Columbia, with the Spanish or the British.
The treaties back east were with the British Crown, and when Canada became an autonomous nation (no longer a colony) those treaties are arguably annulled.
Neither I, my father, or my grandfather, etc, down-the-line ever signed any contracts, nor their perspective governments.
How about you start paying my cellphone bill, because you are just as responsible for it as I am under your proposed conditions.
Nowhere else on earth, and nowhere else in history, do you see one group of people paying another group of people ‘rent’ for lands they conquered/colonized.
You know what, that’s it. Lets start charging first nations “rent” and “license” for using our legal system. Since their own system was/is inadequate. After all - they use it more per capita (almost double) then most of the other citizens in the nation. It’s only reasonable, and it took us 1,000 years to develop.
And you also neglected to mention that that the $215 a year we pay is just what goes to them directly. Not including the services ($) they enjoy without payment (Medical/Police/etc). So the tax burden is much higher.
P.S. I think you mean 60 cents a day, because 58 just got rounded up with the phasing out of the penny… ;)
- The treaties back east were with the British Crown, and when Canada became an autonomous nation (no longer a colony) those treaties are arguably annulled.
Who made that argument? All legal documentation, including the Canadian Constitution states that the Treaties are “Recognised and Affirmed”
You may read those words in your country’s constitution here: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html along side your right to work and live anywhere in this country.
Nowhere else on earth, and nowhere else in history, do you see one group of people paying another group of people ‘rent’ for lands they conquered/colonized.
This is probably the root of your misunderstanding. No one was conquered. It was agreed by legal, international treaty that the lands inside Canada could be occupied and used by settlers in exchange for small concessions. If you spent a little time studying history you would know that. You might also know that the Spanish “Colonization of British Columbia” consisted of a single settlement and lasted only 6 years.
I encourage you to look into the legal history of indigenous relations with the Crown. It may help you understand these issues in a legal rather than racial lens. You may also sound more informed in your opinions. You can Start here: Read the 1969 Trudeau/Chretien “White Paper” which tired to abolish the Indian act, Indian status, and the treaties. Then read “The Red Paper” which was a response to the white-paper’s policies and the beginning of the road to having the Treaties Enshrined in the Constitution.
The White paper can be found here: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/inac-ainc/indian_policy-e/cp1969_e.pdf
The red paper can be found here: http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/11690/8926
Se also, The Unjust Society by Harold Cardinal Who was a Harvard lawyer who also had input into “The Red Paper”
Other articles of interest may be some of the work of Alan Cairns, who was a professor at UBC and worked at length to try and reconcile indigenous rights with a liberal capitalist society.
Happy reading!
I think it’s lucky white’s weren’t asked to drive the natives around in rickshaws….I would pay to see a photoshop’d pic of Garg operating a rickshaw with Tecumseh in full garb!
If it wasn’t for the Natives most of Canada would belong to the natives Americans as the war of 1812 was won primarily with the help of native allies. Their reward was to be screwed over by the British. 60 cents a day is a bargain for that classic betrayal.
Can someone explain to me this betrayal?
As it stands it sounds like they are getting exactly what they agreed to. Your 60 cents a day.
And British Betrayal is one thing… aren’t we Canadians?
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE POST
If your kids get sick at school, is it the school’s fault?
- The treaties back east were with the British Crown, and when Canada became an autonomous nation (no longer a colony) those treaties are arguably annulled.
Who made that argument? All legal documentation, including the Canadian Constitution states that the Treaties are “Recognised and Affirmed”
You may read those words in your country’s constitution here: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html along side your right to work and live anywhere in this country.
Nowhere else on earth, and nowhere else in history, do you see one group of people paying another group of people ‘rent’ for lands they conquered/colonized.
This is probably the root of your misunderstanding. No one was conquered. It was agreed by legal, international treaty that the lands inside Canada could be occupied and used by settlers in exchange for small concessions. If you spent a little time studying history you would know that. You might also know that the Spanish “Colonization of British Columbia” consisted of a single settlement and lasted only 6 years.
I encourage you to look into the legal history of indigenous relations with the Crown. It may help you understand these issues in a legal rather than racial lens. You may also sound more informed in your opinions. You can Start here: Read the 1969 Trudeau/Chretien “White Paper” which tired to abolish the Indian act, Indian status, and the treaties. Then read “The Red Paper” which was a response to the white-paper’s policies and the beginning of the road to having the Treaties Enshrined in the Constitution.
The White paper can be found here: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/inac-ainc/indian_policy-e/cp1969_e.pdf
The red paper can be found here: http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/11690/8926
Se also, The Unjust Society by Harold Cardinal Who was a Harvard lawyer who also had input into “The Red Paper”
Other articles of interest may be some of the work of Alan Cairns, who was a professor at UBC and worked at length to try and reconcile indigenous rights with a liberal capitalist society.
Happy reading!
The White Paper and Red Paper are about -future- treaties. Which begs the question…
If there are already treaties in place. WHY ARE WE STILL SIGNING MORE?
Excuse me for taking the position of Trudeau, a past prime minister, and excuse me for not -going legal- from the immediate, I didn’t realize we were in a courtroom where we couldn’t speak the truth from our minds.
As for Canada not being ‘conquered’ or ‘colonized’. Why don’t you ask the Theresa Spence, or the AFN if Canada was ‘conquered’ or ‘colonized’ - they sure seem quick to remind us that it was.
Excuse me for noting the phrase “When the white man came”.
However you want to review this, the whole setup is a sham. It’s wrong. One group of people paying permanent tribute to another, legally based on race. With no end to servitude in sight, no end to double-standards, and more minority groups being classified as -indigenous-; or should I say “first” races on a regular basis.
And lets talk about what started this discussion. The blame game. The fact that all the -ills- of first nations are blamed on everyone else.
By your statements Canucks, we should have sent first nations to the residential schools. As they are our responsibility. ;)
No, the White and Red Paper WERE NOT about future treaties. Please read them.
Calder v. British Columbia (1973) WAS about future treaties. You may want to read that too. It will also help you understand why we are still signing more treaties.
The argument you are making states that all contract law and international treaty is “wrong.”
You may make that argument if you wish. But you should understand that that’s what your position rests on.
You can’t pick and choose the contracts that you think are “wrong” just because you don’t like them. Especially when they have been upheld numerous times by the supreme court. Either you stand behind property rights (contract law) and the rule of law and you live with the decisions you don’t like or we toss the entire foundation of democracy and capitalism out the window.
Lets not get started on the supreme court.
Tyrannical Law! ;)
No, the White and Red Paper WERE NOT about future treaties. Please read them.
Calder v. British Columbia (1973) WAS about future treaties. You may want to read that too. It will also help you understand why we are still signing more treaties.
The argument you are making states that all contract law and international treaty is “wrong.”
You may make that argument if you wish. But you should understand that that’s what your position rests on.
You can’t pick and choose the contracts that you think are “wrong” just because you don’t like them. Especially when they have been upheld numerous times by the supreme court. Either you stand behind property rights (contract law) and the rule of law and you live with the decisions you don’t like or we toss the entire foundation of democracy and capitalism out the window.
Actually the White paper was in fact (per my position) about future treaties, and abolishing land claims.
Please feel free to -read- more about them before you quote them incorrectly.
It was AFTER the Calder ruling that the government changed it’s position.
http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/aboriginals/aboriginals12_e.html
The year following Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s rise to power in 1968, his government issued a White Paper on Aboriginal policy that argued that Canada shouldn’t negotiate any further treaties with the Native peoples. Trudeau believed treaties were something only signed between sovereign nations. His government also did not agree with Aboriginal land right claims, either, because they were too broad and unspecific.
The Calder Case, 1973
Frank Arthur Calder, a member of the federal Cabinet, sued the British Columbian government over land claims issues outstanding in the province with the Nisga’a tribe. The issue went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that aboriginal rights to the land did exist, particularly under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and subsequent government implementation of that proclamation.This ruling forced Pierre Trudeau’s government to reconsider its federal Aboriginal policy once again, which opened the door to discussion on the intent and meaning of all Indian treaties.
Also - Per the Canadian Government
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010189/1100100010191#chp13
Most of the Indians of Quebec, British Columbia, and the Yukon are not parties to a treaty.
the fact is the treaties affect only half the Indians of Canada
So that’s what Trudeau was trying to do… interesting.
