‘Panther’ seems a logical successor to the preceding ‘Leopard’, but as far as animals are concerned, ‘panther’ isn’t a separate species - it’s a term often used for black leopards. And the official Latin names of all the big cats start with Panthera, including Panthera tigris. So from that perspective, a Tiger is a Panther.
I don't get it… Can someone help me out here?
-
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
nativesAmericans 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.
-
There were some other minor considerations, such as the annual provision of twine and ammunition.
The annuities have been paid regularly. The basic promise to set aside reserve land has been kept except in respect of the Indians of the Northwest Territories and a few bands in the northern parts of the Prairie Provinces. These Indians did not choose land when treaties were signed. The government wishes to see these obligations dealt with as soon as possible.
Wow the Rabbit Hole gets deeper.
So some tribes -transients- didn’t even HAVE land, or title… yet they claim, and we pay… Now we need to split the debate.
There are two types of first-nations. Those with Treaties. Those without.
Lets recap what we are discussing.
**1- Should/Can Treaties/Land-Claims be phased out or not?
2- Is the Canadian Government responsible for disease related deaths in schools?
3- Should we be paying benefits to non-treaty first nations?
4- Should today’s Canadian Public be blamed for treatment of either group of first nations ancestors?
5- Is it time to progress past race based legislation?**
-
-
Garg, in your neck of the woods the native treaty issue is more hot. Like I said before, as you move west the natives were less pacified/diluted/weakened.
On the other hand, the war of 1812 really had very little western component. I had miss-wrote a previous sentence. The natives are largely responsible for ‘upper Canada’ being Canadian.
If it wasn’t for the Natives most of Canada would belong to the
nativesAmericans 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.The land out West was very thin on Europeans loyal to the monarchy. Don’t underestimate the fear the US army would come in and crush the natives of the west and take that land for themselves as it was ‘un-claimed’. In order to secure the land and form what is now Canada, a certain bit of bribery was required. The alternative was to let the US pacify the natives at which they were getting quite good at. Do not forget the context of when those early compromises were made.
-
From the White Paper: “Finally, once Indian lands are securely within
Indian control, the anomaly of treaties between groups within society and
the government of that society will require that these treaties be reviewed
to - how they can be equitably ended.”This is why I said the White paper was about past treaties. One of it’s goals was to have them annulled much like you suggested. So, if it planned to unilaterally cancel past contract obligations it obviously wasnt interesting in signing more. But it’s main goals lie with past treaties. (And I thought you didn’t like Chretien and Trudeau…) Also, If you read the Red Paper, you will understand why that first phrase “once Indian lands are securely within Indian control” is so antithetical to its meaning.
But onto your list of demands:
Lets recap what we are discussing.
**1- Should/Can Treaties/Land-Claims be phased out or not?
2- Is the Canadian Government responsible for disease related deaths in schools?
3- Should we be paying benefits to non-treaty first nations?
4- Should today’s Canadian Public be blamed for treatment of either group of first nations ancestors?
5- Is it time to progress past race based legislation?**
- Asking if treaties should be “phased out” is like asking if the Government should “phase out” your ownership to your house. It wouldn’t be legal and would not stand up under rule of law. So in short:
Should/Can Treaties/Land-Claims be phased out or not? The question of should disappears as we discover that it is impossible. So the answer is simply: No.
Is the Canadian Government responsible for disease related deaths in schools?
Maybe not. Is the government responsible if you die waiting in the emergency ward? You would have died anyway right… ? What the government IS responsible for and has recently apologised and paid compensation for is the myriad other horrors (I wont list them all here.) befallen by the children forcibly removed from their homes and taken into custody by the state.
Should we be paying benefits to non-treaty first nations?
This is debatable. The government pays benefits to all “status Indians” you can find the definition yourself, but Status is not automatic and you have to apply. This is partly because not all indigenous people are covered under treaty and the government would prefer to keep these rather arbitrary divisions to a minimum. How can we define who was a descendent of which treaty-band when records were not kept at the time and people have been moving and intermarrying for a century since then? We basically decide if you are part of this political division in society based on weather your parents were part of the political group entitled to benefits. Plus it helps keep the calls for more treaties to be signed quiet, something I would expect you to approve of Garg.
Should today’s Canadian Public be blamed for treatment of either group of first nations ancestors?
No.
Is it time to progress past race based legislation?
What race-based legislation?
- Asking if treaties should be “phased out” is like asking if the Government should “phase out” your ownership to your house. It wouldn’t be legal and would not stand up under rule of law. So in short:
-
- Asking if treaties should be “phased out” is like asking if the Government should “phase out” your ownership to your house. It wouldn’t be legal and would not stand up under rule of law. So in short:
Should/Can Treaties/Land-Claims be phased out or not? The question of should disappears as we discover that it is impossible. So the answer is simply: No.
Canuck… when are you going to understand that legality is just a bunch of people in a room agreeing to whatever process they desire.
If everyone on earth was dead except for you, me, and the person who killed everyone else. And we agreed to hunt said person down, and jail/execute him for his crimes. That’s Legal.
To prove this point in direct relation to the Indian Act. Â Please familiarize yourself with EMMINENT DOMAIN law.
In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once property is taken, an owner is entitled to “be made whole” by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.
In the public interest, the ‘legal’ government can authorize basically whatever it wants, so long as the people don’t revolt, and the people who enforce the rules are willing to follow through. (look at the HST!)
So much for ‘Legal’… hah!
Moral however… that is another question, and of course I argue the status-quo is immoral.Also of note… during periods of war/conflict, it’s regular that property rights are ‘legally’ phased out by governments.
-Consider your friends in the soviet union with the annexation of Poland.
-Or the German invasion of poland.
-Or the American military installations built in Iraq.
-Or Canadian bases in Afghanistan.
-Or Argentina’s claim on the Falklands
They were all legal.We are legally killing people (taliban), and taking away their property, TODAY, whilst not even in our own country!!!
Legality is mostly a ruse, for the powerful/influencial to assert their authority over the weak, whilst making the masses play along.
If a supreme court judge suddenly decided tomorrow that the metis were suddenly NOT status indian, and infact that there were NO status indians period, constitutional, right or wrong, moral or immoral, THAT WOULD BE THE LAW LOL! Until appealed…
- Asking if treaties should be “phased out” is like asking if the Government should “phase out” your ownership to your house. It wouldn’t be legal and would not stand up under rule of law. So in short:
-
Anyone need a beer? I’m headed to the fridge anyways……
-
I’ll take 2.
-
Not tonight thanks Malachi. I like to not drink on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to compensate for the two days off I have had(Sunday and Monday), when I drink more than the days I work.
Nice of you to offer though.
I hate Tuesdays!
Suggested Topics
