I agree. New topic perhaps?

-----------

To what extent is our country divisible?

I think some court cases have for example, given hunting and fishing rights to Natives that are not given to others, that is "non natives".

Is this a good thing? And what about the terminology, is "native" to be applied only to aboriginals, or is anyone born in Canada entitled to use the term?

I don't know what to make of different laws or rules for citizens based on race or ethnicity. I don't have all the answers here, but I confess it's not something I'm comfortable with.

How to proceed, what is the best way forward?

[ 14 November 2005: Message edited by: Ginger Jar ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginger Jar:
is "native" to be applied only to aboriginals, or is anyone born in Canada entitled to use the term?

---

As far as I know, the term Native, when capitalixed or not, refers to people who are Native, First Nations, Metis, or Status Indians. But there are a whole wack of laws regarding who can call themselves what and who can't, and I have no clue about the specifics. I'm open to being corrected on this if need be.

No, being born here, and being the descendant of an invader or an immigrant (which is everyone else including all the leaders of the provinces, federal parties, etc etc blah blah) does not make one "native", "Our home and native land" notwithstanding. (Bleahhhh....)

[Edited due to obsessive attention to a comma that had no right to exist.]

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

Where would I go? I dunno. When has any nationalist force cared about where the displaced people go?

quote:

---

Originally posted by byzantine:
...the idea that people are responsible for the crimes of their ancestors is beyond stupid. What we are responsible for is the way things are now. ...

---

byzantine, I think UrsaMinor articulated part of the problem quite succinctly:

quote:

---

First Nation Elders signed Treaties with the intent of sharing this land with Canadians - that intent has never changed. Unfortunately, the Indian Act has over taken the true spirit and intent of the Treaties and took away our ability to define and set our own futures.

---

No, individual people aren't criminally culpable for the crimes of their ancestors. But there may be a moral and / or legal duty on us to right their wrongs, inasmuch as those wrongs have had lasting consequences.

Putting things in terms of non-constitutional law, a government is a corporate entity, and the "Crown" of today (which effectively means the citizens of Canada) is responsible for the acts of the Crown since the Crown's assertion of sovereignty -- for example, where those acts have resulted in unjust enrichment of the Crown to the detriment of First Nations. Alternatively, think of it in terms of inheriting an estate that was partly obtained through theft. You wouldn't get sent to jail, but you might not be allowed to keep the entire estate. If you purchased a house that the previous owner had fraudulently obtained, you might not be liable if you purchased it for value and in good faith, which is one reason that private land hasn't yet been subject to treaty negotiation or aboriginal title litigation (another reason is the large volume of land still owned by the Crown).

In terms of constitutional law, s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982 states that "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." The meaning of this section has been established through a number of court cases, but the concept is fairly simple: the aboriginal people of Canada had rights prior to the establishment of British sovereignty, these rights have persisted, and they now have the added benefit of constitutional protection, subject to such infringements as the courts find to be justifiable. Recognizing and then defining the limits of an aboriginal right is a tricky balancing act for the courts -- as one judge put it, and as you say, in practical terms "We are all here to stay."

It's not just about rights or compensation conceded by the rest of us to First Nations. It's also about the fact that there were governments here before the British and the French arrived. Those governments had their own laws, and although another set of laws was imposed on top of them, sometimes through treaties and often not (as in most of BC), the original governments and laws endure. The fact that "no one's going anywhere" works two ways.

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

I'm wondering about "the unjust enrichment of the crown" part. What do you mean?

What would just enrichment look like, and how would it apply to Natives?

I'm not blaming the Natives here, they will play the game to their own advantage, so long as they are determined to preserve an identity apart from other Canadians.

Please forgive the use of my terminology, I’m neither an academic or well read in the political sciences. I don’t like the perception that we would be divided in any way if we were to structure a new Canada as a multicultural nation. One of the things we’d have to do first is to rid ourselves of our preconceived notions of what a nation should look like. And how the relationships within that nation shoud function.

At this point in our history Canada is typical of the “western nations” model of a developed nation. We have democracy, a free market, but most importantly we believe in human rights. The most important preconceived notion that I think we need to shed in the idea that rights are the best solution for achieving a just society. Rights are only one strategy for acheiving freedom and security for citizens. Personally, I don’t agree with the notion of human rights. Rights, at their core, are about property. Whether its time, space, thoughts, material things or simply life itself. So for me rights are not the proper solution for reconstructing a just society. And a just society is what we all want.

But let me take a step back here. Considering that rights are simply a strategy for achieving what we as individuals need, we are left to rely on what our perceptions of what a just society is. It is, after all, our notions of justice that have moulded our ideas about rights. The laws we write are simply our attempt to interpret what we perceive as justice. As each generation contributes its interpretation to the meaning of justice, this changes the nature of our concept of rights and therefore the laws we write to interpret them. What we have now is a very good system. The legal system is rigid enough to regulate changes in order to ensure that society enjoys stability from too much change. And, although its not the actual law making mechanism, the legal system enjoys just enough independence to interpret law so as to facilitate the introduction of change.

So what is my perception of a just society? The principles, or the values that I would incorporate would be partly based upon my understanding of my aboriginal heritage, and partly upon modernity. The term “Aboriginal Rights” is to me a definite oxymoron. But it’s a necessary term because by attaching the word “rights” it conveys an intent in a language understandable to Canadian society. Unfortunately, so many Aboriginal people, and Aboriginal politicians in particular, have fallen into the norm of using Canadian legalese. The adoption of the concepts of democracy, sovereignty, and rights are concepts which each represent a paradox of the way in which I see society working.

From my aboriginal perspective we are not born with rights. No one is. This notion to me is presumptuous. Rather we are all born with obligations. Obligation to each other, our environment, and of course, to the Creator. I perceive a new society where our freedom and security are protected by the interactions of our obligations. Assuming the exercise of our obligations would entail exchanging our need to test the limits of our rights with the need to be mindful of our freedom. I perceive society, western societies, as being competitive and violent because of rights, not in spite of them. Because rights by their nature don’t compel a person to consider the state of another. We need special laws to do that for us. Under a system of obligations the onus would be on each of us to be responsible for our actions.

As they are today the notion of rights has a very honourable intent. But there is just something inherently wrong with a society that allows one person to horde wealth while another person experiences homelessness. This is why I have a bone to pick with Human Rights groups. Rights are not the only solution for achieving justice. If they were, why are the western powers imposing these values upon other nations. Really it’s about the new colonialism with “rights” replacing God, King and Country as the new standard. But enough ranting. I think that the work these groups do is good work. But maybe they should as well work on nurturing the principles of Justice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by byzantine:
No one's going anywhere. Get real.
Moreover, the idea that people are responsible for the crimes of their ancestors is beyond stupid. What we are responsible for is the way things are now. Fixing the social, political and economic problems between native people and the rest of us "invaders" should be the priority (or at least shelter, enough food and clean water in the interim).

---

Are we responsible for living up to the treaties signed by of our ancestors? Or is that too "beyond stupid"?

- if a country is to tax its citizens based on their order of arrival, and using the bar set for native canadians (never having to pay taxes), should we not get to tax first generation immigrants at 100%?

- What are your thoughts on self-government? What will any self-goverment ever accomplish if it is paid for by people other than "self"?

To call them "Indians" is a total innacuracy, "Natives" is patronizingly colonial, "Aboriginals" sounds like a bastardization of Aboriginee, and "First Nations" seems like an artificial term dreamed up in the PR department of some Ottawa ministry.

How about "Prime Canadians" for the survivors of The Original Holocaust and "Composite Canadians" for everybody else?

[ 24 November 2005: Message edited by: The Wizard Of Socialism ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by radicallyhip1:
Using your logic, perhaps we should scale all countries back to their size and physical location pre-Roman Empire?

---

quote:

---

if a country is to tax its citizens based on their order of arrival, and using the bar set for native canadians (never having to pay taxes), should we not get to tax first generation immigrants at 100%?

---

quote:

---

What are your thoughts on self-government? What will any self-goverment ever accomplish if it is paid for by people other than "self"?

---

[ 26 November 2005: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

Posted by radicallyhip1:
Using your logic, perhaps we should scale all countries back to their size and physical location pre-Roman Empire?

---

quote:

---

Makwa responded:
Works for me. You wouldn't mind dropping off a few bison on the way out, thanks

---

No prob - you'll have to give me a hand, though, selecting which pieces of my wife & kids get to stay. I'm homogenous enough (I think) so that the dismemberment need not be fatal, so I'll decide myself which pieces I drop off in Wales on my way through or forward on to France from London after I leave a limb or two of my own in Ireland. (pardon the modern place names).

quote:

---

Makwa further said: If FN people could be given back the resource base they once controlled, self-government would be a snap.

---

In all seriousness, why not? The devil is in the details, of course, but if FN people accept the pragmatic reality that the rest of us aren't going anywhere, and the rest of us recognize that from a moral & legal point of view, 'not going anywhere' is about as good as it gets, we should be able to negotiate something both can live with - thrive on, actually.

There's no way First Nations could go back to what was here prior to incursion. Too much of the teachings which enabled them to live well have been lost thanks to the Residential School concentration camps. Not much of the old religion or philosophy remains. But if you take the time to look into the stand of the Council of Haida Nations you'll have some idea of what WE could ALL have...

What does remain is a concept of sharing which is very difficult for the rest of us to understand. There are huge frustrations around the non-judgementality, too.

I'm not a Christian, I try to follow Big House, and until my grandchildren are old enough to speak for themselves it is my duty, obligation and honour to do it for them.

Imagine a country where corporations do not have more "rights" than pre-school children. Imagine a country where natural resources are harvested and not ripped out in bleeding strips. Try to imagine a country where the sewers did not empty into the rivers and oceans, where fish were managed and not destroyed, and animals were not slaughtered so someone could hang a trophy on the wall. Imagine a country where a newborn was as much a citizen as anyone else.

No, I'm not going back to my grandparent's "old country". I'm staying here as long as I can, and I sincerely hope to see the day this split between us is gone.

We are all the children of First Mother. We are cousins. The same Supernaturals watch over all of us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dwday:
The only alternative I see is assimilation. Even if we manage to get a grip on FN poverty, continuing the status quo of two legally recognized classes of citizen in one sovereign entity is just a formula for perpetual conflict.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
Thank you sknguy for articulating this, "From my aboriginal perspective we are not born with rights. No one is. This notion to me is presumptuous. Rather we are all born with obligations. Obligation to each other, our environment, and of course, to the Creator. I perceive a new society where our freedom and security are protected by the interactions of our obligations. Assuming the exercise of our obligations would entail exchanging our need to test the limits of our rights with the need to be mindful of our freedom. I perceive society, western societies, as being competitive and violent because of rights, not in spite of them. Because rights by their nature don’t compel a person to consider the state of another. We need special laws to do that for us. Under a system of obligations the onus would be on each of us to be responsible for our actions."

Yes, what a different world the world would be if we understood our responsibility and acted on that understanding. I wonder about the relationship between the understanding of our responsibilty and the experience of empowerment on one side and on the other side fighting for our rights and the feeling of being disempowered.

---

I agree the sknguy here too.

And actually, if you studied the teachings of Christ, instead of the structured churches, you'd be very close to Big House.

For anyone interested, might I suggest you start practising... just share, open-handedly, and demonstrate by your lifestyle and choices the things you want the kids to learn... and don't let the politicians use your own money to buy your vote!!

quote:

---

I'm not going anywhere. And no First Nations person has ever suggested I should. My grandchildren's maternal relatives call us "the visitors who never went away".

There's no way First Nations could go back to what was here prior to incursion. Too much of the teachings which enabled them to live well have been lost thanks to the Residential School concentration camps. Not much of the old religion or philosophy remains. But if you take the time to look into the stand of the Council of Haida Nations you'll have some idea of what WE could ALL have...

---

You're right, I've never heard anyone say (at least not seriously) that people should go back to whereever their ancestors came from. For better or worse, we're all in this together.

And I've never heard anyone say we should go back to how things were before the Europeans came ... not only would it be impossible, it wouldn't be desirable. Somethings are better now than before (medicine for instance comes to mind, housing and the like as well).

Knowledge was very important to those people. Life was not about the collection of wealth, like it is today. Life was about the collection of knowledge. And the obligation to share that knowledge for the sake and benefit of future generations. As I've said before we aren't born with rights. And in saying that I also believe that nothing belongs to us. We own no properpty here. What we have is an obligation to use what we must responsibily. Life isn't about us as individuals. It's about the health of future generations. And the only way to progress is though knowledge.

As far as our traditions go. Every society must change. Simply, with knowledge comes change. Our traditions can't remain our traditions forever. If they are then our society would become stagnant. You can get a hint that knowledge was important to our ancestors in many things that they did. Preserving it in the myths, legends, ceremonies and so on. These are the historical records which preserved the values by which they lived. Another hint at the importance of knowledge was their request, during treaty negotiations, to have their children "learn the white mans’ cunning". We, present generations, have to continue these obligations and honour the wishes of our ancestors. We have to continue to grow and gather knowledge and never get caught as a stagnant society.

One of the dangers in becoming stagnant is the way in which we treat these ceremonies. We are treating them as though they are some type of religious dogma with a “right way”, “wrong way”, “who can” and “who can’t” approach to preserving the memory. By treating the ceremonies and traditions as dogma we are guarding too closely the messenger, and disregarding the actual message they convey.

So no, we can’t go back and live an earlier existence. What we have to do is preserve those underlying values through new traditions. It’s just an inevitability that knowledge brings. It’s an unfortunate subjection that knowledge as power. But power is a whole other topic.

I’d really like to hear how other cultures would describe their notions of Justice. Upon what values did they build their societies? Because surely other cultures would have difficulty describing what rights mean in a traditional context.

Just read retread's post. I agree, I don't know why it isn't possible for several sovereign peoples to live together as one nation. We really need to realign our understanding of sovereignty though. In fact the notion of sovereignty is another one of those terms who’s usefulness will likely expire with the test of time. But that’s another big topic.

[ 28 November 2005: Message edited by: sknguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by radicallyhip1:
Using your logic, perhaps we should scale all countries back to their size and physical location pre-Roman Empire?

---

Maybe we should all "go back" to the Great Rift Valley. Seems in line with the Euros' advice to Israel re: the disputed territories and Israel proper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wizard Of Socialism:
I have always been uncomfortable with the nomenclature regarding the rightful inhabitants of this land. It seems the invaders and their spawn have always managed to make it a put-down.

To call them "Indians" is a total innacuracy, "Natives" is patronizingly colonial, "Aboriginals" sounds like a bastardization of Aboriginee, and "First Nations" seems like an artificial term dreamed up in the PR department of some Ottawa ministry.

How about "Prime Canadians" for the survivors of The Original Holocaust and "Composite Canadians" for everybody else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sknguy:
As far as our traditions go. Every society must change. Simply, with knowledge comes change. Our traditions can't remain our traditions forever. If they are then our society would become stagnant. You can get a hint that knowledge was important to our ancestors in many things that they did. Preserving it in the myths, legends, ceremonies and so on. These are the historical records which preserved the values by which they lived. Another hint at the importance of knowledge was their request, during treaty negotiations, to have their children "learn the white mans’ cunning". We, present generations, have to continue these obligations and honour the wishes of our ancestors. We have to continue to grow and gather knowledge and never get caught as a stagnant society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Sorry sknguy, but I say fuck that. Our history is not merely a bit of museum piece for the amusement of the dominant class to titter over our bones. It is about time that we as NDN people tell the white man what we want despite their so-called 'cunning'. If they want the land they can goddam well shoot us like they planned to in the first place. It's time for militance, stop sucking up. Sure, I have a job in the white man's world, but let's set up a real alternative, and I'm there - let's dream of a true revolution for once.

---

“Cunning”? They said it Makwa, not me. You’ll have to argue that one with Big Bear and the others. lol

As for a "true" revolution? I am thinking revolution Makwa, but you don’t seem to be listening to what I’m saying. What I’m thinking of is a society where there are no rights. There’s certainly no “government”. And above all there is no foolhardy democracy. I can tell you that our ancestors had systems that would be completely viable and achievable in a modern society.

As for it being time for militance? Well... if your implying violent conflict just take a look at what militance has gotten us in the past. It'll just lead us to the same end result, the perpetuation of violence and conflict. But, all the same, whether a revolution is peaceful or violent the end results are generally slow to come either way.

1)Obviously, it isn't possible to send all people of European descent back to the countries of their ancestors' birth.

2)It isn't realistically possible to simply shut off future immigration in both places.

3)It is clearly beyond the bounds of morality and justice for the descendents of the European settlers to try to dominate both the First Peoples and the new immigrants and to make either group either fit itself totally into some mythical "dominant culture" or to put itself out of existence.

There is, therefore, a need for a long and probably perpetual series of negotiations and also a radical change in the attitudes of the "dominant culture" group.

Those in the "dominant" culture need to recognize that they are one group, one culture, within many cultures in North America. They need to develop an attitude of humility and openness when dealing with those outside the "dominant" culture.

There needs to be a process of not only compensating the First Peoples' cultures for what was taken from them, but an acceptance that those of the "dominant" cultures, having endangered the First Peoples' cultural identities, take on an obligation to do all in their power to make sure those cultures survive and flourish. The "dominants" need to continually educate themselves about those cultures, and the cultures of the new immigrants, and to accept that those cultures have a right to survive.

The objective needs to be societies, north and south of the border, in which the notion of "dominant" cultures is cast off, because such dominance is unnecessary. What is good in the European cultures will survive without forcing everyone in the non-European groups to subscribe to it. And those in the "dominant" groups have nothing to lose, and much to gain, from learning the truth about the other cultures, and being open to what is good within them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
There needs to be a process of not only compensating the First Peoples' cultures for what was taken from them, but an acceptance that those of the "dominant" cultures, having endangered the First Peoples' cultural identities, take on an obligation to do all in their power to make sure those cultures survive and flourish. The "dominants" need to continually educate themselves about those cultures, and the cultures of the new immigrants, and to accept that those cultures have a right to survive.

---