First Nations ignore Canadian Law
Zipperfish @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:50 am
andyt andyt:
Laying all the blame on FN's is the same as laying all the blame on any other poor person. But, they have some huge impediments in the way, promoted by their leaders, that I don't think we can do much about, they have to figure it out for themselves. (return to traditional ways, living on reserves nations, etc) Look at the success of Chief Louie of the Osoyoos band - there's a real success story, and he's a hardass with his own people - no excuses. Where I disagree with him is that he still sees Aboriginals as being separate, the whole First Nations deal. I understand the motivation, but I don't agree with that. It just creates a series of Bantustans and sets one group of people apart from all other Canadians, who are supposed to be equal. I think that's the true racism, not what I've said.
First Nations are separate. By Law. It's in the Indian Act. If the First Nations don't maintain their genetic purity, they won't be able to, by law, exact the benefits guaranteed them in law, treaty and Constitution. So I can understand Chief Louie's approach too.
Personally, I think the stipulation that you must be genetically pure to be a member of a First Nation lies at the root of the problem.
Zipperfish @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:52 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
So naturally, you back the solution that feeds addiction and has great potential to make others poor so this particular band can get "rich".
Sounds less like solving the problem and more like spreading the problem around.
I mean shit dude, it's not like the societal costs of tobacco and gambling are some big fucking mystery.
Sounds less like solving the problem and more like spreading the problem around.
I mean shit dude, it's not like the societal costs of tobacco and gambling are some big fucking mystery.
The Indian Tribes in the US are into the casinos big time. I don't think it's done that much harm. Better them than the mob. And you have to admit, getting whiteey addicted does have a certain poetic justice to it.
Macguyver @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:57 am
andyt andyt:
I understand the motivation, but I don't agree with that. It just creates a series of Bantustans and sets one group of people apart from all other Canadians, who are supposed to be equal. I think that's the true racism, not what I've said.
andyt andyt:
I understand the motivation, but I don't agree with that. It just creates a series of Bantustans and sets one group of people apart from all other Canadians, who are supposed to be equal. I think that's the true racism, not what I've said.
Equal? You can't play the game for 150 years cheating all the way, then all of a sudden say "we're equal actually so good luck catching up now we're not going to cheat anymore". If we really treated them as equals then you'd need to start by levelling the playing field. Levelling the playing field means giving back some of what you stole and making sure there are opportunities to participate as equals, not JUST on your terms.
And when you say “equals” you better ask the natives what they define as “equals”? Do you mean equals meaning the treaties we signed with them were between “equal” partners? Because I don't think you do. And that is what the treaties are, agreements between EQUAL partners.
When you say equally I think you mean equals like the lady who lives next door to your shitty apartment with all the cats who works part time at Safeway and equals like the guy who mows the lawns in the park and drives a 2011 Chev ½ ton and takes winters off on EI.
So if you want to be equals you better ask the Natives what role in this partnership they want to play. I’ll be all the hair on my white ass that when you say “equals” you mean we start at round 25 of the game and they get to start at round three because giving them a leg up would mean inequality to you.
And you’re not going to get any buy in from them with that attitude. Equal to me means we find out what we can reasonably do to get them caught up, get buy in from both sides, pay our dues and in 30 or 50 years call it even instead of continuing this bureaucratic industry indefinitely.
Equality means you sit as equals at a table and discuss our futures together as equals. I don't think many people are prepared to do that. Because that is not the equality most people are thinking about. We have all the money and we have all the land (even reserves are crown land), and I’m pretty sure that equality for Andy and RUEZ and PJB means the Indians get to start at the back of the line like everyone else. That is not equality, that is not what the relationship is about and frankly I think it is a national tragedy that we’re a bunch of cheaters and whiners and our ego’s are so huge we don't realize every time we open our mouths to tell the Indians what to do, we are disrespecting the honour of our word and the creation of our Canada. It’s a partnership, and every day you forget that is another day we’re spending $27.39 million dollars propagating the status quo.
andyt @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:58 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
andyt andyt:
Laying all the blame on FN's is the same as laying all the blame on any other poor person. But, they have some huge impediments in the way, promoted by their leaders, that I don't think we can do much about, they have to figure it out for themselves. (return to traditional ways, living on reserves nations, etc) Look at the success of Chief Louie of the Osoyoos band - there's a real success story, and he's a hardass with his own people - no excuses. Where I disagree with him is that he still sees Aboriginals as being separate, the whole First Nations deal. I understand the motivation, but I don't agree with that. It just creates a series of Bantustans and sets one group of people apart from all other Canadians, who are supposed to be equal. I think that's the true racism, not what I've said.
First Nations are separate. By Law. It's in the Indian Act. If the First Nations don't maintain their genetic purity, they won't be able to, by law, exact the benefits guaranteed them in law, treaty and Constitution. So I can understand Chief Louie's approach too.
Personally, I think the stipulation that you must be genetically pure to be a member of a First Nation lies at the root of the problem.
Except it doesn't. People with any native blood at all are eligible for status. Before status was only passed on thru the man - but take a few generations of status men having kids only with non-native women, and you get pretty diluted genetic purity. Now, women can also pass on status.
But it's a red herring. I don't agree with the law. It's racist and I think will cause us all kinds of trouble. As even the chief in this story said, we should get rid of the Indian act. (And we'd have to change the constitution.) Give natives all the help they need to live the way the larger society does, so basically assimilation because of economics. If they want to band together under current non-Indian laws, live co-operatively, well good for them.
andyt @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:03 am
Macguyver Macguyver:
Equal? You can't play the game for 150 years cheating all the way, then all of a sudden say "we're equal actually so good luck catching up now we're not going to cheat anymore". If we really treated them as equals then you'd need to start by levelling the playing field. Levelling the playing field means giving back some of what you stole and making sure there are opportunities to participate as equals, not JUST on your terms.
And when you say “equals” you better ask the natives what they define as “equals”? Do you mean equals meaning the treaties we signed with them were between “equal” partners? Because I don't think you do. And that is what the treaties are, agreements between EQUAL partners.
When you say equally I think you mean equals like the lady who lives next door to your shitty apartment with all the cats who works part time at Safeway and equals like the guy who mows the lawns in the park and drives a 2011 Chev ½ ton and takes winters off on EI.
So if you want to be equals you better ask the Natives what role in this partnership they want to play. I’ll be all the hair on my white ass that when you say “equals” you mean we start at round 25 of the game and they get to start at round three because giving them a leg up would mean inequality to you.
And you’re not going to get any buy in from them with that attitude. Equal to me means we find out what we can reasonably do to get them caught up, get buy in from both sides, pay our dues and in 30 or 50 years call it even instead of continuing this bureaucratic industry indefinitely.
Equality means you sit as equals at a table and discuss our futures together as equals. I don't think many people are prepared to do that. Because that is not the equality most people are thinking about. We have all the money and we have all the land (even reserves are crown land), and I’m pretty sure that equality for Andy and RUEZ and PJB means the Indians get to start at the back of the line like everyone else. That is not equality, that is not what the relationship is about and frankly I think it is a national tragedy that we’re a bunch of cheaters and whiners and our ego’s are so huge we don't realize every time we open our mouths to tell the Indians what to do, we are disrespecting the honour of our word and the creation of our Canada. It’s a partnership, and every day you forget that is another day we’re spending $27.39 million dollars propagating the status quo.
Why do you only want to give back some of what we stole? If you come from that pov, shouldn't we give it all back and go back to wherever we came from? So you want to steal from natives, just less than I do?
In BC we have no treaties, except the couple we just signed recently.
When I say equals, it means equal participation in Canadian society. I'm all for poverty alleviation, and giving people of all races a hand up. That would mean a disproportionate number of natives getting a hand, since the are disproportionately poor. It would not mean special deals for Indian millionaires because of their race.
Zipperfish @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:07 am
andyt andyt:
Except it doesn't. People with any native blood at all are eligible for status. Before status was only passed on thru the man - but take a few generations of status men having kids only with non-native women, and you get pretty diluted genetic purity. Now, women can also pass on status.
I think you have to be 1/8 Indian, don't you?
$1:
But it's a red herring. I don't agree with the law. It's racist and I think will cause us all kinds of trouble.
Yes, that's what I think. It is a poisoned tree and no good fruit will come of it.
andyt @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:09 am
I don't really know - I heard there is no fixed percentage. But 1/8 doesn't sound like genetic purity to me. Wonder what the Nazis used as a yard stick?
Zipperfish @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:19 am
Macguyver Macguyver:
And when you say “equals” you better ask the natives what they define as “equals”? Do you mean equals meaning the treaties we signed with them were between “equal” partners? Because I don't think you do. And that is what the treaties are, agreements between EQUAL partners.
I don't think they are equal partners. How is a First Nation with, say, 300 members equal to Canada? The Chief of that Nation can jump up and down all day about how he wants to deal one-on-one with the Prime Minister, but it ain't gonna happen. Even if they were an actual UN-recognized nation, Canada wouldn't send its Prime Minister to negotiate treaties with a tiny nation like that.
And if this nation of 300 thinks they are getting a raw deal, what are they in a position to do about it? They have the courts, of course, which they should and do use. But let's not kid oursleves about any symmetry of power involved here. At the end of the day, Canada is here, is much more powerful than all the First Nations combined by several orders of magnitude, and Canada is not going to change a heck of a lot to suit the needs of First Nations, simply because they don't have to.
Zipperfish @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:19 am
andyt andyt:
I don't really know - I heard there is no fixed percentage. But 1/8 doesn't sound like genetic purity to me. Wonder what the Nazis used as a yard stick?
And we're offically Godwinned!
andyt @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:21 am
Might as well.
Zipperfish @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:30 am
Macguyver @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:44 pm
Does that mean we have to stop?
A few quick points:
1) Status is passed based on Bill c31 and its amendments I think there is a recent bill "clarifying" that the C31 B clause in no longer relevant (losing status if your second generation of one parents being non-status (edited once here due to my stupidity) anyways I'm not positive but that is the start. It has nothing to do with % because there are still women with 0% blood who have status because they married native guys (and some anomalies like the odd white adopted into status). Its easy to look up I’m just lazy right now burnt out ready for some after work kush...
2)I think as equals we sit down and decide together the future of the nation. And the courts will do it at a cost if we don't and our tax dollars pay for all the legal costs on both sides plus whatever the outcome is. I think as non-natives we have to swallow some pride and admit that we've got to sit down and resolve this or we'll be paying forever....
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:08 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
So naturally, you back the solution that feeds addiction and has great potential to make others poor so this particular band can get "rich".
Sounds less like solving the problem and more like spreading the problem around.
I mean shit dude, it's not like the societal costs of tobacco and gambling are some big fucking mystery.
Sounds less like solving the problem and more like spreading the problem around.
I mean shit dude, it's not like the societal costs of tobacco and gambling are some big fucking mystery.
The Indian Tribes in the US are into the casinos big time. I don't think it's done that much harm. Better them than the mob. And you have to admit, getting whiteey addicted does have a certain poetic justice to it.
Not really. It's estimated that it costs the taxpayer out of pocket approx $56,000/yr per problem gambler. Keep in mind those costs don't include potential family court costs or losses of productivity. On top of that, some studies have concluded that VLTs are THE most addictive form of gambling.
Besides, a casino is only as beneficial to the community as those who run it want it to be.
After Mulroney's Free Trade deal, Windsor ON was economically devestated. Bob Rae's solution was to legalize casino gambling and build the first one in Windsor.
Well, 20 years later and it ain't done SFA for the city other than help increase the escort service "industry".
Hasn't done shit for Brantford either.
OTOH, I don't recall hearing much of anything negative about Rama, so if the tribal elders aren't a bunch of greedy fucks(as more than a few have proven themsleves to be), a casino could conceivably improve the economic situation of a population significantly smaller than a city.
Then again, I'm not a big fan of gambling, seen my share of friends and loved ones lose their homes and in one case, his life.
I have no issue with, and applaud any band/tribe/reserve that wants to improve their own lot in life, but I kind'a find this ironic considering the other thread about people making a bunch of money at the expense of others.
Feeding addictions is not an appropriate way to make money. I don't even agree with the gov't doing it, but using your yardstick for rationalizing it, better them than the mob
And hey, at least you know the gov't will throw a pittance of the huge sums they rake in to help raise awareness of addiction
Zipperfish @ Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:36 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Not really. It's estimated that it costs the taxpayer out of pocket approx $56,000/yr per problem gambler. Keep in mind those costs don't include potential family court costs or losses of productivity. On top of that, some studies have concluded that VLTs are THE most addictive form of gambling.
Besides, a casino is only as beneficial to the community as those who run it want it to be.
Besides, a casino is only as beneficial to the community as those who run it want it to be.
I don't have much faith in these types of numbhers. Normalyl theya re calcualted by organizations whose funding isw directly proportional to the perceived severity of the threat.
$1:
After Mulroney's Free Trade deal, Windsor ON was economically devestated. Bob Rae's solution was to legalize casino gambling and build the first one in Windsor.
Well, 20 years later and it ain't done SFA for the city other than help increase the escort service "industry".
Hasn't done shit for Brantford either.
OTOH, I don't recall hearing much of anything negative about Rama, so if the tribal elders aren't a bunch of greedy fucks(as more than a few have proven themsleves to be), a casino could conceivably improve the economic situation of a population significantly smaller than a city.
Then again, I'm not a big fan of gambling, seen my share of friends and loved ones lose their homes and in one case, his life.
I have no issue with, and applaud any band/tribe/reserve that wants to improve their own lot in life, but I kind'a find this ironic considering the other thread about people making a bunch of money at the expense of others.
Feeding addictions is not an appropriate way to make money. I don't even agree with the gov't doing it, but using your yardstick for rationalizing it, better them than the mob
And hey, at least you know the gov't will throw a pittance of the huge sums they rake in to help raise awareness of addiction
Well, 20 years later and it ain't done SFA for the city other than help increase the escort service "industry".
Hasn't done shit for Brantford either.
OTOH, I don't recall hearing much of anything negative about Rama, so if the tribal elders aren't a bunch of greedy fucks(as more than a few have proven themsleves to be), a casino could conceivably improve the economic situation of a population significantly smaller than a city.
Then again, I'm not a big fan of gambling, seen my share of friends and loved ones lose their homes and in one case, his life.
I have no issue with, and applaud any band/tribe/reserve that wants to improve their own lot in life, but I kind'a find this ironic considering the other thread about people making a bunch of money at the expense of others.
Feeding addictions is not an appropriate way to make money. I don't even agree with the gov't doing it, but using your yardstick for rationalizing it, better them than the mob
And hey, at least you know the gov't will throw a pittance of the huge sums they rake in to help raise awareness of addiction
As far as I'm concerned, gambling is a tax for people who can't do math.
That said, if you want to smoke or gamble, it's my opinion that it's a personal choice.
I'm a believer in karma, so I think that making money off of vice will come back to bite you in the ass in the end.
Lemmy @ Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:28 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
OTOH, I don't recall hearing much of anything negative about Rama, so if the tribal elders aren't a bunch of greedy fucks(as more than a few have proven themsleves to be), a casino could conceivably improve the economic situation of a population significantly smaller than a city.
Then again, I'm not a big fan of gambling, seen my share of friends and loved ones lose their homes and in one case, his life.
Then again, I'm not a big fan of gambling, seen my share of friends and loved ones lose their homes and in one case, his life.
My cottage is 20 minutes from Rama. The casino has completely turned that community around. When I was a kid, we were EXPRESSLY forbidden to go to Rama. It was every negative stereotype you can imagine: shanty houses, "bums" standing around burning oil barrels, crime, drugs, poverty...you name it.
Now it's a vibrant community. The casino has built housing, public works, fire and police stations, community centre/arena, public parks, revitalized water-front, not to mention the employment, both at the casino and the spin-off businesses (retail, hotel, restaurant, etc). Nothing better could have happened to the Ramara community than the arrival of the casino.