Should Indian Reservations be Disbanded?
Donny_Brasco @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:22 pm
neopundit neopundit:
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
Or you can agree that Natives should forget about these claims and start from Zero and give up their reserves and try to fit in to non-Aboriginal society under someone elses terms. Can you see a potential problem there?
Disclaimer: I admit I'm rather ignorant, but highly opinionated on this topic. Maybe I'll become enlightened.
I have to say, yeah, I agree with the scenario above. I mean, how do you define "starting from Zero"? What opportunities have I been given that you have not?
Someone else's terms? Yeah, society's. I mean, they aren't my terms, either. But I deal with them.
Well for one...
If someone steals something from you, you should have the law on your side right?
But if your an Indian and someone steals your land the law DOES NOT APPLY?
You'd think Canadians would be up-in-arms that this is allowed to happen. Instead alot of good people, even many of the fine people on this site, advocate that we dismiss the Indian's legal rights to this land.
They take away their opportunity to use that land to provide for their people then they chastise the them for being on welfare. Seems backward.
Real patriots, in my view, would ensure the laws of Canada apply to all. Like I said, $80 Billion $$ over the last 100 years would have educated, fed and supported many, many people. Instead the land was gone and welfare was offered in its place.
Some government friends got rich and you and I are now paying for it.
neopundit @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:30 pm
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
They take away their opportunity to use that land to provide for their people then they chastise the them for being on welfare. Seems backward.
I guess I have trouble understanding why they cannot provide for their people via the same way any citizen of Canada, America, [European Country] does.
I'm not saying that stealing land is in any form justifiable, but a hypothetical question:
If every land grant was settled in favour of aboriginals tomorrow, what would it mean, in terms of aboriginals flourishing?
Clogeroo @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:28 pm
$1:
Ya, thats about as likely as me getting you to move BACK to the hameland that kicked you and your forefathers out. Laughing
That being said, don;t let me stop you should you be so inclined.
Did you know the first inhabitants of North America might have come from Europe?
My family wasn't kicked out of England they came here to fish and farm. You have no more right to be here than I do.
Joe_Stalin @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:43 pm
If I marry a Blackfoot Indian maiden can I join the tribe?
Do Indian tribes take in illegal Canadian citizen immigrants into the tribe?
If I cannot join has my human rights been violated?
icekarma2752 @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:19 am
Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:
If I marry a Blackfoot Indian maiden can I join the tribe?
Do Indian tribes take in illegal Canadian citizen immigrants into the tribe?
If I cannot join has my human rights been violated?
Do Indian tribes take in illegal Canadian citizen immigrants into the tribe?
If I cannot join has my human rights been violated?
dont have the resources at hand but it does seem to me if you marry a status indian you can apply for that status as well
grainfedprairieboy @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:02 am
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:
If I marry a Blackfoot Indian maiden can I join the tribe?
Do Indian tribes take in illegal Canadian citizen immigrants into the tribe?
If I cannot join has my human rights been violated?
Do Indian tribes take in illegal Canadian citizen immigrants into the tribe?
If I cannot join has my human rights been violated?
dont have the resources at hand but it does seem to me if you marry a status indian you can apply for that status as well
Depends if you are male or female as sside from the race based laws we protect on reservations, there are plenty of gender based laws and one of them is that as soon as a women marries a non Indian she loses her status. Until 1985 only an Indian male could pass on status to the children. After the bill you pretty much had to be legally married to do so and if you had a child out of wedlock you have to get permission from the father to allow his child to become an Indian. I could really go in depth but this is just one more example of the insanity of trying to manage your laws based on race.
Knoss @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:08 am
$1:
If I marry a Blackfoot Indian maiden can I join the tribe?
Do Indian tribes take in illegal Canadian citizen immigrants into the tribe?
If I cannot join has my human rights been violated?
Do Indian tribes take in illegal Canadian citizen immigrants into the tribe?
If I cannot join has my human rights been violated?
Blackfoot in Alberta are Native Americans not Status Indians.
$1:
Depends if you are male or female as sside from the race based laws we protect on reservations, there are plenty of gender based laws and one of them is that as soon as a women marries a non Indian she loses her status. Until 1985 only an Indian male could pass on status to the children. After the bill you pretty much had to be legally married to do so and if you had a child out of wedlock you have to get permission from the father to allow his child to become an Indian. I could really go in depth but this is just one more example of the insanity of trying to manage your laws based on race.
This is the problem with aboriginal rights; many aboriginal rights do not represent traditional aboriginal culture nor modern democratic rights but the social views of the British or Canadian governments in 18th or 19th centuries. If women have status and their children have status it would grow the aboriginal population and quicken the time when an aboriginal majority will have to come up with a new arrangement.
thelaw @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:58 am
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
neopundit neopundit:
What makes you think that "non-aboriginals" don't want to see this happen? Unlike you, apparently, I don't care who is creating wealth for the economy, as long as they earn it.
There seems to be a few people around here who would rather pay Indians welfare then to have their land returned to them (land claims). It seems pretty ironic that some white folks (and grainfed) can't see that had these lands never been taken that perhaps us Indians could have used it for something instead of having to rely on handouts from them.
OR, worst case scenario, Canadians need someone to be giving handouts too and therefore need to keep First Nations in poverty and therefore the cumulative lost value of all of those 800-1000 land claims (i.e. 800 claims over 100 years (on average) at an average potential value of $100,000 per year (lowball if all relative to today's dollars) is $8 Billion dollars). Add to that the lost opportunity of having people working, training, developing businesses for that 100 years on all of those 800 plus sites - lets say for arguments sake we could have had a 10 fold gain over that 100 years, that $80 Billion dollars...
WOW, and Canada is still dragging her feet and you guys are talking about eliminating reserves because ... you like paying handouts???
You answer the question. Let’s get it dealt with and lets all stop paying.
Or you can agree that Natives should forget about these claims and start from Zero and give up their reserves and try to fit in to non-Aboriginal society under someone elses terms. Can you see a potential problem there?
Treaty -a compactmade between 2 or more independent nations- Who do the natives claim treatys with who were the independent nations; and what were their teritory of control?
Canada was a colony until 1931 and not a sovereign nation so it could not sign any treaties before that no more than i could.
As for land claims the same applies; i will sign a land claim settling all first nations land claims giving the natives the province of Quebec.; or treat them as equals and settle their claim as was the settlement the Chinese were given for their loss of property.
The first nations did not own the land, they were just squatters ; without legal title.
Produce the title and legal discriptian of the land you claim.
In comparison the Palistinians of Israel had valid title and were booted out without any compensation.Native leaders have been complaining to the wrong people; their complaint is With Britain.
Knoss @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:22 am
$1:
The first nations did not own the land, they were just squatters ; without legal title.
Produce the title and legal discriptian of the land you claim.
In comparison the Palistinians of Israel had valid title and were booted out without any compensation.Native leaders have been complaining to the wrong people; their complaint is With Britain.
Produce the title and legal discriptian of the land you claim.
In comparison the Palistinians of Israel had valid title and were booted out without any compensation.Native leaders have been complaining to the wrong people; their complaint is With Britain.
This is a valid point. There was land taken after 1931 witch would be an issue with Canada, and the treaties do place certain obligations on the Canadian government.
Could Canada sue the Catholic Church over residential school mismanagement. Most of the problems lied with the Canadian government but nearly all of the actual abuse was carried out by the church so I think they must be libel.
PJB @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:37 am
This is a rather interesting topic. Personally, I don't think the reserves should be disbanded. They should be re-tooled. The bands should be given the right to tax their own members and the individual members should be allowed to own their property rather than be owned by the band. This ownership would increase the pride of the owners. Bands should also be allowed to actively persue outside investment in businesses without worrying about the Chief and council having unfair influence. I am sure that many businesses would be more than willing to work with bands if they knew that they would be treated fairly.
Make reserves more like municpal governments.
thelaw @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:48 am
PJB PJB:
This is a rather interesting topic. Personally, I don't think the reserves should be disbanded. They should be re-tooled. The bands should be given the right to tax their own members and the individual members should be allowed to own their property rather than be owned by the band. This ownership would increase the pride of the owners. Bands should also be allowed to actively persue outside investment in businesses without worrying about the Chief and council having unfair influence. I am sure that many businesses would be more than willing to work with bands if they knew that they would be treated fairly.
Make reserves more like municpal governments.
Reserves have much more aid in welfare etc than Huderite Colonies ; and the only difference is the attitude of you owe me a living, instead of . working together.
Make reserves more like municpal governments.
Knoss @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:07 pm
$1:
Opps I forgot that part. I would say yes and no. Perhaps disband the reserves but create a larger new territory for them all to go to? I know just the place.
I had a post on that and it included 2/3 of Quebec.
$1:
This is a rather interesting topic. Personally, I don't think the reserves should be disbanded. They should be re-tooled. The bands should be given the right to tax their own members and the individual members should be allowed to own their property rather than be owned by the band. This ownership would increase the pride of the owners. Bands should also be allowed to actively persue outside investment in businesses without worrying about the Chief and council having unfair influence. I am sure that many businesses would be more than willing to work with bands if they knew that they would be treated fairly.
Make reserves more like municpal governments.
Make reserves more like municpal governments.
Very much so, but he ones wich are six miles by six miles and have 3 families should be disbanded, many of those were more ethnic blocks then reserves anyway.
Donny_Brasco @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:06 pm
thelaw thelaw:
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
neopundit neopundit:
What makes you think that "non-aboriginals" don't want to see this happen? Unlike you, apparently, I don't care who is creating wealth for the economy, as long as they earn it.
There seems to be a few people around here who would rather pay Indians welfare then to have their land returned to them (land claims). It seems pretty ironic that some white folks (and grainfed) can't see that had these lands never been taken that perhaps us Indians could have used it for something instead of having to rely on handouts from them.
OR, worst case scenario, Canadians need someone to be giving handouts too and therefore need to keep First Nations in poverty and therefore the cumulative lost value of all of those 800-1000 land claims (i.e. 800 claims over 100 years (on average) at an average potential value of $100,000 per year (lowball if all relative to today's dollars) is $8 Billion dollars). Add to that the lost opportunity of having people working, training, developing businesses for that 100 years on all of those 800 plus sites - lets say for arguments sake we could have had a 10 fold gain over that 100 years, that $80 Billion dollars...
WOW, and Canada is still dragging her feet and you guys are talking about eliminating reserves because ... you like paying handouts???
You answer the question. Let’s get it dealt with and lets all stop paying.
Or you can agree that Natives should forget about these claims and start from Zero and give up their reserves and try to fit in to non-Aboriginal society under someone elses terms. Can you see a potential problem there?
Treaty -a compactmade between 2 or more independent nations- Who do the natives claim treatys with who were the independent nations; and what were their teritory of control?
Canada was a colony until 1931 and not a sovereign nation so it could not sign any treaties before that no more than i could.
As for land claims the same applies; i will sign a land claim settling all first nations land claims giving the natives the province of Quebec.; or treat them as equals and settle their claim as was the settlement the Chinese were given for their loss of property.
The first nations did not own the land, they were just squatters ; without legal title.
Produce the title and legal discriptian of the land you claim.
In comparison the Palistinians of Israel had valid title and were booted out without any compensation.Native leaders have been complaining to the wrong people; their complaint is With Britain.
Seems to me that if it were that simple you would have done away with this issue by now. Unfortunately for you we have plenty of legal rights to the land you live on. And you can no more send us to live in Quebec then we can send you back to whatever hole you and your forefathers were kicked out of.
Your name must be one of those oxymorons, it says "THE LAW" yet you have less then zero understanding of it. Perhaps you should take a few law classes and tell your classmates and Profs your take on these issues. I'm sure they'll commend you for such a witty joke, which is what your interpretation of this situation is...
Or perhaps you should intervene as an expert in International Law at some of our court hearings. I'm sure the "CROWN" and the judges would love to be enlightened. They might even get a little embarrassed when you point out (to these highly educated legal minds) that you have solved this simple riddle by merely ignoring all previous legal precedent and inventing your own version of reality.
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Donny_Brasco @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:11 pm
Joe_Stalin Joe_Stalin:
If I marry a Blackfoot Indian maiden can I join the tribe?
Do Indian tribes take in illegal Canadian citizen immigrants into the tribe?
If I cannot join has my human rights been violated?
Do Indian tribes take in illegal Canadian citizen immigrants into the tribe?
If I cannot join has my human rights been violated?
1) There is no such thing...try looking for a Cree Maden...
2) Yes, if they are good hockey players.
3) How would your human rights be violated...?
grainfedprairieboy @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:16 pm
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
Or perhaps you should intervene as an expert in International Law at some of our court hearings. I'm sure the "CROWN" and the judges would love to be enlightened. They might even get a little embarrassed when you point out (to these highly educated legal minds) that you have solved this simple riddle by merely ignoring all previous legal precedent and inventing your own version of reality.
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Good Luck, I'll be watching for you!!
Something you may wish to consider: In spite of all the thousands of Court challenges revolving around treaties throughout Canada, the USA and Australia, virtually none are peer reviewed or their jurisprudence seriously considered by international law academics.
Food for thought when you advance the mythical solidarity of "International Law".