NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to assert that aboriginal peoples have the right to maintain their culture. We do not need to assimilate to your models in order to 'make it'. We are not adverse to change, we are not adverse to new technologies, and new ways of thinking. We are adverse to our own cultural extinction. I do not believe that one law must apply equally to all, or that one system should apply equally to all. I believe we have the right to self-determination, to self-rule, to NOT exist as subjects of colonisation. I reject the continuing efforts to assimilate us. I reject the 'right' of governments to decide who is deemed aboriginal, and who is not. (i.e. Bill C-31 for years made it so that women lost their status if they married a non-aboriginal) I reject the idea that somehow our culture can survive in museums, separate from our people and our everday ways of living. We can live WITH you, but not AS you.


I would like you to read the draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ( http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/drft9329.html ) and share your comments, either in support, or in opposition.

If you are not adverse to change, and not adverse to new technologies (such as firearms), then the assimilation is only a matter of time.

I think what you object to is the overtly forced assimilation - taking children from their parents and raising them outside of the culture, forcing religious conversion, etc., etc., (insert long litany of abuses here).

If you want to assimilate, you'll do it at your own pace, and you'll pick and choose what you want, like you're at a cultural salad bar.

If you are not adverse to change, and not adverse to new technologies (such as firearms), then the assimilation is only a matter of time.

I think what you object to is the overtly forced assimilation - taking children from their parents and raising them outside of the culture, forcing religious conversion, etc., etc., (insert long litany of abuses here).

If you want to assimilate, you'll do it at your own pace, and you'll pick and choose what you want, like you're at a cultural salad bar.
Yes, but assimilation has a very negative connotation...examples of which you have provided. Assimilation is assumed to mean 'becoming the same as', which is not something we would ever support. We can use rifles, and computers, and drive cars, and live in houses instead of our traditional homes, but that still does not make us the same.

And I like the salad bar metaphor:)

I would like to assert that aboriginal peoples have the right to maintain their culture. We do not need to assimilate to your models in order to 'make it'. We are not adverse to change, we are not adverse to new technologies, and new ways of thinking. We are adverse to our own cultural extinction. I do not believe that one law must apply equally to all, or that one system should apply equally to all. I believe we have the right to self-determination, to self-rule, to NOT exist as subjects of colonisation. I reject the continuing efforts to assimilate us. I reject the 'right' of governments to decide who is deemed aboriginal, and who is not. (i.e. Bill C-31 for years made it so that women lost their status if they married a non-aboriginal) I reject the idea that somehow our culture can survive in museums, separate from our people and our everday ways of living. We can live WITH you, but not AS you.
I'm all for the not forcing you to change or be assimilated. But when you mean self rule do you mean something along the lines of making your own laws to deal with people of your culture or something more along the lines of an actual independence movement?

I would have to say that the typical immigrant to the US, regardless of the time period in our history, has had far more liberty to exercise in the area of resisting assimilation than the aboriginal population has had. In their case, they didn't have any choices at all.

Here are some areas that I think cause the most controversy:

1) The right to self determination

- this would be the right to rule ourselves...to have our own levels of government, separate from, but working with the levels of government in the nation state in which we reside.

2) The right to a community or a nation

- aside from sovereignty, this touches on land rights, and our ability to determine what development goes on within our territories.

3) The right to reparations

- well...you know how many people think about reparations ever being made, this is always a controversial topic.

4) stereotypes

- that we are all welfare bums. Please educate yourself on this, instead of making ridiculous assumptions based on lies and prejudice.

I dont know that all of what I read (and I did only skim) is ideal for every example where indigenous peoples have experianced colonisation.

I dont believe 'assimulation' is necessay in the sense of changing or being changed by a mono-directional influence.

How is your culture being threatened? Is someone preventing you from speaking your languages, practicing your religion, or holding your traditional celebrations?

I'm all for the not forcing you to change or be assimilated. But when you mean self rule do you mean something along the lines of making your own laws to deal with people of your culture or something more along the lines of an actual independence movement?
I mean, putting into practice what exists in legal fact. Tribal soveriegnty. Our own local governments, similar in many ways to municipal governments, but different in the sense that we would also have some powers that would normally be held by state/provincial/territorial/federal governments. Powers such as education, infrastructure, taxation, subsurface resource development, the power to determine membership (nationality) etc. Certain areas of the justice system as well would fall under our domain (though I'm not talking about murder, or big crime).

I would have to say that the typical immigrant to the US, regardless of the time period in our history, has had far more liberty to exercise in the area of resisting assimilation than the aboriginal population has had. In their case, they didn't have any choices at all.
The main reason for this, in my opinion, is that we had to be gotten rid of in order to exploit our land. Immigrants don't come with pre-exiting land claims, so there is less of a need to extinguish their cultural rights.

So you don't have the same "reservation" system that we have here in the US? Semi-autonomous regions?

I mean, putting into practice what exists in legal fact. Tribal soveriegnty. Our own local governments, similar in many ways to municipal governments, but different in the sense that we would also have some powers that would normally be held by state/provincial/territorial/federal governments. Powers such as education, infrastructure, taxation, subsurface resource development, the power to determine membership (nationality) etc. Certain areas of the justice system as well would fall under our domain (though I'm not talking about murder, or big crime).

Okay that clears up a few things. One big problem I'm seeing with this is it seems to make a nation within a nation. Your going to have laws that come into conflict, your going to have law enforcement problems, and there is going to be the issue of taxation, etc. Also will people who vote for and live under this tribal government have a say in the bigger nations affairs and if so would the majority have any influence or ability to have a say in the tribal governments affairs?

How is your culture being threatened? Is someone preventing you from speaking your languages, practicing your religion, or holding your traditional celebrations?

Good questions! It's easy to say, well no...these things aren't happening any more, and leave it at that. But let's not take the easy route:)

All of these things were done, and were written into laws in the recent past. These practices have only ceased bit by bit, and some of them, only very recently. Certain practices, like causing an aboriginal woman who married a non-aboriginal to lose her status, only stopped in the late 80s. Around that time, some bands were able to finally open up their own schools, rather than sending their children to the white schools. Right now, there is less of a need to stop the assimilation as there is the need to undo the damage caused by assimilationist practices. We need to recover our language, our traditions, and our celebrations.

Some of the threats we face right now, are not necessarily directed at us alone, but they do have a serious impact. Gun registration laws, for example, and anti-terrorism legislation, working hand in hand, are penalising ( http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/29/rifles050629.html) aboriginal peoples for their hunting practices. Many aboriginal peoples have not fully won back the right to hunt in their territories, and many cases are still pending of aboriginal hunters who are being charge for exercising their rights. We are being prevented STILL from taking back our right to self-determination. Our governments are still the constructs of our colonisers. We are still 'ruled' by an Indian Act. Legal discrimination still exists.

So you don't have the same "reservation" system that we have here in the US? Semi-autonomous regions?
It depends on the treaty. I believe in the US case, more sweeping agreements were made (?), but in Canada, depending on the treaty, the level of treatment can vary greatly. In some cases, treaties were never signed, and rights were never ceded. This is the case in much of British Columbia. Tribes there are only now negotiating land rights and sovereignty. As well, many of the treaties that were made, were broken. We are still working on redress for that. The treaties are in flux...either just being entered into, or being pursued as broken contracts. At the heart of ALL of them, however, is the push for this semi-autonomy.

I agree with you, but I believe that all people have the right to self rule.

I would like to assert that aboriginal peoples have the right to maintain their culture. We do not need to assimilate to your models in order to 'make it'. We are not adverse to change, we are not adverse to new technologies, and new ways of thinking. We are adverse to our own cultural extinction. I do not believe that one law must apply equally to all, or that one system should apply equally to all. I believe we have the right to self-determination, to self-rule, to NOT exist as subjects of colonisation. I reject the continuing efforts to assimilate us. I reject the 'right' of governments to decide who is deemed aboriginal, and who is not. (i.e. Bill C-31 for years made it so that women lost their status if they married a non-aboriginal) I reject the idea that somehow our culture can survive in museums, separate from our people and our everday ways of living. We can live WITH you, but not AS you.


I would like you to read the draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ( http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/drft9329.html ) and share your comments, either in support, or in opposition.
#1 - It's sad such a document has to exist.
#2 - I agree with 99% of it (on brief scan)

The parts of it that worry me are (A) it is a UN document (bleah) and (B) that it gives NGOs UN Governmental status.

I can see some real downsides to making the Reservations "Fully Sovereign" under the UN (at least in and for the US). The level of Sovereignty the US has (unfortunately slowly) developed with the Tribes seems to be a fair compromise - returning to the Tribes Authority over their own cultural affairs without diminishing the Umbrella Authority of the Federal Government - sort of like a "borderless" version of (at random) Nebraska. It's certainly not perfect yet, but it {this UN Deglaration} has the potential to allow too much UN meddling.

Good questions! It's easy to say, well no...these things aren't happening any more, and leave it at that. But let's not take the easy route:)

All of these things were done, and were written into laws in the recent past. These practices have only ceased bit by bit, and some of them, only very recently. Certain practices, like causing an aboriginal woman who married a non-aboriginal to lose her status, only stopped in the late 80s. Around that time, some bands were able to finally open up their own schools, rather than sending their children to the white schools. Right now, there is less of a need to stop the assimilation as there is the need to undo the damage caused by assimilationist practices. We need to recover our language, our traditions, and our celebrations.

Some of the threats we face right now, are not necessarily directed at us alone, but they do have a serious impact. Gun registration laws, for example, and anti-terrorism legislation, working hand in hand, are penalising ( http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/29/rifles050629.html) aboriginal peoples for their hunting practices. Many aboriginal peoples have not fully won back the right to hunt in their territories, and many cases are still pending of aboriginal hunters who are being charge for exercising their rights. We are being prevented STILL from taking back our right to self-determination. Our governments are still the constructs of our colonisers. We are still 'ruled' by an Indian Act. Legal discrimination still exists.
Well, it's good that some of the unjust laws and policies aimed at aboriginal people are gone, and I hope that you do get back the full rights to hunt and manage wildlife on your lands. I agree with semi-autonomy for American Indians but I hope that fighting for your rights doesn't lead to completely rejecting the good things that "white" society has to offer.

Okay that clears up a few things. One big problem I'm seeing with this is it seems to make a nation within a nation. Your going to have laws that come into conflict, your going to have law enforcement problems, and there is going to be the issue of taxation, etc. Also will people who vote for and live under this tribal government have a say in the bigger nations affairs and if so would the majority have any influence or ability to have a say in the tribal governments affairs?

You're right. It is very complicated...but these are all things that can be worked out. One of the immediate issues is the issue of non-aboriginals living with aboriginal territories. So far, where this is the case, they do not have a say in the tribal government, as they are not members of the band. Something needs to be done to address this. Now, I'm not talking about non-aboriginals that have been adopted into the community. By our laws, they become one of us. I mean the people that suddenly find themselves living on newly recognised traditional territories. They certainly should not be forced out, but they must be allowed a say in how they are governed. To what extent, I'm unsure on.

The only way that the wider nation should have a say in the affairs of First Nations (just my opinion here) would be in the form of treaty negotiations. For example, if there was a problem with law enforcement issues, that would need to be worked out not unilateral, but bi or multi-laterally. There should not be a case of the federal government suddenly infringing upon rights that have been given to indigenous communities...it needs to be a process of negotiation.

#1 - It's sad such a document has to exist.
#2 - I agree with 99% of it (on brief scan)

The parts of it that worry me are (A) it is a UN document (bleah) and (B) that it gives NGOs UN Governmental status.

I can see some real downsides to making the Reservations "Fully Sovereign" under the UN (at least in and for the US). The level of Sovereignty the US has (unfortunately slowly) developed with the Tribes seems to be a fair compromise - returning to the Tribes Authority over their own cultural affairs without diminishing the Umbrella Authority of the Federal Government - sort of like a "borderless" version of (at random) Nebraska. It's certainly not perfect yet, but it {this UN Deglaration} has the potential to allow too much UN meddling.
Yes, UN bleh. But the ideas put forth are fairly simple, and essential.

I don't think full soveriengty is a goal for most aboriginal peoples. We are willing to live with you, but we want to do it on terms that make sense to us.

I would like you to read the draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ( http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/drft9329.html ) and share your comments, either in support, or in opposition.

you don't happen to know who was involved in the working group that wrote this up, do you?

it seems to me like it hits most of the major points pretty well.

Well, it's good that some of the unjust laws and policies aimed at aboriginal people are gone, and I hope that you do get back the full rights to hunt and manage wildlife on your lands. I agree with semi-autonomy for American Indians but I hope that fighting for your rights doesn't lead to completely rejecting the good things that "white" society has to offer.
Oh, there will be radicals who want to return to the days of hunting with a bow and arrow (and I'm not talking the fancy hi-tech ones they have now:)), but that's ok. On a wider level we are willing, as Sierra put it, to pick and choose. Sure, some things will be, and have been rejected out of hand, but when one has to fight for basic rights, it's hard to be compromising.

Oh...and on another note, it has only been within the last few years that the issue of Métis rights in Canada has been addressed...that is still a battle that is underway.

Well, it's good that some of the unjust laws and policies aimed at aboriginal people are gone, and I hope that you do get back the full rights to hunt and manage wildlife on your lands. I agree with semi-autonomy for American Indians but I hope that fighting for your rights doesn't lead to completely rejecting the good things that "white" society has to offer.
I grew up essentially on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. The Tribal Police & Elders groups had authority over essentially anything that wasn't an "FBI-able" crime. I thought it worked rather well. Many of the Tribally adjudicated punishments were "unique", to say the least (to White Folks), but where they were consistently applied, recidivisim was low.

You're right. It is very complicated...but these are all things that can be worked out. One of the immediate issues is the issue of non-aboriginals living with aboriginal territories. So far, where this is the case, they do not have a say in the tribal government, as they are not members of the band. Something needs to be done to address this. Now, I'm not talking about non-aboriginals that have been adopted into the community. By our laws, they become one of us. I mean the people that suddenly find themselves living on newly recognised traditional territories. They certainly should not be forced out, but they must be allowed a say in how they are governed. To what extent, I'm unsure on.
The reason I'm brining this up is that it would be a major arguement against your proposal. People will argue the fact that why should the minority get its own self rule and then be allowed to participate in the way the country it resides in works. It would be argued as trying to have your cake and eat it too.

you don't happen to know who was involved in the working group that wrote this up, do you?

it seems to me like it hits most of the major points pretty well.
Not off-hand, no...I wouldn't mind knowing that (I only recently discovered that a Canadian wrote the draft of the UN Declaration of Human Rights)...but I'm too lazy to look it up right now:)

The reason I'm brining this up is that it would be a major arguement against your proposal. People will argue the fact that why should the minority get its own self rule and then be allowed to participate in the way the country it resides in works. It would be argued as trying to have your cake and eat it too.
It IS a major argument, but the process is going forward, nonetheless. The creation of Nunavut is a huge step...the federal government is essentially phasing itself out over a period of years, and it will be an aboriginal territory, with almost full self-determination. The goal of aboriginal communities is to become self-sufficient and self-sustaining...as that happens, more and more responsibility will be transferred over...including the less glamorous stuff like mainaining roadways, infrastructure etc.

People will make the argument that by taking over taxation, we are cheating the other levels of governments, because we will still be able to access the public works that are paid for by other people's tax dollars. However, it needs to be understood that we will be taking over taxation in our territories, and spending our monies there. People who enter our territories, access our 'parks' or our resources, our schools, our public works, will be accessing things paid for by OUR tax dollars. Give and take. Agreement may have to be made in terms of wider government programs like health care...will there continue to be provincially funded health care across the board, or should people living in native communities have their own healthcare, and purchase additional 'travel' insurance if they want to access health resources outside their territories? I'm not sure...we are going to ask for the most we can possibly get, as anyone does when bargaining. That doesn't mean we won't be happy with a lesser compromise.

Good questions! It's easy to say, well no...these things aren't happening any more, and leave it at that. But let's not take the easy route:)

All of these things were done, and were written into laws in the recent past. These practices have only ceased bit by bit, and some of them, only very recently. Certain practices, like causing an aboriginal woman who married a non-aboriginal to lose her status, only stopped in the late 80s. Around that time, some bands were able to finally open up their own schools, rather than sending their children to the white schools. Right now, there is less of a need to stop the assimilation as there is the need to undo the damage caused by assimilationist practices. We need to recover our language, our traditions, and our celebrations.

and, of course, indigenous groups in other parts of the world are currently facing the same old threats of forced relocation, illegalizing the the teaching of (or even the mere use of) indigenous languages, uncompensated economic exploitation of indigenous lands, etc.



i was actually trying to figure out just yesterday how much money i could afford to donate while becoming a member of the kalahari peoples fund.

It IS a major argument, but the process is going forward, nonetheless. The creation of Nunavut is a huge step...the federal government is essentially phasing itself out over a period of years, and it will be an aboriginal territory, with almost full self-determination. The goal of aboriginal communities is to become self-sufficient and self-sustaining...as that happens, more and more responsibility will be transferred over...including the less glamorous stuff like mainaining roadways, infrastructure etc.

People will make the argument that by taking over taxation, we are cheating the other levels of governments, because we will still be able to access the public works that are paid for by other people's tax dollars. However, it needs to be understood that we will be taking over taxation in our territories, and spending our monies there. People who enter our territories, access our 'parks' or our resources, our schools, our public works, will be accessing things paid for by OUR tax dollars. Give and take. Agreement may have to be made in terms of wider government programs like health care...will there continue to be provincially funded health care across the board, or should people living in native communities have their own healthcare, and purchase additional 'travel' insurance if they want to access health resources outside their territories? I'm not sure...we are going to ask for the most we can possibly get, as anyone does when bargaining. That doesn't mean we won't be happy with a lesser compromise.
Nunavut is Cool. Hopefully y'all will let me hunt with a pistol there (since the Mounties won't let me anywhere else in Canada...) ;)

I think that as long as the level of "Sovereignty" of a Tribal State goes no farther than the "Sovereignty" of any other "State" within a federation/republic it's 100% good.

and, of course, indigenous groups in other parts of the world are currently facing the same old threats of forced relocation, illegalizing the the teaching of (or even the mere use of) indigenous languages, uncompensated economic exploitation of indigenous lands, etc.

Yes...North American Indigenous people are in much better shape in terms of rights than many indigenous people around the world. I use my people as an example, not as a representation of the whole...so please think of this not only as a North American case, but as a global issue. (As FS has done)

An important right we've fought for is to determine our own membership. The federal government, under the Indian Act, set up a blood quantum system...at a certain percentage, you lost your 'Indian' status. Some of us held onto this idea so that we wouldn't be 'bred' out...but it's a destructive way of determining who is aboriginal and who is not. Many have proposed an alternative...the Métis, for example, don't go by blood quantum, they go by membership in an existing Métis community. Bands need to have the ability to decide who can 'claim' membership, and who can not (not on a case by case basis, mind you...some guidelines need to be set).

An important right we've fought for is to determine our own membership. The federal government, under the Indian Act, set up a blood quantum system...at a certain percentage, you lost your 'Indian' status. Some of us held onto this idea so that we wouldn't be 'bred' out...but it's a destructive way of determining who is aboriginal and who is not.

yeah, i sincerly hope that native people holding onto the blood quantum idea sit down and do the math on it sometime. it pretty much means that you are making sure that more and more people will lose their 'nativeness' each generation unless you go to ridiculous extremes of endogamy which the current populations of most indigenous groups just can't support.

yeah, i sincerly hope that native people holding onto the blood quantum idea sit down and do the math on it sometime. it pretty much means that you are making sure that more and more people will lose their 'nativeness' each generation unless you go to ridiculous extremes of endogamy which the current populations of most indigenous groups just can't support.
Exactly. It's a perfect way to 'breed' us out.

While in principle I agree with much of what has been described as being valid for natives, it raises a few questions:

1) legal - you wish to have your own code on the reservation. Fine, I'm OK with that. However you still will need to give your children instruction on mainstream matters in case they should choose to venture off the reservation.

Also, do you still wish to make use of the facilities of the outside world? i.e., do you want the ability to send a dangerous man to serve time in a federal pen? If so, how will issues such as parole be managed within the existing judicial system?

2) Land use: The thing, as we both know, is that the environment does respect borders. Should one native group start to utilize land in a manner detrimental to their neighbours, how will grievances be handled? Or will you simply say "piss off - native rule?"


3) intra-tribal conflicts. As much as different european cultures mix together while maintaining tradition under common Canadian Law, will this be a one-size-fits-all native system? Or do the Cree want one system, the Innu another, the Algonquins a third, etc. And if so, how will intra-tribal issues be mediated?

4) If a native commits a crime in the outside world and flees onto his reservation, what recourse for pursuit, extradition, etc will be available to the rest of the country? Or can a reserve become a safe-haven for criminals of native descent?

5) Do you want us to still pay for all this? I admit that we haven't always done as good ajob on that as we promiesd (indeed, seldom so), however there are currently manny bands living in poverty. Do they want self-rule supported by Canadian tax payers? Or does self-rule equate to self-sufficiency?



I certainly believe that the native interest for self rule is valid and deirable, and I can understand the desire to keep one's heritage as intact as possible. It must be even tougher to do so when one's culture got jarred forwards a couple of centuries in terms of technology as it did for the native populations. But in that respect I find that this often gets expressed as a way to have your cake and eat it too. I mean, I look towards the nunavut model at least for a good step in the right direction.

But the notion of autonomous enclaves within a federal system operating as completely independant states is a difficult proposition.


I don't know what the answer is, and I agree that more self-sufficiency and self-rule is desirable, however finding the balance that all can feel comfortable with is the tricky part.

There are 2 values which are so entwined in what is good in this world which must be acknowledged and hold precendence over this law.

Crime is crime is crime, no one should have the liberty to commit crime, whatever the circumstances. Justice must be enforced whether it goes against someone's culture or not. A person should not be able to say "My culture permits me to rape this woman" and be permitted to go ahead and do that.


Liberty is also above this law and allows it to exist, but is below justice. Liberty is the value which encourages powers to respect indigenous laws and property, however these laws must be below those laws which exist to prevent heinous crime. Laws against harrasment and drinking for instance are negligible, however laws against drug trafficking and murder should be above the customs of indigenous people.

This philosophical aspect concenring which laws should be negligible and which are not is a source of ambiguity, so one value above all else must be maintained, regardless of the customs and laws of any party involved in the situation.

The freedom of speech.


All issues concerning law will be determinned through rational debate. With the assumption that laws against murder, grievous bodily damage and physical assault will be upheld aswell as permitting indigenous people to own the property their families have lived on for centuries before government jurisdiction.

Before I get to this, I just want to do a happy dance that so far, people have been taking this seriously, not resorting to racism, and have been bringing up good points. w00t!
While in principle I agree with much of what has been described as being valid for natives, it raises a few questions:

1) legal - you wish to have your own code on the reservation. Fine, I'm OK with that. However you still will need to give your children instruction on mainstream matters in case they should choose to venture off the reservation. Assuredly. Many of the laws of Canada would still apply...but the differences would have to be made very clear.

Also, do you still wish to make use of the facilities of the outside world? i.e., do you want the ability to send a dangerous man to serve time in a federal pen? If so, how will issues such as parole be managed within the existing judicial system? So far, the only changes I've seen made or requested to the existing judicial system is more use of alternative dispute resolution...sentencing circles and healing circles, and more focus on restitution rather than punishment. Now, in the more serious cases, these methods simply wouldn't work. Parole, were the offender released back into the community, would be dealt with on a community level.

2) Land use: The thing, as we both know, is that the environment does not respect borders. Should one native group start to utilize land in a manner detrimental to their neighbours, how will grievances be handled? Or will you simply say "piss off - native rule?" Some sort of avenue for complaint, and negotiation must be set up. The same must be done if the issue is reversed...if pollution outside territories starts impacting those territories, native peoples need a way to address that as well.

3) intra-tribal conflicts. As much as different european cultures mix together while maintaining tradition under common Canadian Law, will this be a one-size-fits-all native system? Or do the Cree want one system, the Innu another, the Algonquins a third, etc. And if so, how will intra-tribal issues be mediated? The basic framework will be the same, but the way that tribes go about implementing that framework will vary. For example, power over education is a general power...teaching Cree, or Salish, or Gwitch'in is the specific implementation. Intra-tribal issues, much as native/non-native issues will have to be dealt with within a framework as well...and it may take some time to develop one.

4) If a native commits a crime in the outside world and flees onto his reservation, what recourse for pursuit, extradition, etc will be available to the rest of the country? Or can a reserve become a safe-haven for criminals of native descent? Good question. I suppose it depends on whether that tribe wants to make an issue of it. For example, if the crime in question is hunting out of season, the tribe would likely offer sanctuary and challenge the law...then again, that depends on if we agree to hunt only within traditional territories. I don't see us wanting to harbour criminals...but conflict over what constitutes a crime is bound to happen.

5) Do you want us to still pay for all this? I admit that we haven't always done as good ajob on that as we promiesd (indeed, seldom so), however there are currently manny bands living in poverty. Do they want self-rule supported by Canadian tax payers? Or does self-rule equate to self-sufficiency? Yes, the idea is self-sufficiency...but some communities need more help getting there than others. What this would mean is that communities at a certain point would have to trade monies from the government for autonomy. Certain programs for aboriginals are paid for federally (education, etc) and we would have to agree to stop receiving those funds, and pay for things ourselves...once the power to govern ourselves is granted. Of course we want self-sufficiency...what self-respecting people would not? Some will complain, and it will be a tough transition, but once natural resources are developed on our lands ONLY by us, or managed by us, we will have more direct sources of income...taxation plays a major part in this as well. As I said, we will ask for the moon...and the government will offer us a candle...and hopefully somewhere in the middle we can find a compromise we can all live with.

Everyone has the right to maintain their culture, so long as the methods by which they resort to maintain their culture do not infringe upon anyone elses' rights (example of maintaining culture but infringing on others' rights: how the Afrikaners tried to maintain their culture with apartheid).

Crime is crime is crime, no one should have the liberty to commit crime, whatever the circumstances. Justice must be enforced whether it goes against someone's culture or not. A person should not be able to say "My culture permits me to rape this woman" and be permitted to go ahead and do that. Too simple. A crime is not a crime...society makes it so. Canada made it a crime for parents to resist having their children taken from them. It was an unjust law, and has been struck down. Definitions of crimes can change.


Liberty is also above this law and allows it to exist, but is below justice. Liberty is the value which encourages powers to respect indigenous laws and property, however these laws must be below those laws which exist to prevent heinous crime. Laws against harrasment and drinking for instance are negligible, however laws against drug trafficking and murder should be above the customs of indigenous people.

This philosophical aspect concenring which laws should be negligible and which are not is a source of ambiguity, so one value above all else must be maintained, regardless of the customs and laws of any party involved in the situation.

The freedom of speech.


All issues concerning law will be determinned through rational debate. With the assumption that laws against murder, grievous bodily damage and physical assault will be upheld aswell as permitting indigenous people to own the property their families have lived on for centuries before government jurisdiction.
Agreed. There is room for negotiation and debate in all of this. We can not simply take, and others can not simply grant...we need to be able to live together, for apart, we can not survive.

Everyone has the right to maintain their culture, so long as the methods by which they resort to maintain their culture do not infringe upon anyone elses' rights (example of maintaining culture but infringing on others' rights: how the Afrikaners tried to maintain their culture with apartheid).
You bring up an extreme example...but your original statement lays out a requirement that is nearly impossible to meet. If we maintain our culture by redefining our traditional territories, non-aboriginals within those territories will say that their rights are being violated, as they would be included in the semi-autonomous area with or without their consent. It will always be a case of which rights can supersede others...sometimes that decision is made by force, and at other times, through negotiation, but there are no absolutes.

Everyone has the right to maintain their culture, so long as the methods by which they resort to maintain their culture do not infringe upon anyone elses' rights (example of maintaining culture but infringing on others' rights: how the Afrikaners tried to maintain their culture with apartheid).

I quite agree, since all culture's, well maybe not chav:p , are worthy of saving and recognition.

You bring up an extreme example...but your original statement lays out a requirement that is nearly impossible to meet. If we maintain our culture by redefining our traditional territories, non-aboriginals within those territories will say that their rights are being violated, as they would be included in the semi-autonomous area with or without their consent. It will always be a case of which rights can supersede others...sometimes that decision is made by force, and at other times, through negotiation, but there are no absolutes.

I'm not saying re-define territories, or whatever. People should be allowed to maintain their culture however they want, as long as what they're doing doesn't violate the rights of others.

I'm not saying re-define territories, or whatever. People should be allowed to maintain their culture however they want, as long as what they're doing doesn't violate the rights of others.
I know...I'm just being picky, and pointing out that there is going to be some conflict, especially with something this big, in terms of who's rights take precedence. For example, do our rights to our land take precedence of the Canadian people's right to subsurface rights via the federal government? In short...do aboriginal people own the diamonds under their soil, or does the government...etc? And by 'rights', I think you are talking about human rights, not just civil rights...right?:p

I would like to assert that aboriginal peoples have the right to maintain their culture. We do not need to assimilate to your models in order to 'make it'. We are not adverse to change, we are not adverse to new technologies, and new ways of thinking. We are adverse to our own cultural extinction. I do not believe that one law must apply equally to all, or that one system should apply equally to all. I believe we have the right to self-determination, to self-rule, to NOT exist as subjects of colonisation. I reject the continuing efforts to assimilate us. I reject the 'right' of governments to decide who is deemed aboriginal, and who is not. (i.e. Bill C-31 for years made it so that women lost their status if they married a non-aboriginal) I reject the idea that somehow our culture can survive in museums, separate from our people and our everday ways of living. We can live WITH you, but not AS you.


I would like you to read the draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ( http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/drft9329.html ) and share your comments, either in support, or in opposition.

An excellent post, and an excellent draft Declaration. As I've said elsewhere, I know next to nothing about Canadian Aboriginals, but in the course of my postgraduate studies I've done some basic research on Maori and Aboriginal Australians, and various issues surrounding them, and as I read that Declaration I could barely believe there was a text making all those spot-on points at last. Amongst other points, it's a good thing to have a Declaration which recognises the concept of (and condemns) cultural genocide.

I only recently discovered that a Canadian wrote the draft of the UN Declaration of Human Rights

Which was based on the French Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen of 1789. ;)

Which was based on the French Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen of 1789. ;)
Aha! Not that I'm surprised mind you...

Before I get to this, I just want to do a happy dance that so far, people have been taking this seriously, not resorting to racism, and have been bringing up good points. w00t!

Well, I have spent some time up north in communities such as Sugluk and POV, plus grew up spending summers next to the Golden Lake reserve in Ontario. So I have watched many natives struggle with trying to find their own place and their culture's within a modern world. It's not always an easy thing to reconcile - the tradition of the community circle where some of the kids are looking bored trying to figure out a way to get back to their PS2 without pissing off their parents....


And I wonder sometimes how some other cultures have managed it more successfully. The tigh-knit communities of India, Lebannon, China, Ghana, Vietnam, etc that I see around town who manage to keep the traditions at home while functioning better within mainstream society at work. They seem capable of walking the line between both, and hopefully taking the best of both worlds to their hearts to live more rewarding life. And I wonder sometimes how much of it is simple population density as they build up their communities in a new city that allows them to build that vibrant counterpoint to the rest of the city. Or how much of that is from the constant infusions of fresh blood from the "old country" to keep re-invigorating it.

I wish I knew an answer. And I wish there were more natives who could think of ways beyond isolationism to do so - because that seems to be a common theme. And you may protect your culture better that way to be sure, but it also denies it to more people who might benefit from it and does not solve the problem of maintaining cultural identity for non-reserve indians.

But maybe if a more functional reserve system was created as a source of native pride then those who live outside would come here more able to bring and maintain thier culture in the mainstream world. I honestly don't know.

But clearly the current model isn't working for many communities, and so something needs to be done to change it.

And I wonder sometimes how some other cultures have managed it more successfully. The tigh-knit communities of India, Lebannon, China, Ghana, Vietnam, etc that I see around town who manage to keep the traditions at home while functioning better within mainstream society at work. They seem capable of walking the line between both, and hopefully taking the best of both worlds to their hearts to live more rewarding life. And I wonder sometimes how much of it is simple population density as they build up their communities in a new city that allows them to build that vibrant counterpoint to the rest of the city. Or how much of that is from the constant infusions of fresh blood from the "old country" to keep re-invigorating it.The problem is, there is no external 'homeland' for us to provide us with those infusions of new blood (and traditional culture). This is it. Which is why we hold on so tightly to our land, and our communities. If we lose either of those things, we are lost. We have nowhere else to bring it back from. Immigrants here can let their culture go if they wish, or freeze it in time, or whatever...secure in the knowledge that their culture continues on in their homeland. We have no such protection.

Before anyone says anything about be being racist or anything. let me clear one thing up, I do not believe anyone has the right to any 'extra' or special status or rights simply because of who they are.

I do not believe that one law must apply equally to all, or that one system should apply equally to all.

Ok, now that's just arrogant. We used to have a system like that and it was back in the day of rampant racism and other negative 'isms. It was back under what you would call the 'white' man's rule. We have since progressed and we now embrace the concept of a one-size fits all law, with exceptions so that we aren't marginalized due to circumstances.

There are countries like that and they have massive oppression of women and minorities. Of course, if they were to oppress, they could do it equally.

All men (meaning humans) are created equal. Why should we make separate laws for everyone? It is just socially unfair to everyone because then you get people breaking the law and being punishing and those doing the same thing but not. You'd have a society with double standards... hypcoritical, no?

I believe we have the right to self-determination, to self-rule, to NOT exist as subjects of colonisation.

Not to be rude, but, what era are you stuck in? We are no longer a colony, nor are we a protectorate of another nation. We are a sovreign nation of our own with our own code of laws and such.

All of us that exist today in Canada and the United States of Amerca were all once subjects of colonisation. Everyone one of us who emmigrated to the 'new world' and those who were here before (though you weren't always here; there was once a time when the aboriginals crossed the Beringia Landbridge - that valley between Alaska and Russia, before there was water there, which is now the Bering Sea).

Clicky click! (http://www.nps.gov/akso/beringia/index.htm)

In fact, there was something in this region before the aboriginals - all the animals who are here, therefore, shouldn't we give them some form of rights? After all, didn't the aboriginals take the land from them?

What? You think I'm being silly? Think about it...

I reject the continuing efforts to assimilate us.

In case you haven't noticed, the aboriginals aren't the only ones being subject to that practice; all of us are. That is, all of us who don't follow societal norms; the immigrants and everyone who wants to be independant-minded.

I reject the idea that somehow our culture can survive in museums, separate from our people and our everday ways of living. We can live WITH you, but not AS you.

There are many cultures that are being subject to that kind of so-called 'preservation'. Culture evolves and this helps to educate about the past, while maintaining an identity and making way for a culture that can survive into the future.

Well, I have spent some time up north in communities such as Sugluk and POV, plus grew up spending summers next to the Golden Lake reserve in Ontario. So I have watched many natives struggle with trying to find their own place and their culture's within a modern world. It's not always an easy thing to reconcile - the tradition of the community circle where some of the kids are looking bored trying to figure out a way to get back to their PS2 without pissing off their parents....
It's all about relevence. If young people see a culture or cultural practises/attitudes as relevent in a positive way, then they will (unless they have a PS2 abuse problem) wish to spend some of their time and efforts in familiarising themselves with a culture and engaging in it's practices.

I wish I knew an answer. And I wish there were more natives who could think of ways beyond isolationism to do so - because that seems to be a common theme. And you may protect your culture better that way to be sure, but it also denies it to more people who might benefit from it and does not solve the problem of maintaining cultural identity for non-reserve indians.
A culture doesnt need to be stagnant to be healthy (often being stagnant is detrimental to cultural health). Isolation isnt necessary unless one assumes that a culture needs to be 'unchanging' and stagnant.

But maybe if a more functional reserve system was created as a source of native pride then those who live outside would come here more able to bring and maintain thier culture in the mainstream world. I honestly don't know.
I think it's probably more important to promote a culture than it is to isolate it.

Before anyone says anything about be being racist or anything. let me clear one thing up, I do not believe anyone has the right to any 'extra' or special status or rights simply because of who they are.



Ok, now that's just arrogant. We used to have a system like that and it was back in the day of rampant racism and other negative 'isms. It was back under what you would call the 'white' man's rule. We have since progressed and we now embrace the concept of a one-size fits all law, with exceptions so that we aren't marginalized due to circumstances. I didn't want to go into that further until someone brought this up, so:
I do not believe that one law must apply equally to all, or that one system should apply equally to all.
Equity, not equality. Fairness, is in NOT treating everyone exactly the same. Hunting laws, for example, applied equally to all, are actually unfair to those of us who have hunted for our food since time out of mind, and continue to do so. In some cases, equality is actually discrimination...don't believe me? Tell that to people in wheelchairs back when wheelchair access was not required.


All men (meaning humans) are created equal. Why should we make separate laws for everyone? It is just socially unfair to everyone because then you get people breaking the law and being punishing and those doing the same thing but not. You'd have a society with double standards... hypcoritical, no? No, all people are created equal in rights, not abilities...and that includes the ability to undestand the consequences of their actions. For example, we understand that people who are mentally delayed are not as responsible for their actions as a person who is fit and sound. We make allowances for circumstances, and I believe that should continue, and that culture should be taken into account as well.

Not to be rude, but, what era are you stuck in? We are no longer a colony, nor are we a protectorate of another nation. We are a sovreign nation of our own with our own code of laws and such. Yes, and by law, so are my people. Many such soveriegn nations exist, within the borders of the nation states of Canada and the US. However, our sovereignty has not been fully recognised as of yet. Call it colonisation, call it simply breaking treaties...but it was all based on the fact that we were pushed off our land, and put onto reservations. If we do not have self-rule, we are simply subjects of the decendants of our colonisers.


In case you haven't noticed, the aboriginals aren't the only ones being subject to that practice; all of us are. That is, all of us who don't follow societal norms; the immigrants and everyone who wants to be independant-minded. Yes, but a group of goths don't have the same claim as the people who existed on this continent before the Europeans came.



There are many cultures that are being subject to that kind of so-called 'preservation'. Culture evolves and this helps to educate about the past, while maintaining an identity and making way for a culture that can survive into the future.There is a huge difference between the evolution of culture, and the genocide of it. We've barely survived. What follows now is a matter of survival, not just of evolution.

And just to touch on the idea of isolation...a huge part of our culture is our sense of community. We are a communal, not individualistic people. Living together is actually an expression of that...and a difficult thing to replicate once we spread out and move away from one another. Also, our ties are to our land...we have very specific traditions and relationships with it. We can not simply move to some other spot of land and 'start over'. To do that would mean losing a chunk of our culture.

My remaining thoughts - after all, I don't want to be another know-it-all white guy telling minorities how to be comfortable in my word - is that biggest issues will always be within the reserves themselves.

It is hard to seperate cutlure and lifestyle, and so determining a new community matrix that makes natives happy will certainly be the toughest part.

There are those who advocate a full return to roots - living like their ancestors. And there are those who want to live in a modern subdivision but be able to drive their SUV to the tribal council and then stop off at Bannock 'r Us on the way home for some native bread.

Frankly, I think if tommorrow the government said to each tribe "here's a billion dollars and the deed to your land - take care, be well, and call us if you need more" that the unrest within each community as they decided exatly how they wanted to self-rule would be dynamite.

As such, I think that incremental change is the way to go. For example, handing over education with the exception that all children must still be taught a certain core set of english, math, and science courses to rpovide them with basic competency in case they decide to pursue life off-reservation later. If bands wish to add in native language, lands management, and cultural course on top - knock yourselves out.

As such, I think that incremental change is the way to go. For example, handing over education with the exception that all children must still be taught a certain core set of english, math, and science courses to rpovide them with basic competency in case they decide to pursue life off-reservation later. If bands wish to add in native language, lands management, and cultural course on top - knock yourselves out.
Well yes...it would be in our best interests to follow the provincial curriculum, so that when, and not if, our children leave the reservation at some point, they will be able to transfer their education over. But clearly, monies are not going to be available in the regular public school to teach every minority language...the only way we can ensure that our languages be taught, is if we teach them in our own schools.

And yes, gradual change is necessary, but we fight against the glacial pace of the current government...certain things need to come into place more quickly than others...and money alone is not a solution. Throwing money at the problem will just make it worse. We do need the time to build up skills, and education, and managerial know-how, to keep ourselves self-sufficient, and allow us to interact with the rest of the nation on a failry equal basis.

Before anyone says anything about be being racist or anything. let me clear one thing up, I do not believe anyone has the right to any 'extra' or special status or rights simply because of who they are.

Ok, now that's just arrogant. We used to have a system like that and it was back in the day of rampant racism and other negative 'isms. It was back under what you would call the 'white' man's rule. We have since progressed and we now embrace the concept of a one-size fits all law, with exceptions so that we aren't marginalized due to circumstances.


The fundamental difference is that Indigenous people were there first. They have been denied their rights, their way of life, vital aspects of their culture and identity, by foreign powers who have settled on their land and imposed a new way upon them by force. Might does not mean right. There is nothing wrong or arrogant about Indigenous people asking for self-determination and cultural survival.

The fundamental difference is that Indigenous people were there first. They have been denied their rights, their way of life, vital aspects of their culture and identity, by foreign powers who have settled on their land and imposed a new way upon them by force. Might does not mean right. There is nothing wrong or arrogant about Indigenous people asking for self-determination and cultural survival.
Agreed.

The fundamental difference is that Indigenous people were there first. They have been denied their rights, their way of life, vital aspects of their culture and identity, by foreign powers who have settled on their land and imposed a new way upon them by force. Might does not mean right. There is nothing wrong or arrogant about Indigenous people asking for self-determination and cultural survival.
And yet there are people, even here on NS, who would assert that "Culture" is simply academic - and that Cultures that are being eroded by force of law should suck it up and become one with "International Culture"... whatever that means. :headbang:

And yet there are people, even here on NS, who would assert that "Culture" is simply academic - and that Cultures that are being eroded by force of law should suck it up and become one with "International Culture"... whatever that means. :headbang:
I suspect those people have no concept of the importance of culture, likely because they are not very aware of their own.

I suspect those people have no concept of the importance of culture, likely because they are not very aware of their own.

I've found that people who've never travelled or, more importantly, have never taken an interest in foreign cultures (or minority cultures) indeed have little concept or understanding of their own, and hence little concept or understanding of the importance of culture in general.

Sad, but it comes down yet again to ignorance. I've come to believe that a lot of what's wrong with anything can be traced down to ignorance - self-satsified ignorance, I might add, which is even worse.

I've found that people who've never travelled or, more importantly, have never taken an interest in foreign cultures (or minority cultures) indeed have little concept or understanding of their own, and hence little concept or understanding of the importance of culture in general.

Sad, but it comes down yet again to ignorance. I've come to believe that a lot of what's wrong with anything can be traced down to ignorance - self-satsified ignorance, I might add, which is even worse.
I think that people need to travel to a place where the culture is significantly different in order to really put their finger on what their own culture is. It's not just in the symbols, or language, songs or food...it's in the little things that we take for granted as being the 'way you do that' or 'the way you think of that'. It's a good thing to understand and respect your own culture (as long as you don't start to think your culture is the best and ONLY valid culture).

I believe you were the one I discussed Reservation Blues with briefly, no?
(this post may seem unrelated at first, but I will attempt to tie it in...so please bear with me)
I mention that book for a specific reason. Within that book, it was made to seem like every white person, except for a select few artists, was to blame for transgressions. The was I saw it was that my family, for as far back as I know, has fought very hard for civil rights in hundreds of cases (Nazi Germany, 60's America, Thailand, South Africa...etc.) And my family only moved here in the 1920's. While I regret and despise what happened to natives in this country, I didn't do it. And I'm sick of being blamed for it. (Not to say you are at all...just using this as part of my point)

With that part said, that doesnt mean that I wont fight to fix the problem

I took an anthropology class last year, and the prof. discussed "primitive" cultures and the fact that they are being wiped out because of modern influences. My argument was that while what was once !kung culture may be gone, that doesnt mean that !kung culture is gone. It changed. It evolved. Does anyone complain that European culture died because we got the printing press or computers or agriculture? No. European culture changed. !kung culture died. What is the difference? Europeans originated the technologies? I don't buy it.

Additionally, he made the point that plains indian culture (the typical american image of an indian with a headdress on horse back with a spear) rose in about 60 years, and was mostly extinct after 100 years of existance. Does a culture that short lived deserve self rule? [edit:Forgot to make my point here] He argued no. I argued yes. It was a very distinct culture, and deserves to have some kind of say in how it is influenced

Now, to tie it together. I believe that forced assimilation is horrible. I also believe that the extreme resistance to change that I've found in many societies is detrimental. I will be the first to say that I am in love with many of these cultures that no longer exist according to many. But just because Hawaii is now christian, and ruled by America, and students are educated in white school, and are a minority, the culture, what it is to be Hawaiian, the Aloha spirit, is still very very much alive.

That said, I agree that native groups have the right to some degree of self determination. I disagree with the idea of reparations beyond land grants. As I made the point before, I didn't do it. My friends didn't do it. The majority of americans are in no way related to people who did it. Why should we be forced to fix a problem that wasn't ours to begin with? I will choose to give money, but I do not want to be forced to under the pretense that I am paying to fix someone elses problem.


did that post make any sense or even adress the questions at hand? *sigh* I need a nap.

I think that people need to travel to a place where the culture is significantly different in order to really put their finger on what their own culture is. It's not just in the symbols, or language, songs or food...it's in the little things that we take for granted as being the 'way you do that' or 'the way you think of that'. It's a good thing to understand and respect your own culture (as long as you don't start to think your culture is the best and ONLY valid culture).

Exactly. Seeing the small, every day life things that people are simply used to doing in a completely different way from what we're used to. Many people seem to automatically assume, out of sheer ignorance, that there's only one way of doing/experiencing/living this or that. And then you go abroad or study another culture, and find out that something you're just used to doing without thinking isn't done at all, or is done very differently, elsewhere.

Exactly. Seeing the small, every day life things that people are simply used to doing in a completely different way from what we're used to. Many people seem to automatically assume, out of sheer ignorance, that there's only one way of doing/experiencing/living this or that. And then you go abroad or study another culture, and find out that something you're just used to doing without thinking isn't done at all, or is done very differently, elsewhere.
I agree in part. Yes, a huge part of culture are those tiny things. Take cornbread. In the north, its almost like a cake...light, fluffy, sweet. In the south, its more of a heavy bread...dense, not sweet at all. That is a part of the culture.

But I also argue that the most important part of a culture...the essence of culture, is the feeling. I am Jewish American because I feel Jewish American, regardless of the fact that I don't practice judaism, and don't particularly believe in the Judeo-christain god. My friend is hawaiian because he feels hawaiian. We look like brothers, were even raised very similarly, but we are culturally different because of that feeling.

It is great to appreciate the small parts of culture, but that overwhelming feeling of who you are and why you associate with a culture is equally, if not more, important

But I also argue that the most important part of a culture...the essence of culture, is the feeling. I am Jewish American because I feel Jewish American, regardless of the fact that I don't practice judaism, and don't particularly believe in the Judeo-christain god. My friend is hawaiian because he feels hawaiian. We look like brothers, were even raised very similarly, but we are culturally different because of that feeling.

It is great to appreciate the small parts of culture, but that overwhelming feeling of who you are and why you associate with a culture is equally, if not more, important

True... But that would imply you have no culture if you don't feel it. Which I would say is incorrect. Everyone is "conditioned" to a strong degree by cultural background/upbringing, even if it's completely unconscious.

I agree, though, that a very important part of culture is feeling a part of it.

I'm from a dual cultural background, and I was aware of being "different" in some ways right from being a kid - though at that point it was just the small things. Now I'm a postgrad student in cultural studies, and learning about other cultures does make me increasingly aware of the particularities of my own (rather than considering them 'normal').

Additionally, he made the point that plains indian culture (the typical american image of an indian with a headdress on horse back with a spear) rose in about 60 years, and was mostly extinct after 100 years of existance. Does a culture that short lived deserve self rule? [edit:Forgot to make my point here] He argued no. I argued yes. It was a very distinct culture, and deserves to have some kind of say in how it is influenced Just to comment on this...that was not a 'new culture' that arose in about 60 years..the introduction of the horse was an adaptation that influenced an alreaady existing culture...much as the rifle did. So your prof's point is...pointless:).


That said, I agree that native groups have the right to some degree of self determination. I disagree with the idea of reparations beyond land grants. As I made the point before, I didn't do it. My friends didn't do it. The majority of americans are in no way related to people who did it. For some reason, people seem focussed on original contact, as though that was the end of the assimilationist practices. What natives in Canada are fighting for, is not reparations for that original land grab...we are asking that the original treaties be honoured. More importantly, we are asking for reparations for wrongs done to us SINCE them...Residential Schools, for one. And yes, the people that implemented those policies, continued them, acted as agents of the state under them, and abused my people...those people, and their direct descendants, are still around. As are the immediate victims. That is not the ancient past...that is the very recent past. THAT is what we want reparations for.

Aboriginal people were decades behind women in terms of suffrage. That is the recent past. Aboriginal people were denied hunting rights GRANTED THEM IN TREATIES...that is the recent past...and the continuing present, in some cases. I'm not saying that you are suggesting this is all over and done with, but many people do. It is by NO MEANS over and done with. Metis hunters still do not have full hunting rights. Certain tribes still exist with no treaty, no lawful ceeding of their lands...and no lands. Not enough has been done yet to address the horrible sexual, physical and cultural abuse endured by aborignals for the past 70 years in Residential Schools. The last of these schools closed in 1994. So when people talk about reparations, I request they actually find out what is being requested, and what the issues truly are.

Another issue that we face is that aboriginal people are not equal in significance to other Canadians in many ways. Aboriginal prostitutes have been turning up raped, dead and mutilated around many cities over the past twenty years, and very little media attention, or police investigation has been focused on these crimes. A white woman disappeared scant months ago (later it was found the her husband likely murdered her), and the response was incredible. Clearly, the lives of prostitutes, or aboriginals, are not as valuable. The Neil Stonechild (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/stonechild/) case was the first time that law enforcement was ever held accountable for the routine practice of 'dumping' natives outside city limits, sometimes in brutal conditions (Stonechild froze to death). Were this done to another ethnic group, I doubt the response would have been so delayed. There are a thousand ways we search for justice, and we are not the only ones...other ethnicities also suffer from racism and abuse. Nonetheless, our struggles are absolutely current, and needed. Things are not settled, and can never be unless we all work together to solve these issues.

Some good information on the history of Native Peoples in Canada, and our struggles, can be found on the CBC website (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/).

Some interesting links:

The Winnipeg 911 murders (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/winnipeg911.html)
On the night of February 16, 2000, two aboriginal sisters – Corrine McKeown, 52, and Doreen Leclair, 51 – were murdered. It was a big story, especially because they called police and 911 five times over eight hours to get help.

Aboriginal Peoples Survey (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/survey_2001.html)

The Innu of Sheshatshiu (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/sheshatshiu.html)

Some good information on the history of Native Peoples in Canada, and our struggles, can be found on the CBC website (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/).

Some interesting links:

The Winnipeg 911 murders (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/winnipeg911.html):headbang: On the night of February 16, 2000, two aboriginal sisters – Corrine McKeown, 52, and Doreen Leclair, 51 – were murdered. It was a big story, especially because they called police and 911 five times over eight hours to get help. :headbang: The Government exists to Protect Citizens. :headbang:

Sorry for the Hijack. :headbang:

:headbang: :headbang: The Government exists to Protect Citizens. :headbang:

Sorry for the Hijack. :headbang:
It's become a morbid joke among many natives, that you're better off faking an accent and saying your name is Osama, than speaking with your own accent if you want police help.

Oh...when I talked about aborignal prostitutes being murdered, I confused the issue a little bit...not all of the aboriginal women found raped, mutilated and murdered were prostitutes.

Were this done to another ethnic group, I doubt the response would have been so delayed. There are a thousand ways we search for justice, and we are not the only ones...other ethnicities also suffer from racism and abuse. Nonetheless, our struggles are absolutely current, and needed. Things are not settled, and can never be unless we all work together to solve these issues.

No one jumped to help victimized Italians in NYC at the beggining of the last century either. Thats one of the reasons organized crime got such a good foothold in this group- laws didnt protect them or find justice, so they resorted to their own system. Which works fairly well in its true form.

No one jumped to help victimized Italians in NYC at the beggining of the last century either. Thats one of the reasons organized crime got such a good foothold in this group- laws didnt protect them or find justice, so they resorted to their own system. Which works fairly well in its true form.
Well that's just it, isn't it...when no one helps you, you help yourself...and then they call you thugs:)

No, but seriously. Some of the more serious conflicts between natives and the state/other Canadians have turned quite ugly. Oka...Burnt Church to name two. And yet, what do they expect us to do? When we aren't listened to, when we keep being pushed aside, and our survival depends on us pushing back...we damn well push back!

This is a major reason I want to go into law. We need better tools than rifles...and no one is going to fight this fight FOR us.

"Too simple."

Irrelevant.


"A crime is not a crime..."

I was using the dictionary definition of crime. Things like rape and murder are certainly acts of crime, and are still crimes completely regardless of whether

"society makes it so."

or not.


www.dictionary.com


"Canada made it a crime for parents to resist having their children taken from them. It was an unjust law, and has been struck down. Definitions of crimes can change."

I agree, but this is a pointless quibble and irrelevant as this is pretty minor compared to murder or other crimes which are clearly crimes. If an indigenous tribe believes it is ok to attack people from another tribe or someone who was born under the state believe it is ok to attack an indigenous group or whatever reason that "society has made so" to cause someone to commit a crime, it is still a crime.


"Agreed. There is room for negotiation and debate in all of this. We can not simply take, and others can not simply grant...we need to be able to live together, for apart, we can not survive."

I am glad to hear you understand the need to acknowledge the ambiguity of situations like this and how minor laws may have to be alterred to fit different societies.


I have just outlined the basics for this discussion and will apply my cool certain philosophical mind to other issues raised later.

Well that's just it, isn't it...when no one helps you, you help yourself...and then they call you thugs:)

No, but seriously. Some of the more serious conflicts between natives and the state/other Canadians have turned quite ugly. Oka...Burnt Church to name two. And yet, what do they expect us to do? When we aren't listened to, when we keep being pushed aside, and our survival depends on us pushing back...we damn well push back!

This is a major reason I want to go into law. We need better tools than rifles...and no one is going to fight this fight FOR us.

I'll be a thug with a job and a reasonable level of security anyday. This is a stereotype we still live with. Have an Italian name and nice things, friends with Italian names and nice things and you dont take any crap from anyone, people assume you're involved in nefarious activities.

"Too simple."


I was using the dictionary definition of crime. Things like rape and murder are certainly acts of crime, and are still crimes completely regardless of whether

"society makes it so."



Main Entry: crime

1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
3 : criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>
4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to waste good food>

Sorry, but unless you are going to list the 'absolute' crimes, we can not stick to your idea of 'crimes which are clearly crimes'. Things are never that simple, and what you consider to be a crime, may not be what others, or your society considers to be a crime. We have laws because we can not agree unanimously on this subject. If we could, there would be no reason to codify our prohibitions in this way.

"Canada made it a crime for parents to resist having their children taken from them. It was an unjust law, and has been struck down. Definitions of crimes can change."

I agree, but this is a pointless quibble and irrelevant as this is pretty minor compared to murder or other crimes which are clearly crimes.

Sorry...can't let that one slide. You might argue that murder is worse than cultural genocide...I would disagree, and argue they are equally heinous.

In any case, your original question was basically about jurisdiction. If a native person committed a crime outside their territory, how would that be dealt with. From what I understand, and have heard others speak about, the laws of Canada would be respected, but the methods of punishment or restitution may differ. If a certain law was seen as being unjust, we would fight it on that basis, not simply ignore it (unless ignoring it were one of the methods of resisting it, and reaching for change).

I'll be a thug with a job and a reasonable level of security anyday. This is a stereotype we still live with. Have an Italian name and nice things, friends with Italian names and nice things and you dont take any crap from anyone, people assume you're involved in nefarious activities.
Have an Indian name and nice things, a well-paying job, and stable relationship and people still make assumptions, "Oh, don't worry, we won't drink around you, we know how suceptible Natives are to alcoholism" or "do you have to take medication for your diabetes/FASD?" or "when did you clean yourself up and start working?" or "How nice for you that you can pass as white!":rolleyes:

Here are some areas that I think cause the most controversy:

1) The right to self determination

- this would be the right to rule ourselves...to have our own levels of government, separate from, but working with the levels of government in the nation state in which we reside.

2) The right to a community or a nation

- aside from sovereignty, this touches on land rights, and our ability to determine what development goes on within our territories.

3) The right to reparations

- well...you know how many people think about reparations ever being made, this is always a controversial topic.

4) stereotypes

- that we are all welfare bums. Please educate yourself on this, instead of making ridiculous assumptions based on lies and prejudice.


Answers:
1- Nunavut
2- Nunavut
3- Nunavut
4- Gov't funded reserves

Nunavut was created in order to give a LARGE chunk of land to native people. The more the gov't gives, the more that is wanted for free.
I find it remarkable how little you hear about "I want, I want, I want" from American natives... I wish native people living in Canada would see how lucky they were that Canadian settlers chose diplomacy instead of slaughter.
And my answer to 4 was tongue-in-cheek. No, I realize not all natives are dependent on wellfare. But there IS a helluva lot of free stuff given to natives.
I've spoken with native people in the community, and one thing I've heard that I liked was, "The thing keeping native people down is giving them whatever they want for free. By continually giving them everything, they are not forced to learn, or to strive for anything, so they simply stay put and whine, not advancing themselves or bettering themselves."
I wish Canada would stop just giving handouts. That isn't the answer that will make this a better country, with better people.

Have an Indian name and nice things, a well-paying job, and stable relationship and people still make assumptions, "Oh, don't worry, we won't drink around you, we know how suceptible Natives are to alcoholism" or "do you have to take medication for your diabetes/FASD?" or "when did you clean yourself up and start working?" or "How nice for you that you can pass as white!":rolleyes:

Are natives really more suceptable to alcoholism than any other particular race, though?

I mean-think about it. Irish and Russians always seem to be generalized and associated with heavy drinking. How about the Germans and Polish?
I never took the drinking stereotypes of any race personally. Its more to do with humor/ignorance, than facts.

Though, the time I spent in northern Arizona and Utah showed me many publically intoxicated Indians.

Answers:
1- Nunavut
2- Nunavut
3- Nunavut
4- Gov't funded reserves

Nunavut was created in order to give a LARGE chunk of land to native people.
No, Nunavut was created to give self-government to the Inuit people, who make up 85% of the population of that territory. It certainly is not a new 'native homeland' that the rest of us are going to flock to.

The more the gov't gives, the more that is wanted for free. This was not giving, this was returning...AND turning the responsibility over a debt-heavy territory to someone else. Rather than continuing to fund Nunavut indefinitely, the government is turning the onus for self-sufficiency over to the Inuit in return for self-rule. A win-win situation for BOTH sides.


I find it remarkable how little you hear about "I want, I want, I want" from American natives... I find it remarkable that "I want, I want" is what you are hearing from US...clearly, you aren't actually listening.

I wish native people living in Canada would see how lucky they were that Canadian settlers chose diplomacy instead of slaughter. Yes, we should just be happy they didn't kill us all, and forget the broken treaties, the assimilation attempts, the institutionalised racism...all because 'it could have been worse'. Or, we could fight like justice like ANYONE ELSE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD.


And my answer to 4 was tongue-in-cheek. No, I realize not all natives are dependent on wellfare. But there IS a helluva lot of free stuff given to natives.
Like? This is a major area of ignorance for most Canadians. I'd like you to explain exactly, and specifically what is 'given' to Natives. I await your answers with baited breath.

I've spoken with native people in the community, and one thing I've heard that I liked was, "The thing keeping native people down is giving them whatever they want for free. By continually giving them everything, they are not forced to learn, or to strive for anything, so they simply stay put and whine, not advancing themselves or bettering themselves." A reassessment of treaty funds IS needed...no doubt. Raw cash is not an effective use of those funds...we need to build more infrastructure and invest in ventures that ensure our self-sufficiency on the Reserves. Some Reserves have done this, and very well...generally the ones with richer mineral or oil resources to draw from. But mismanagement is a major stumbling block. However:
I wish Canada would stop just giving handouts. That isn't the answer that will make this a better country, with better people. I again ask that you be specific about what 'handouts' you are referring to, because I can not adequately address this point until you do.

Have an Indian name and nice things, a well-paying job, and stable relationship and people still make assumptions, "Oh, don't worry, we won't drink around you, we know how suceptible Natives are to alcoholism" or "do you have to take medication for your diabetes/FASD?" or "when did you clean yourself up and start working?" or "How nice for you that you can pass as white!":rolleyes:

One thing I really really hate is the culture of racism... and I don't mean whites against natives, I mean vice versa.
I have heard SO many stories of unfounded claims of racism it's disgusting. Any time you disagree with some natives, they IMMEDIATELY say as loudly as they can that you're being racist towards them. My sister, who is extraordinarily NON-racist was accused of being a racist while doing her job at the hospital. The native, who was high on coke, was screaming allegations out that he should be free to go, and it was his right... which it WOULD have been, had he not been high. And he called her, and the others present all racists. My sister couldn't sleep that night because she was so disturbed by the ridiculous rantings. But it's amazing how often you see it. At work, I've heard of stories about people returning things to our store which OBVIOUSLY weren't bought at our store, and when we don't give a refund, they yell about us being racist. No, I do that to ANYONE who tries to return something that wasn't bought at our store, no matter the colour of their skin, or their heritage.
Now, I'm not saying ALL natives are like this, obviously. And I never assume that a native person is going to react that way when I'm dealing with them. It's just disgusting that they're so quick to be racist and claim I'm a racist just because I won't give them what they want.

Are natives really more suceptable to alcoholism than any other particular race, though?

I mean-think about it. Irish and Russians always seem to be generalized and associated with heavy drinking. How about the Germans and Polish?
I never took the drinking stereotypes of any race personally. Its more to do with humor/ignorance, than facts.

Though, the time I spent in northern Arizona and Utah showed me many publically intoxicated Indians.
I think socio-economic factors far outweigh ethnic ones. And the idea that there is a 'gene' that makes us more suceptible to alcoholism is hotly contested. You can find 'evidence' for both sides, and 'evidence' to refute both sides.

I think socio-economic factors far outweigh ethnic ones. And the idea that there is a 'gene' that makes us more suceptible to alcoholism is hotly contested. You can find 'evidence' for both sides, and 'evidence' to refute both sides.


I think the socio economic factors do play more of a role than ethnicity too. Maybe people of all races, if subjected to substandard environs-lower education, etc... will tend to use alcohol in a less responsible and acceptable manner. Ie- public intoxication, chronic alcohol abuse, drunken driving, etc...

One thing I really really hate is the culture of racism... and I don't mean whites against natives, I mean vice versa.
I have heard SO many stories of unfounded claims of racism it's disgusting.
Of course some people will cry racism...when it's the only weapon they got, they use it, rightly or wrongly. It doesn't make the fact that there ARE many cases of racism against native peoples suddenly go away. False claims certainly hurt us...but in no way invalidate the real racism we experience.

I have heard SO many stories of unfounded claims of racism it's disgusting. And I have seen, or heard of, so many cases of everyday racism that is almost impossible to call people on. Even the highly publicised incidents, like the two cases I've mentioned (Stonechild, and the Winnipeg case) are simply the most well-known out of the many more that go unnoticed and unchallenged.
Now, I'm not saying ALL natives are like this, obviously. And I never assume that a native person is going to react that way when I'm dealing with them. It's just disgusting that they're so quick to be racist and claim I'm a racist just because I won't give them what they want. Well, it is equally disgusting that so many accuse natives of wanting everything for free, when the majority of us are simply asking for what was promised. That street runs both ways.

I think the socio economic factors do play more of a role than ethnicity too. Maybe people of all races, if subjected to substandard environs-lower education, etc... will tend to use alcohol in a less responsible and acceptable manner. Ie- public intoxication, chronic alcohol abuse, drunken driving, etc...
I agree, completely. These things do happen among people with higher incomes and education levels, but certainly not to the same extent.

i remmeber when i visited canada and alaska..... those 1st nations girls are pretty fine!

Just to comment on this...that was not a 'new culture' that arose in about 60 years..the introduction of the horse was an adaptation that influenced an alreaady existing culture...much as the rifle did. So your prof's point is...pointless:).

haha...yep, soulds like barfield. Pointless. I do think I worded it poorly...He didn't mean to imply that the culture had not existed prior to the fact, but it really came into the current understanding of what that culture was during those 60 years or so

For some reason, people seem focussed on original contact, as though that was the end of the assimilationist practices. What natives in Canada are fighting for, is not reparations for that original land grab...we are asking that the original treaties be honoured. More importantly, we are asking for reparations for wrongs done to us SINCE them...Residential Schools, for one. And yes, the people that implemented those policies, continued them, acted as agents of the state under them, and abused my people...those people, and their direct descendants, are still around. As are the immediate victims. That is not the ancient past...that is the very recent past. THAT is what we want reparations for.

Aboriginal people were decades behind women in terms of suffrage. That is the recent past. Aboriginal people were denied hunting rights GRANTED THEM IN TREATIES...that is the recent past...and the continuing present, in some cases. I'm not saying that you are suggesting this is all over and done with, but many people do. It is by NO MEANS over and done with. Metis hunters still do not have full hunting rights. Certain tribes still exist with no treaty, no lawful ceeding of their lands...and no lands. Not enough has been done yet to address the horrible sexual, physical and cultural abuse endured by aborignals for the past 70 years in Residential Schools. The last of these schools closed in 1994. So when people talk about reparations, I request they actually find out what is being requested, and what the issues truly are.

you make good points. Very good points. I did not realize the last school closed in 94, and I admit that I am a bit ignorant in the goings on. The state I am from in general has had very little education about the native populations, even tho the name itself comes from their language. For that reason, it has been my view (which you have just changed with one post) that the original contact was the main issue. I'm not sure I'm still fully clear on what is being requested...The tribes in my area have been more focused on getting autonomy, and mostly for the declared purpose of building casinos (Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are both in my state, Foxwoods being the largest and most profitable casino in the world, and both pulling great political weight) so atleast in my region, the main demands are for the land and choice of what happens there. This land power in turn has given the tribes that hold them great monetary and political power in the state.

Again, I can only speak from my experiance. As far as I know, in connecticut, hunting has not been an issue, and I believe (although am not positive) that the former treaties are atleast beginning to be recognized

And, of course, this isn't just about native americans, but all native people...the one that I am most familiar with are the polynesians, particularly Hawaii. I find them the most interesting as they have claimed an island which has virtually no contact with the outside world, still ruled by the Kapu and Ali'i system. I'm very curious to see how that culture has developed.

They've (the Hawaiians) have displayed what kind of power can be gained by giving youth a sense of pride in their heritage. That gives the fire behind the long war.

No, Nunavut was created to give self-government to the Inuit people, who make up 85% of the population of that territory. It certainly is not a new 'native homeland' that the rest of us are going to flock to.

This was not giving, this was returning...AND turning the responsibility over a debt-heavy territory to someone else. Rather than continuing to fund Nunavut indefinitely, the government is turning the onus for self-sufficiency over to the Inuit in return for self-rule. A win-win situation for BOTH sides.

Other than Nunavut, I'm not sure where else you're going to get a similar deal for other native groups. MAYBE here in Northwestern Ontario, where the percentages are increasing for native population... but again, there will be those who say, "it's not a new 'native homeland.'" Is the answer you're looking for to carve up Canada into a bunch of little states? What's wrong with simply being members of the greater whole, and accepting that we want natives to be Canadian citizens?


I find it remarkable that "I want, I want" is what you are hearing from US...clearly, you aren't actually listening.

Yes, we should just be happy they didn't kill us all, and forget the broken treaties, the assimilation attempts, the institutionalised racism...all because 'it could have been worse'. Or, we could fight like justice like ANYONE ELSE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD.

I'm saying clinging to the past long gone isn't going to solve the problems of the present day. So often I hear this talk about all these things that happened in lifetimes that are long gone, as though they're clear and present issues. It's not just the natives who do this. There are a few groups that come to mind. It just seems counter-productive. What stops people from looking at what they have now, and dealing with issues related to that? There are important issues NOW that need dealing with, such as the horrible realities on reserves, in relation to such things as water quality. Maybe those things would be realized and fixed sooner, if they weren't put into debates that are decades and centuries old, and people would take them more seriously. Because, seriously, my grandparents came here well after colonialization, yet I've heard natives blame me for their issues of "white man conquering" and such. No. I would suggest dropping the ideas that white man is evil, and somehow getting us to just roll over and give up the lands that were colonized. Clearly neither of our groups is leaving, and we should work together.



Like? This is a major area of ignorance for most Canadians. I'd like you to explain exactly, and specifically what is 'given' to Natives. I await your answers with baited breath.

Free education. At my university, if a native person lives on the reserve, they get PAID to go to university, whereas the rest of us have to work or get loans to go to post-secondary education.
Free food. The store I work at gives out gift certificates for free food to the native reserve. (And yet, we've found them making illegal copies of the gift certificates, because free isn't good enough.)
Tax free.
Free housing on reserves.
I'm sure there's others, but I've got to run to work soon so I must be brief.


A reassessment of treaty funds IS needed...no doubt. Raw cash is not an effective use of those funds...we need to build more infrastructure and invest in ventures that ensure our self-sufficiency on the Reserves. Some Reserves have done this, and very well...generally the ones with richer mineral or oil resources to draw from. But mismanagement is a major stumbling block.

Who's fault is the mismanagement? I'm just curious. With free education, and free money, I'm wondering why there aren't people in charge who can make that money work and make all of the reserves more self-sufficient. If I were a gov't official, I'd be slow to offer more free money when I don't see it doing much to better circumstances.

True... But that would imply you have no culture if you don't feel it. Which I would say is incorrect. Everyone is "conditioned" to a strong degree by cultural background/upbringing, even if it's completely unconscious.

I agree, though, that a very important part of culture is feeling a part of it.

I'm from a dual cultural background, and I was aware of being "different" in some ways right from being a kid - though at that point it was just the small things. Now I'm a postgrad student in cultural studies, and learning about other cultures does make me increasingly aware of the particularities of my own (rather than considering them 'normal').
I would have to agree that it is incorrect to say you dont have culture if you feel you don't belong. There is a case called third culture children (something I may start a thread on) who began life in one culture, moved to another, and feel out of place in both as a result.

I'm also a dual culture (hell, I'm a mutt) so I know that feeling of being different, but the same. I realize that I'm American by culture, but I also have that inevitable impact of the grandparents, which has influenced and modified what I consider the culture I belong to

Much has been made of the casino issue...the fact that in some states in the US, where gambling is illegal, the casinos are allowed to exist on Reservations. However, I want to point out that the main goal of the Reservation, the goal of our people mind you, not the original intent of the government that created this system, is to become self-sufficient, and viable. We are losing most of our people to urban centres, because they can not support themselves on the Reserve. We need to create jobs, and infrastructure. Some Reserves are blessed with abundant resources, and others are on the least desired rocky scraps of land possible. Those Reserves need some way of creating employment and income. Within native communities there is a huge debate as to whether we should be turning to casinos for funding...many of us believe that it will ultimately weaken us as we introduce and encourage vice. And yet, the situation is dire...we need income NOW, not later. I can't see existing casinos withering away once we find some others ways to support ourselves though, and it's a problem we are going to have to deal with at some point. However, this source of income has allowed previously destitute Reservations to become profitable, self-sufficient AND attractive to our youth. Perhaps the pay-off is worth the chance of corruption and addiction? I can't really decide.

Much has been made of the casino issue...the fact that in some states in the US, where gambling is illegal, the casinos are allowed to exist on Reservations. However, I want to point out that the main goal of the Reservation, the goal of our people mind you, not the original intent of the government that created this system, is to become self-sufficient, and viable. We are losing most of our people to urban centres, because they can not support themselves on the Reserve. We need to create jobs, and infrastructure. Some Reserves are blessed with abundant resources, and others are on the least desired rocky scraps of land possible. Those Reserves need some way of creating employment and income. Within native communities there is a huge debate as to whether we should be turning to casinos for funding...many of us believe that it will ultimately weaken us as we introduce and encourage vice. And yet, the situation is dire...we need income NOW, not later. I can't see existing casinos withering away once we find some others ways to support ourselves though, and it's a problem we are going to have to deal with at some point. However, this source of income has allowed previously destitute Reservations to become profitable, self-sufficient AND attractive to our youth. Perhaps the pay-off is worth the chance of corruption and addiction? I can't really decide.

my personal experience with this is with the Connecticut Pequot and Mohegans. Both are on decent (note, decent. Not good, not bad) plots of land, agriculturally and resource-speaking, as with the whole of CT. From what I've seen of these casino areas, they have improved life to some extent. A small group has gotten very rich, and most of them have put the money back into the community. Also, the jobs created have helped signifigantly. There has not, to my knowlege, been a signifigant increase in addictions. I don't see the casinos ever leaving, not because of the tribes, but because of the state. Both casinos bolster the state economy by billions. Granted, as far as reservations went prior to the casinos, the ones in CT were not as bad as in some other areas

Other than Nunavut, I'm not sure where else you're going to get a similar deal for other native groups. MAYBE here in Northwestern Ontario, where the percentages are increasing for native population... but again, there will be those who say, "it's not a new 'native homeland.'" Is the answer you're looking for to carve up Canada into a bunch of little states? What's wrong with simply being members of the greater whole, and accepting that we want natives to be Canadian citizens? You might, when you have some time, want to read the rest of the thread...but I'll give a brief overview on this subject:

We want to have control over existing territories. Right now, they are managed by the federal government. Only in very few cases would territories that are not legally recognised NOW be created (mostly in BC, where Treaty negotiations are just beginning). Most reservations consist of a town, or towns, and a specific area around it/them. Those areas would remain the same, but we would be in charge of developing/maintaining/managing them.


I'm saying clinging to the past long gone isn't going to solve the problems of the present day. So often I hear this talk about all these things that happened in lifetimes that are long gone, as though they're clear and present issues. You seem to have missed this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9866731&postcount=62 ). Again, it's not things 'lifetimes ago' that are necessarily at the forefront of our minds.

No. I would suggest dropping the ideas that white man is evil, and somehow getting us to just roll over and give up the lands that were colonized. Clearly neither of our groups is leaving, and we should work together. I agree. And we don't necessarily want more land than what we already have...we just want the power to make our own decisions as to how that land is used. Of course some people are going to talk about kicking everyone but the natives out of Canada...but nutjobs exist in every group, no?


Free education. At my university, if a native person lives on the reserve, they get PAID to go to university, whereas the rest of us have to work or get loans to go to post-secondary education.
Yes, well, natives are also the only group that have the federal government managing their education instead of it being within provincial or territorial power. So differences exist. The federal government is responsible, by treaty to fund our education. Now, this does not mean ALL natives get free education...you have to actually be living on a Reservation land for a certain period of time to have your post-secondary education funded. In the NWT, you must attend an NWT school for 2 years for every year of post secondary to get funding (so for a 4 year degree, you must have attended at least 8 years in the NWT)...and that is not only the aboriginals, it is ALL NWT residents. The same goes for non-aboriginals living on Reservations. You too can have your post-secondary education funded...you just have to live on Reserve. And they do not get PAID to go to University...their tuition is funded. Living expenses may be supplemented by grants, or bursaries, like anyone else...but they receive no further income. I lived off Reserve...and had to get a student loan. So it's not as wide-reaching as you might think AND the percentage of aboriginals who can actually qualify for post-secondary education is shockingly low. Hardly a major expense.



Free food. The store I work at gives out gift certificates for free food to the native reserve. (And yet, we've found them making illegal copies of the gift certificates, because free isn't good enough.) You quote one example of a private company doing this, and suddenly it's country-wide?? There is NO government (paid for by tax dollars) program that gives natives free food. I'll simply dismiss this one.

Tax free. Only if you live on Reserve. Some natives can get GST rebates, but some can not. It depends on your specific status and the arrangements your home Reservation has made with certain businesses. I pay income tax, and GST like everyone else, and so do most natives living off Reserve...which happen to be about 70% of all natives (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/survey_2001.html) by the way.

Free housing on reserves. Yup, that was part of most of the treaties. It doesn't mean you actually ever get a house though...waiting lists usually stretch 10 years or more, because the monies are not directly for housing, but rather are taken out of the total band budget. If you find a Reserve with nice, new houses, it's because they have their own funds to pay for them (usually from oil, or mineral resources), not because the Canadian taxpayers are keeping us living in style.

I'm sure there's others, but I've got to run to work soon so I must be brief. Well, since the ones you've mentioned are blown entirely out of proportion, or completely false, I doubt you'll find others.

As well, one thing you must understand is that if we are granted the freedom to govern ourselves, healthcare, education, etc will all become our problem. We will cease to receive payments from the government for certain programs, and will have to fund them ourselves. That's the pay off. Some people are afraid of that, but in the long run, it's what we need. Only the nutjobs are asking for it all...self-government AND continued funding. They aren't going to get it.


Who's fault is the mismanagement? I'm just curious. With free education, and free money, I'm wondering why there aren't people in charge who can make that money work and make all of the reserves more self-sufficient. If I were a gov't official, I'd be slow to offer more free money when I don't see it doing much to better circumstances. In many cases, government officials are still the ones running the show, not the band council. In one case, a band sued the administrative officer, a bureaucrat from the government, who made a deal on their behalf, and misrepresented their interests, costing them a lot of money in lost revenue from a land rental agreement. They won the case, and the contract was revoked, and renegotiated.

But it's not just 'everyone else' who is at fault, we have serious problems with corruption and nepotism in the band councils. You need to understand that the council system is actually a misnomer...it is NOT our traditional way of governing, but rather a system imposed upon us. It is difficult to 'run out the bad folks' in power under this system, but trust me, major upheavals in many communities have seen the entire council trashed, and a new one elected when things got too bad. And before you make too much of the mismanagement and corruption in our government, look to your own...how many billions spent now on the gun registry? How many millions pilfered in the sponsorship scandal? We aren't perfect...and neither are you. Yet it's easier to point the finger at us. We definately need to clean up our act though, and I'm hoping that more power over decision making at the community level will help.

I hope that when you return from work, you read this, and follow up. Many misconceptions about natives exist, and are not easily refuted, because so few people actually know anything about the issues. A lot of what you've brought up are feelings and opinions that I think many Canadians hold...and I hope I've been able to clarify a few things for you.

my personal experience with this is with the Connecticut Pequot and Mohegans. Both are on decent (note, decent. Not good, not bad) plots of land, agriculturally and resource-speaking, as with the whole of CT. From what I've seen of these casino areas, they have improved life to some extent. A small group has gotten very rich, and most of them have put the money back into the community. Also, the jobs created have helped signifigantly. There has not, to my knowlege, been a signifigant increase in addictions. I don't see the casinos ever leaving, not because of the tribes, but because of the state. Both casinos bolster the state economy by billions. Granted, as far as reservations went prior to the casinos, the ones in CT were not as bad as in some other areas
Well I hate to say it, but for some people, the only thing worse than a drunk Indian bum living on welfare, is an Indian with more wealth than they have. I'm not sure which emotion is more venal...and more dangerous...contempt, or envy.

Well I hate to say it, but for some people, the only thing worse than a drunk Indian bum living on welfare, is an Indian with more wealth than they have. I'm not sure which emotion is more venal...and more dangerous...contempt, or envy.
*sigh*

ya know, I've never understood racism. But I'd have to say both emotions are pretty toxic. I'd prefer to have everyone richer than me than drunk, living on welfare.

To clear up any lasting confusion about Aboriginal people in Canada being tax exempt, here is some information taken from the Canada Revenue Agency ( http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/aboriginals/menu-e.html):

Aboriginal people are subject to the same tax rules as other Canadian residents unless their income is eligible for the tax exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act.

Only natives ON reserve can be exempt from income and employment tax. ( http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/aboriginals/status-e.html#heading2) That is the exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act. Again, 70% of natives in Canada live off Reserve.

Natives must pay GST/HST on all goods bought off Reserve. ( http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/aboriginals/status-e.html#heading16) Only goods sold on Reserve are exempt.

Many bands charge a First Nations Tax (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4365/rc4365-e.html#P68_1719) of 7% on goods and services on the Reserve.

First Nations who have negotiated a self-governing or tax agreement with the Government of Canada are not ( http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/aboriginals/status-e.html#heading1) covered under the tax exemptions.

You might, when you have some time, want to read the rest of the thread...but I'll give a brief overview on this subject:

We want to have control over existing territories. Right now, they are managed by the federal government. Only in very few cases would territories that are not legally recognised NOW be created (mostly in BC, where Treaty negotiations are just beginning). Most reservations consist of a town, or towns, and a specific area around it/them. Those areas would remain the same, but we would be in charge of developing/maintaining/managing them.

I had always thought that reserve areas were under control of the native band. That would just make intuitive sense... although that makes more sense of the current water quality crisis being a "federal" matter, if they're running the reserves, and not the native people...


You seem to have missed this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9866731&postcount=62 ). Again, it's not things 'lifetimes ago' that are necessarily at the forefront of our minds.

I agree. And we don't necessarily want more land than what we already have...we just want the power to make our own decisions as to how that land is used. Of course some people are going to talk about kicking everyone but the natives out of Canada...but nutjobs exist in every group, no?

I did miss that post. You said something interesting there. "those people, and their direct descendants, are still around." Why bring up the issue of direct descendants? I don't think you meant to imply that you would seek payment from the children of the people who did the wrongs... that just doesn't seem right. As for hunting rights, there are animals that are becoming more and more scarce. In some cases, the creatures are protected for certain times to allow stock to increase again. I fully understand why everyone's rights to hunt and fish those animals is restricted, including native rights. When a species is in danger, we should all do our part to try to let them survive and flourish again. Now, if there's other specific issues you're talking about related to hunting, I haven't heard about them.
And yes, there are nutjobs in every group. :P Just sad that they seem to be the ones who get on the tv or in the newspapers the most often, and claim to represent their people.


Yes, well, natives are also the only group that have the federal government managing their education instead of it being within provincial or territorial power. So differences exist. The federal government is responsible, by treaty to fund our education. Now, this does not mean ALL natives get free education...you have to actually be living on a Reservation land for a certain period of time to have your post-secondary education funded. In the NWT, you must attend an NWT school for 2 years for every year of post secondary to get funding (so for a 4 year degree, you must have attended at least 8 years in the NWT)...and that is not only the aboriginals, it is ALL NWT residents. The same goes for non-aboriginals living on Reservations. You too can have your post-secondary education funded...you just have to live on Reserve. And they do not get PAID to go to University...their tuition is funded. Living expenses may be supplemented by grants, or bursaries, like anyone else...but they receive no further income. I lived off Reserve...and had to get a student loan. So it's not as wide-reaching as you might think AND the percentage of aboriginals who can actually qualify for post-secondary education is shockingly low. Hardly a major expense.

As I was told, this girl who was the daughter of the chief, was going to school, full tuition paid, and was receiving $900/month for just going to school. I don't even make $900/month working my ass off and going to school. Plus I'm paying tuition. From what I was told, this wasn't a grant that had to be applied for, it was simply given because she was a native on a reserve. The award I received for my MSc Thesis work, I actually had to apply for and jump through hoops, and very few people actually get it.
Perhaps it's different in other places, but we have entire programs dedicated to aboriginals at our university, so I see quite a few in the post-secondary education setting. All of our signs around campus are also bilingual... but not with English and French. They have an aboriginal dialect, because of the high population of natives on campus.


You quote one example of a private company doing this, and suddenly it's country-wide?? There is NO government (paid for by tax dollars) program that gives natives free food. I'll simply dismiss this one.

Are you sure about that? I heard that the natives on reserve get a monthly package, and in that is the free gift certificates for food. I thought I remembered that being gov't funded, but I can double check on it. Maybe it's something special that the band put together themselves. The reserve near here is fairly well developed, from what I've seen. I go there usually a couple times a month to deliver groceries, and the people there are as nice as can be. :)

Only if you live on Reserve. Some natives can get GST rebates, but some can not. It depends on your specific status and the arrangements your home Reservation has made with certain businesses. I pay income tax, and GST like everyone else, and so do most natives living off Reserve...which happen to be about 70% of all natives (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/survey_2001.html) by the way.

Actually, my uncle lived with a native woman and her family of 5 children for a few years, and she had a status card off reserve, and got the tax breaks. Maybe that's one of the specific arrangements you spoke of...

Yup, that was part of most of the treaties. It doesn't mean you actually ever get a house though...waiting lists usually stretch 10 years or more, because the monies are not directly for housing, but rather are taken out of the total band budget. If you find a Reserve with nice, new houses, it's because they have their own funds to pay for them (usually from oil, or mineral resources), not because the Canadian taxpayers are keeping us living in style.

I'm starting to think the reserve in this city is some sort of weird marvelous wonder or something. :P There are a lot of nice houses out there, and a buddy of mine was telling me about a guy he worked with (white) who lived on a reserve with his aboriginal wife, and got all kinds of funding to do renovations on his house. As far as I know, the reserve doesn't have all kinds of resources to sell off and get them preferential treatment... but I have heard about some really awful remote reserves... maybe that's why ours is nicer. It's near a more populated area, so they have ready access to goods and services.


But it's not just 'everyone else' who is at fault, we have serious problems with corruption and nepotism in the band councils. You need to understand that the council system is actually a misnomer...it is NOT our traditional way of governing, but rather a system imposed upon us. It is difficult to 'run out the bad folks' in power under this system, but trust me, major upheavals in many communities have seen the entire council trashed, and a new one elected when things got too bad. And before you make too much of the mismanagement and corruption in our government, look to your own...how many billions spent now on the gun registry? How many millions pilfered in the sponsorship scandal? We aren't perfect...and neither are you. Yet it's easier to point the finger at us. We definately need to clean up our act though, and I'm hoping that more power over decision making at the community level will help.

Oh trust me, I'll be the last person to say our government works perfectly. :P I admit to numerous flaws in the Canadian system... but I also have to admit I felt a little insulted and taken aback by the phrase "look to your own" as though it's not also your government. Maybe I'm an idealist in wanting us all to live together peacefully, but it's that sort of mental framework that I don't care for much. It's the same mental state that the French are in with their separation fever. It's the same thought patterns I've heard some Albertans have with regards to joining the US, instead of staying as a part of Canada. It's destructive. When I envision Canada, it's as a unified force. No, we won't always agree, but do we really need to totally split off from each other? Sure, native people should have control over their reserves. But I would like to think those reserves could work with Canada to make a stronger whole, rather than dividing themselves off, and trying to say they're different. We're all a whole lot more similar than we'd like to think sometimes. :P I just get mad when I hear people say, "We don't need Canada! We can make it on our own, and we will!" Sure, Ontario could break off from Canada tomorrow, and maybe eventually it'd be okay as a smaller country. But could it ever be as good as a unified country could be, from coast to coast? I have my doubts.

I hope that when you return from work, you read this, and follow up. Many misconceptions about natives exist, and are not easily refuted, because so few people actually know anything about the issues. A lot of what you've brought up are feelings and opinions that I think many Canadians hold...and I hope I've been able to clarify a few things for you.

You sure have! I've learned a fair bit, which I enjoy. :) I hope I've returned the favour. ;)

I did miss that post. You said something interesting there. "those people, and their direct descendants, are still around." Why bring up the issue of direct descendants? I don't think you meant to imply that you would seek payment from the children of the people who did the wrongs... that just doesn't seem right. No, but we tend to think in generations...seven generations is the past, but within those seven generations is the recent past and/or present. So when I mention that many of these people (who abused children in Residential schools, or brought in laws that disciminated against us) are still alive, or their direct descendents are, it's a way of highlighting that this is something that is still within living memory, and therefore still has impact. I just want to make it clear that we are not talking about hundreds and hundreds of years ago...and to highlight that our real focus is not on those first few years of contact, but rather how our grandparents, our parents, and ourselves have been treated in Canada.



As for hunting rights, there are animals that are becoming more and more scarce. In some cases, the creatures are protected for certain times to allow stock to increase again. I fully understand why everyone's rights to hunt and fish those animals is restricted, including native rights. When a species is in danger, we should all do our part to try to let them survive and flourish again. Now, if there's other specific issues you're talking about related to hunting, I haven't heard about them. You've brought up two issues actually. The first one is hunting restrictions based on scarcity. Those still apply to aboriginal hunters. However, the 'science' used to prove scarcity can and has been questioned (most recently in Burnt Church, in terms of lobster stocks). In any case, the law states that when restrictions are based on scarcity, ALL Canadians must abide by those restrictions. Any challenges to that are simply that...challenges that must be proven to be valid in order to be legal.

The other issue of hunting rights is generally about the right of aboriginals to hunt for subsitance, and to hunt for commercial purposes. Subsistance hunting, according to our rights laid out in the Canadian Charter, means we can hunt on our territories at any time of the year, regardless of hunting restrictions (aside from the one mentioned). However, game or fowl caught can not be sold, or given to non-aboriginals. Natives have had to fight to have this right recognised on a province to province basis. The R v Powley case in Alberta saw Metis hunters finally gain their hunting rights, but many provinces still refuse to recognise them.

Commerical hunting is another issue...one that causes the most contention. Not every native group has the recognised right to hunt for commercial purposes (well we do, under the Charter, but just like other rights, we've had to fight in the courts to make it fact). This means hunting for sale to non-aboriginals. In some places, natives can hunt out of season and sell their catch, and in other places, they have to abide by the regular hunting rules.

My opinion on this is that for commercial purposes, native hunters/fishers should have the same rights as any non-aboriginal commerical hunter/fisher. And no more. As in, we should not be hunting out of season for commercial purposes, ONLY for subsitance purposes. Just because our traditions include respect for the land, does not mean all our people are going to efficiently manage stocks and populations.
And yes, there are nutjobs in every group. :P Just sad that they seem to be the ones who get on the tv or in the newspapers the most often, and claim to represent their people.




As I was told, this girl who was the daughter of the chief, was going to school, full tuition paid, and was receiving $900/month for just going to school. To really understand this, you'd have to track down where that living allowance was coming from. Was it a grant or bursury? (There are many for aboriginal people...though much of it goes unused) Was this some sort of provincial program? Was this from band monies? There is nothing in the Federal Indian Act about providing a living allowance, only about funding for post-secondary tuition (and supplies). What this means is, if some natives are receiving a living allowance, this is NOT a federal program...and not all natives are eligible for it.



Perhaps it's different in other places, but we have entire programs dedicated to aboriginals at our university, so I see quite a few in the post-secondary education setting. All of our signs around campus are also bilingual... but not with English and French. They have an aboriginal dialect, because of the high population of natives on campus.
I didn't catch this...but are you living in a northern town? I mean northern as in anywhere north of the capital of your province or territory. In the NWT you saw a lot of signs in native languages, because the population up there is mostly native, compared to down south. And Aurora College has a high enrollment of natives (because of the high population)...but most of it's courses are not really Bachelor courses...they are diploma programs...nursing, teacher's aids and such. Now, I'm not trying to bash these programs...but you don't have to have great grades, or even in some cases have completed highschool to get in.

If you want to have a better understanding of how many natives get funded post-secondary education, you need to look at a few things. First, the percetnage overall is going to be very low. As well, the highest concentration of aboriginals in post-secondary programs are in two or three year diploma programs, not bachelor degrees and the like. As well, the majority of aboriginals attending post-secondary insitutions are women, usually in the Mature category (35 plus). It's interesting as to why...why not as many men, and why older women? In many cases, these women did not complete their highschool, and they have finally returned after having children, and getting their GED. Many of our men never return, and do labour or construction jobs. In any case, the number overall of natives getting degrees is quite low, even for our population percentage. Many could not go if they did not have funding available. Perhaps this small 'drain' is too much...but in my mind, it is necessary to promote education among aboriginal peoples.

We tend to look at it this way...if you can actually make it through a Reservation school, with their notoriously fickle staff (turnover on Residential schools sees teachers leaving on average within two years), their management issues (kids coming high, hungover, beat up, abused, late, or never) and their squalid infrastructure, the carrot is, you can possibly make it into post-secondary school for free. Possibly. You still need to have the marks for it...and that cuts down the candidates even further. Don't begrude this to the few of us that can actually make it...because as I said, 70% of us live off-Reserve, and can never qualify anyway.


Are you sure about that? I heard that the natives on reserve get a monthly package, and in that is the free gift certificates for food. I thought I remembered that being gov't funded, but I can double check on it. Maybe it's something special that the band put together themselves. The reserve near here is fairly well developed, from what I've seen. I go there usually a couple times a month to deliver groceries, and the people there are as nice as can be. :) I am sure of that. Unless a specific treaty stipulates that the federal government must provide 'x' value of food, there is no federal program to provide aboriginals on Reserves with food. And I can't think of a single treaty that has this stipulation. Check into it...could be the people themselves aren't even sure where the packages are coming from, or funded from, but Canadian Aboriginals are NOT entitled to free food under any Federal program.




Actually, my uncle lived with a native woman and her family of 5 children for a few years, and she had a status card off reserve, and got the tax breaks. Maybe that's one of the specific arrangements you spoke of... Nope. Any such arrangements (tax exemptions while living off reserve) have been repeatedly struck down. The links I provided to Canada Revenue lists a number of such cases. Some native may have had tax exemptions while off Reserve in the past, but the courts have solidified their stand on making sure this only happens on Reserve. Now...that doesn't mean some people aren't filing fraudulent returns, claiming to live on Reserve when they don't...but if you take a look at how taxes for GST, and income (for example) are administered, you can not get away with not paying GST or income tax if the goods and services you purchase, or the income you bring in, is not from the Reserve.

No, when I talked about special arrangements, I meant that there are bands that have negotiated with the Federal Government for self-government, in return for which they have ceded the right to tax exemptions. Others want to negotiate to take over their own taxes, but so far these agreements haven't been hammered out yet.



I'm starting to think the reserve in this city is some sort of weird marvelous wonder or something. :P There are a lot of nice houses out there, and a buddy of mine was telling me about a guy he worked with (white) who lived on a reserve with his aboriginal wife, and got all kinds of funding to do renovations on his house. As far as I know, the reserve doesn't have all kinds of resources to sell off and get them preferential treatment... but I have heard about some really awful remote reserves... maybe that's why ours is nicer. It's near a more populated area, so they have ready access to goods and services. Reserves differ. My home Reserve, Paul Band, is pretty poor. We don't have additional revenue from oil, or casinos, or natural resources, and our houses are run-down (not just from age mind you, but lack of care as well), and many families living to a house. My mother refused to live on Reservation anymore because she did not want to wait until I was 10 for us to be able to move out of my aunty's house.

Enoch Reserve, however, closer to Edmonton, is a rich Reservation, with a lot of oil, and a casino in the works. The homes are nice...people drive new vehicles, and have lots of 'toys'. But that is not Federal money funding this. Reservations are set up sort of like a business, with all band members as equal stockholders. When money comes in, it is divided among band members.

A major misconception arises from this money. Many Canadians believe the government is paying this money. In fact, the Federal government usually is paying SOME money, based on the original treaty signed. However, in many cases, that amount was never indexed for inflation, and if the original amount was $5 per year, per person, it has stayed that way:) Kind of pointless! That 'band cheque' that Reserve natives go collect every month, or quarter, is based on band revenues, and again, some bands are wealthier than others.




Oh trust me, I'll be the last person to say our government works perfectly. :P I admit to numerous flaws in the Canadian system... but I also have to admit I felt a little insulted and taken aback by the phrase "look to your own" as though it's not also your government. I'm sorry...I didn't mean it that way, but I needed for a moment to separate Native Government from the Federal Government. Since I don't actually live on Reserve, I have no say in my people's government anyhow, so of course the Canadian government is mine. Think of it less as a separatist sentiment as a kind of identification...much as one would identify with their city or town's government. Just a different level, not a replacement of.

Any takers on this topic today? The concept of native soveriegnty directly impacts the political dynamic in North America, and yet is something that so few people know anything about.

Any takers on this topic today? The concept of native soveriegnty directly impacts the political dynamic in North America, and yet is something that so few people know anything about.

It might be a bigger deal in the Canada. Down in the States, native soveriegnty isn't really an issue, because our system basically refers to Indian Nations as nations, but those that depend on the US. So any rule "we" have trumps theirs, and they can't really do anything about it. Just the way it is really. I can't imagine the Nations "surviving" as distinct groups down here for more than maybe another century. It might still be trendy to say that one is Cherokee or Lakota, but the cultural traditions will have died off, IMO. Too bad, kinda fun cultures. The girls are cute too.

It might be a bigger deal in the Canada. Down in the States, native soveriegnty isn't really an issue, because our system basically refers to Indian Nations as nations, but those that depend on the US. So any rule "we" have trumps theirs, and they can't really do anything about it. Just the way it is really. I can't imagine the Nations "surviving" as distinct groups down here for more than maybe another century. It might still be trendy to say that one is Cherokee or Lakota, but the cultural traditions will have died off, IMO. Too bad, kinda fun cultures. The girls are cute too.
Hmmm...so cultural extinction in a century or so? I don't see it, actually. As our people become more educated, and take a stronger role in their communities, I think there will absolutely be changes, but I think that slowly as our heritage becomes less a thing of shame, and changes to a thing of pride, our culture will also become stronger. It won't necessarily be the culture of our ancestors, but it will still be a native culture, distinct from the cultures of others.

And I wouldn't necessarily count on the natives in the US not being able to 'do anything about it' in terms of the status of their nationhood. What exists in legal fact does not quite yet exist in practice in the US, and natives in the States are increasingly becoming qualified to fight that point in the courts. Changes are still on the horizon.

Now, I'll admit that I'm a bit unclear as to the differences in tribal sovereignty between aboriginals living in the US and those in Canada, as well as some of the differences in treatment and so on. I'm going to repost something the Cat Tribe put up a few months ago:

In a thread awhile ago, someone made the statement that Native Americans in the US were special, privileged citizens with all kinds of rights that other Americans don't have -- such as hunting and fishing rights and casinos.

It has been awhile, but I wanted to address this issue and -- if others share this view -- discuss it and perhaps persuade you otherwise.

But first, let us look at the overall status of Native Americans in the US. Setting aside the history, here are some nice facts about current life as a Native Americans from the US Surgeon General and the US Census:

In 2000, about 26% of Native Americans lived in poverty, compared to about 13% for the United States as a whole and 8% of white Americans. Almost one-third of Native American families with children under the age of 5 lived in poverty.


In 2000, the overall unemployment rate in the United States as a whole was 3.7%. For Native Americans, it was 7.4%


In 1995, the median household income in the US was $30,056. For Native Americans, it was $19,900. In 2000, the median household income in the US was $41,1994. For Native Americans, it was estimated to be $30,599.


In 1980, only 56% of Native Americans 25-years-old and over had graduated from high school. By 1990, this percentage had increased to 66%, but it was still below the 75% rate for the Nation as a whole. By 2000, it was down slightly to about 62% of Native Americans with a high school degree or equivalent -- while the Nation overall raised to almost 80%.


The prevalence rate of suicide for American Indians is 1.5 times the national rate.


Violent deaths – unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide – account for 75% of all mortality in the second decade of life for Native Americans.


While representing less than 2% of the U.S. population, it is estimated that Native Americans constitute 8% of Americans who are homeless.


In 1997, an estimated 1 out of every 25 Native Americansadults were in the criminal justice system. A 1998 study found that 1 out of every 2 adolescents in a Northern Plains reservation juvenile detention facility had a substance abuse or mental health disorder. Many of these youth had multiple disorders.


Prevalence rates for current alcohol abuse and/or dependence among Northern Plains and Southwestern Vietnam veterans have been estimated to be as high as 70% compared to 11 - 32% of their white, black, and Japanese American counterparts. The estimated rate of alcohol-related deaths for AI/ANs as a whole is much higher than it is for the general population


The rate of violent victimization of Native Americans is more than twice the national average. The higher rate of traumatic exposure results in a 22% rate of PTSD for Native Americans, compared to 8% in the general U.S. population.


Until 1978 when Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act to end "a pattern of discrimination against American Indians," an estimated 25 to 30% of Native Americans children had been removed from their families.

Clicky (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:t7q5dmILl9gJ:www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/cre/fact4.asp+native+american+factsheet&hl=en) and clicky (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/indian/ailang2.txt) and clicky (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_DP3&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP34&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP33&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP20&-selections=label|DEC_2000_SFAIAN_DP3&-reg=DEC_2000_SFAIAN_DP3:001|01A;DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP20:001|01A;DEC_2000_SFAIAN_QTP33:001|01A;DEC_2000 _SFAIAN_QTP34:001|01A|01B&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SFAIAN&-TABLE_NAMEX=&-ci_type=T&-CONTEXT=qt&-redoLog=true&-charIterations=01A&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en&-search_map_config=|b=50|l=en|t=406|zf=0.0|ms=sel_00dec|dw=1.92903677595E7|dh=1.4467775819625001E7|dt =gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-1159354.4783500005|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=318:317:316:314:313:323:319|bl=362:393:358:357:356:35 5:354|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=381:403:204:380:369:379:368|g=01000US)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/388271.stm


As noted above, reservation life is not privileged. See, e.g., Life on a Reservation (http://www.oprah.com/uyl/angel/uyl_angel_20020211_reservation.jhtml); Native American Youth (http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/issues/nativeyouth/facts.html); Reservation Life Worse Than Iraq? (http://www.fcnl.org/act_nalu_curnt/indian_0317_05.htm); A Quiet Crisis (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0204.pdf)

http://cadca.org/CoalitionsOnline/article.asp?id=825



Nor is life off of the reservation particularly privileged

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411233


I'll come back to the question of the handful of "special" privileges that some Indian Tribes have due to treaties. The short version is this: we forced tribes (mostly at gunpoint) to give us the land we live on in exchange for some reservation land and a few "privileges" like hunting and fishing. We still live on the land. If you think the deal was unfair to us, we should give the land back.

Something is bugging me right now...on behalf of the school I work for, I've been investigating the possibility of developing a Cree language program (Cree is one of the biggest living native languages in Canada after the Inuit dialects) for the elementary grades, and for high school, but no one in my office seems interested in pursuing it. Our community has a huge stake in preserving our language, but we seem to be lacking in the resources right now to develop a comprehensive program...not the funds, mind you, but the know-how. There is SOME work being done on this, but my school specialises in this sort of thing, and we have a very large customer base to appeal to. But Cree doesn't have much status as a language I guess...we're focussing on LATIN of all things...yes, many people are interested in Latin, but it's not like there aren't MANY programs out there to support it....are natives just not high enough in prestige to bother working with? RAR![/rant]

Something is bugging me right now...on behalf of the school I work for, I've been investigating the possibility of developing a Cree language program (Cree is one of the biggest living native languages in Canada after the Inuit dialects) for the elementary grades, and for high school, but no one in my office seems interested in pursuing it. Our community has a huge stake in preserving our language, but we seem to be lacking in the resources right now to develop a comprehensive program...not the funds, mind you, but the know-how. There is SOME work being done on this, but my school specialises in this sort of thing, and we have a very large customer base to appeal to. But Cree doesn't have much status as a language I guess...we're focussing on LATIN of all things...yes, many people are interested in Latin, but it's not like there aren't MANY programs out there to support it....are natives just not high enough in prestige to bother working with? RAR![/rant]

latin?! shit girl, you tell them that i said 'fuck latin' and get on with the living language that requires preservation.

does cree have much of a written body of works now, or is it mostly just spoken?

latin?! shit girl, you tell them that i said 'fuck latin' and get on with the living language that requires preservation.

does cree have much of a written body of works now, or is it mostly just spoken?
It's still mostly oral, which is why it is so critical that we start WRITING THE SHIT DOWN NOW. We do have some books in Cree, and sound/video recordings of Elders telling tales, but we are losing more and more of our vocabulary as we begin using anglicisms out of lack of knowledge. Still, the amount of written Cree out there is shockingly low. I would be in rapture if someone would author books totally in Cree...we are just as capable of creating great literary works as anyone, but English is easier to sell, of course. Then again, the structure of our language is so oral...a real Cree book would read sort of like transcription, but that would be fine as well.

It's still mostly oral, which is why it is so critical that we start WRITING THE SHIT DOWN NOW. We do have some books in Cree, and sound/video recordings of Elders telling tales, but we are losing more and more of our vocabulary as we begin using anglicisms out of lack of knowledge. Still, the amount of written Cree out there is shockingly low. I would be in rapture if someone would author books totally in Cree...we are just as capable of creating great literary works as anyone, but English is easier to sell, of course. Then again, the structure of our language is so oral...a real Cree book would read sort of like transcription, but that would be fine as well.

yeah, this is the big project that needs to be done starting right now for a huge number of aboriginal languages around the world.

one of the best ways i've heard of, in addition to the standard 'transcribing the stories' and 'setting up language classes' method (which are very valuable things to do, of course), is to start up newspapers and magazines written either entirely or halfway in the language in question. it sort of has a multiplier effect if done right - it helps create a body of written work which is vital in itself for preservation, but it also adds 'legitimacy' to the use of that language in the eyes of the both the language community and those outside of it, and generally helps keep the language alive by keeping it in use in new contexts.

Something is bugging me right now...on behalf of the school I work for, I've been investigating the possibility of developing a Cree language program (Cree is one of the biggest living native languages in Canada after the Inuit dialects) for the elementary grades, and for high school, but no one in my office seems interested in pursuing it. Our community has a huge stake in preserving our language, but we seem to be lacking in the resources right now to develop a comprehensive program...not the funds, mind you, but the know-how. There is SOME work being done on this, but my school specialises in this sort of thing, and we have a very large customer base to appeal to. But Cree doesn't have much status as a language I guess...we're focussing on LATIN of all things...yes, many people are interested in Latin, but it's not like there aren't MANY programs out there to support it....are natives just not high enough in prestige to bother working with? RAR![/rant]
When you say 'know-how' do you mean the language itself (for instance there are not enough native speakers to implement lessons/curriculum), or are you saying that the actual means of passing the language on in a comprehensive way is presenting a barrier?

When you say 'know-how' do you mean the language itself (for instance there are not enough native speakers to implement lessons/curriculum), or are you saying that the actual means of passing the language on in a comprehensive way is presenting a barrier?
Both.

Our fluent speakers are mostly our elders, who are dying off. Because of the Residential School schism, there is a huge gap between those that were raised fluent, and those who had to learn later on in life (and who have not developed that degree of fluency). Training our elders for years and years in order to teach is not really an option...we need them now. Yet the way the education system is set up, our language needs can not really be met in cultural context...our elders never learned how to read and write in Cree because their language was oral. How do we balance the oral traditions with the new need for literacy in Cree? We haven't figured out a good system yet, and by the time we do, it may be too late. I'm not sure how we can change this...

Both.

Our fluent speakers are mostly our elders, who are dying off. Because of the Residential School schism, there is a huge gap between those that were raised fluent, and those who had to learn later on in life (and who have not developed that degree of fluency). Training our elders for years and years in order to teach is not really an option...we need them now. Yet the way the education system is set up, our language needs can not really be met in cultural context...our elders never learned how to read and write in Cree because their language was oral. How do we balance the oral traditions with the new need for literacy in Cree? We haven't figured out a good system yet, and by the time we do, it may be too late. I'm not sure how we can change this...
With regards to written language I think that is secondary given that Cree is an oral language - any written codification of it, is a post-colonial invention and in terms of culture it isnt necessary to stick with it. It seems to me the priority is revitalising the oral language.

Is it necessary to train elders to teach? Probably the best place to start in passing on the language is with the youngest. Wouldnt it be possible to have a mixed (instructor) pre-schooler class-room setting where Cree speaking elders teach alongside trained pre-school teachers. It wouldnt be easy, but it wouldnt be impossible either to have a system whereby trained pre-school teachers set in place a curriculum of activities that can be communicated to children through very basic commands (for instance to instruct children to 'go to... and paint', or 'come here and sit' etc) and greetings/goodbyes.

Having decided what activities would occur the trained teachers could be tutored by Cree speakers in the giving these basic instructions and using Cree for basic greetings/goodbyes and motivational praise.

Most pre-school tasks are really fairly autonomous and adults tend for the most part to keep order (which can again be accomplished with very basic commands/requests 'sit, stand, quiet' etc, many of which can be matched to body gestures to aid communication, for instance a command for everyone to stop what they are doing and be still and quiet could be accompanied by a 'hands on head gesture', 'sit' could be accompaned by a gesturing a downward motion from in front of the upper chest down to waist level, using both hands palm down, and 'stand' or 'rise' could be the opposite, palms up going from waist to upper chest).

In pre-school, unlike later grades, constant instruction (and knowledge of 'teaching methods') isnt really needed because children are not being primarily taught things that require detailed instructions/explanations.
Much of the communication that goes on in pre-schools between children and adults is really about socialising children into language (and social expectations) rather than communicating things in a language they already understand.

You could then have a total immersion class-room setting in which trained teachers aided Cree speakers in keeping things running smoothly, and ensuring that there were adequate suitable tasks and activities to keep the children occupied, socialising, learning, and engaged just as occurs in most pre-school settings. Aside from the trained teachers helping with basic commands and requests, motivational praise and social nicities such as greetings and goodbyes, communication would be primarily between the Cree speaking teachers/elders and the children.

Given total immersion for a few hours a day, the children will pick up the language quicker than their non-Cree speaking teachers. Initially there would be a lag between child graduation to school level, and teaching (at post-pre-school level), but at least children would have a grounding in the language.

If at the same time efforts are made to pass Cree along to the non-Cree speaking teachers, it would be possible to edge Cree into school level (for instance by having a native Cree speaker and some 2nd language Cree teachers, teaching total immersion once per week in a school nearby the pre-school, where hopefully most of the pre-schoolers would have gone to after pre-school).

Eventually some 2nd language Cree speaking teachers, and possibly some native Cree speaking elders would very probably be capble of teaching full immersion classes at primary school level, either in a dedicated class within a school, or in a school that is entirely Cree language orientated. The next step is to repeat this process moving up to high-school.

Reading and writing in Cree would simply be a matter of teaching Cree talking/learning children to read and write just as in English (since it is an oral language I am assuming that the alphabet used to write in English would be sufficient). As Cree speaking children learned to read and write in English the skills would be transferrable for use with Cree. Once the teacher/knowledge resource base is sufficient to enable Cree immersion teaching at higher levels in the school system, reading and writing in Cree would be inherent, just as reading and writing in English is an inherent part of learning in English speaking schools. English literacy would be taught as a dedicated class within the curriculum.

The added plus of starting with pre-schoolers and then introduing Cree further up the education system as the knowledge/teaching base is built up, is that at that age languages tend to all be learnt as 'first languages'. The children not only become fluent in Cree (achieving the objective), but also have the added advantage of being bi-lingual which in my opinion is a definate advantage that leads to increased 'mental' growth/capacity.

This method has been successfully used elsewhere. One of it's biggest advantages is you dont need to wait until you have the kind of skill resource base needed to teach in upper level skills, but rather gain such a base as a result of implementing the method. Even with very few funds, it's possible to implement the process as a community level initiative run mostly on imput from volunteers, utilising donations, community fundraising and a 'pay according to means' fee policy.

I'm all for the not forcing you to change or be assimilated. But when you mean self rule do you mean something along the lines of making your own laws to deal with people of your culture or something more along the lines of an actual independence movement?

Probably, happens in Australia a fair bit.
Take the tradition of spearing people in the leg
'I rather not go to jail instead of spearing your honour, because they will just spear me when I get out'

One thing the really bothers me is how we gave native americans such shitty land, and then they make casinos on it because theres nothing else you can do with that land, and then we talk about native americans being "sinful" or whatever because there are so many casinos on the reservations.

*snip*
Some of the things you've mentioned are being done in places. I'd like to see full immersion for the elementary years at least...make sure these kids are fluent. But then it isolates them....bleh.