NationStates Jolt Archive

There are various issues involved in the relationship between aboriginal people in North America, and the governments of the US and Canada, past and present. Nonetheless, the basic principles as reaffirmed again and again in both legislation and legal decisions is that aboriginal people are "citizens plus". Aboriginal peoples are affirmed as having a usufructory relationship to the land...that is, a right based on traditional usage and occupancy. Despite the fact that aboriginal cultures do not have a tradition of 'private' land ownership, we were, and still are, recognised as having title to land.

This is clearly a different relationship than can be had with other groups currently living in North America. Where much of the current conflicts arise, you will find that issues of land title and usufruct are paramount. Two major situations form the basis of many of these current conflicts.

1) Specific claims

Specific claims deal with situations in which aboriginal title was extinguished through treaty and/or scrip. Essentially, payments and/or other compensations were granted in exchange for rights. I'll speak mostly of Canada, since I am not as familiar with US treaties. Treaties effectively extinguished aboriginal title, but many of the treaties have not been fully honoured, or their interpretation is being contested.

2) Comprehensive claims

Comprehensive claims are land claims pertaining to areas where aboriginal people continue to live and where aboriginal title was never extinguished. In effect, this means that there are vast areas which were never legally ceded by aboriginal peoples. In all cases that I am aware of, treaties are being sought as a method of dealing with these comprehensive land claims...what that means is that despite the rumours (and my last satirical thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485621)), we realise you are here to stay, and we are not for the most part, laying claim to all the land.

We are not asking for reparations for past wrongs, except in specific circumstances (Residential schools). We believe in negotiation, and prefer it to litigation. Due to our specific relationship to these lands, and to the past and current governments of the US and Canada, we can not be dealt with as any other minority group.

To get a general idea of what self-government looks like, check out this post. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11098653&postcount=45)

If it were up to me I'd start by ceding Manhatten back to you.

I don't know...was the area of Manhatten under treaty? The point is, especially in Canada, there is going to be MORE negotiation on aboriginal title and rights, not less, and some very radical changes have already been made, most of which the average Canadian is completely unaware.

Manhatten was "bought" for roughly (at last estimate I heard) twenty three dollars worth of baubles from a band of people who had no concept of owning property.

Manhatten was "bought" for roughly (at last estimate I heard) twenty three dollars worth of baubles from a band of people who had no concept of owning property.
Mmmm...a land claim was brought forth by the Cayuga and was being looked at back in '04 if I recall correctly...I'll have to do some digging to see if it's been resolved.

An article from '04 (http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2004/03/31/news/news02.txt)

Mmmm...a land claim was brought forth by the Cayuga and was being looked at back in '04 if I recall correctly...I'll have to do some digging to see if it's been resolved.

An article from '04 (http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2004/03/31/news/news02.txt)


There are multiple land claim issues here in upstate New York. The area I live in is part of a land claim by the Onondaga, which is very interesting, as they aren’t looking for any monetary compensation, and are not looking to take over ownership of property. What it essentially stems from is the clean up of a superfund site on Onondaga lake, which they are (rightfully) concerned is not being done properly. The Seneca and Cayuga are looking for financial recompense for treaties they allege were broken by New York state hundreds of years ago. A recent federal court ruling claims that they basically waited too long. The case has been in the courts for probably 15 years or more, so I don’t expect it’s just going to end with this ruling.

Interestingly, the two row wampum has recently been used to justify a school decision to allow Onondagan students to wear traditional clothing to a public high school graduation, rather than the typical black graduation gown. On a local level, it’s good to see some of these historical traditions honored.

I can't see many large cash settlements paid out in specific land claims, though it isn't unheard of...but then again, cash settlements in exchange for title may be preferable to returning title...

In Canada, huge areas were never ceded by treaty. The entire province of British Columbia, for example, and almost the entire North, inluding North Quebec and Labrador. Some comprehensive claims have been settled, but many more are still being negotiated. A little less than half of 'Canadian' territory still needs to be dealt with.

Manhatten was "bought" for roughly (at last estimate I heard) twenty three dollars worth of baubles from a band of people who had no concept of owning property.

Actually, I'd heard that they bought it from a tribe that didn't even own the island. Much like the whole "Hey, I've got a bridge to sell you" ploy.

The other issue in the Cayuga and Seneca land claims are whether or not lands purchased by nations outside of the sovereign nation property can be considered sovereign land. Specifically, the property purchased for Turning Stone casino is treated as sovereign land by the owners, however part of the lawsuit claims that it is subject to New York state and local taxes, since it's not contiguous to nation land (or perhaps part of the orignal treaties, can't recall which offhand).

Actually, I'd heard that they bought it from a tribe that didn't even own the island. Much like the whole "Hey, I've got a bridge to sell you" ploy.

I think that it's really more one of our "historical/cultural myths" kind of like George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and Paul Revere's ride. The treaties negotiated by European colonists and the indiginous nations were more complicated than trading a couple of shiny objects.

In Canada, huge areas were never ceded by treaty. The entire province of British Columbia, for example, and almost the entire North, inluding North Quebec and Labrador. Some comprehensive claims have been settled, but many more are still being negotiated. A little less than half of 'Canadian' territory still needs to be dealt with.

And I think (though admittedly, I really ought to know more about this) that the original treaties weren't about ceding land, but more about living parallel lives, where whites and Iroquois would need to accept the other's soverignity. Apparently, that didn't work out so well.

From what I understand of this particular claim, land title was extinguished properly through treaty to vast tracts of Seneca and Cayuga land, but later on, reserved land was taken through improper negotiation by the state. The state received no final authority to treat with the bands.

After a series of rulings in the case, McCurn decided in 1994 the state illegally acquired 64,027 acres of former reservation land in Seneca and Cayuga counties by entering into invalid treaties with the Cayugas without receiving congressional ratification, required by the 1790 Indian Non-Intercourse Act.

However, the second circuit court threw out the original decision that favoured the land claim because 'they waited too long'. I don't know what the current state of appeals is, but I would be surprised to see that particular argument hold up in perpetuity.

And I think (though admittedly, I really ought to know more about this) that the original treaties weren't about ceding land, but more about living parallel lives, where whites and Iriquois would need to accept the other's soverignity. Apparently, that didn't work out so well.
Most likely you're thinking about the Great Peace (http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/aboriginals/aboriginals2_e.html#great). Nonetheless, treaties dealing specifically with the extinguishment of aboriginal title followed the Peace and Friendship Treaties as areas were opened up for colonisation. They happened in a sort of haphazard manner, as more land was needed, but native groups for the most part wanted to treat with the Crown. So we're talking about different kinds of treaties here.

Jay's Treaty (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004114), for example was not about ceding land rights, but allowed native people to trade across the borders freely. It is still used by the Six Nations in order to trade cigarettes across the border without taxes.

From what I understand of this particular claim, land title was extinguished properly through treaty to vast tracts of Seneca and Cayuga land, but later on, reserved land was taken through improper negotiation by the state. The state received no final authority to treat with the bands.

However, the second circuit court threw out the original decision that favoured the land claim because 'they waited too long'. I don't know what the current state of appeals is, but I would be surprised to see that particular argument hold up in perpetuity.

that sounds right. i anticipate that this won't end with this generation.

Most likely you're thinking about the Great Peace (http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/aboriginals/aboriginals2_e.html#great). Nonetheless, treaties dealing specifically with the extinguishment of aboriginal title followed the Peace and Friendship Treaties as areas were opened up for colonisation. They happened in a sort of haphazard manner, as more land was needed, but native groups for the most part wanted to treat with the Crown. So we're talking about different kinds of treaties here.

Jay's Treaty (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004114), for example was not about ceding land rights, but allowed native people to trade across the borders freely. It is still used by the Six Nations in order to trade without tariffs.

as i said, i really ought to know more about this, but not growing up in new york state, i didn't this in local history while in school. i could stand to do some reading on the subject!

that sounds right. i anticipate that this won't end with this generation.
Admittedly, our nations are dealing with aboriginal claims in different ways, and what happens in one country is not necessarily going to happen in the other. However, aboriginal claims in Canada (in my opinion) are going to be a focal point for the next few decades.

as i said, i really ought to know more about this, but not growing up in new york state, i didn't this in local history while in school. i could stand to do some reading on the subject!
I wouldn't beat yourself up about it. This stuff is covered so briefly in school, (though more information is now being included in the curriculum here), and it is discussed so rarely in a comprehensive manner in the media, that most people don't know anything about the issues at all. What I know has been hard-won, and I'm still not near the point I want to be in terms of understanding the situation.

It's a pretty fascinating issue though, and not one that is going to go away any time soon, so it's worth your while.

Actually, I'd heard that they bought it from a tribe that didn't even own the island. Much like the whole "Hey, I've got a bridge to sell you" ploy.


http://www.answers.com/topic/manhattan


A borough of New York City in southeast New York, mainly on Manhattan Island at the north end of New York Bay. Peter Minuit of the Dutch West Indies Company bought the island in 1626 from the Manhattan Indians, supposedly for $24 worth of merchandise. The settlement of New Amsterdam, renamed New York when the English assumed control in 1664, quickly spread from the southern tip of the island, eventually becoming the financial and commercial center of the United States. Population: 1,560,000

http://www.nnp.org/documents/schagen_main.html


Peter Schaghen, the author of this document, was the representative of the States General in the Assembly of the Nineteen of the West India Company. In the late summer of 1626 he reported the arrival of the ship Wapen van Amsterdam, newly arrived from New Netherland. In his report to the directors of the WIC he announced the purchase of Manhattan Island for the value of 60 guilders. The Schaghen letter is the earliest reference to the purchase of the island which would become the center of New Netherland. The original of this document is held by the Rijksarchief in The Hague.

http://www.nnp.org/documents/schaghenletter.html

English transcription

[ ] 5
Rcvd. 7 November 1626


High and Mighty Lords,
Yesterday the ship the Arms of Amsterdam arrived here. It sailed from New Netherland out of the River Mauritius on the 23d of September. They report that our people are in good spirit and live in peace. The women also have borne some children there. They have purchased the Island Manhattes from the Indians for the value of 60 guilders. It is 11,000 morgens in size [about 22,000 acres]. They had all their grain sowed by the middle of May, and reaped by the middle of August They sent samples of these summer grains: wheat, rye, barley, oats, buckwheat, canary seed, beans and flax. The cargo of the aforesaid ship is:
7246 Beaver skins
178½ Otter skins
675 Otter skins
48 Mink skins
36 Lynx skins
33 Minks
34 Muskrat skins

Many oak timbers and nut wood. Herewith, High and Mighty Lords, be commended to the mercy of the Almighty,

Your High and Mightinesses' obedient, P.Schaghen

I think that it's really more one of our "historical/cultural myths" kind of like George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and Paul Revere's ride. The treaties negotiated by European colonists and the indiginous nations were more complicated than trading a couple of shiny objects.

I'm aware of that. I found the reference for my claim, it was in James Loewen's "Lies Across America". He said that the Dutch bought the island from the Canarsies, who lived in Brooklyn. The Canarsie leaders implied that they owned all of Manhattan when they didn't. Much like the archetypal New Yorker selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge. The tribe who actually lived on most of the island were the Weckguaesgeeks. Of course, the Dutch probably wouldn't have really cared if they knew they were getting fleeced, since in their minds they were only buying the claim to the land in the eyes of other Europeans. The Dutch didn't try to buy from the Weckguaesgeeks, since of course they wouldn't sell, so they waited for an internecine war to erupt among the Weckausegeeks and their tributaries and then attacked along with their allies, the Canarsies.

I guess the issue isn't interesting until it explodes in conflict over blockades ( http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/23/caledonia-monday.html) or fishing rights ( http://www.rism.org/isg/dlp/bc/news/1999.htm).

In terms of comprehensive claims, there are a few things common to all the ones that have been resolved in Canada so far (sometimes called the modern day treaties). They all extinguish aboriginal title over land, in return for:

1) Land. It may sound silly, but that's the main issue, is in ensuring that certain tracts of land remain in the hands of aboriginal groups in pepetuity.

2) Cash settlements. Compensation packages in exchange for rights...luckily for you, we haven't been charging the market value of the land being ceded (that, to anyone who thinks we're getting too much money).

3) Environmental Protection. Depending on the agreement, aboriginal groups may enact stricter (not more lax) environmental regulations than provincially or federally required.

4) Wildlife. Maintaining the aboriginal right to harvest, and to manage wildlife to a stricter (not more lax) degree (especially in terms of non-aboriginals).

5) Economic participation. Usually a resource royalty sharing agreement, contract splitting, etc.

6) Interim protection. This prevents land in dispute from being developed during the negotiation period (not always done, re: Caledonia).

There are other provisions which may be individually negotiated, including self-government, but these six points are the main ones so far. (information sourced from "Aboriginal Peoples in Canada", Frideres and Gadacz, 7th edition)

Ok? Maybe I am slow today but what is the point of this thread?

Ok? Maybe I am slow today but what is the point of this thread?
The Point of This Thread, or the POTT, is:

Aboriginal issues are valid, and far more complex than the concept of historical reparations for past wrongs. Also, they aren't going to disappear, so it's time that people in the US and Canada started learning more about the negotiations still going on.

And, there is a reason that aboriginal people are not treated 'just like any other minority', which is what so many people insist we SHOULD be treated like.

And, there is a reason that aboriginal people are not treated 'just like any other minority', which is what so many people insist we SHOULD be treated like.

Maybe that is in Canada. Here we have some of the aboriginals that gave 500 million in campaign donations. So are they really a "traditional" minority? (obviously, they don't all have that kind of money).

The casino thing has fuddled the picture a little.....

Maybe that is in Canada. Here we have some of the aboriginals that gave 500 million in campaign donations. So are they really a "traditional" minority? (obviously, they don't all have that kind of money).

The casino thing has fuddled the picture a little.....
We never were a 'traditional minority', that's the point. And we have casinos here as well, and some settlements that have included oil revenue or mineral royalty sharing which provide huge funds to some. I don't think that fuddles the picture at all. Everyone else has been able to profit off this land, and we were expressly prevented from doing so for a long, long time. Now that we are regaining our rights, people resent it and believe we should have no special considerations because 'no other minorities do'.

Citizens plus. We are equal, but also different.

Citizens plus. We are equal, but also different.


What a fortuitous position to be in. Congrats

Citizens plus. We are equal, but also different.

Wow. I wish I could be in that position.

Wow. I wish I could be in that position.
Um...you do realise that despite the nice term, it hasn't actually been beneficial in any way to the majority of us, and in that sense, only to some very recently....?

And by the way, there are other 'minorities' with vastly greater financial resources than aboriginal peoples...and much more political pull...the Miami Cubans come to mind.

And by the way, there are other 'minorities' with vastly greater financial resources than aboriginal peoples...and much more political pull...the Miami Cubans come to mind.

Not for long. You are doing well.

Not for long. You are doing well.
That's a rather rosy picture of things...I wish I could be that positive.

That's a rather rosy picture of things...I wish I could be that positive.


OK howsabout you are making headway. Slowly at first but picking up steam?

Better:)

Um...you do realise that despite the nice term, it hasn't actually been beneficial in any way to the majority of us, and in that sense, only to some very recently....?


I am commenting (and I think Not Bad is too) about the reference to Brown vs. the Board of Education. NAACP lawyers used the phrase "Separate but equal" But if you look at Plessy vs. Ferguson the phrase was "equal but separate"

You see what is making us smirk is that phrase was used throughout the US Southern states during the period of segregation where black and white Americans would receive the same services as in hospitals, schools, water fountains, bathrooms, etc. but there would be distinct facilities for each race. Usually, the whites had greater quality or more funding.....

Finally, I don't live in the past so I don't follow you.....

And by the way, there are other 'minorities' with vastly greater financial resources than aboriginal peoples...and much more political pull...the Miami Cubans come to mind.

Don't quote me but I think there were a number of them that came to this country with a great deal of money when Castro took over.

And I thinking there are more of them then the tribal people(well maybe not combined but comparing the numbers of one tribe vs the cuban community).

The Point of This Thread, or the POTT, is:

Aboriginal issues are valid, and far more complex than the concept of historical reparations for past wrongs. Also, they aren't going to disappear, so it's time that people in the US and Canada started learning more about the negotiations still going on.

And, there is a reason that aboriginal people are not treated 'just like any other minority', which is what so many people insist we SHOULD be treated like.

It is high time the so called aboriginal people come into the fold of the nations that they live in. I personally think they should be treated exactly like every other member of there respective nations. No special rights that you and others like you keep demanding. I think it is a crock that you think you deserve more than the other so called "non-natives". To me it is one of the worst forms of racism. Which the kind that is propagated by passage of laws that give one people more rights than another. You or your "so called" people do not have any more claim than any other people of your nation. You were not alive during the time of your ancestors. Would be like me going back to Europe and claiming special status because of my heritage. Sounds absurd doesn't it? To think that you deserve special treatment is very arrogant and racist. Many think the way I do. Alot do not want to say it because it is un-PC. I call your racism for what it is.

All they want is the cure and their friends back.

Wait, thats AIDS.

STICK TO THE NEWS CYCLE SINUHUE!

It is high time the so called aboriginal people come into the fold of the nations that they live in. I personally think they should be treated exactly like every other member of there respective nations. No special rights that you and others like you keep demanding. I think it is a crock that you think you deserve more than the other so called "non-natives". To me it is one of the worst forms of racism. Which the kind that is propagated by passage of laws that give one people more rights than another. You or your "so called" people do not have any more claim than any other people of your nation. You were not alive during the time of your ancestors. Would be like me going back to Europe and claiming special status because of my heritage. Sounds absurd doesn't it? To think that you deserve special treatment is very arrogant and racist. Many think the way I do. Alot do not want to say it because it is un-PC. I call your racism for what it is.

At least in the US, on my cursory understanding of the issue, Indians are members of "sovereign" Indian nations and therefore are not legally equal to american citizens.

Also, it seems as though the US government has agreed in the past to numerous treaties and made numerous guarantees to the Indians, which even the most cursory sense of personal or national honor should cause us to respect on the simple principle of honesty.

At least in the US, on my cursory understanding of the issue, Indians are members of "sovereign" Indian nations and therefore are not legally equal to american citizens.

Also, it seems as though the US government has agreed in the past to numerous treaties and made numerous guarantees to the Indians, which even the most cursory sense of personal or national honor should cause us to respect on the simple principle of honesty.

Actually, they are American citizens, largely due to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924), passed ostensibly to honor the native veterans of WWI, but largely because of the desire by the majority to see assimilation occur.

From what I can gather the tribes are somewhere between territories and states in their status with the Federal government. This can also vary from state to state, as there are a number of tribal entities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_State_Recognized_American_Indian_Tribal_Entities) that are recognized by the individual states, but not the Federal government. They're sovereign as the states are, but don't have representation in Congress independent of the states wherein they reside.

Some tribes do better than others. The tribes here in Michigan do rather well, especially the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, which is based in the city I live in. Also, the state seems to cooperate with the tribes rather well, and is trying to (video warning) (mms://www.sagchip.org/053006/GranholmInterview.wmv) include the tribes in the economic development of the state.

edit: I just read an article that was talking about the status of Indian tribes. It says that the Supreme Court found in Cherokee Nation v Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia) that the Indian tribes were "domestic dependent nations". The main effect of this decision that the conclusion that the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction over them, and thus Georgia could conduct their removal of the Cherokee's unimpeded.

One of the biggest problems is who exactly belongs to a "North American aboriginal group"? Some are obvious but the majority today are interbred and live as a normal part of the greater society.

I know a man who is 1/32 and has a card to prove it. His sons are 1/64 and they have cards. Is he really a "North American aboriginal"? Personally I think it's ok to honor your heritage but if you aren't suffering because of your heritage why should the greater society owe you anything?

Those that live on reservations and have no way to support themselves deserve help just like any person that suffers under the rules of society. The rest I could care less who their 5th G Grandfather was.

I am commenting (and I think Not Bad is too) about the reference to Brown vs. the Board of Education. NAACP lawyers used the phrase "Separate but equal" But if you look at Plessy vs. Ferguson the phrase was "equal but separate"

You see what is making us smirk is that phrase was used throughout the US Southern states during the period of segregation where black and white Americans would receive the same services as in hospitals, schools, water fountains, bathrooms, etc. but there would be distinct facilities for each race. Usually, the whites had greater quality or more funding.....

There exists a segregation right now, which quite negatively impacts aboriginal people. In Canada, our education and health care are provided at the federal level, while every other citizen (outside of military personnel, RCMP and Members of Parliament) are dealt with on a provincial level. We as a people have no actual control over our education or health care...basic provisions which are provided to all non-aboriginals. We are still very much in a wardship in regards to the state, and virtually all major decisions that affect our lives must be made, or rubber stamped by Indian Affairs. No other group in Canada is thus limited. What we want is to take control over our own affairs.

In terms of citizens plus...I'll go into that when I address Marrakech II's post.

Finally, I don't live in the past so I don't follow you..... And you've lost me here...unless you are stating that the negative impact of being aboriginal is only in the past...to which I would reply, you are quite mistaken.

It is high time the so called aboriginal people come into the fold of the nations that they live in. I personally think they should be treated exactly like every other member of there respective nations. No special rights that you and others like you keep demanding. I think it is a crock that you think you deserve more than the other so called "non-natives". To me it is one of the worst forms of racism. Which the kind that is propagated by passage of laws that give one people more rights than another. You or your "so called" people do not have any more claim than any other people of your nation. You were not alive during the time of your ancestors. Would be like me going back to Europe and claiming special status because of my heritage. Sounds absurd doesn't it? To think that you deserve special treatment is very arrogant and racist. Many think the way I do. Alot do not want to say it because it is un-PC. I call your racism for what it is.

First, I want to point out that a very common argument made, especially in terms of the reservation system, and our struggle to wrest control over our governance and our lands from the government, is that the aboriginal self-government is a kind of modern day apartheid, and therefore should be abolished altogether. Well, there is something incredibly hypocritical about stripping a people of their resources in one generation, and then describing a complex and careful attempt by the next generation to restore some of those resources a 'apartheid', or as a violation of equality before the law.

We have a special relationship with the state that no other groups shares, and this relationship is based on the kind of contact we had with trappers and settlers. We were colonised, not by conquest, but by mutual agreement, laid out in the treaties. The French, and later the British, relied on us to survive in these lands. It would have been impossible for either nation to gain a foothold here when they did, had we chosen to repel them. They did not gain military superiority here until well after the beginning of colonisation.

It is arrogant and racist to say we deserve special treatment? It is arrogant and foolish of you to claim we do not. We are not any other group of people. We are the people who held title to this land when the Europeans arrived. That title was recognised by the Europeans, and specific policies were introduced in order to extinguish aboriginal title and open up lands for settlement. Did your ancestors hold title in Europe? Was that title recognised, and duly extinguished in legally binding contracts? Were the terms of the contract not met? Unless you can answer yes to all these questions, then your attempt to compare the situation is pointless and rejected.

The fact of aboriginal sovereignty in North America is irrefutable, and irreversible. You see it as racism, and we see it as justice. We hold you to your terms, regardless of the fact that you seem so hellbent on forgetting what they were...and denying that people of a different generation should be held accountable for the agreements their ancestors signed. The treaties bound my ancestors, and all their heirs, just as they bind you. You are the heirs of those who treated with us, and more and more, your courts recognise that there is a responsibility to settle your accounts with us. Many of our treaties predate your constitution...so unless you wish to overturn every law you have founded your nation on since the treaties, you WILL be held accountable to the treaties you have signed in the past, and the treaties you are currently negotiating with my people.

One of the biggest problems is who exactly belongs to a "North American aboriginal group"? Some are obvious but the majority today are interbred and live as a normal part of the greater society.

I know a man who is 1/32 and has a card to prove it. His sons are 1/64 and they have cards. Is he really a "North American aboriginal"? Personally I think it's ok to honor your heritage but if you aren't suffering because of your heritage why should the greater society owe you anything?

Those that live on reservations and have no way to support themselves deserve help just like any person that suffers under the rules of society. The rest I could care less who their 5th G Grandfather was.

The issue of membership and status are tricky ones. Don't confuse the two, because right now, they are very different things. Status is a legal definition cooked up by the government. Right now in Canada, status is very strict. It isn't based on a complete blood quantum the way it is in the US, but rather than being more lenient, is actually more strict. A First Nations person is considered 6(1) status (full status) if both his or her parents are full status. If that person marries another 6(1) aboriginal, their children will be 6(1).

However, if one of the parents is non-status, the person becomes 6(2). If this person marries a non-aboriginal, the children do not have any status. That's it. That's as far as you can get and still have legal status...two generations. I am half-Cree, and I married a non-aboriginal. My children do not have legal status...but they have band membership.

Band membership is different. Individual bands may have their own membership criteria. Some are extremely strict...in some matrilineal clan systems, if the mother is not aboriginal, or is aboriginal and not of a clan, then the children are not given membership, even if the father is full-blooded, and the mother is full-blooded (but of a different tribe). Some are very lax...there is a Cherokee tribe in the US that accepted blood quantum of something stupid like 1/256 in order to beef up membership. However, membership does not equal status...and funding is determined by the number of status indians in a band, not by the number of members.

What we want is control over membership and status. Of course, with self-government agreements, we would be taking control over our own finances, so this would not be a case of us accepting just anyone to beef up the rolls and get more money. It wouldn't work like that. Our membership codes would be returned to the traditional methods, and our criteria would determine status...not the government, telling us who, and who is not, an Indian.

To those of you in Canada who are a bit hazy on whether or not the treaty system is still alive and well...there have been a number of 'modern day' treaties that have conferred self-government and various control over resources upon aboriginal groups. Some have negotiated legal powers equivalent to certain provincial or federal bodies and exist in a very unique relationship to the Canadian government. Not as municipalities, not as separate sovereign states, but something in-between...

The most notable of the 'modern day treaties' are as follows:

The Nisga'a (http://www.nisgaalisims.ca/)
- ratified and put into effect on May 11, 2000, BC's first Treaty since 1899
- 2000 out of the originally claimed 24000 square kilometres of land
- central Nisga'a government with jurisdiction and powers similar to those of other local municipal-style governments, including law-making, policing, corrections services and a Nisga'a Court
- surface and subsurface rights on Nisga'a lands
- personal tax exemptions to be phased out
- one time payment of $190 million payable over 15 years (payment for exchange of rights)
- in 12 years, the Nisga'a will no longer be governed by the Indian Act, will be subject to all provincial and federal taxes, and will become ultimately responsible for the bulk of public services on Nisga'a lands.

No one is going to settle for less than what the Nisga'a have won.

The Tli Cho (http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/08/25/landclaim030825.html)

- 2003, the largest block of land in Canada returned to aboriginal control, 39000 square kilometres
- surface and subsurface rights
- public governments for each of the four communities in the area
- power to tax Dogrib citizens on Dogrib lands
- government to be based on traditional governance (a big win, because Indian Affairs created the current band council system)
- control over hunting and fishing and industrial development
- entitled to royalties on resources from land and waters

The Inuvialuit settled their comprehensive land claim in 1984, and the Gwich'in settled theirs in 1992. With their land claims settled (http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/R34-9-4-2000E.pdf#search='Gwich%27in%20negotiations'), they are now negotiating for self-government. This is a long, complex process. Most people don't even know it is going on...or are aware that similar agreements have already been reached with other aboriginal nations.

The first band in Canada to withdraw itself from the Indian Act, and to enact self-government, was the Sechelt Indian Band ( http://www.brandonu.ca/Library/cjns/8.1/etkin.pdf). This was back in 1984. To get a better idea about what self-government entails, check out the BC Treaty Commission's site (http://www.bctreaty.net/files_3/issues_selfgovern.html).

What...no one wants to follow up on their accusations of me being a racist?