NationStates Jolt Archive

Open to one and to all. To discuss contact, colonisation, the history of relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, beliefs about contemporary issues, and theories on future relationships...

I'd like to point out first, that a crucial factor in contemporary relationships between aboriginals in Canada and the US, with non-aboriginals, is that unlike our southern neighbours, these lands were not settled by conquest, but rather by colonisation, aided and agreed to by us. So while our relationship has been rocky, it was nonetheless founded on a principle of cooperation, and this foundation is the reason that the contemporary aboriginal rights are being so successfully pursued.

Edit: Because of someone's unfortunate inability to read the above in context, I'd like to point out that this discussion, on my part, is focussing on aboriginal people in the US and Canada. So when I say 'our neighours to the south', I am in fact referring to every American nation south of the US. :rolleyes:

"Write this. We have burned all their villages

Write this. We have burned all the villages and the people in them

Write this. We have adopted their customs and their manner of
dress

Write this. A word may be shaped like a bed, a basket of tears
or an X"

From "Sun" by Michael Palmer.

In particular, I invite Myrmidonisia to discuss this issue, since I think your views represent a fairly wide range of people, and it's not necessarily useful to always discuss these things with those that agree with you.

Edit: Damnit. Just when I figure he'll have some time to delve into this, he goes offline. I'm sad. :(

"Write these words back down inside
We have burned their villages and all the people in them died
We adopt their customs and everything they say we steal
All the dreams they had we kill
Still we all sleep sound tonight
Is this what you wanted to hear?
We erased all their images and dance
And replaced them with borders and flags

Everything you say you stole
Every dream you dream you bought"

From "Autiobiography Of A Nation" by Thursday.

What's going on in Caledonia anyway?

What's going on in Caledonia anyway?
Some very odd things. A group of natives saw a vehicle pull up, with someone hanging out of a window, taking pictures. They chased the vehicle, and the people jumped out. The natives looked inside and found all sort of high-tech surveillence equipment and some documents. They drove the vehicle somewhere, and took the documents, which turned out to be names of snitches in the Six Nations, names of undercover cops, all sorts of information the Ontario Provincial Police had been gathering...they made copies and gave them to Six Nations leadership, then turned the vehicle over. However, one man is now up on attempted murder charges for apparently trying to run over an officer, and there are other charges, but the OPP got caught with its pants down and don't know what to do.

Essentially, the government is behind the Six Nations. They don't want another Oka, and they are forcing negotiation.

Gets out popcorn and patiently awaits when the discussion gets around to Mexico Guatemala and Honduras

Gets out popcorn and patiently awaits when the discussion gets around to Mexico Guatemala and Honduras
Hahahahaa, good point. And it may.

They deserve better.

Uhhh... what's with all this nonsense? I believe there were some tribes in Canada and I can't speak for them, but as for the United States...

We came, we saw, we conquered. Indians are lucky we didn't completely destroy them hundreds of years ago, let alone get their share of stolen White opportunity that's been stolen from us through Affirmitive action.

... and for the more pacifist among us, the Indians raided our villages, railways, and killed our people for no reason. Whitman Massacre anybody? It was them who turned to violence first, and continued it through terrorism and government resistance even after they were beaten.

Frankly, I don't consider them native americans at all, just because they were here first, that makes them aboriginal? I suppose that makes Neil Armstrong a Native Moonman. And if it's because they were BORN here, then I'm every bit as much of a "native american" They migrated there, just like we did. They attacked us, we attacked back. We won, and after a fair amount of retribution (trail of tears) against those war criminals, we showed them the mercy they never showed us. I think it's sickening we feel any sort of guilt toward them.

- Eskertania

Uhhh... what's with all this nonsense? I believe there were some tribes in Canada and I can't speak for them, but as for the United States...

We came, we saw, we conquered. Indians are lucky we didn't completely destroy them hundreds of years ago, let alone get their share of stolen White opportunity that's been stolen from us through Affirmitive action.

... and for the more pacifist among us, the Indians raided our villages, railways, and killed our people for no reason. Whitman Massacre anybody? It was them who turned to violence first, and continued it through terrorism and government resistance even after they were beaten.

Frankly, I don't consider them native americans at all, just because they were here first, that makes them aboriginal? I suppose that makes Neil Armstrong a Native Moonman. And if it's because they were BORN here, then I'm every bit as much of a "native american" They migrated there, just like we did. They attacked us, we attacked back. We won, and after a fair amount of retribution (trail of tears) against those war criminals, we showed them the mercy they never showed us. I think it's sickening we feel any sort of guilt toward them.

- Eskertania
I smell racism, or did I step in shit?

...Eskertania

The words in this post were stolen. You can have them back when you die.

I smell racism, or did I step in shit?
I guess I shouldn't have expected an intelligent response, anything that's not politically correct (middle of the road or hard left) is dismissed without a thought and branded racist.

- Eskertania

Sinuhue have you ever read Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals by Robert Pirsig ?

There is an interesting treatise in the book regarding the Cowboy vs Indian value systems. Very abbreviated he says that the true blue cowboy values and the code of the west (for want of a better name) as mythed by John wayne et al in hollywood movies are native values stolen from Indians who are portrayed instead as savages. You might enjoy it.

I smell racism, or did I step in shit?

The difference is that shit washes off. *nod*

I smell racism, or did I step in shit?
Well, I consider it racism to lump all the various peoples who were here first in the Americas into one single group.

They didn't all speak the same language, have identical culture, etc. It's a travesty to insist that it was so.

Uhhh... what's with all this nonsense? I believe there were some tribes in Canada and I can't speak for them, but as for the United States...

We came, we saw, we conquered. Indians are lucky we didn't completely destroy them hundreds of years ago, let alone get their share of stolen White opportunity that's been stolen from us through Affirmitive action. Uh-huh...no, sorry, you didn't come and conquer. You might wish to revise history in order to reflect this view, but it isn't very supportable. There were some nasty double-dealings, and some serious infectious diseases spread, but you did not come here to conquer, and in the end, you treatied. We made it possible for Europeans to survive...we were allies, traders, trappers, and even the wives of those that came. There were conflicts between us, for certain, and they continue still, but that does not mean that the intent of colonisation was to 'wipe us out' and you simply didn't get around to finishing the job.

... and for the more pacifist among us, the Indians raided our villages, railways, and killed our people for no reason. Whitman Massacre anybody? It was them who turned to violence first, and continued it through terrorism and government resistance even after they were beaten. Wow, interesting perspective.

First. "They started it"? Please. Europeans pursued aggression against one another, using various tribes as allies.

As for the railways...you do realise that it was official policy to destroy the buffalo, in order to protect the construction and usage of the railways, don't you? That in order to ensure the railway's existence, it was decided that a people's entire way of life was to be destroyed.

No reason?

Hardly.

Frankly, I don't consider them native americans at all, just because they were here first, that makes them aboriginal? I suppose that makes Neil Armstrong a Native Moonman. And if it's because they were BORN here, then I'm every bit as much of a "native american" They migrated there, just like we did.
No, not just like you did. We have usufructory right, a right based on traditional use and occupancy, a right even your people validate. Our occupancy predates yours by thousands of years. To even contest that is laughable.


They attacked us, we attacked back. We won, and after a fair amount of retribution (trail of tears) against those war criminals, we showed them the mercy they never showed us. I think it's sickening we feel any sort of guilt toward them. How trite. War criminals. Satire? It must be.

I smell racism, or did I step in shit?
I'd say with that post, both applies.

(Er, the post you were referring to, obviously)

"Write these words back down inside
We have burned their villages and all the people in them died
We adopt their customs and everything they say we steal
All the dreams they had we kill
Still we all sleep sound tonight
Is this what you wanted to hear?
We erased all their images and dance
And replaced them with borders and flags

Everything you say you stole
Every dream you dream you bought"

From "Autiobiography Of A Nation" by Thursday.

Oooh, lyric quoting?

"Christians Murdered Indians" by Corporate Avenger. (http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/corporate_avenger_lyrics_2823/freedom_is_a_state_of_mind_lyrics_8236/christians_murdered_indians_lyrics_95611.html)

Well, I consider it racism to lump all the various peoples who were here first in the Americas into one single group.

They didn't all speak the same language, have identical culture, etc. It's a travesty to insist that it was so.
Nonetheless, that has been the official stance towards us...and our commonality of the colonial experience has created a sort of unity beyond our individual differences.

I don't think the governments of Canada and the US were blind to these differences though. In Canada, when the reservations were created, different tribes were tossed together, creating incredible conflict and a struggle of languages and so on. It seems, in many cases, to have been a deliberate strategy. (then again, the intent was simply to open up land, and perhaps it was just the most expeditious method of dealing with large groups at once, lumping the Cree in with the Blood and Stoney for example...)

Many of us have the same sorts of issues with the current governments, and the same sorts of experiences, but we are well aware of our specific identities.

Sinuhue have you ever read Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals by Robert Pirsig ?
No I have not, but I may. Thanks.

I guess I shouldn't have expected an intelligent response, anything that's not politically correct (middle of the road or hard left) is dismissed without a thought and branded racist.

- Eskertania

Your opinion is based on the incorrect belief that Native Americans "started it" and that committing genocide against their race was vengence. Also your belief that an entire race of innocent people should be punished for the actions of the few is as bad as Hitler. Furthermore, you are an idiot. In conclusion, shut up.

Anyway... my country doesn't have any indigenous people so... I'm going to sit this out.

Tonto was the best aboriginal!

*runs*

Uh-huh...no, sorry, you didn't come and conquer. You might wish to revise history in order to reflect this view, but it isn't very supportable. There were some nasty double-dealings, and some serious infectious diseases spread, but you did not come here to conquer, and in the end, you treatied. We made it possible for Europeans to survive...we were allies, traders, trappers, and even the wives of those that came. There were conflicts between us, for certain, and they continue still, but that does not mean that the intent of colonisation was to 'wipe us out' and you simply didn't get around to finishing the job.
Uhh.. yea... open armies meeting in the great plains doesn't count as a war? Sure... they were just gathering to sign a treaty. That's an interesting perspective yourself... I suppose you just deny the existance of Custer? Don't play yourselves as the victim, you were just as much to blame for the violence as we were.

First. "They started it"? Please. Europeans pursued aggression against one another, using various tribes as allies.
I fail to see your point? Europeans used Indians to battle eachother. What does that have to do with Indian - United States conflicts?

As for the railways...you do realise that it was official policy to destroy the buffalo, in order to protect the construction and usage of the railways, don't you? That in order to ensure the railway's existence, it was decided that a people's entire way of life was to be destroyed.
Buffalo? You're saying Buffalo are worth the lives of the American railway workers that Indians slayed? Well if that's how you feel maybe you're not so above racism yourself.

No, not just like you did. We have usufructory right, a right based on traditional use and occupancy, a right even your people validate. Our occupancy predates yours by thousands of years. To even contest that is laughable.
Legally time means nothing. A man could move here from Germany, pass a test and vote in the next election and effectively nullify the vote cast by a White man who has lived here for generations. Time doesn't mean anything there, and it shouldn't mean anything in Indian affairs either... but luckily we hold a double standard that if addressed is suddenly racist.

I'll be back later, because apparently i'm the only one not afraid of your labels. Call me a racist, call me intolerant. I don't really care.

- Eskertania

I think the most divisive factor in relations between First Nations and non-aboriginal Canadians, is that many people disagree with the idea that a different set of rules should apply to one group of people over another. What many don't seem to realize, is that the treaty rights that the Canadian government (or colonial governments of the time) signed are now enshrined in our constitution. The same people who argue that "we shouldn't have to stick to some hundred year old treaty' wouldn't say the same thing if it was their constitutional rights at stake.

However, our government has made several attempts over the years at trying to integrate or 'help' the native communities, which are perceived as 'extra rights' by non-natives. I.E., tax breaks, casino dividends, hunting and fishing rights outside of reservation territories with resources that were not traditionally available by First Nations peoples, etc. I'm not certain of it, but I don't believe that any of these issues are constitutionally gauranteed.

Where do we draw the line between sticking to our agreements and offering additional assistance through government spending? Should there be complete separation of responsibility from natives living on reservation land? If a native chooses to live off of native land, then should not all the same rules and regulations apply to native 'immigrants' to Canadian territory? To the non-native mindset, the First Nations peoples have the best of both worlds, the opportunity to live in segregated communities that no other group has a right to, or the ability to enter Canadian society with a large helping hand.

It's not hard to understand the frustration of people living in Caledonia in all of this, although I don't doubt for a second that the natives were right on the treaty issues.

For the future? Idealistically, I would hope that economy and prosperity will help lift up people all throughout Canada, regardless of their group affiliations, and one day, Reservation land will be not unlike visiting any other municipality, with the exception of it's governmental and social organization.

We have a historical and present relationship with First Nations peoples that can't be ignored or left unsettled.

There are at least 300 million indigenous people in the world today, which, if combined in one nation, would make them the planet's third most populous country, ahead of the United States.

Although the Indians of North and South America, the Aborigines of Australia and Maori of New Zealand, the Sakha and Komi people of Siberia, the Saami of Norway, the Ogiek of Kenya, and the hundreds of other tribal people around the world have varied and diverse cultures, perhaps there is more that unites them than separates them?

Wouldn't it be great if, using modern technology, the planet's most traditional people could unite under a common banner to fight for their common interests and help each other defend their rights? The world's first nation connected through the Internet and telecommunications; united by common interest rather than common territory.

300+ million indigenous people setting terms instead of being dictated to. Now that would be something.

Sinuhue, do you have racist leanings towards Buffalo?

There are at least 300 million indigenous people in the world today, which, if combined in one nation, would make them the planet's third most populous country, ahead of the United States.

Although the Indians of North and South America, the Aborigines of Australia and Maori of New Zealand, the Sakha and Komi people of Siberia, the Saami of Norway, the Ogiek of Kenya, and the hundreds of other tribal people around the world have varied and diverse cultures, perhaps there is more that unites them than separates them?

Wouldn't it be great if, using modern technology, the planet's most traditional people could unite under a common banner to fight for their common interests and help each other defend their rights? The world's first nation connected through the Internet and telecommunications; united by common interest rather than common territory.

300+ million indigenous people setting terms instead of being dictated to. Now that would be something.

I'd be kind of surprised if someone hasn't already started something along these lines. That would make for a large and influential international organization.

300+ million indigenous people setting terms instead of being dictated to. Now that would be something.

300 million setting terms for 4 billion would indeed be something

300 million setting terms for 4 billion would indeed be something

Actually, the planet is up to 6.5 billion, but I am not envisioning Indigenous People running the world, but rather having a real voice and a seat at the table.

I'd be kind of surprised if someone hasn't already started something along these lines. That would make for a large and influential international organization.

There is an academic group called the Center for World Indigenous Studies

http://www.cwis.org/index.htm

and the U.N. has agencies to deal with indigenous populations,

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/

but I don't know of any organization run by tribal people themselves.

...
I'll be back later, because apparently i'm the only one not afraid of your labels. Call me a racist, call me intolerant. I don't really care.

- Eskertania


I'll just call you a troll. Enjoy your spaghetti.

Uhh.. yea... open armies meeting in the great plains doesn't count as a war? Sure... they were just gathering to sign a treaty. That's an interesting perspective yourself... I suppose you just deny the existance of Custer? Don't play yourselves as the victim, you were just as much to blame for the violence as we were. What I would deny is that we somehow 'deserved to be slaughtered' because we were 'genocidal', which seems to be what you're pushing.

The point is, that Europeans coming to the US and to Canada had various goals in mind. No group had the intention of killing off all the aboriginals and taking the land...the subsequent hostilities and land grabs came as part of the desire to open up lands for exploitation and colonisation. The situation was different when Spain and Portugal entered what is now Latin America. Conquest was part of the plan, and there was never any intention to deal with the indigenous people.

Because of the precarious situation that European powers found themselves in at the time, vying against one another for dominance, the Indian as ally was vital. In many cases, it was the deciding factor in battles between European forces. We welcomed you, and agreed to share the land...that is the understanding we had when we treatied with you. However, we were not ONE people. We were many nations, and some were unwilling to live with you. Quite often, instead of going after the people who had done you harm, you vented your anger on any available Indian, further causing a rift between our people. You seem to not want to take any responsibility for that (not personally of course), but the responsibility remains.


I fail to see your point? Europeans used Indians to battle eachother. What does that have to do with Indian - United States conflicts? You said that 'we' started the violence. This is untrue. The violence was mutual, from the very beginning. Sometimes we were on your side, sometimes we were not.


Buffalo? You're saying Buffalo are worth the lives of the American railway workers that Indians slayed? Well if that's how you feel maybe you're not so above racism yourself. Sorry you don't understand. Buffalo, for the Plains Indians, were a way of life. They fed us, sustained us, clothed us, protected us. They were our economy. A deliberate program to eliminate the Buffalo did two things. One, it allowed the railway to be constructed and to open the West up for colonisation. Two, it destroyed the economy of a large segment of aboriginals, and forced them to settle on the governments terms. A win-win situation for the Europeans, but a complete loss for our people. It isn't about railway workers slain, or Indians slain by soldiers, it is about the deliberate destruction of a way of life.


Legally time means nothing. A man could move here from Germany, pass a test and vote in the next election and effectively nullify the vote cast by a White man who has lived here for generations. Time doesn't mean anything there, and it shouldn't mean anything in Indian affairs either... but luckily we hold a double standard that if addressed is suddenly racist. Sorry, but even your laws don't back you up on this. Your laws, just like the laws in Canada, are partly based on English Commonlaw, of which usufruct is an established right. Aboriginal people were recognised as having title to the land, despite the fact that we had no system of private property. The entire purpose of the treaties was to extinguish this right in exchange for other rights. In that way, land was opened up for colonisation, and worse conflict was avoided. Time doesn't mean anything in your country? How wrong you are. It means a great deal. Your history shapes your present, and your laws are based on what has come before. The treaties themselves gave legitimacy to the concept of aboriginal title, and in some cases, those treaties predate your Constitution. Repeal them, and you risk undermining the entire base of your society. That isn't going to happen.

I'll be back later, because apparently i'm the only one not afraid of your labels. Call me a racist, call me intolerant. I don't really care.

Sorry, you've dreamed up the post where I called you any of those things. The labels you've created for yourself are yours.

I'll be back on this tomorrow...staff meeting now:)

Sinuhue, do you have racist leanings towards Buffalo?


I'm having Buffalo Wings in about an hour.

I'll just call you a troll. Enjoy your spaghetti.


WTF?

Has anyone read the book The Truth about Stories: A Native Narrative by Thomas King? I would be interested in other opinions.

Personally, I love it. I use it to teach the basic theory of "narrative knowledge," and I have also used it in an intro political theory course. I just recommended it to my father, who has to teach an "Intro to College Life" course for freshmen in the Fall, and wanted something that gives a new perspective on acceptance and racism.

In one of the most interesting chapters, King compares Native creation myths to the traditional Christian myth, suggesting that such "core" mythology shapes (or at least reveals) the core values of a culture.

He also has some interesting stories about traveling abroad, and about the confusion caused by telling people that he is an "Indian."

Basically, it's about how we define ourselves through stories, and how stories can be a tool of domination--when dominant groups come to write our stories for us, as white culture has done with their fabrications about aboriginal culture in America.

Good stuff... I recommend it.

300 million setting terms for 4 billion would indeed be something
I don't think it would be any worse than a bunch of rich bastards that share tha income of oil, guns and drugs, ruling us under cover of democracy. Instead of secret societies that are now hundreds of years old and binded together by common occultism(religion) I would like to see a real civil society at work. But probably they will get controlled by those bastards too, eventually.

Well, I consider it racism to lump all the various peoples who were here first in the Americas into one single group.

They didn't all speak the same language, have identical culture, etc. It's a travesty to insist that it was so.
You mean, human? (the group)

There are at least 300 million indigenous people in the world today, which, if combined in one nation, would make them the planet's third most populous country, ahead of the United States.

What definition of indigenous is being used here?

I'm having Buffalo Wings in about an hour.
They can fly?

Both sides lost lives but the Indians also lost a way of life. Both are great travesties but a way of life is much harder to bring back than mere population.

Their ways of life have been greatly impacted in mostly negative ways. How many decendants know the languages? or the traditional weavings? or the basketries? or the architectures? or the religions? or the songs and dances?

Once those are lost, we can only guess at the fragments of pottery left behind.

What definition of indigenous is being used here?

I don't think there is any firm definition for indigenous. The U.N.'s definition includes,

cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:

* before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or
* alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or
* independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,

and who furthermore

* have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

To the above, a criterion is usually added to also include:

* peoples who are self-identified as indigenous, and those recognised as such by other groups.

Open to one and to all. To discuss contact, colonisation, the history of relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, beliefs about contemporary issues, and theories on future relationships...

I'd like to point out first, that a crucial factor in contemporary relationships between aboriginals in Canada and the US, with non-aboriginals, is that unlike our southern neighbours, these lands were not settled by conquest, but rather by colonisation, aided and agreed to by us. So while our relationship has been rocky, it was nonetheless founded on a principle of cooperation, and this foundation is the reason that the contemporary aboriginal rights are being so successfully pursued.

So instead of discussing, right away we've highjacked the agenda, and we're America-bashing in the second post? This is typical Sinuhue, if I've ever seen it. Haven't you posted in enought threads pointing out how much better Canada is than America without starting your own?

The United States government has indeed trampled on the rights of its native population, but Canada hasn't had perfect relations with its native people either. What about the Métis, that historically were not recognized as being indigenous and protected by Canadian law? What about the diseases spread by the fur trappers and missionaries?

The Canadian government signed treaties with the First Nations peoples regarding land ownership, but the American government mostly operated in the same way. they and their lands are controlled by the government, which pressured them to live on reservations in the west, just like the US government did.

In Canada, Sun Dances and potlatches were outlawed in 1884, and until 1951, any Native who left a reservation without a special pass was classified as a criminal. They couldn't even buy groceries or clothes without a permit. The permit system remained in the Indian Act until 1995.

Just like in the US, native people were educated in special schools that aimed to civilize them. The last government-controlled school in Canada wasn't closed until 1986.

Canadian indigenous people didn't receive the right to vote until 1960, whereas in the United States, under the Citizenship Act of 1924, they became citizens, and were therefore accorded the benefits of the fifteenth amendment of 1870.

I am not condoning the United States' long history of abuse of our Native Americans, but remember: Let he without sin cast the first stone, Sinuhue. Please tone down your self-righteous attitude.

I don't think it would be any worse than a bunch of rich bastards that share tha income of oil, guns and drugs, ruling us under cover of democracy. Instead of secret societies that are now hundreds of years old and binded together by common occultism(religion) I would like to see a real civil society at work. But probably they will get controlled by those bastards too, eventually.

Inhale.......and........exhale......and......inhale........and .......exhale.......calm, think calm thoughts..........and........exhale


There isnt that better?

In particular, I invite Myrmidonisia to discuss this issue, since I think your views represent a fairly wide range of people, and it's not necessarily useful to always discuss these things with those that agree with you.

Edit: Damnit. Just when I figure he'll have some time to delve into this, he goes offline. I'm sad. :(
Sorry dear. Lunch ended and I had an afternoon full of program meetings. There were days when I could take a laptop into the meeting room and just sit quietly, typing into jolt, but those days are history.

Anyhow, I don't have a lot to add. Clearly, and despite the euphemistic name of "treaty", what the Native American Indians were signing were unconditional surrenders to the colonials. That was a wise choice, as it left some Native Americans alive. I have no doubt that, in the United States, at least, there would have been a complete and total extermination of Native Americans, had they not surrendered. Think Bison.

Now, this being said, I think the American Indians got screwed right and left. Everyone in the southern U.S. knows about the Trail of Tears. It's a lot like the Bataan Death March. But when it comes to property rights, we can make restitution for misdeeds in the past, but it's not the Native Indians property. Any right to influence it's use or disposition was lost when they surrendered.

Let's not entertain any delusions that "Europeans" imported cruelty or imperialism into an America where it did not exist before.
The American Indian peoples not only were capable of such but had been oppressing, stealing from, slaughtering, enslaving, raping, warring, generally brutalizing and commiting their own brands of genocide for thousands of years before Europeans arrived on the continent.

I am at least one sixteenth aboriginal North American, probably more, considering my European side came to this continent on the Mayflower. It's sad that almost the entire culture was wiped out, but it has happened before, and will happen again. It is depressing how oppressed the American Indians were under white rule, but it is impossible to change history. All we can do now, I suppose, is support the cultures and traditions of our predecesors.

Open to one and to all. To discuss contact, colonisation, the history of relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, beliefs about contemporary issues, and theories on future relationships...

Are you familar with Charles Mann's 1491? He has developed some interesting theories on life in pre-contact Americas. There needs to be more research into this subject.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Chumash/Population.html

My whole view on this is that it happend a hundred years ago. The people who died are dead, and i for one coming from Karankawa (race indiginous to the Texas Gulf coast and is now extinct except for watered down blood like me) don't care anymore. I don't see any white people around who directly opressed me, and in a bitter twist of irony, I'm actually more directly descended to the ones who wiped out my race. I say stop acting like you're the ones who were killed off. I for one am still alive and kicking with no mass genocides of my already extinct people happening. I hold no ill will toward the spanish.

I think the most divisive factor in relations between First Nations and non-aboriginal Canadians, is that many people disagree with the idea that a different set of rules should apply to one group of people over another. What many don't seem to realize, is that the treaty rights that the Canadian government (or colonial governments of the time) signed are now enshrined in our constitution. The same people who argue that "we shouldn't have to stick to some hundred year old treaty' wouldn't say the same thing if it was their constitutional rights at stake.

However, our government has made several attempts over the years at trying to integrate or 'help' the native communities, which are perceived as 'extra rights' by non-natives. I.E., tax breaks, casino dividends, hunting and fishing rights outside of reservation territories with resources that were not traditionally available by First Nations peoples, etc. I'm not certain of it, but I don't believe that any of these issues are constitutionally gauranteed.

Where do we draw the line between sticking to our agreements and offering additional assistance through government spending? Should there be complete separation of responsibility from natives living on reservation land? If a native chooses to live off of native land, then should not all the same rules and regulations apply to native 'immigrants' to Canadian territory? To the non-native mindset, the First Nations peoples have the best of both worlds, the opportunity to live in segregated communities that no other group has a right to, or the ability to enter Canadian society with a large helping hand.

It's not hard to understand the frustration of people living in Caledonia in all of this, although I don't doubt for a second that the natives were right on the treaty issues.

For the future? Idealistically, I would hope that economy and prosperity will help lift up people all throughout Canada, regardless of their group affiliations, and one day, Reservation land will be not unlike visiting any other municipality, with the exception of it's governmental and social organization.

We have a historical and present relationship with First Nations peoples that can't be ignored or left unsettled.

All excellent points. I'll try to address them as best I can.

The 'egalitarian' mindset that demands totally equality, often refuses to accept that there is no such thing as a level playing field. If they do accept this, they reject it as unimportant. In this way, history is of little importance, and only the now matters. But history can not be tossed away like that, since it has shaped the present.

It would be one thing if historical structures ceased to exist...but they haven't. Especially in Canada, where aboriginal people are still subject to federal and provincial laws like everyone else, but ALSO subject to the Indian Act, we have a situation where a different set of rules apply, and in a very negative sense. The Indian Act assumes total control over the lives of aboriginal people...from defining who they are, to controlling all aspects of their education, health, governance etc. It is the ultimate remnant of colonialism, alive, kicking, and very much a factor...and almost completely ignored by mainstream Canada.

On the other side are those things seen as 'benefits'. Mostly these things are misrepresented, or misunderstood completely. Treaty rights are mixed up with historical guarantees. For example, in Canada, there is no treaty right to health care, except for those of us under Treaty 6, which includes a 'medicine chest' clause. Nonetheless, the government has historically included a health-care provision for native people. This provision was based on the oral agreements made during the treaty signing. Aboriginal people were an oral people, and we made our biding agreements orally. This was not understood, or accepted when we made treaty, and many of the complaints that arise over the interpretation of the treaties is based on this. Many of the treaties were stock forms, and very rarely, the oral guarantees that aboriginal people felt were promised, were not included in writing. Thankfully, we have been able to challenge these omissions through primary documents of people who were present at the treaty meetings...which to us is a great irony considering that a word only becomes legitimate once it is written down, regardless of the accuracy of the word.

In any case, there are many things that the governments of our countries provide to native people that are guaranteed in legislation outside of the treaties. The treaties themselves can not be altered, but these pieces of legislation could be.

The way that things stand when it comes to education, healthcare, social services, and even economic decisions, aboriginal people do NOT have the same rights as the rest of the population. They are not free to make the same decisions. In Canada, healthcare for aboriginal people is a federal program, despite the fact that it is a provincial responsibility. Even natives who are off-reserve are under the federal health mandate. While there are systems in place for non-aboriginals to have a say in their health care service, to make complaints, to influence funding...aboriginal people have no such systems.

Inherent aboriginal rights are another issue that is not well understood. This misunderstanding comes from the belief that we should all be treated the same, that no one has more right to the land than anyone else. But that is not the case, neither now, nor historically. Aboriginal title was recognised from the onset as being a real right that had to be dealt with. The intent of the treaties was to extinguish this right, and open lands up for colonisation. In return, a miniscule area of land was set aside for the use of aboriginal people. Realising that our way of life, our economic base, in many cases had been destroyed by European interference, the governments of our two nations agreed to help us integrate into the new economy. Many of us became farmers. However, when some groups began to do too well (mostly because of a communal system which shared resources, and spread losses out), European colonists who were also farming felt threatened. In many cases, they would squat on reserved land, and then claim it as their own. If a development was needed, such as a railway, or a road, the government would seize lands from the reservations (usually without any compensation) and in this way, the reserved lands have been whittled away. This shrinkage contravenes the very treaties that the governments devised, as well as the European principle of 'private property' that is held so dear.

As for other rights, such as hunting and fishing, these rights are based on usufruct. These rights were inherent to aboriginal people, and we had systems of governance when it came to harvesting. These systems were recognised as being separate from the European systems. It may gall people that an aboriginal may hunt on Crown Land, for example, while others can not...but the fact remains that we have a unique relationship with the government, based on our historical interactions and agreements. That isn't going to change.

What we want, and what we have been fighting for, is to remove ourselves from wardship, dismantle discriminatory legislation like the Indian Act, and govern ourselves. We want to take control over our own healthcare, social services, education and so forth, as well as making decisions about our land. You see, the Europeans understood early on that land is power. When you have the right to exploit land, you are able to create an economic base. Aboriginal people have been denied that right, even on the reserved lands. We are unable to make the final decisions on reserved lands as to how resources will be used.

More and more, we are entering into agreements with the government whereby historical responsibilities (such as providing health care, education and so on) held by the government are phased out, and those responsibilities are turned back over to us. Not given to us, given BACK. We always had those responsibilities. We become subject to the laws like everyone else, to taxation like everyone else, and in return, we control our resources, and our systems within our territories.

People see 'land grab' and 'wanting it all', but the reality is much more sensible. The 'divisiveness' that exists is based on a lack of understanding, and on preconceived notions that have no basis in reality.

I'd be kind of surprised if someone hasn't already started something along these lines. That would make for a large and influential international organization.
There are many pan-aboriginal organisations. For many years running, we've had an Indigenous Summit of the Americas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4379434.stm). We've had indigenous women come together at a Summit of the Americas (http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/aboriginalplanet/archives/january2004/art6_main-en.asp) for them. We've had meetings between indigenous people of the arctic regions (from Siberia, Greenland, Canada etc.) We have created ties between Maori groups, and aboriginals of the Americas, and so on. Yet still there are barriers. Many aboriginal people live in poverty, and aren't online...so an online community is still far in the future. Nonetheless, aboriginal people are organising together, even across great distances, and I only see this increasing, because despite our cultural differences, we have many things in common. First among our common concerns is self-determination and the preservation of our cultures.

Both sides lost lives but the Indians also lost a way of life. Both are great travesties but a way of life is much harder to bring back than mere population.

Their ways of life have been greatly impacted in mostly negative ways. How many decendants know the languages? or the traditional weavings? or the basketries? or the architectures? or the religions? or the songs and dances?

Once those are lost, we can only guess at the fragments of pottery left behind.
There have been losses, directly related to the shift in economic base of aboriginal communities, and some tribes have been harder hit than others, losing much of their language and traditions. However, there are still many vibrant, strong communities throughout the Americas where we retain our language and our traditional teachings. There is a danger of cultural loss, for sure...but our cultures are no longer on the verge of extinction.

American Indians are the classic example of what happens when a really weak, or even non-existent state, comes into contact with a strong state, such as the governments of Spain, France and England, from cultures that are notoriously aggressive in every field. What if Columbus had not sailed west? Someone else would have. The circumstances at the time dictated European expansion, and western Europeans would have been on America's shores by the 1510's even if Columbus had not sailed.

So instead of discussing, right away we've highjacked the agenda, and we're America-bashing in the second post? Wow, you sure love to jump to assumptions. I'm pointing out a central fact. Spain and Portugal had a concerted intention to conquer and colonise. The situation was very different in what is now Canada and the US. When I say 'to the south', I am referring to the nations settle by Spain and Portugal, not the US, since I am mostly discussing aboriginal people in both of our countries.

So this:
This is typical Sinuhue, if I've ever seen it. Haven't you posted in enought threads pointing out how much better Canada is than America without starting your own?
and this:
I am not condoning the United States' long history of abuse of our Native Americans, but remember: Let he without sin cast the first stone, Sinuhue. Please tone down your self-righteous attitude.
are unfortunate rants based on your mistaken interpretation of what I said. Perhaps if you weren't actually SEEKING US-bashing, you wouldn't find it so much?

They can fly?

Not by the time they reach me, no.

I wound up having baby back ribs anyway-too good to pass up.

Sorry dear. Lunch ended and I had an afternoon full of program meetings. There were days when I could take a laptop into the meeting room and just sit quietly, typing into jolt, but those days are history.

Anyhow, I don't have a lot to add. Clearly, and despite the euphemistic name of "treaty", what the Native American Indians were signing were unconditional surrenders to the colonials. That was a wise choice, as it left some Native Americans alive. I have no doubt that, in the United States, at least, there would have been a complete and total extermination of Native Americans, had they not surrendered. Think Bison.

Now, this being said, I think the American Indians got screwed right and left. Everyone in the southern U.S. knows about the Trail of Tears. It's a lot like the Bataan Death March. But when it comes to property rights, we can make restitution for misdeeds in the past, but it's not the Native Indians property. Any right to influence it's use or disposition was lost when they surrendered.

Treaties are not a euphemism, they are a legal fact. They were signed not all at once, but one by one, as certain areas were opened up. Many of the groups that signed treaties did not do so under duress, or in the midst of economic disaster. The first treaties in Canada, for example, were not made between people who had lost their way of life, and the Europeans. They were agreements made between two strong groups, and they were not unconditional surrenders. They were not surrenders of any kind.

Aboriginal title was exchanged. Rights were laid out, and guarantees made. In many ways, the governments of the US and Canada have lived up to those guarantees, and in many ways they have not. Nonetheless, there was never a full rejection of the treaties by the governments. Sometimes they were ignored, or breached, but the treaties themselves remain, and are the basis of the many successful claims still going on today.

We were not forced into signing treaties. Well, some of us were...some refused to ever sign treaties, but for the most part, we came seeking the same terms that other tribes had been given. We WANTED to treat, because that is how we had always dealt with conflict over territories. We had a long system of treaties between tribes...to us, you were just another tribe that needed to be treated with.

The Europeans also wanted to treat, because it ensured military allies, and unhostile neighbours for colonists. Tensions broke out because the Europeans didn't fully understand that we were many nations, and that one treaty could not bind us all.

Here is the basic issue. You believe that the treaties meant that all rights to the land were surrendered, but the treaties themselves contradict you. All rights to certain areas of land were extinguished...we can not claim those, and we do not try. However, the areas that were reserved for us were often whittled away or stolen outright. We challenge those thefts, just as you would challenge someone fencing a quarter of your land and claiming it as his own. And we win. More often than not, we are winning, because your documents back us up.

There is another side to this. There are natives who never signed treaties, and who never gave up their land. In Canada, we are talking about land three times again as large as Western Europe that was never ceded. The modern day treaties are needed in order to extinguish aboriginal right and establish reserved lands. This has been done on a number of occasions. It is what we want. We aren't asking for title to all that land...we want to treat, even still. It shows you that we have some faith in the process, and so do our governments.

I wound up having baby back ribs anyway-too good to pass up.
That's where babies end up after donating their stem cells to science. *nods*

Let's not entertain any delusions that "Europeans" imported cruelty or imperialism into an America where it did not exist before.
The American Indian peoples not only were capable of such but had been oppressing, stealing from, slaughtering, enslaving, raping, warring, generally brutalizing and commiting their own brands of genocide for thousands of years before Europeans arrived on the continent.
No one (except for Europeans glorifying the 'noble savage') have claimed that life was idyllic here before colonisation. But neither is the claim that Europeans brought peace to a warring people true. We were many nations. We had our own alliances and our own feuds. We made peace, we made war, we intermarried, we traded. When these things are discussed in terms of Europeans, they are seen as aspects of a developed civilisation. When you refer to us, however, you seem to be falling into the stereotype of 'savagery' on our part. We did not do things exactly the same as the Europeans, but we had our own systems of governance, our own laws, and our own cultures. It's not about who was better...that's an argument only you seem to have heard.

I am at least one sixteenth aboriginal North American, probably more, considering my European side came to this continent on the Mayflower. It's sad that almost the entire culture was wiped out, but it has happened before, and will happen again. It is depressing how oppressed the American Indians were under white rule, but it is impossible to change history. All we can do now, I suppose, is support the cultures and traditions of our predecesors.
Um...what culture has been almost totally wiped out? Here is another myth...that the 'Indian' is already gone. We are still here. Some of us are from communities that have never lost our language or our traditions.

Are you familar with Charles Mann's 1491? He has developed some interesting theories on life in pre-contact Americas. There needs to be more research into this subject.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Chumash/Population.html
Yes, I've read it. We already know these things...but it seems that until it is written down, it isn't true. Still, I would encourage more people to read this book.

My whole view on this is that it happend a hundred years ago. The people who died are dead, and i for one coming from Karankawa (race indiginous to the Texas Gulf coast and is now extinct except for watered down blood like me) don't care anymore. I don't see any white people around who directly opressed me, and in a bitter twist of irony, I'm actually more directly descended to the ones who wiped out my race. I say stop acting like you're the ones who were killed off. I for one am still alive and kicking with no mass genocides of my already extinct people happening. I hold no ill will toward the spanish.
Your whole view is based on the erroneous assumption that a certain injustice happened a long time ago, stopped, and life went on. This is false. Current aboriginal issues are not about what happened at contact. We are interested in this because we are interested in history, but our current claims are based on ongoing injustices. Many land grabs have been recent. Residential schooling is recent. Racism and sexism are recent and ongoing, and supported by legislation such as the Indian Act. All of these things are issues that are contemporary, and being dealt with. This is not about cowboys and indians...it's about our lives now.

American Indians are the classic example of what happens when a really weak, or even non-existent state, comes into contact with a strong state, such as the governments of Spain, France and England, from cultures that are notoriously aggressive in every field. What if Columbus had not sailed west? Someone else would have. The circumstances at the time dictated European expansion, and western Europeans would have been on America's shores by the 1510's even if Columbus had not sailed.
Weak or non-existent state? Wow.

When the French originally came to Canada, they came as traders and trappers. They were almost wholly reliant on aboriginal people for their survival in these lands. France was in here for economic reasons, and not particularly interested in colonisation. Had they arrive en masse, it is doubtful that they could have massacred enough of us, or manage to survive in these climes unaided.

The English came with the intent to settle. They treated less with us, but they still had the French to contend with, and we were at that point, intermarried with the French, and had strong ties to them. England was in conflict with many other states, in particular the French state. England sought allies among us as well. Our nations were involved in that conflict, and essential to the outcome.

So one poster described us as genocidal, and you describe us as not aggressive. It seems that there are many contradictions floating around.

The very fact that we did have nations (describe them as weak, we are still here) is the basis for many of our successful self-government agreements. We had the authority over ourselves prior to colonisation, and we are winning it back.

Not by the time they reach me, no.

I wound up having baby back ribs anyway-too good to pass up.
You should try real buffalo ribs.

Very nice.

They can fly?

:eek: *quickly covers up car* :D

Your whole view is based on the erroneous assumption that a certain injustice happened a long time ago, stopped, and life went on. This is false. Current aboriginal issues are not about what happened at contact. We are interested in this because we are interested in history, but our current claims are based on ongoing injustices. Many land grabs have been recent. Residential schooling is recent. Racism and sexism are recent and ongoing, and supported by legislation such as the Indian Act. All of these things are issues that are contemporary, and being dealt with. This is not about cowboys and indians...it's about our lives now.

I thank you very much, Sinuhue, for bringing this up.

Most often, the debate focusses on a romanticised concept of what "Indians" were. My grandmother came from a little reservation in Montana called Rocky Boy - peopled mostly by decendants of Chippewa-Cree and other 'leftovers'.

People who argue about 'guilt' as well as those who romanticize the 'noble savage' all tend to focus upon what happened over a hundred years ago, and then either ignore the present situation of First Peoples or trivialize them.

In my country, 'Indians' are still used as mascots. On Rocky Boy, companies are coming in promising jobs in exchange for raping the mountains for minerals. Those identified as 'tribal leaders' by the American government allow dams to flood the traditional homes of their people. On the Crow reservation in Montana, where I grew up, the present debate is that non-natives think they are immune to tribal laws despite owning property on Crow land. The Makah are harassed by so-called 'liberals' who care more about the condition of a sick whale than a people whose unemployment rate is a scant 50% when things are good!!!

Racism is not simply prejudice. We all have that. Racism is institutionalized ...predudice practiced intentionally or unintentionally... against a people by the people in power. Many people don't realize that they have a single worldview...a set of assumptions about the way the world works. Most Euro-American people who are reacting to your discussion, Sinuhue, will argue their ideologies about human rights, democracy, majority, etc., etc. Even trying to settle disputes using 'the system' may, in fact, turn out to only further the institutionalized racism rather than bring real Peace, as is the case with the Canadian government and the Six Nations.

I could go on...but then I'd be here all day! :D Again, I thank you for bringing this topic up. Getting the dirty laundry out into the light instead of hiding it in the shadows...even if painful...is the only way to deal with the issue and move toward real Peace and Justice.

Peace!

--YV

Well, I live in arizona, which is still largely unsettled and wild.

My town, Phoenix, is oftentimes still the victim of apache raids.

To be honest, aside from the few indians in schools, contact with them is pretty limited in everyday life.

Indians have established casinos here, from which they get a lot of revenue because arizona has a lot of retirees. Up north, in the towns of Sedona and Flagstaff, there is a larger indian presence, althought it is largely confined to art and jewelry shops for tourists.

Issues with indians really dont come up very often here, that I can think of, especially with the great big dunce stink being made about immigration.

Your whole view is based on the erroneous assumption that a certain injustice happened a long time ago, stopped, and life went on. This is false. Current aboriginal issues are not about what happened at contact. We are interested in this because we are interested in history, but our current claims are based on ongoing injustices. Many land grabs have been recent. Residential schooling is recent. Racism and sexism are recent and ongoing, and supported by legislation such as the Indian Act. All of these things are issues that are contemporary, and being dealt with. This is not about cowboys and indians...it's about our lives now.Well I have no idea what all these are. Perhaps you should give me a little info on all this judt to help educate me on these matters, and not for arguments sake.

As for using indian images as mascot, I don't see the big problem. I would be honored to have a team called Karankawa, because to me it invokes images of a race of man that were feared warriors by the Spanish. That's how I look at it when I see teams like the Brave and Redskins. These were a race of people who's memory is so ingrained into American culture, that even more than a 100 years after the last major battle was fought, people still see them as a symbol of power.

As for using indian images as mascot, I don't see the big problem. I would be honored to have a team called Karankawa, because to me it invokes images of a race of man that were feared warriors by the Spanish. That's how I look at it when I see teams like the Brave and Redskins. These were a race of people who's memory is so ingrained into American culture, that even more than a 100 years after the last major battle was fought, people still see them as a symbol of power.

Perhaps you don't find it a problem, but there are many First Peoples who do. Their requests for a change are ignored. I hardly find the Cleveland Indians mascot to be flattering in the least...buck-toothed and goffy looking. If that's honoring Native Americans...you got a strange way of doing it.

The question I have of you, Marshlands, is: Whose symbol of power is it? Who is using the symbol as power? Native Tribes, or white ball teams in white cities under the ownership of white owners?

In addition, how outrageous do you think it would be to have the New York Niggers with a mascot of a man in blackface. I hate to use that symbol, but I'm just trying to identify how horrible this seemingly 'innocent' mascot is.

---

Afterthought: "Race" is a social construct concocted by European slave owners to justify how they could take human beings and treat them like cattle.

Perhaps you don't find it a problem, but there are many First Peoples who do. Their requests for a change are ignored. I hardly find the Cleveland Indians mascot to be flattering in the least...buck-toothed and goffy looking. If that's honoring Native Americans...you got a strange way of doing it.

The question I have of you, Marshlands, is: Whose symbol of power is it? Who is using the symbol as power? Native Tribes, or white ball teams in white cities under the ownership of white owners?

In addition, how outrageous do you think it would be to have the New York Niggers with a mascot of a man in blackface. I hate to use that symbol, but I'm just trying to identify how horrible this seemingly 'innocent' mascot is.
The Cleveland Indians were originally known as the Cleveland Spiders, but in the early part of the last century, a player on the team of Native American descent had such a great impact on the way ball was played in Cleveland, that the name of the team was changed to honor his accomplishments. Louis Sockalexis was not supposed to be insulted by the choice of the name, instead he was being honored. And buck toothed? I'll dare say that he's got one hell of a grin there, certainly not buck toothed.

The name Atlanta Braves was chosen to represent certain values that are associated with the group they are named after, specifically tenacity, skill, patience and honor. They are not the only sports team named in such a fashion. The Michigan State Spartans are named in much a similar fashion. So are the USC Trojans. How about the Minnesota Vikings? They are named so to embody a fighting spirit, not out of mockery. Can you honestly tell me that their mascot is an accurate representation of someone from Northern Europe? Perhaps the Texas Rangers might be considered as evidence of this, or the Seattle Mariners, the Oakland Atheletics. All named for values that the owners wish their team to embody.

Other times teams are named after the local heritage. The Illinois Fighting Illini and the Utah Utes are two common examples, but what about the New York Yankees? A high school near where I live is named the "Fighting Quakers." Regardless of the oxymoron inherent in that name, there continue to be no protests by any of the members of that group. They're not named so out of disrespect.

Well, I live in arizona, which is still largely unsettled and wild.

My town, Phoenix, is oftentimes still the victim of apache raids. Sorry...could you elaborate a bit? Raids? This creates some interesting images.

To be honest, aside from the few indians in schools, contact with them is pretty limited in everyday life.

Indians have established casinos here, from which they get a lot of revenue because arizona has a lot of retirees. Up north, in the towns of Sedona and Flagstaff, there is a larger indian presence, althought it is largely confined to art and jewelry shops for tourists.

Issues with indians really dont come up very often here, that I can think of, especially with the great big dunce stink being made about immigration.
It's really not an issue that many people know about...and that makes sense if you take aboriginal people as a percentage of the population, and attribute importance according to the breakdown...but especially here in Canada, some very major, very far-reaching decisions are being made that aren't even heard about by most average Canadians. How many Canadians even know that there are modern day treaties, that have given power back to native groups? There are territories that aboriginal people now manage, and they can deny resource extraction to ANYONE. These things affect everyone...and people should be more aware of the issues.

Well I have no idea what all these are. Perhaps you should give me a little info on all this judt to help educate me on these matters, and not for arguments sake. Yup, not a problem...I just don't want to tell you things you already know.

Alright, some modern day issues that aboriginal people are dealing with. Well, I'm going to focus on specifics in Canada, but many of these issues are fairly common to aboriginals living in the US as well.

In Canada, there is a piece of legislation called the Indian Act ( http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/sindact.htm). This act defines who is, and who is not an Indian. It singles out aboriginal people, and governs them. Indian and Northern Affairs ( http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/index_e.html) administers the Indian Act. It deals with reserved lands, with band funding, with band government, with education.

Now aboriginals in Canada were not enfranchised until the 60s. They could choose to become enfranchised before then in exchange for their Indian status, for them, and all their heirs. However, many Indians also lost their status through involuntary enfranchisement, when they became a priest, joined the army, or attained a post-secondary education. In addition, native women who married non-natives, lost their status, and their children had no status. However, native men who married non-natives KEPT their status, and passed it on to their children.

The Indian Act forbade bands to raised funds to pursue land claims. It stopped people from gathering off the reserve, from practicing their customs and traditions. It had many discriminatory sections that limited aboriginal people.

Finally, Bill C-31 was passed, giving status back to those who had lost it through involuntary enfranchisement or marriage. However, it created huge problems. Already stretched band funds had to accommodate these new additions to the reserves. Some people weren't able to prove their case and regain status. There was a lot of resentment that once again, the government was defining who was Indian and who was not...based on criteria that did not match traditional criteria.

These are some of the recent fights...fights to change discriminatory articles in the Indian Act, or to abolish it altogether and finally regain self-rule.

Other fights involve treaty rights that were not upheld, or were taken away illegally. This includes land. There are many specific land claims in the US and Canada right now involving land that was stolen by squatters, sold illegally to corporations, or expropriated illegally by the government. It's a painstaking process to regain these lands, and there are many barriers, but by far and large, they are successful.

Aboriginal people do not have a say in their education. That is still a major issue. In Canada, aboriginal education is a federal issue, and Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC) still dictate to communities how their education will be delivered. In some situations, aboriginals can not be part of the school board. No other Canadian is thus limited.

I'd say the biggest issue, here in Canada, is the Indian Act, which is a discriminatory piece of colonial legislation, and needs to be done away with.

That's a little bit of it. More has to do with other issues, such as Residential Schools (from the 20s to 1994) where children were taken from their homes and forced into assimilationist church-run schools, beaten for speaking their language, some sexually abused as well...and things like the 60s scoop, where being a child of aboriginal parents was enough of a 'risk' to warrant taking children out of their homes and giving them to white parents. Not ancient history by any means.

As for using indian images as mascot, I don't see the big problem. I would be honored to have a team called Karankawa, because to me it invokes images of a race of man that were feared warriors by the Spanish. That's how I look at it when I see teams like the Brave and Redskins. These were a race of people who's memory is so ingrained into American culture, that even more than a 100 years after the last major battle was fought, people still see them as a symbol of power.Unless a tribe has endorsed a particular mascot, I don't think a team should be allowed to use their name or image as a symbol. And 'Redskin' in particular is an offensive term.

Well I have no idea what all these are. Perhaps you should give me a little info on all this judt to help educate me on these matters, and not for arguments sake.

Oh, and here is another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485806) I started a while back to delve specifically into land claims...there is some more information for you there.

The Cleveland Indians were originally known as the Cleveland Spiders, but in the early part of the last century, a player on the team of Native American descent had such a great impact on the way ball was played in Cleveland, that the name of the team was changed to honor his accomplishments. Louis Sockalexis was not supposed to be insulted by the choice of the name, instead he was being honored. And buck toothed? I'll dare say that he's got one hell of a grin there, certainly not buck toothed.

Thanks for the history lesson, Andaluciae. That part I did not know. However...

The name Atlanta Braves was chosen to represent certain values that are associated with the group they are named after, specifically tenacity, skill, patience and honor. They are not the only sports team named in such a fashion. The Michigan State Spartans are named in much a similar fashion. So are the USC Trojans. How about the Minnesota Vikings? They are named so to embody a fighting spirit, not out of mockery. Can you honestly tell me that their mascot is an accurate representation of someone from Northern Europe? Perhaps the Texas Rangers might be considered as evidence of this, or the Seattle Mariners, the Oakland Atheletics. All named for values that the owners wish their team to embody.

Other times teams are named after the local heritage. The Illinois Fighting Illini and the Utah Utes are two common examples, but what about the New York Yankees? A high school near where I live is named the "Fighting Quakers." Regardless of the oxymoron inherent in that name, there continue to be no protests by any of the members of that group. They're not named so out of disrespect.

This is the "Everyone else is doing it" arguement. Again, this is what I mean by racism being woven into a person's worldview. If Europeans of a Scandinavian descent don't like the Vikings, then they have a right to complain. If Texans are insulted by the symbol of a Ranger, then, by all means, say something. If I don't like being called a Yankee...then I'll let you know.

However, many Native Americans, including many of my friends, are insulted by the Cleveland Indians' mascot. (Alright...maybe he doesn't look bucktoothed to you...) Louis Sockalexis is one man, not a representative of a People. He didn't ask for the mascot, even if the intention was in the spirit of honor. (Remember, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.)

I am not speaking as just myself... I am joining my voice with those who are insulted by the mascot. You are still imposing your ideas of 'honor' upon a different culture. I don't think that is right, especially if it is a dominant culture over another.

The issue is not about 'political correctness'. The flip side of the coin is that one local high school went and talked to the entire People that had been their mascot for years. After getting to know one another and talking about their views, the Salish People (I think they were Snohomish) regarded the mascot, use of the name, and traditions as honorable and let the school continue to use the symbols. The school board, however, disregarded all of this and made the school change for their own good.

Anywho, that's just my two cents...adjusted for inflation. :D

American Indians are the classic example of what happens when a really weak, or even non-existent state, comes into contact with a strong state, such as the governments of Spain, France and England, from cultures that are notoriously aggressive in every field. What if Columbus had not sailed west? Someone else would have. The circumstances at the time dictated European expansion, and western Europeans would have been on America's shores by the 1510's even if Columbus had not sailed.

You make an interesting point, but I think you have overstated the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Europeans and Indians in relation to each other in the 16th century. David Landes, in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations makes a similar point. However, Jared Diamon, in Guns, Germs, and Steel, as well as Mann's 1491, both make a strong argument that the Aztecs and Incas were not that technologically inferior to the Spanish, and could have certainly compensated with larger numbers of highly trained warriors.

I think most historians now agree that the real factor in the defeat and conquest of the Indians was disease.

Your whole view is based on the erroneous assumption that a certain injustice happened a long time ago, stopped, and life went on. This is false. Current aboriginal issues are not about what happened at contact. We are interested in this because we are interested in history, but our current claims are based on ongoing injustices. Many land grabs have been recent. Residential schooling is recent. Racism and sexism are recent and ongoing, and supported by legislation such as the Indian Act. All of these things are issues that are contemporary, and being dealt with. This is not about cowboys and indians...it's about our lives now.

The Indian Act is a travesty. The best thing that could happen to Canadian natives is it being repealed.

The natives should also help themselves out. Native communities (especially in BC) have been shooting themselves in the foot by demanding the businesses that wish to work with them make long-term guarantees about employment and land use, and that's just not something businesses can afford to grant, even if we ignore the obvious issues with native education (natives who haven't finished high school aren't useful workers).

My papa works for/with native americans in the Great Lakes region. Before that, he ran the clinic on the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa (Ojibwa) reservation in far north-central Wisconsin.

Back in, oh, the late 80s/early 90s there was quite a bit of hubbub over treaty fishing rights, which allowed Chippewas to spear their fish and use lights in the process.

I didn't really care much about it, but it pissed off some white folk up there (Stop Treaty Abuse, or STA).

However, Jared Diamon, in Guns, Germs, and Steel, as well as Mann's 1491, both make a strong argument that the Aztecs and Incas were not that technologically inferior to the Spanish, and could have certainly compensated with larger numbers of highly trained warriors.

While the natives of Central and South America were more advanced (easily a bronze age culture, approaching an iron age culture down in Peru), the North American natives were stone age cultures. That's a pretty big tech gap.

(not that you need to know) but my great grandmother was a navajo and married and irishman and moved to britain(explaining why im here in wales now)so I can legitimatly be called biased,but you cannot blame us for fighting back against colonialism-how would you americans feel if some norwegans took all your land and started killing your people-you would fight back.This is not to say that there were not atrocities on both sided, but a native american life has the same worth as a colonialists life, and saying that we asked for it is naive.but there you go-its done-no hard feelings-and there is nothing we can do to change it but respect each other and not harbour resentment and racist veiws.

Sorry...could you elaborate a bit? Raids? This creates some interesting images.




They come in on their horses shrieking their war-cries and shoot at people with bows and arrows.

We usually manage to fight them off with our winchesters, but sometimes they manage to get a few scalps.

http://www.beauproductions.com/geronimo/images/geronimo12.jpg

While the natives of Central and South America were more advanced (easily a bronze age culture, approaching an iron age culture down in Peru), the North American natives were stone age cultures. That's a pretty big tech gap.
Real life is not Age of Nations, with history and technology subdivided in neat little ages that you reach by investing resources in research branches. The main material used all over America was stone, that doesn't make them comparable to stone age cultures of Europe in 2,000 BC.

North Americans had a much more advanced culture and civilization than stone age Europeans, with great knowledge of architechture, agriculture, mathematics, and medicine. Their weapons and military tactics were also more advanced, and their numbers much greater. They could have easily owned any European stone age culture.

The Aztecs, even though decimated and once recovered from the initial surprise of seeing horses, steel and gunpowder, were still able to put up a good fight against the Spanish, who had to retreat and almost lost it all a couple of times. It was the European's knowledge of better military tactics, combined with their alliances with local nations and the diseases they brought that gave them victory.

It surprises me that in the US and Canada the decimation of the Americans by disease is relatively unknown. Perhaps because the Spanish chroniclers were able to record it almost from the beginning, while in the US and Canada they met nations that had already been affected.

*condensed*
More and more, we are entering into agreements with the government whereby historical responsibilities (such as providing health care, education and so on) held by the government are phased out, and those responsibilities are turned back over to us. Not given to us, given BACK. We always had those responsibilities. We become subject to the laws like everyone else, to taxation like everyone else, and in return, we control our resources, and our systems within our territories.

It's amazing to think that something as simple as self-government could be denied through an archaic act like the Indian Act. Paternalism in any form is rather insulting in my view, and this act in particular, is obviously aimed at separating Indian's from 'the rest of us' in an attempt to make them like 'the rest of us'. (Was it really necessary to have to delineate the term 'mentally incompetent Indian'?)

Abolishing the Indian Act is obviously the right count for everyone involved, in my view. Constitutionally, I believe it would take some work. Would we treat all reservation land as provinces within our provinces, that deal with the federal government? Or more appropriately, nations within our nation?

Removing the obligation for 'the Queen' to manage 'band funds' is obviously the right first step. Allowing local native communities to make the hard economic decisions for their region is both empowering and potentially profitable for all involved.

Open to one and to all. To discuss contact, colonisation, the history of relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, beliefs about contemporary issues, and theories on future relationships...
I can definetely understand why you would be pissed off at the injustice that was perpetrated against your ancestors by colonists, but why didn't they stand up and fight for their lands? I know some did, but it wasn't a major opposition, and this was the reason why their lands were lost, it seems to me.

There are many pan-aboriginal organisations. For many years running, we've had an Indigenous Summit of the Americas (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4379434.stm). We've had indigenous women come together at a Summit of the Americas (http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/aboriginalplanet/archives/january2004/art6_main-en.asp) for them. We've had meetings between indigenous people of the arctic regions (from Siberia, Greenland, Canada etc.) We have created ties between Maori groups, and aboriginals of the Americas, and so on. Yet still there are barriers. Many aboriginal people live in poverty, and aren't online...so an online community is still far in the future. Nonetheless, aboriginal people are organising together, even across great distances, and I only see this increasing, because despite our cultural differences, we have many things in common. First among our common concerns is self-determination and the preservation of our cultures.

In our globalising world, economic empowerment , aka 'purchasing power' makes a big difference. Giving aboriginal groups self-determination and responsiblity to create the conditions for economic prosperity is the first step, and hopefully Canada can help foster a model that aboriginal peoples world-over can look to.

(not that you need to know) but my great grandmother was a navajo and married and irishman and moved to britain(explaining why im here in wales now)so I can legitimatly be called biased,but you cannot blame us for fighting back against colonialism-how would you americans feel if some norwegans took all your land and started killing your people-you would fight back.This is not to say that there were not atrocities on both sided, but a native american life has the same worth as a colonialists life, and saying that we asked for it is naive.but there you go-its done-no hard feelings-and there is nothing we can do to change it but respect each other and not harbour resentment and racist veiws.
you should think about visiting new mexico and the navajo reservation and historical sites some day. navajo culture is very much alive and thriving. they have the biggest reservation in the US and still live on their ancestral lands.

Real life is not Age of Nations, with history and technology subdivided in neat little ages that you reach by investing resources in research branches. The main material used all over America was stone, that doesn't make them comparable to stone age cultures of Europe in 2,000 BC.

North Americans had a much more advanced culture and civilization than stone age Europeans, with great knowledge of architechture, agriculture, mathematics, and medicine. Their weapons and military tactics were also more advanced, and their numbers much greater. They could have easily owned any European stone age culture.

The Aztecs, even though decimated and once recovered from the initial surprise of seeing horses, steel and gunpowder, were still able to put up a good fight against the Spanish, who had to retreat and almost lost it all a couple of times. It was the European's knowledge of better military tactics, combined with their alliances with local nations and the diseases they brought that gave them victory.

It surprises me that in the US and Canada the decimation of the Americans by disease is relatively unknown. Perhaps because the Spanish chroniclers were able to record it almost from the beginning, while in the US and Canada they met nations that had already been affected.
i think it was the guns germs and steel book that discussed how the incas were defeated because they lost so very many men to disease before any spaniard ever showed up. the massive loss of life, which included those in the ruling families and military leaders, left the aztecs and incas incapable of winning against the superior firepower of the spanish.

it certainly affected the smaller less organized tribes of the north also. whole tribes were lost because so many died that those who lived were forced to join up with other tribes who had been more lucky.

Meh. Some bad things happened to them, but it’s not like they would have done any differently had the situations been reversed, and it's not like what happened to them was unprecedented.

Like many US Americans, I am part Amerindian, attesting to the fact that there was far more intermarriage and integration in the pioneer days than many care to admit or realize.

you should think about visiting new mexico and the navajo reservation and historical sites some day.

Unless you are a Hopi

Meh. Some bad things happened to them, but it’s not like they would have done any differently had the situations been reversed, and it's not like what happened to them was unprecedented.

Like many US Americans, I am part Amerindian, attesting to the fact that there was far more intermarriage and integration in the pioneer days than many care to admit or realize.
NEO undelia? is that a puppet?

its not the past that is important, its the present. there are people who are members of indian tribes, who live on reservations, who are owed their share of billions of dollars that have been mismanaged by the BIA over the years. (the actual amount owed is unclear but it is certainly in the 10s of billions).

its interesting to worry over what happened to the various tribes that existed when columbus first "discovered" the new world, but its important to make sure that federal law is enforced and that treaty rights are honored.

Unless you are a Hopi
*gasp*

a hopi is NOT a navajo!

thats like mixing up lithuanians and poles!

but, if one were to decide to visit the hopi reservation, it would require a visit to the navajo reservation also since it is completely surrounded.

.... unless you are rich enough to charter a plane.....

NEO undelia? is that a puppet?
Deletion's a bitch.
its not the past that is important, its the present. there are people who are members of indian tribes, who live on reservations, who are owed their share of billions of dollars that have been mismanaged by the BIA over the years. (the actual amount owed is unclear but it is certainly in the 10s of billions).
Nothing we can do about it, unfortunately. It isn't a hot button issue in politics and no one of sufficient authority has the self-determination to do anything about it. With that in mind, it just sounds like a lot of whining. Unless you can somehow get a few million likely voters to care, nothing is going to happen.
its interesting to worry over what happened to the various tribes that existed when columbus first "discovered" the new world, but its important to make sure that federal law is enforced and that treaty rights are honored.
It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Deletion's a bitch.

Nothing we can do about it, unfortunately. It isn't a hot button issue in politics and no one of sufficient authority has the self-determination to do anything about it. With that in mind, it just sounds like a lot of whining. Unless you can somehow get a few million likely voters to care, nothing is going to happen.

It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
noooooo its not a matter of popularity, its a matter of law

one of the big side effects of indian casinos is the higher education of indian children including sending tribal members to law school. there is no more pushing indians around because they dont have the money and the education required to know what their rights are.

that BIA money (mostly for the leasing of mineral rights) WILL come back to the various tribes. its just a matter of time.

noooooo its not a matter of popularity, its a matter of law.
Have you been out of the country for the last six years? It doesn’t matter what the law says anymore, it matters what the guys at the top want, as long as they’re popular at election time.

Have you been out of the country for the last six years? It doesn’t matter what the law says anymore, it matters what the guys at the top want, as long as they’re popular at election time.

the most important federal official to the indian nations are the members of the supreme court. they decide what rights are rights. they just recenly decided against that case in buffalo because the treaty was "too old"

I think we can blame European religion for most of the problems that were caused from the year 900- now. Not until the 1960's did the catholic church even recognize Native Americans as people with souls.

It was the Europeans drive to "help" the natives with their far superior religion and culture. The very same religion that brought about the crusades, the inquisition and many other events.

If you really look at Catholicism the cause of the great schism shows that Catholicism's main interest was always controlling the people and securing the church's position in society.

About that buffalo thing, how exactly were buffalo a threat to the railway system? There are hundreds of thousands of buffalo today, and they aren't running around tearing up railroad track or goring people.

About that buffalo thing, how exactly were buffalo a threat to the railway system? There are hundreds of thousands of buffalo today, and they aren't running around tearing up railroad track or goring people.
The buffalos hated freedom and plotted to destroy the railways by suicide bombing them. In the nineteenth century, of course, Americans were just as compassionate as today, and tried to help the buffalo society by introducing democracy to it. Unfortunately, the buffalos reacted badly to change, and formed a radical insurgency that had to be eliminated.

About that buffalo thing, how exactly were buffalo a threat to the railway system? There are hundreds of thousands of buffalo today, and they aren't running around tearing up railroad track or goring people.
The buffaloes would stand on the tracks and sometimes a train would derail from the impact or from avoiding an impact.

So instead of discussing, right away we've highjacked the agenda, and we're America-bashing in the second post? This is typical *snips for brevity, I gotcha, you don't like Sin*
You're a dick.

About that buffalo thing, how exactly were buffalo a threat to the railway system? There are hundreds of thousands of buffalo today, and they aren't running around tearing up railroad track or goring people.
Back then there were millions! Some think that up to 100 million of them roaming about.

Edit: Not that they would attack a train, but after a few thousands crossed a track they left it kind of damaged. And the train couldn't go through a herd, and some of them would take hours or even days to cross the tracks.

I think we can blame European religion for most of the problems that were caused from the year 900- now. Not until the 1960's did the catholic church even recognize Native Americans as people with souls.

It was the Europeans drive to "help" the natives with their far superior religion and culture. The very same religion that brought about the crusades, the inquisition and many other events.

If you really look at Catholicism the cause of the great schism shows that Catholicism's main interest was always controlling the people and securing the church's position in society.

the Church founded all of those missions in Latin America, Texas, California and New Mexico why exactly then if not to covert the Indian and save their souls?

The Indian Act is a travesty. The best thing that could happen to Canadian natives is it being repealed.

The natives should also help themselves out. Native communities (especially in BC) have been shooting themselves in the foot by demanding the businesses that wish to work with them make long-term guarantees about employment and land use, and that's just not something businesses can afford to grant, even if we ignore the obvious issues with native education (natives who haven't finished high school aren't useful workers).

Hmmm, I'd need to know more about these specific cases before I comment, but I will comment on what I perceive to be similar situations in the North.

The Tli Cho (NorthWest Territories) signed a self-government agreement and have control over their territories in terms of resource extraction. The Gwich'in (Dene/Métis) and Inuvialuit have basically settled their comprehensive land claims and are working on self-government, but as it stand, also have the final say about resource extraction. What this means is that they can create standards in addition to Federal environmental and resources extraction standards. They have all done so. The Tli Cho, Gwich'in and Inuvialuit do not have to give permission to anyone who is not a part of the band, to hunt or fish on their territories. They can veto any sort of resource extraction. When they create agreements for resource extraction, whether it be minerals, oil, water, trees, animals, whatever, THEY set the terms.

The Tli Cho have signed agreements allowing diamond mines on their territories. In exchange for the right to extraction, they are asking that a certain amount of employment be guaranteed. There is certainly a problem with finding skilled tradespeople. Many of the aboriginal people employed by the mines work in the janitorial or cooking industry, rather than as part of the trades. Nonetheless, apprenticeship programs are being started up, and more Tli Cho members are getting skilled training. It is a much better prospect than just divvying out royalty cheques. Now, the agreements last until a company can no longer operate, and I don't see how this is in any way 'shooting themselves in the foot'. The band can not lower safety standards, educational standards, or anything of the sort when it comes to the operation of the mine, and I can't foresee that this would be allowed in any aboriginal territory. Companies may not LIKE the fact that they have to hire aboriginal people, but that is part of the agreement that they must make if they want to operate, and benefit from, the resources located on aboriginal territories.

It isn't a huge benefit to aboriginal people yet, because there is a low level of education and skilled training, but that is going to change as communities are able to enrich themselves from resource extraction.

My papa works for/with native americans in the Great Lakes region. Before that, he ran the clinic on the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa (Ojibwa) reservation in far north-central Wisconsin.

Back in, oh, the late 80s/early 90s there was quite a bit of hubbub over treaty fishing rights, which allowed Chippewas to spear their fish and use lights in the process.

I didn't really care much about it, but it pissed off some white folk up there (Stop Treaty Abuse, or STA).
Aboriginal hunting rights are not yet resolved. In the Powley case, the Métis of Canada affirmed their right to hunt and fish, just as many First Nations and Inuit do. There is a division between subsistence harvesting, and commercial harvesting. Individual provinces and territories have to interpret the Supreme Court ruling re: Powley. In Alberta, there is an interim agreement allowing Métis to hunt and fish almost anywhere, but still some Métis fishers are being charged for using a rod and reel, rather than a gill net, and the harvesting must be for subsistence purposes only. Other provinces have not yet created such agreements, and despite the ruling, many Métis across Canada face fines if they hunt or fish without the appropriate permits.

Commercial harvesting is probably the bigger issue. On the east coast, aboriginal groups in particular have been fighting to ensure that their right to commercial harvesting is respected. The Burnt Church (http://www.rism.org/isg/dlp/bc/news/bc_cp_19991006_2.htm) fishery conflict highlighted these issues.

We'll have to see how these things turn out. Supreme Court rulings have been favouring aboriginal harvesting rights both subsistence and commercially based, but communities are also being directed to develop a comprehensive set of guidelines and conservation strategies. It's a work in progress, and not simply a case of aboriginal people getting to do whatever they want, when they want.

It's amazing to think that something as simple as self-government could be denied through an archaic act like the Indian Act. Paternalism in any form is rather insulting in my view, and this act in particular, is obviously aimed at separating Indian's from 'the rest of us' in an attempt to make them like 'the rest of us'. (Was it really necessary to have to delineate the term 'mentally incompetent Indian'?)

Abolishing the Indian Act is obviously the right count for everyone involved, in my view. Constitutionally, I believe it would take some work. Would we treat all reservation land as provinces within our provinces, that deal with the federal government? Or more appropriately, nations within our nation?

Removing the obligation for 'the Queen' to manage 'band funds' is obviously the right first step. Allowing local native communities to make the hard economic decisions for their region is both empowering and potentially profitable for all involved.See, there are a number of groups that want to abolish the Indian Act. Aboriginal people themselves, non-aboriginals who support aboriginal self-government, and non-aboriginal people who want aboriginals to have no special status at all (an extinguishment of all aboriginal rights). These groups have widely divergent views of the future of aboriginal and non-aboriginal relationships.

Aboriginal people want the Indian Act to be repealed, and want control over their own lives, including their own education, health care, and governance. What needs to happen, in this scenario, is for all First Nations, Inuit and Métis, to negotiate their own self-government agreements, and opt out, one by one, from the Indian Act, until that Act no longer applies to any aboriginal person, at which point it would be repealed. That is what is actually happening. Each group that has negotiated self-government has a timeline to phase themselves out from under the Indian Act.

Other people want the Indian Act repealed, and all aboriginal self-government issues to become invalid. This is not going to happen.

In our globalising world, economic empowerment , aka 'purchasing power' makes a big difference. Giving aboriginal groups self-determination and responsiblity to create the conditions for economic prosperity is the first step, and hopefully Canada can help foster a model that aboriginal peoples world-over can look to.
Please don't phrase this as a gift. It isn't 'giving' us anything. It is returning to us what we had...which was the right to resource extraction, and the right to self-governance.

It is well known that a land base is key in terms of creating prosperity. That is what we are fighting for...a land base on which to create the economic conditions in which a functioning self-government can exist. And yes, I am hoping that what is happening here in Canada, will be modelled in other nations as well.

I can definetely understand why you would be pissed off at the injustice that was perpetrated against your ancestors by colonists, but why didn't they stand up and fight for their lands? I know some did, but it wasn't a major opposition, and this was the reason why their lands were lost, it seems to me.
You need to read the rest of this thread. First, contemporary issues are not focused on injustices that happened at contact and colonisation, but rather the structures of injustice that continue to exist. Second, once again, it was not an issue of fighting over land. We were quite willing, for the most part, to share land with you, which is why we entered into treaties, allowing you to settle. The reason there weren't huge armies in the fields 'defending the land' was because we were settling those issues through negotiation. And lastly, the reasons that we have lost certain lands are far more complex than 'we didn't have the strength to hold onto them'.

Please don't phrase this as a gift. It isn't 'giving' us anything. It is returning to us what we had...which was the right to resource extraction, and the right to self-governance.

It is well known that a land base is key in terms of creating prosperity. That is what we are fighting for...a land base on which to create the economic conditions in which a functioning self-government can exist. And yes, I am hoping that what is happening here in Canada, will be modelled in other nations as well.

I actually wondered how that phrasing might look. I originally typed 'allowing' and realized that was plain dumb. 'Giving's' not much better... 'Returning' it is!

Don't know much about the suject. All I know is that they played the role of "evil communists" in John Wayne movies and that they are the reason the USA is the biggest whaling nation in the world.

I actually wondered how that phrasing might look. I originally typed 'allowing' and realized that was plain dumb. 'Giving's' not much better... 'Returning' it is!
I know you didn't mean it that way, but the language is important. When people look at it as a gift, they see it as something they can choose to do or not, depending on how they feel about it...and the implication is that the things being 'given' belong to them, and not the people who are receiving these 'gifts' When it is phrased as an issue of returning power to...it becomes less of a charity situation, and more of a responsibility, and a recognition that these things are inherent rights.

Don't know much about the suject. All I know is that they played the role of "evil communists" in John Wayne movies and that they are the reason the USA is the biggest whaling nation in the world.
Sorry...who hunts for whales in the US?

Don't know much about the suject. All I know is that they played the role of "evil communists" in John Wayne movies and that they are the reason the USA is the biggest whaling nation in the world.

??? I'm Confused... :confused:

Evil Communists and Whaling? Did you enter a wormhole through one thread and accidentally end up in this one? :)

Uhhh... what's with all this nonsense? I believe there were some tribes in Canada and I can't speak for them, but as for the United States...

Yes, lets go on.

We came, we saw, we conquered. Indians are lucky we didn't completely destroy them hundreds of years ago, let alone get their share of stolen White opportunity that's been stolen from us through Affirmitive action.

The United States wasn't built on "Concuering" so your point here is invaild. Affirmitive action is a joke, there were so many peace treties that the United States government had signed in good faith with the Native Americans and then the Generals of the US Military in the region attacked natives, and not just Males, but the Females and Children were killed in cold blood. Seems more like war crimes to me than anything.

... and for the more pacifist among us, the Indians raided our villages, railways, and killed our people for no reason. Whitman Massacre anybody? It was them who turned to violence first, and continued it through terrorism and government resistance even after they were beaten.

They did this only after hundreds of Native women and children were killed in cold blood. I would check your history before you talk about things that you don't understand.

Frankly, I don't consider them native americans at all, just because they were here first, that makes them aboriginal? I suppose that makes Neil Armstrong a Native Moonman. And if it's because they were BORN here, then I'm every bit as much of a "native american" They migrated there, just like we did. They attacked us, we attacked back. We won, and after a fair amount of retribution (trail of tears) against those war criminals, we showed them the mercy they never showed us. I think it's sickening we feel any sort of guilt toward them.

War criminals? They never killed Women and Children, the US Military did that and were they ever tried for War Crimes? Nope. As for the Trail of Tears, if you look as historical records all Natives were forced to walks that trail and thousands died during their walk, this includes, as stated before, the women and children.

I guess I shouldn't have expected an intelligent response, anything that's not politically correct (middle of the road or hard left) is dismissed without a thought and branded racist.

What you were talking about is the complete anihilation of a race of people. To most people, that would be considered racist by a good deal of people within the United States, including the courts.



And that concludes my responce.......for now......


EDIT:
Read: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487657&page=3

You're a dick.

*Tear* :(

All I wanted was your love and acceptance, Dobby! I wish you had some constructive argument to add to that insult, but alas! I don't see one.

*Tear* :(

All I wanted was your love and acceptance, Dobby! I wish you had some constructive argument to add to that insult, but alas! I don't see one.
Can't stand to admit you were wrong, 'eh?

Lack of maturity.

Don't know much about the suject. All I know is that they played the role of "evil communists" in John Wayne movies and that they are the reason the USA is the biggest whaling nation in the world.

Erm the biggest commercial whaling nation by far is norway

http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/table_objection.htm


Biggest aboriginal substinance whalers are from denmark or russia depending upon year and how youd like to measure

http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/table_aboriginal.htm

Since I have a bit of time, I thought I'd open up this thread again with a question:

Assuming that the modern day treaty process is going to continue...how do you think that aboriginal self-government is going to affect you in Canada, or in the US?

Assuming that the modern day treaty process is going to continue...how do you think that aboriginal self-government is going to affect you in Canada, or in the US?
I don't think it will, not personally at least. Like when they formed Nunavut, barely anyone noticed. Except kids in school who have to learn one more capital.

I honestly don't know, Sinuhue - but other than that, I just wanted to say 'hi'. I don't see much of you live anymore, what with our conflicting schedules so...

...So there, and stuff. That was a crap response to a good question, I know. Sorry for that.

I don't think it will, not personally at least. Like when they formed Nunavut, barely anyone noticed. Except kids in school who have to learn one more capital.Well it's bound not to affect people too much when it happens somewhere in the sparsely populated north...

But what about the more densely populated province of British Columbia, for example? All of the province needs to be negotiated on, since no tribes ever signed a treaty until now.

I honestly don't know, Sinuhue - but other than that, I just wanted to say 'hi'. I don't see much of you live anymore, what with our conflicting schedules so...

...So there, and stuff. That was a crap response to a good question, I know. Sorry for that.
Good to see you too...hope things are staying busy and interesting...but not too interesting, in the Chinese proverb sense, you know?

Well it's bound not to affect people too much when it happens somewhere in the sparsely populated north...

But what about the more densely populated province of British Columbia, for example? All of the province needs to be negotiated on, since no tribes ever signed a treaty until now.
Really? I didn't know that. I doubt that the local or federal governments will want to cede to much in the way of potential tax revenue; but it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

Really? I didn't know that. I doubt that the local or federal governments will want to cede to much in the way of potential tax revenue; but it'll be interesting to see how it goes.
Well, the one decision that HAS been made so far is the Nisga'a ( http://www.nisgaalisims.ca/) territory. To steal from one of my earlier posts in this ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11098653&postcount=45) thread, this is what the Nisga'a in BC got:

The Nisga'a
- 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.

No one is going to settle for less than what the Nisga'a have won.
Doesn't look like a bad deal, both for the Natives and the Province / Federation; certainly looks less conflictive on paper than the treaties in the East.

Are Native Courts under the English Common Law system or can they use their own?

Doesn't look like a bad deal, both for the Natives and the Province / Federation; certainly looks less conflictive on paper than the treaties in the East.

Are Native Courts under the English Common Law system or can they use their own?
They can use their own.

In strictest definition, Aboriginal Law is based on traditional systems of governance. That varies from nation to nation (tribe to tribe) They can choose to develop their judicial system on English common law, but I doubt any of the nations will.

I really think that negotiation of modern day treaties is in the long term best interests of almost everyone. It creates a land base, and an economic base for a people to become self-sufficient, rather than maintain them in a wardship relationship with the state.

I honestly don't know, Sinuhue - but other than that, I just wanted to say 'hi'. I don't see much of you live anymore, what with our conflicting schedules so...

...So there, and stuff. That was a crap response to a good question, I know. Sorry for that.

Yet another thread won? That's two already today. Congrats.


I think that the treaties in Canada and the ones in the US will go down very different judicial paths. The differences in sovereignity and differences in judicial systems will force this. I think that the Canadian treaties will be settled far more advantageously for the Indians. As a rough rule of thumb the farther South you look in North America the less good the prospects for Native Americans regaining territory

Yet another thread won? That's two already today. Congrats.


I think that the treaties in Canada and the ones in the US will go down very different judicial paths. The differences in sovereignity and differences in judicial systems will force this. I think that the Canadian treaties will be settled far more advantageously for the Indians. As a rough rule of thumb the farther South you look in North America the less good the prospects for Native Americans regaining territory
I agree. But you'd better clarify yourself, or a certain poster (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11162010&postcount=44) is going to assume that by SOUTH you mean the US...:rolleyes:

Sorry, had to get that out. I agree though...I think things in the US will not be as smooth, and I doubt we'll see the same sort of self-governing agreements...and Mexico is not going to let their aboriginal people gain any more of a foothold than they already have...not to mention the ongoing blind eye towards aboriginal peoples in the rest of North America (sometimes referred to as Central America).

Well, the one decision that HAS been made so far is the Nisga'a ( http://www.nisgaalisims.ca/) territory. To steal from one of my earlier posts in this ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11098653&postcount=45) thread, this is what the Nisga'a in BC got:

The Nisga'a
- 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.

One of the reasons this happened is because the natives in BC never signed any treaties with Canada or Britain. Canadian natives east of BC signed treaties agreeing to be moved onto reserves, but the BC natives never did, so the BC natives had a much stronger bargaining position.

I wouldn't have given them anything, frankly. I support assimilation.

Real life is not Age of Nations, with history and technology subdivided in neat little ages that you reach by investing resources in research branches. The main material used all over America was stone, that doesn't make them comparable to stone age cultures of Europe in 2,000 BC.

North Americans had a much more advanced culture and civilization than stone age Europeans, with great knowledge of architechture, agriculture, mathematics, and medicine. Their weapons and military tactics were also more advanced, and their numbers much greater. They could have easily owned any European stone age culture.

The Aztecs, even though decimated and once recovered from the initial surprise of seeing horses, steel and gunpowder, were still able to put up a good fight against the Spanish, who had to retreat and almost lost it all a couple of times. It was the European's knowledge of better military tactics, combined with their alliances with local nations and the diseases they brought that gave them victory.

It surprises me that in the US and Canada the decimation of the Americans by disease is relatively unknown. Perhaps because the Spanish chroniclers were able to record it almost from the beginning, while in the US and Canada they met nations that had already been affected.

My point there was that the natives this thread keeps discussing (Incans, Aztecs) were far more advanced than the natives farther north. Canadian natives didn't have a single metal tool before the Europeans arrived. They can clearly be classified as a stone age culture. They were nomadic hunter-gatherers with effectively no materials technology beyond organics.

That's their traditional lifestyle. I don't think any of them want it back.

My point there was that the natives this thread keeps discussing (Incans, Aztecs) were far more advanced than the natives farther north. Canadian natives didn't have a single metal tool before the Europeans arrived.
Neither did Aztecs or Mayas. North American, by the way.

It is possible that the Mississippi Valley Culture and the Anazasis could have reached similar degrees of progress, at least in the social order. At least there are indications that the Anazasis traded with cultures from central Mexico. It is possible that desertification, and the eruption of the Tlaloc volcano that caused the collapse of the Teotihuacan civilization, was what caused the Anazasis to collapse.

... and for the more pacifist among us, the Indians raided our villages, railways, and killed our people for no reason. Whitman Massacre anybody? It was them who turned to violence first, and continued it through terrorism and government resistance even after they were beaten.
Fuck pacifism. The whites stole their land. They had every right in the world to defend themselves ruthlessly.

Frankly, I don't consider them native americans at all, just because they were here first, that makes them aboriginal? I suppose that makes Neil Armstrong a Native Moonman. And if it's because they were BORN here, then I'm every bit as much of a "native american" They migrated there, just like we did. They attacked us, we attacked back. We won, and after a fair amount of retribution (trail of tears) against those war criminals, we showed them the mercy they never showed us. I think it's sickening we feel any sort of guilt toward them.

They have been in America for hundreds more generations than the whites have been.

The genocidal 'retribution' (against their acts of self-defense) was disproportionate.

I'm having Buffalo Wings in about an hour.
Buffalo don't have wings.

The difference is that shit washes off. *nod*

lol

One of the reasons this happened is because the natives in BC never signed any treaties with Canada or Britain. Canadian natives east of BC signed treaties agreeing to be moved onto reserves, but the BC natives never did, so the BC natives had a much stronger bargaining position. Actually, more than the BC natives never had their title extinguished. The Eastern Arctic, and down to the Maritimes are not covered by treaties. All of this land must be dealt with. So far, the Gwich'in and Inuvialuit have settled their land claims and are working on self government...the treaty process is ongoing and laborious, and involves nearly half of the landmass of Canada.

I wouldn't have given them anything, frankly. I support assimilation.
You're thinking about this wrong. It's not about giving us anything. It's about returning what was never rightfully yours. And in most cases, you still come out ahead. The Nisga'a asked for 10 times what they finally settled for...so title to that other 90% is free and clear, and in the hands of Canada. In all cases of treaties, Canada comes out far, far ahead...the reserved lands are miniscule in comparison to what is opened up to Canada.

My point there was that the natives this thread keeps discussing (Incans, Aztecs) were far more advanced than the natives farther north. Canadian natives didn't have a single metal tool before the Europeans arrived. They can clearly be classified as a stone age culture. They were nomadic hunter-gatherers with effectively no materials technology beyond organics.

That's their traditional lifestyle. I don't think any of them want it back.
Sorry, metal does not a civilisation make. Your judgments on our 'level of advancement' are incredibly eurocentric, and really no basis for any decisions involving our worth to 'treaty with' or not. You also show a startling ignorance when you label us all 'nomadic hunter-gatherers'. Many West and East coast natives were settled. The Iroquois were agricultural. We had complex systems of governance, law, etc. We were not Neanderthals eking out an existence...we were well established with trading routes, treaties, and so on.

Our 'traditional lifestyle' was not static. We adapted quickly to new innovations...just look at the rise of the Plains Indian lifestyle (once the horse and gun were introduced). Our cultures impacted one another, knowledge was shared, customs changed. No one is talking about returning to the past, but WE choose which traditions stay, and which are no longer relevant.

You're thinking about this wrong. It's not about giving us anything. It's about returning what was never rightfully yours. And in most cases, you still come out ahead. The Nisga'a asked for 10 times what they finally settled for...so title to that other 90% is free and clear, and in the hands of Canada. In all cases of treaties, Canada comes out far, far ahead...the reserved lands are miniscule in comparison to what is opened up to Canada.

I would argue that it was never rightfully yours, either. Ownership is a legal construct, and it can't exist in the absence of a relevant legal framework.

The basis of law is the power to enforce them.

Sorry, metal does not a civilisation make. Your judgments on our 'level of advancement' are incredibly eurocentric, and really no basis for any decisions involving our worth to 'treaty with' or not. You also show a startling ignorance when you label us all 'nomadic hunter-gatherers'. Many West and East coast natives were settled. The Iroquois were agricultural. We had complex systems of governance, law, etc. We were not Neanderthals eking out an existence...we were well established with trading routes, treaties, and so on.

I'll admit that I was thinking primarily of plains natives. I'm from the prairies, and those are the natives I've studied. I would generally expect maritime cultures to be less nomadic and to develop agriculture first.

Though I don't see how my measure of advancement, which applies neatly to civilisations all over the world (Europe, Asia, Africa, South America) counts as Eurocentric. There's a well-defined pattern of advancement that human civilisations follow, and the North American natives hadn't gotten very far before the Europeans arrived.

Our 'traditional lifestyle' was not static. We adapted quickly to new innovations...just look at the rise of the Plains Indian lifestyle (once the horse and gun were introduced). Our cultures impacted one another, knowledge was shared, customs changed. No one is talking about returning to the past, but WE choose which traditions stay, and which are no longer relevant.

I was discussing the state of the natives prior to contact (even indirectly) with Europeans, which means pre-horse and pre-firearms, and that was a stone age culture (especially for the plains natives).

And you can maintain traditions without our help. In fact, I think you'd be better at it if we stopped trying to help you. The Indian Act has perpetuated dependency.

I would argue that it was never rightfully yours, either. Ownership is a legal construct, and it can't exist in the absence of a relevant legal framework.

The basis of law is the power to enforce them.Ah, but we had a 'relevant legal framework'. We did not have private property though, and we do not have it now, so we've maintained that framework. As well, usufruct is a recognised right based on traditional use and occupancy in Common Law as well as our laws. Both my people, and the Europeans who came, recognised our inherent rights. The colonisers may have trampled over a few of them, but in essence, the treaties recognised and upheld them.

But also think of it this way. We occupied these lands for tens of thousands of years before any European came to settle. That alone should be enough to convince you that 'taking' the land from us without our consent, would be wrong. Our consent, however, WAS sought.

I'll admit that I was thinking primarily of plains natives. I'm from the prairies, and those are the natives I've studied. I would generally expect maritime cultures to be less nomadic and to develop agriculture first.

Though I don't see how my measure of advancement, which applies neatly to civilisations all over the world (Europe, Asia, Africa, South America) counts as Eurocentric. There's a well-defined pattern of advancement that human civilisations follow, and the North American natives hadn't gotten very far before the Europeans arrived. Those 'well-defined patterns of advancement' ARE eurocentric, and are based on european philosophies of 'civilisation'. That is even generally recognised within the various anthropological fields. For a long time, cultures that were oral, that had not developed writing, were considered 'primitive'. Now it is often recognised that such cultures were still incredibly complex, and that writing is not a standard by which we can make such judgements. That is an ethnocentric view, one culture judging another by its own standards.

As well, that 'well-defined pattern of advancement' has been refuted a number of times. Cultures that have not followed the pattern are not somehow inherently less worthy, they are simply DIFFERENT. Again, as has been pointed out, this is not Age of Nations. Culture is not a series of ladder rungs that lead to the same end.

Our 'level of civilisation' notwithstanding, has no bearing on our right to these lands. That is simply a convenient excuse to deny us those rights, based on subjective views of 'worth'.


I was discussing the state of the natives prior to contact (even indirectly) with Europeans, which means pre-horse and pre-firearms, and that was a stone age culture (especially for the plains natives). Yes, I realise that. I brought up the contact example however, because most non-native people know absolutely nothing about the kind of cultural bleeding that went on between various tribes before contact. This was substantial. Especially among tribes who shared territories, cultural bleeding was prevalent.

You say 'stone-age culture' as though we were ignorant Neanderthals. I challenge that view. We have incredibly well developed systems of laws, kinship systems, and organisation, yes even here on the Plains. We treated with other nations. We have an excellent understanding of our surroundings, which you may not value, but nonetheless is not akin to the understanding that animals have with their surroundings. We have master craftspeople, we have a very good system of traditional education. Because many of our languages are oral based, we have people who are literally worth more than any library in terms of their knowledge. I'd go on, but it's not necessary. You need to consider your views, and ask yourself why you believe that 'stone-age' is something you hold so entirely in contempt. Also realise that the term itself is inadequate to describe us.


And you can maintain traditions without our help. In fact, I think you'd be better at it if we stopped trying to help you. The Indian Act has perpetuated dependency.The Indian Act has actively sought to destroy our traditions, so on this we agree. It needs to go.

Ah, but we had a 'relevant legal framework'. We did not have private property though, and we do not have it now, so we've maintained that framework. As well, usufruct is a recognised right based on traditional use and occupancy in Common Law as well as our laws. Both my people, and the Europeans who came, recognised our inherent rights. The colonisers may have trampled over a few of them, but in essence, the treaties recognised and upheld them.

I, however, don't recognise inherent rights at all, regardless of what other people might have done.

But also think of it this way. We occupied these lands for tens of thousands of years before any European came to settle. That alone should be enough to convince you that 'taking' the land from us without our consent, would be wrong.

We differ here on how ownership happens. If something (say, land) is unowned, how does someone come to own it? Your answer to that question and my answer to that question are apparently very different.

Our consent, however, WAS sought.

I don't see how that's relevant. That's not evidence that Europeans thought you owned the land. That's evidence the Europeans thought it would be easier to trade with you than fight you.

Those 'well-defined patterns of advancement' ARE eurocentric, and are based on european philosophies of 'civilisation'. That is even generally recognised within the various anthropological fields. For a long time, cultures that were oral, that had not developed writing, were considered 'primitive'. Now it is often recognised that such cultures were still incredibly complex, and that writing is not a standard by which we can make such judgements. That is an ethnocentric view, one culture judging another by its own standards.

I never claimed the weren't complex or valuable. That particular discussion was of technological and economic advancement. Hence, stone-age hunter-gatherers. I don't recall saying barbarous savages or sub-humans.

As well, that 'well-defined pattern of advancement' has been refuted a number of times. Cultures that have not followed the pattern are not somehow inherently less worthy, they are simply DIFFERENT.

Again, I never said less worthy.

Again, as has been pointed out, this is not Age of Nations. Culture is not a series of ladder rungs that lead to the same end.

But it goes somewhere, and those stone-age hunter-gatherers were somewhere humans in other parts of the world had been thousands of years earlier.

Our 'level of civilisation' notwithstanding, has no bearing on our right to these lands. That is simply a convenient excuse to deny us those rights, based on subjective views of 'worth'.

I wasn't using that stone-age hunter-gatherer description to do that. I was applying it matter-of-factly, and that's all. My denial of your rights to the land was purely a legal argument.

You say 'stone-age culture' as though we were ignorant Neanderthals. I challenge that view. We have incredibly well developed systems of laws, kinship systems, and organisation, yes even here on the Plains. We treated with other nations. We have an excellent understanding of our surroundings, which you may not value, but nonetheless is not akin to the understanding that animals have with their surroundings. We have master craftspeople, we have a very good system of traditional education. Because many of our languages are oral based, we have people who are literally worth more than any library in terms of their knowledge. I'd go on, but it's not necessary. You need to consider your views, and ask yourself why you believe that 'stone-age' is something you hold so entirely in contempt.

I didn't say it "as though" anything. That tone of derision is entirely your inference, and inference is never the speaker's fault (I started a whole thread about that - I'll track it down if you'd like). Stone age might be descriptive, but it's value-neutral, and that's how I used it.

Also realise that the term itself is inadequate to describe us.

Just because a descriptor is incomplete, that doesn't make it inaccurate. You're female. That doesn't begin to describe everything that is you, but it's still an accurate use of the term.

The Indian Act has actively sought to destroy our traditions, so on this we agree. It needs to go.

And while I agree it needs to go, I think that's so because it has actively held your people at arms length from the rest of Canadian society, and I think that's unfair to both of us.

I oppose the Indian Act for the same reason I oppose equalisation payments. They both create cycles of dependency that hold people down.

The Law of Discovery held that land could not truly belong to people that did not have the 'trappings' of civilisation. It was used to justify the theft of territory. But the Law of Discovery is an ethnocentric system of beliefs, given the name 'Law'. We did not have private ownership. We still do not have private ownership. We had communal ownership of land. Do you only recognise private ownership? Is that the issue? Or do you hold that injustices committed in the past become just in the present? Or that somehow, despite the fact that aboriginal title was actively recognised and affirmed in the treaties, that this should no longer be respected? When should the treaties expire?

No, I'll recognise communal ownership. I'm okay with that.

I do have a problem with the Canadian government treating people as groups, however. I want the Canadian government to treat each person as an individual. If those individuals choose to operate as groups, that's their call.

In BC, there were no treaties (I seem to recall discussing the Nisga'a with you earlier), so no such rights were affirmed. Elsewhere, do you really want to be bound by those treaties? That's what put you on reserves in the first place. Or do you support the reserve system?

No, I'll recognise communal ownership. I'm okay with that.

I do have a problem with the Canadian government treating people as groups, however. I want the Canadian government to treat each person as an individual. If those individuals choose to operate as groups, that's their call.

In BC, there were no treaties (I seem to recall discussing the Nisga'a with you earlier), so no such rights were affirmed. Elsewhere, do you really want to be bound by those treaties? That's what put you on reserves in the first place. Or do you support the reserve system?
Damn it...I have to leave right away...but I'll answer a bit of this quickly.

We want you to treat us as a group, because though we are individuals, we are a communal, not an individualistic people. That is the key stone of our cultures. When we fight for our rights, we fight for our rights as a people. It may not fit nicely into the mainstream western system that we have here in Canada, but aboriginal people throughout the Americas are linked by this commonality of communality. In saying that we must be dealt with only on an individual level, you are in fact telling me that your culture should supersede mine, when my culture precedes yours in this land.

There were no treaties signed in BC, but that is not an issue of affirming aboriginal title or rejecting it. Only the crown was given the power to treat with us. For a long time, the province of BC believed that it had extinguished aboriginal title. Upon challenge, it was reaffirmed that they never had the power to do so. Only the crown, and now the Canadian government could. They have not...which means that aboriginal title still exists. Hence the modern day treaties. It never should have been left so long.

I do not support the reserve system as it is, no. But neither do I support the scattering of our communities, or the loss of communal ownership. What I support is sovereignty within our lands. I support systems like what the Nisga'a have reinstituted. Aboriginal sovereignty in that context.

We want you to treat us as a group, because though we are individuals, we are a communal, not an individualistic people. That is the key stone of our cultures. When we fight for our rights, we fight for our rights as a people. It may not fit nicely into the mainstream western system that we have here in Canada, but aboriginal people throughout the Americas are linked by this commonality of communality. In saying that we must be dealt with only on an individual level, you are in fact telling me that your culture should supersede mine, when my culture precedes yours in this land.

What if a native doesn't choose to be part of the commune? Is he deprived all benefits of your agreements?

What if a native doesn't choose to be part of the commune? Is he deprived all benefits of your agreements?
He could absolutely choose to live off reserve or off territory...but he would in essence have dual citizenship unless he asked to be stricken from the band list. If there was a revenue sharing system, he would still benefit, on or off reserve. However, certain things would not apply to him off reserve...such as housing, perhaps education (which would then have to be accessed through the Canadian system).

There are some aboriginal people who would not be accepted as a member into any band. Also, each band would have its own agreement that would not apply to natives not of that band. Just like the Nisga'a government has nothing to do with me. I could apply for citizenship or band membership...but whether or not I would be accepted is up to them.

Consider this:

Before colonisation, we had control over our territories, and we exploited the natural resources as we saw fit. When the Europeans came, we agreed to share the land, and we gave over land to be settled. We also gave over the rights to exploit that land and its resources. In return, it was understood by us that we would keep parts of our territories and its resources.

Canada has enriched itself by exploiting the lands that were given over to them, as well as lands that were not. Native peoples have been prevented from doing the same...very few bands have surface or subsurface rights. Canada is self-sustaining because it has these resources. We want the same consideration on our territories.

In this way, we can truly 'wean ourselves' off the teat of the state...a situation we never wanted to be in, and one in which we find ourselves constantly resented by other Canadians. Strike down the Indian Act, and give us back our sovereignty...we practiced it for tens of thousands of years...trust me, we can figure it out again.

Consider this:

Before colonisation, we had control over our territories, and we exploited the natural resources as we saw fit. When the Europeans came, we agreed to share the land, and we gave over land to be settled. We also gave over the rights to exploit that land and its resources. In return, it was understood by us that we would keep parts of our territories and its resources.

Canada has enriched itself by exploiting the lands that were given over to them, as well as lands that were not. Native peoples have been prevented from doing the same...very few bands have surface or subsurface rights. Canada is self-sustaining because it has these resources. We want the same consideration on our territories.

In this way, we can truly 'wean ourselves' off the teat of the state...a situation we never wanted to be in, and one in which we find ourselves constantly resented by other Canadians. Strike down the Indian Act, and give us back our sovereignty...we practiced it for tens of thousands of years...trust me, we can figure it out again.

I don't know... seems like too much common sense. You sure that there shouldn't be a committee to hold a town hall meeting to discuss the possibility of a national referendum to debate the possibilities of putting it off for a couple of decades? That sounds much more Canadian.

I don't know... seems like too much common sense. You sure that there shouldn't be a committee to hold a town hall meeting to discuss the possibility of a national referendum to debate the possibilities of putting it off for a couple of decades? That sounds much more Canadian.
That meeting was held a hundred years ago...:p

-snip-

I don't want the government to treat you as groups because I don't want the government to be allowed to treat Canadians as anything other than individuals. I don't want them to treat me as anything other than an individual, and the only way to ensure that is to prohibit them from ever doing it to any Canadians.

But, the government does routinely treat as groups residents of other countries. Foreign nationals are treated as groups. And I'm okay with that sort of relationship if you'd like it.

And there's an easy path to that. Declare independence. A unilateral declaration of independence will make very clear the sort of relationship you want with Canada.

This, I think, would treat the arrival of the Europeans more like what it actually was. We invaded. You lost. Hundreds of years ago.

Why dont all the Indian lands just secede from Canada and form their own nation?

Seriously...that is the idea of Nationalism after all, a homeland for all people.

Call it, Red Nationalism.

hey sin, did you see the awesome thread on here a bit ago about how all that collective ownership of tribal land stuff was actually imposed on the individualistic capitalist natives by the white man and his dawes act?

Since I wasn't able to address this earlier, and I see you're online, I figured I'd continue our discussion:)



And there's an easy path to that. Declare independence. A unilateral declaration of independence will make very clear the sort of relationship you want with Canada. If we declare independence, be sure that we will be fighting for a lot more land than we are right now. In many ways, we ARE declaring independence...but more akin to a Territory.

This, I think, would treat the arrival of the Europeans more like what it actually was. We invaded. You lost. Hundreds of years ago.
That's how you may see it, but that was not how it was. In what is now Canada and the US, there was no invasion.

The Spaniards and Portuguese invaded. You treated. Abide by your agreements. It's a simple request, really.

Why dont all the Indian lands just secede from Canada and form their own nation?

Seriously...that is the idea of Nationalism after all, a homeland for all people.

Call it, Red Nationalism.
We don't think it's necessary to secede completely. We are willing to share our homeland...we always have been.

hey sin, did you see the awesome thread on here a bit ago about how all that collective ownership of tribal land stuff was actually imposed on the individualistic capitalist natives by the white man and his dawes act?
Wow...my whole world is topsy turvy!!!:)

I don't really have anything to say about North American Indians, so here's a picture of one fighting a heavily armed dinosaur: http://www.halifax.it/best/turok-evolution/img/artworks/art_5.jpg

No fair! That dinosaur has guns!

No fair! That dinosaur has guns!
Yeah, that dino will need far more than that to stand a chance against Tal'Set.

We don't think it's necessary to secede completely. We are willing to share our homeland...we always have been.
Then what do you want. American-Indians are not 2nd class citizens..I went to school with one this year. I dont see the problem. Maybe things are different in Canada, but if you dont want to secede and form your own nation, then what exactly DO YOU WANT?

Then what do you want. American-Indians are not 2nd class citizens..I went to school with one this year. I dont see the problem. Maybe things are different in Canada, but if you dont want to secede and form your own nation, then what exactly DO YOU WANT?
*sigh*

Eleven pages of pretty detailed explanations, and you want me to sum it all up for you again, rather than put in the effort to actually learn about the subject? Rather than spout off in ignorance, blissful at that? You want the Coles notes?

1) Neither Canada or the US is our nation. Our nations existed for tens of thousands of years before the creation of these two countries. We don't need to form our own nations...our own nations continue to exist.

2) When the traders and later the colonists came, we agreed to trade and treat with them, and allowed our lands to be opened up for settlement. In return, we were made certain guarantees.

3) We have honoured our side of the bargain, and demand that you do the same.

4) In cases where our aboriginal title was never extinguished, rather than asking that you remove yourselves from land that is not legally yours, (not even by your standards) we ask that you treat with us. We are saying that we STILL are willing to share the land with you, despite your checkered past and ill dealings with us. We are still willing to open lands up for permanent settlement in return for certain guarantees.

5) What we demand is sovereignty returned. How that sovereignty will look is going to depend on each individual band and their particular agreement with the Federal governments.

... and for the more pacifist among us, the Indians raided our villages, railways, and killed our people for no reason. Whitman Massacre anybody? It was them who turned to violence first, and continued it through terrorism and government resistance even after they were beaten.

Frankly, I don't consider them native americans at all, just because they were here first, that makes them aboriginal? I suppose that makes Neil Armstrong a Native Moonman. And if it's because they were BORN here, then I'm every bit as much of a "native american" They migrated there, just like we did. They attacked us, we attacked back. We won, and after a fair amount of retribution (trail of tears) against those war criminals, we showed them the mercy they never showed us. I think it's sickening we feel any sort of guilt toward them.

- Eskertania
1. You stole their land, those "raids" were responses to the massive raids on their villages. Duh.
2.
na·tive Audio pronunciation of "native" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntv)
adj.

1. Existing in or belonging to one by nature; innate: native ability.
2. Being such by birth or origin:
2 entries found for american.
A·mer·i·can Audio pronunciation of "american" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mr-kn)
adj.

1. Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture.
2. Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere.
Of course they're native american's silly, Native = They were here by origin, American = They were in America by origin.
3. "just because they were here first, that makes them aboriginal? "
ab·o·rig·i·nal Audio pronunciation of "aboriginal" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-rj-nl)
adj.

1. Having existed in a region from the beginning: aboriginal forests.
So, Yes.
4. So, by your logic, if Russia were to send all their Troops to the U.S. destroy all our cities, claim our land, they'd be justified in doing so, becauce it's what we did to the indians.

*snip of long Indian-Nationalism*

So you want to be able to rule yourselves in this land? Sort of like the Vatican in Italy?

Give me an example of what you want your 'idea' to play out like.

So you want to be able to rule yourselves in this land? Sort of like the Vatican in Italy?

Give me an example of what you want your 'idea' to play out like.
It's all here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11192938&postcount=122) in the thread lazy boy.

What the agreements have worked out to be so far are not akin to a federal, a provincial, or a municipal government...but rather something quite new.

Trust me, were we fighting to form our own independent nations, you'd have heard of it.

Oh, be sure to follow the other link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11098653&postcount=45) in the link above...there is more information in that particular post, and that other thread as well, if you are actually interested.

In fact...the OP of that other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485806) pretty much outlines the current claims being made by aboriginal peoples in the US and Canada.

It's all here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11192938&postcount=122) in the thread lazy boy.

What the agreements have worked out to be so far are not akin to a federal, a provincial, or a municipal government...but rather something quite new.

Trust me, were we fighting to form our own independent nations, you'd have heard of it.

Oh, be sure to follow the other link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11098653&postcount=45) in the link above...there is more information in that particular post, and that other thread as well, if you are actually interested.

I dont understand why you guys dont just...integrate into society like every other 'group' has done. America is a melting pot...just jump in. Stop living in the past.

I dont understand why you guys dont just...integrate into society like every other 'group' has done. America is a melting pot...just jump in. Stop living in the past.
Sorry, we aren't like every other 'group'. You are immigrants. We are not. It makes a difference. We never agreed to 'integrate' in any way. The survival of our culture was a key bargaining point, and a demand we never wavered on. That may be somewhat inconvenient to others at this point, but that's how it stands. The Iranian immigrant who comes to one of our nations and 'integrates' has no need to fear that his culture will die with him, because his home nation still exists...the culture is secure. THIS is our home, and there is no security beyond us. We do not see the need to allow our culture to die, simply so we can 'fit in'. I hope that you can understand that in some way...

We do not live in the past, we live in the now. We are not disconnected from our past, it is a part of who we are. Maybe that seems confusing...but consider that our elders maintain the oral histories of our people, spanning tens of thousands of years. I can list my ancestors back at least twelve generations without breaking a sweat. There has been no break...we have not lost connection. We are not reliving the past in the sense that Europe once yearned back to the age of the Ancient Greeks...our history remains unbroken.

You want that to die, simply so we can jump into the melting pot? That is YOUR pot. We never agreed to join you there.

And you know...part of the problem is that our worldviews are so oppositional. You are individualistic, and we are communalistic. I don't see how, other than asserting our sovereignty within our territories, that we could possibly deal with these differences in a proactive way.

We don't want to be wards of the state...we want to regain the power over our lives that was legislated away by things like the Indian Act.

Most aboriginal people I have met, within the Americas, and outside of it have the same set of basic beliefs, and the same desire for a reasonable outcome.

*it's late here, and the kids are trying to sleep...if you want to post any questions/comments, I will get back to them within the next day or two...

Sorry, we aren't like every other 'group'. You are immigrants. We are not. It makes a difference. We never agreed to 'integrate' in any way. The survival of our culture was a key bargaining point, and a demand we never wavered on. That may be somewhat inconvenient to others at this point, but that's how it stands. The Iranian immigrant who comes to one of our nations and 'integrates' has no need to fear that his culture will die with him, because his home nation still exists...the culture is secure. THIS is our home, and there is no security beyond us. We do not see the need to allow our culture to die, simply so we can 'fit in'. I hope that you can understand that in some way...

We do not live in the past, we live in the now. We are not disconnected from our past, it is a part of who we are. Maybe that seems confusing...but consider that our elders maintain the oral histories of our people, spanning tens of thousands of years. I can list my ancestors back at least twelve generations without breaking a sweat. There has been no break...we have not lost connection. We are not reliving the past in the sense that Europe once yearned back to the age of the Ancient Greeks...our history remains unbroken.

You want that to die, simply so we can jump into the melting pot? That is YOUR pot. We never agreed to join you there.

This whole theory rests on the assumption that Indians just grew out of the North American soil...they came from Asia..so yes, you guys were immigrants, just along time before we were. You can be an American or Canadian and still keep your culture, you just need to adopt ours first.

Although, I see your point about not having a home nation and all that...and, since i am a nationalist, I suggest just giving all you guys some good land to build a country on. Why not?

This whole theory rests on the assumption that Indians just grew out of the North American soil...they came from Asia..so yes, you guys were immigrants, just along time before we were. You can be an American or Canadian and still keep your culture, you just need to adopt ours first.

Although, I see your point about not having a home nation and all that...and, since i am a nationalist, I suggest just giving all you guys some good land to build a country on. Why not?
One quick reply before I'm off for the night...

It really doesn't matter if we came from Asia, or originated here. The fact is, by even the most conservative counts, we've been here for at least 11,000 years before any of you arrived to stay. I honestly feel that gives us enough of a 'head start' to say, 'this was our land first'.

I honestly don't think we could really adopt the US or Canadian culture first...because of the difference in our worldview.

Also, when talking about 'giving us land', remember two things:

1) You aren't giving. It was ours to begin with.
2) We are not a people. We are aboriginal peoples, with very distinct languages, cultures, and traditions. We need to be dealt with a separate nations, not as a single nation.

As well, your concept of a nation state is a very eurocentric one. Our concept is different. We do not need a nation state according to your guidelines (though I understand it would make sense to you), and in fact, adopting such a structure would fundamentally undermine our traditional systems of governance. The way we are developing our territorial governments is just fine, thanks...though it may not fit neatly into existing categories;)

One quick reply before I'm off for the night...

It really doesn't matter if we came from Asia, or originated here. The fact is, by even the most conservative counts, we've been here for at least 11,000 years before any of you arrived to stay. I honestly feel that gives us enough of a 'head start' to say, 'this was our land first'.

I honestly don't think we could really adopt the US or Canadian culture first...because of the difference in our worldview.

Also, when talking about 'giving us land', remember two things:

1) You aren't giving. It was ours to begin with.
2) We are not a people. We are aboriginal peoples, with very distinct languages, cultures, and traditions. We need to be dealt with a separate nations, not as a single nation.

As well, your concept of a nation state is a very eurocentric one. Our concept is different. We do not need a nation state according to your guidelines (though I understand it would make sense to you), and in fact, adopting such a structure would fundamentally undermine our traditional systems of governance. The way we are developing our territorial governments is just fine, thanks...though it may not fit neatly into existing categories;)

*Thinks about replying....*
*Looks at clock*
*Thinks against it*
...to be continued.

Wow...my whole world is topsy turvy!!!:)

it was awesome, you should have been there. unfortunately, nobody seemed much interested in defending the claims of the first post.

The tone of European colonization of North America was set when Samuel de Champlain met an Irquois War Party, and, on behalf of the Wyandot, he opened fire with his Arquebus and killed two of the chiefs. The Iroquois fled.

One quick reply before I'm off for the night...

It really doesn't matter if we came from Asia, or originated here. The fact is, by even the most conservative counts, we've been here for at least 11,000 years before any of you arrived to stay. I honestly feel that gives us enough of a 'head start' to say, 'this was our land first'.

I honestly don't think we could really adopt the US or Canadian culture first...because of the difference in our worldview.

Also, when talking about 'giving us land', remember two things:

1) You aren't giving. It was ours to begin with.
2) We are not a people. We are aboriginal peoples, with very distinct languages, cultures, and traditions. We need to be dealt with a separate nations, not as a single nation.

As well, your concept of a nation state is a very eurocentric one. Our concept is different. We do not need a nation state according to your guidelines (though I understand it would make sense to you), and in fact, adopting such a structure would fundamentally undermine our traditional systems of governance. The way we are developing our territorial governments is just fine, thanks...though it may not fit neatly into existing categories ;)

This is an interesting area... Is this at all similar to the 'sovereignty association' idea of Quebec sovereigntists? Where a group will gain political sovereignty in a designated geographic area while working within the Canadian legal/economic framework? I know one of the sticking points for separatists (who seem to be giving up on complete 'separatism' for the time being) is that Quebec is a 'nation', and not divisible, whereas Canada is not a 'nation', and therefore divisible. Ironically, they seem to be ignoring the same logic they use to defend their claims when it comes to recocgnizing the treaties of aboriginal groups who signed treaties with the Canadian government...

In cases where some of these land issues have been settled, in exchange for some 'rights', how is this progressing? Are all members of that tribe, regardless of their location in the world 'de facto' citizens, with rights of 'citizenship' for that territory? Do they retain some of the 'benefits' (for lack of a better word...) that having a Status Indian card would give them outside of reservation land?

This is an interesting area... Is this at all similar to the 'sovereignty association' idea of Quebec sovereigntists? Where a group will gain political sovereignty in a designated geographic area while working within the Canadian legal/economic framework? I know one of the sticking points for separatists (who seem to be giving up on complete 'separatism' for the time being) is that Quebec is a 'nation', and not divisible, whereas Canada is not a 'nation', and therefore divisible. Ironically, they seem to be ignoring the same logic they use to defend their claims when it comes to recocgnizing the treaties of aboriginal groups who signed treaties with the Canadian government...

In cases where some of these land issues have been settled, in exchange for some 'rights', how is this progressing? Are all members of that tribe, regardless of their location in the world 'de facto' citizens, with rights of 'citizenship' for that territory? Do they retain some of the 'benefits' (for lack of a better word...) that having a Status Indian card would give them outside of reservation land?
I honestly don't know enough about Quebec sovereigntists in order to compare them to what aboriginal groups are fighting for.

As for the second part:

1) Membership would be determined by the band, not by the Canadian government.

2) All members of the band would have citizenship to that aboriginal nation, as well as Canadian citizenship. No, they would not be issuing their own passports (though we joke about it).

3) Members off territorial lands would not receive all the benefits that on territory members would. For example, housing would only be provided within the territory, etc. For revenue-sharing agreements, members off territory would still likely get the same as on-territory members.

The frameworks I've seen so far include self-control over health, welfare, education, and surface/subsurface rights, as well as governance. There would be territorial laws, some of which could not be trumped by provincial or federal laws...that part depends. Other provincial and federal laws would apply. Generally what that means is that certain environmental, harvesting, development, health and welfare regulations could be added to...making them stricter or more encompassing...but usually not LESS strict or less encompassing than what already exists at the provincial or federal level. There will be issues of jurisdiction...certain crimes committed within the territory will be dealt with by the territorial justice system. However, since Oka, many police forces already deal with Reserves in joint manner to deal with suspects who have committed crimes on or off Reserve.

*snip*

From my limited understanding that sounds roughly like what most of the tribes here in Michigan have. I know the tribe in my town, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, have a lot of the things you've listed.

They have their own health system, education system, and laws. I know that the tribes are allowed to hunt and fish at times of the year when we're not, and sometimes in methods we're not. One example is that some tribes are allowed to fish using casting nets on the Great Lakes, which is illegal by Michigan law. Again, from my limited understanding, if a tribal member is violating this law, such as fishing when tribal law doesn't allow them to, Michigan police will arrest them and turn them over to the tribal justice system.

The local tribe has great relations with the various "powers" in this city, namely the city government and the university. All of them coordinate on certain issues. The city works closely with the tribe to accomodate the casino they own just outside of town, and any other economic activities they enter into, such as a very large concert venue they built last year (which is actually the biggest concert venue in Michigan outside of Detroit).

The tribal police also work closely with the city, university, county, and state police. I see tribal police just as often as I see any of the other ones.

The tribe also allows the university to use the name "The Chippewas", and wrote the President of the NCAA a scathing letter about minding his own business when he told the university that the name was "offensive".

Anyway, sometimes I forget that other tribes don't have it quite as good as the tribes I've lived near. The tribe up in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, where I lived for a year has a great deal of influence in the area. There are even billboards written in Ojibwe around town. That tribe even has their own license plates.

http://www.worldlicenceplates.com/jpglps/USA_AI_MI_%20BayMillsOjibwa.jpg

The Spaniards and Portuguese invaded. You treated. Abide by your agreements. It's a simple request, really.

If you'll agree to be bound by the letter of the treaties as well, that's a deal.

I honestly don't know enough about Quebec sovereigntists in order to compare them to what aboriginal groups are fighting for.

As for the second part:

1) Membership would be determined by the band, not by the Canadian government.

2) All members of the band would have citizenship to that aboriginal nation, as well as Canadian citizenship. No, they would not be issuing their own passports (though we joke about it).

3) Members off territorial lands would not receive all the benefits that on territory members would. For example, housing would only be provided within the territory, etc. For revenue-sharing agreements, members off territory would still likely get the same as on-territory members.

The frameworks I've seen so far include self-control over health, welfare, education, and surface/subsurface rights, as well as governance. There would be territorial laws, some of which could not be trumped by provincial or federal laws...that part depends. Other provincial and federal laws would apply. Generally what that means is that certain environmental, harvesting, development, health and welfare regulations could be added to...making them stricter or more encompassing...but usually not LESS strict or less encompassing than what already exists at the provincial or federal level. There will be issues of jurisdiction...certain crimes committed within the territory will be dealt with by the territorial justice system. However, since Oka, many police forces already deal with Reserves in joint manner to deal with suspects who have committed crimes on or off Reserve.

Do you forsee economic conditions changing in these territories that might create conditions where non-band members work and live in the region? Would the territorial justice system deal with people differently (in a legal sense) if they were not tribe members? Do you forsee a situation where non-aboriginal peoples would end up becoming part of the band due to economy? Or would all non-band members be treated as 'residents', with citizenship based upon bloodline? Are there territories where this is already old news, and I'm just not up to speed?

If you'll agree to be bound by the letter of the treaties as well, that's a deal.

I believe they've always been bound by the letter of the treaties. We just haven't always held up our end of the deal.

If you'll agree to be bound by the letter of the treaties as well, that's a deal.
No. We never agreed that. We agreed to be bound by the spirit of the treaties. That is where much of our conflict arises from. Many of the oral promises (which to an oral people are binding) were not included in the written treaties. Luckily, written documents created by Europeans present at the treaty signings outline what these oral promises were, backing up the accounts of our elders.

However, we have not tried to wiggle out of the treaties. Treaty Days come around once a year...we go and pick up our treaty payments. A whopping $4 a year for every man woman and child in my people's case. Why even bother to show up for such a paltry sum? We are taught that we show up to reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty.

From my limited understanding that sounds roughly like what most of the tribes here in Michigan have. I know the tribe in my town, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, have a lot of the things you've listed.

*snip*
This is very interesting information, Wallonchia...the Ojibwe are cousins to the Cree, but frankly, my understanding of the specific agreements made in the US is pretty hazy compared to what has happened in Canada. It interests me that what we are fighting for here...what some US citizens seem to think is inappropriate (I base that solely on the responses I've gotten here on NS in other threads), is something that is already being practiced in your own country.

Do you forsee economic conditions changing in these territories that might create conditions where non-band members work and live in the region? Would the territorial justice system deal with people differently (in a legal sense) if they were not tribe members? Do you forsee a situation where non-aboriginal peoples would end up becoming part of the band due to economy? Or would all non-band members be treated as 'residents', with citizenship based upon bloodline? Are there territories where this is already old news, and I'm just not up to speed?
Aha! The tricky questions!

There are already situations where non band-members are living in aboriginal territories. It is a sticky issue. The Nisga'a, for example, do not allow non band-members to vote in Nisga'a elections. Nor do they have the same rights as band members, though to be honest, I'm not yet clear on what the actual differences are or how they've been played out.

Membership itself is a very convuluted issue, because membership varies from nation to nation. Some bands will not accept you as a member, even if you are a half blood, if your mother was not of one of their clans (matrilineal membership). Others require both your parents to be members of the band. Others will accept you even if you are non aboriginal, as long as you have a spouse that is a band member, or if your children are band members.

Other issues that must be addressed in aboriginal territories are human rights legislation. In Canada, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but in the Nisga'a case, Nisga'a law trumps the Charter. That doesn't mean they intend to go trample on the rights of others...but they will have to develop their own Charter. Much as provinces create their own human rights laws (for example, Alberta only recently introduced laws which protected homosexuals from discrimination), the bands will have to as well. Many are reinstituting the traditional laws (aboriginal law) which have these protections, and then some (such as protection of elders and so forth).

In Tli Cho territory (Dogrib), there are some non-aboriginals living in the communities. To my knowledge, they are allowed to vote in the regional governments...and they can apply for permits for hunting and fishing...but may be denied. Tli Cho members will generally not be denied.

We need to balance protection of our culture, maintainance of our environment and so forth, without becoming discriminatory towards non aboriginals or aboriginals who are not of our band. However, much as visitors or permanent residents to a nation are treated differently, this is going to be the reality for those that are not of the band.

This is very interesting information, Wallonchia...the Ojibwe are cousins to the Cree, but frankly, my understanding of the specific agreements made in the US is pretty hazy compared to what has happened in Canada. It interests me that what we are fighting for here...what some US citizens seem to think is inappropriate (I base that solely on the responses I've gotten here on NS in other threads), is something that is already being practiced in your own country.

I only really know what's going on within my own state, so I can't say for sure what sort of agreements the tribes in other states have made with Uncle Sam or their particular state. What the Ojibwe (at least the tribes I've lived near), Michigan, and Uncle Sam have worked out seems to work pretty well, though.

As for the local tribe, I think a large part of their success is their involvement with the local community. From what I understand many tribes attempt to isolate themselves in an attempt to preserve their identity and culture. What the tribe here does is involve itself deeply with the local community, and attempts to teach us about their culture. A few years ago they built a rather sizeable cultural center. They manage to be a part of the local community, but retain their seperate identity.

Here (http://www.sagchip.org/) is their website if you'd like to get a better idea of what they've got going on yourself.

Aha! The tricky questions!

There are already situations where non band-members are living in aboriginal territories. It is a sticky issue. The Nisga'a, for example, do not allow non band-members to vote in Nisga'a elections. Nor do they have the same rights as band members, though to be honest, I'm not yet clear on what the actual differences are or how they've been played out.

Membership itself is a very convuluted issue, because membership varies from nation to nation. Some bands will not accept you as a member, even if you are a half blood, if your mother was not of one of their clans (matrilineal membership). Others require both your parents to be members of the band. Others will accept you even if you are non aboriginal, as long as you have a spouse that is a band member, or if your children are band members.

Other issues that must be addressed in aboriginal territories are human rights legislation. In Canada, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but in the Nisga'a case, Nisga'a law trumps the Charter. That doesn't mean they intend to go trample on the rights of others...but they will have to develop their own Charter. Much as provinces create their own human rights laws (for example, Alberta only recently introduced laws which protected homosexuals from discrimination), the bands will have to as well. Many are reinstituting the traditional laws (aboriginal law) which have these protections, and then some (such as protection of elders and so forth).

In Tli Cho territory (Dogrib), there are some non-aboriginals living in the communities. To my knowledge, they are allowed to vote in the regional governments...and they can apply for permits for hunting and fishing...but may be denied. Tli Cho members will generally not be denied.

We need to balance protection of our culture, maintainance of our environment and so forth, without becoming discriminatory towards non aboriginals or aboriginals who are not of our band. However, much as visitors or permanent residents to a nation are treated differently, this is going to be the reality for those that are not of the band.

As a by-product of a communalistic culture, (vs. and individualistic one), I can imagine the long-term ramifications with that. I understand the obvious need to preserve aboriginal culture and sovereignty, but if similar lines were followed in say, Europe, liberals everywhere would be up in arms. Imagine a France, where communal benefits are shared with those who are 'ethnically' French only...

Obviously, it's up to each band to determine how this will work long-term. Maybe this will be the beginning of new metis-style industrial communes? With communal benefits to all within the region who are accepted by the band and adopt band practices?

Here (http://www.sagchip.org/) is their website if you'd like to get a better idea of what they've got going on yourself.
With just a brief glance (I'll look at this more tomorrow) it seems that this tribe is still at the mercy of Indian Affairs in the US. That's a major sticking point here...we want out from under the Indian Act.

As a by-product of a communalistic culture, (vs. and individualistic one), I can imagine the long-term ramifications with that. I understand the obvious need to preserve aboriginal culture and sovereignty, but if similar lines were followed in say, Europe, liberals everywhere would be up in arms. Imagine a France, where communal benefits are shared with those who are 'ethnically' French only... Yes, and I'd be among one of the first to condemn that. When it comes to my own people...it's difficult to see how to work it in another fashion. Some of us feel that once membership is back in our hands, blood lines won't be such an issue...but some tribes always had very strict membership rules, and others did not.

Obviously, it's up to each band to determine how this will work long-term. Maybe this will be the beginning of new metis-style industrial communes? With communal benefits to all within the region who are accepted by the band and adopt band practices?
I wonder why you use the word metis here...the Métis are recognised as aboriginal people in Canada...in Alberta, they even have a land base similar to Reservations.

But yes, I believe that there will be a period in which culture is solidified, and strengthened, and then there will be an opening up. Right now, we are still very much at risk, even those of us who have regained sovereignty.

With just a brief glance (I'll look at this more tomorrow) it seems that this tribe is still at the mercy of Indian Affairs in the US. That's a major sticking point here...we want out from under the Indian Act.

Yes, unfortunately, they are. From what I understand Indian Affairs is much less controlling than they were in the past, but I can certainly understand the desire to be out from under them. Hopefully people will realize there's no need for the Bureau, but such things take time. It's especially hard to get people to be concerned about things that don't directly impact them. And it's even harder to get Uncle Sam to relinquish control of anything.

Imagine a France, where communal benefits are shared with those who are 'ethnically' French only...

a better analog would probably actually be with citizenship rather than ethnicity.

Yes, and I'd be among one of the first to condemn that. When it comes to my own people...it's difficult to see how to work it in another fashion. Some of us feel that once membership is back in our hands, blood lines won't be such an issue...but some tribes always had very strict membership rules, and others did not.


I wonder why you use the word metis here...the Métis are recognised as aboriginal people in Canada...in Alberta, they even have a land base similar to Reservations.

But yes, I believe that there will be a period in which culture is solidified, and strengthened, and then there will be an opening up. Right now, we are still very much at risk, even those of us who have regained sovereignty.

From my understanding, the metis were a blend of aboriginal people in the Red River area who adopted many European settlers and created a kind of 'fusion-culture'. My reference to the Metis is only as a reference to a 'style' of culture.

I'm just envisioning overall, that some areas may have issues with protests over universal sufferage and such. Something to think about in the long-term.

a better analog would probably actually be with citizenship rather than ethnicity.

Yeah, I was trying to elude to a society that bases 'citizenship' on bloodline, not unsimilar to the way Germany once (still?) based their citizenship on.

After [actually] thinking about this, I have decided that the Indians need to form their own nation. I understand that you want to preserve your culture/traditions ect...and in doing so I beleive that will clash with what America demands of its citzens...see, in my opinion, you are an American first, and an Indian second. Thats unacceptable for you because you beleive if people put away their Indian identity, then you guys will lose it because there are no more Indians in North America living your culture (...outside of Americans and Canadians but I meant no Indian nations). Which, is probably true so an understandable position. So, again...I think American and Canada need to carve out a chunk of land for the Indians to live on. You dont all have to live under one government...you can set up tribal leaderships and brake off into your tribes like you used to live, I dont care...it will be the Indians land to do with it. Think of it as like an Israel to the Indians. I dont see another way aside from assimilation...which you clearly dont want.

The other way could of course be the situation I've been explaining in some detail...;)

The other way could of course be the situation I've been explaining in some detail...;)
Yes but obviously I didnt like that...hence the in my opinion there are only two ways to do this...

Yeah, I was trying to elude to a society that bases 'citizenship' on bloodline, not unsimilar to the way Germany once (still?) based their citizenship on.Huh?

Huh?
Not just Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_citizenship

Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_citizenship

German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.

A significant reform to the nationality law was passed by the German Parliament in 1999, and came into force on 1 January 2000. The new law makes it somewhat easier for foreigners resident in Germany on a long-term basis, and especially their German-born children, to acquire German citizenship.

Jus sanguinis translates into 'right of blood'. The alternative philosophy is 'jus soli', or 'right of soil'; you have citizenship because you live on the land, instead of having a direct bloodline to an ancestral citizen. Most nations have a mix of the two.

Not just Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_citizenship

Quick on the draw....

Quick on the draw....
http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/l/lukyluk2.jpg

No. We never agreed that. We agreed to be bound by the spirit of the treaties. That is where much of our conflict arises from. Many of the oral promises (which to an oral people are binding) were not included in the written treaties. Luckily, written documents created by Europeans present at the treaty signings outline what these oral promises were, backing up the accounts of our elders.

However, we have not tried to wiggle out of the treaties. Treaty Days come around once a year...we go and pick up our treaty payments. A whopping $4 a year for every man woman and child in my people's case. Why even bother to show up for such a paltry sum? We are taught that we show up to reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty.

The spirit of any treaty isn't knowable. There's no verifiable record of oral agreements.

And there's a further problem, here. Those might be binding to an oral people, but we're not an oral people, so they're not binding to us. It can't work like that, because then we're not actually abiding by the same agreement.

If you've violated the letter of the treaty, then I think we should be allowed to declare it void.

The spirit of any treaty isn't knowable. There's no verifiable record of oral agreements.

And there's a further problem, here. Those might be binding to an oral people, but we're not an oral people, so they're not binding to us. It can't work like that, because then we're not actually abiding by the same agreement.

If you've violated the letter of the treaty, then I think we should be allowed to declare it void.

Then by that rationale, there is no working contract, and we are on their land illegally... better just to work it out, and move on with our lives.

Then by that rationale, there is no working contract, and we are on their land illegally... better just to work it out, and move on with our lives.

But it was the treaties in which we conceded it was their land.

But it was the treaties in which we conceded it was their land.

Or was it the treaties in which they conceded their land?

In principal, it was their land, and we made treaties to settle it. No big epic battles, just contract law. And if we can't agree that we had a working agreement, then we are on their land, since their was no working contract to back up our claim on it; not even right of conquest.

I'm unfamiliar with the French and how they treated Canadian indians so everything I say will be based on Indians within the current US boundaries.

Upon landing on the East Coast, the settlers were having a tough time and the Indians helped us. This is the reason for the American holiday of thanksgiving. If the population of white settlers in US hadn't changed so drastically, things might not have gotten out of hand. But, so many people were fleeing the tyranny and poverty that Europe had to offer that there simply was not enough room on the East coast for all of them to fit. Treaty's were made, treaty's were broken. It was our fault for making treaty's that indians didn't understand (how can someone own the land) not to mention the fact that they often flat out didn't understand the English language. It was also the Indian's fault for signing a treaty they didn't understand. It isn't like the Indians were a completly peaceful people that the left tries to make them out to be though. King Phillip to Geronimo to Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, Indians understood war and how to wage it. What they didn't understand was total war (-1 pt for whites) We push 'em all west into land we deem unfit for white settlement. Andrew Jackson almost destroys the US governemt with the corn tassle case (look it up). The same thing happens time after time. Treaty's are made Treaty's are broken. The thing that needs to be remembered is that it wasn't white people breaking the treaty everytime.

Or was it the treaties in which they conceded their land?

In principal, it was their land, and we made treaties to settle it. No big epic battles, just contract law. And if we can't agree that we had a working agreement, then we are on their land, since their was no working contract to back up our claim on it; not even right of conquest.

You're presupposing it was their land.

But even if it was, I'm saying that we did have a working contract, but they're refusing to abide by it. The only contract is the one we wrote down.

You're presupposing it was their land.

But even if it was, I'm saying that we did have a working contract, but they're refusing to abide by it. The only contract is the one we wrote down.

I guess it really depends on the specific treaty in question. I see what you're saying about the written vs. 'spirit' of the treaty, how do you prove the 'spirit' of a treaty? But the important thing is to negotiate and work it out. Since we're being quite vague, and not talking about specific treaties (I'm far from an expert), I'm not sure that 'they' were ever in violation of any treaties. From what little I can tell, most treaties are agreements by native peoples to cede land to colonists, and the Canadian government in later times did not always abide by those treaties. And from what Sinuhue has posted earlier, it would appear in many cases that First Nations groups are settling for less than originally agreed upon in order to escape the Indian Act.

I guess it really depends on the specific treaty in question. I see what you're saying about the written vs. 'spirit' of the treaty, how do you prove the 'spirit' of a treaty? But the important thing is to negotiate and work it out. Since we're being quite vague, and not talking about specific treaties (I'm far from an expert), I'm not sure that 'they' were ever in violation of any treaties. From what little I can tell, most treaties are agreements by native peoples to cede land to colonists, and the Canadian government in later times did not always abide by those treaties. And from what Sinuhue has posted earlier, it would appear in many cases that First Nations groups are settling for less than originally agreed upon in order to escape the Indian Act.

The question there is, does the Indian Act violate the treaties on our end? If not, then it's perfectly reasonable for the natives to trade some of their treaty-privledges in order to escape it. If it does, then they shouldn't have to trade anything to escape it.

I don't see the treaties as ceding land so much as agreeing not to dispute rights to land. The treaties needn't (though they might) assert who owned the land previously - just that all relevant parties agree who owns the land after the treaty is signed. The original state of the land becomes irrelevant.

The question there is, does the Indian Act violate the treaties on our end? If not, then it's perfectly reasonable for the natives to trade some of their treaty-privledges in order to escape it. If it does, then they shouldn't have to trade anything to escape it.

Makes sense.

I don't see the treaties as ceding land so much as agreeing not to dispute rights to land. The treaties needn't (though they might) assert who owned the land previously - just that all relevant parties agree who owns the land after the treaty is signed. The original state of the land becomes irrelevant.

Never thought of it that way. I was under the impression that most of the treaties were signed to cede territory, but never really thought of the land just being used and the natives claiming it was theirs after the fact. I was thinking of the treaties as 'a bill of sale' vs. 'an agreement to quit bickering'.

I was thinking of the treaties as 'a bill of sale' vs. 'an agreement to quit bickering'.

I'll admit I haven't read the treaties, so I don't know what they exactly say.

The spirit of any treaty isn't knowable. There's no verifiable record of oral agreements.

And there's a further problem, here. Those might be binding to an oral people, but we're not an oral people, so they're not binding to us.
That's like saying, "we're not a written people, so your written treaties are not binding on us, get out". Both sides have to be participating.

It can't work like that, because then we're not actually abiding by the same agreement.

If you've violated the letter of the treaty, then I think we should be allowed to declare it void.
We haven't. You have. And we still don't declare it void. We have lived up to the letter...you have failed in the spirit. And there are verifiable records of the oral agreements...I already mentioned that witnesses to the signings wrote down these oral agreements. In fact, that has been used a number of times to back up and WIN specific claims.

You're presupposing it was their land.

But even if it was, I'm saying that we did have a working contract, but they're refusing to abide by it. The only contract is the one we wrote down.
Excuse me? Show me one instance where we are refusing to abide by the treaties! And no, the only contract is NOT the one you wrote down. Oral histories have been used as evidence in land claims, and the oral promises made (but often not included) in treaties were nonetheless documented and are now being used to back up specific land claims.

You might ask why these oral promises were often NOT included in the treaties. One of the reasons is that the treaties were signed intermittantly, as land needed to be opened up. In essence, the treaties were copies of one another, and those administering the treaties didn't necessarily want to complicate things by including the more clauses. Instead, promises were made orally, and in many cases remained binding despite their exemption from the actual treaty. One example of this is providing health care from the federal budget to Indians. The only treaty that has a 'medicine chest' clause written into it is Treaty Six, yet all Indians receive this.

There were also issues with translators lying about what was in the treaties, or smoothing over issues, saying that they had been agreed to (since our agreements were oral and still binding, we didn't find that odd), even though they hadn't been written down.

Again, luckily some white guys decided to write down what we knew as fact, so we could make you live up to your words, ordered by your own courts to do so.

The question there is, does the Indian Act violate the treaties on our end?
I believe that it does. The treaties allowed for sovereignty, but the Indian Act does not. There are many other instances of the Indian Act violating the treaties.


I don't see the treaties as ceding land so much as agreeing not to dispute rights to land. The treaties needn't (though they might) assert who owned the land previously - just that all relevant parties agree who owns the land after the treaty is signed. The original state of the land becomes irrelevant.
That doesn't make any sense. You don't sign a treaty with someone if you don't believe they are the owners of what you are signing the treaty over. The treaties, from all the documents available from that time, the treaties themselves, as well as the oral histories, were absolutely about extinguishing aboriginal title in exchange for certain rights. They were not about simply 'agreeing not to disagree'.

I'll admit I haven't read the treaties, so I don't know what they exactly say.
You can take a look at the actual texts here (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/site/trindex_e.html). For some good background information, also see this page (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/site/maindex_e.html), which lets you access treaty guides, timelines and maps etc. Delving into the treaties is not for the faint-hearted...I'll give you another resource if you'd simply like to know how the treaty process played out. This site (http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/aboriginals_e.html) is a great resource for that, getting an idea how the treaties started, and the way in which they were used, and the impact they had on us, and on the Europeans. Actually, that site goes beyond the treaties, and you can find some really interesting information on a great many topics relating to aboriginal/European relations.

From Treaty Six (my treaty):

"And whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty's said Commissioners that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement, immigration and such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty, and that they may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty's bounty and benevolence."


By the way, aboriginal communities still celebrate the Treaty Days, and renew yearly our committment to those treaties. Here is a link (http://collections.ic.gc.ca/peguis/AnnualTreatyDays.html) to one community from Treaty 1. On these days, we also collect the monies guaranteed in the treaties...four dollars for every man, woman and child per year. It's a symbolic act...the money, as you can see, is a pittance.

There's a Sihuhue2? Online at the same time as Sinuhue(1)?

The world can't handle that much righteous fury and general scorn of the status quo!

*hides underneath computer desk*

There's a Sihuhue2? Online at the same time as Sinuhue(1)?

The world can't handle that much righteous fury and general scorn of the status quo!

*hides underneath computer desk*
Hahahaa...I keep getting logged in as Sinuhue2 for some reason...don't worry, all that righteous fury and general scorn of the status quo resides in one little body, not two.

Yeah, I was trying to elude to a society that bases 'citizenship' on bloodline, not unsimilar to the way Germany once (still?) based their citizenship on.

In most European countries, even if you have citizenship, you still are treated differently unless you are "ethnicall" German or French or Irish or whatever.

In most European countries, even if you have citizenship, you still are treated differently unless you are "ethnicall" German or French or Irish or whatever.

Having never been to Europe, I'm just not sure how true that is. People of differing ethnicities than the 'norm' will have things slightly more difficult in any society. I'm not sure if that's any more true in Europe than anywhere else.

Are you saying that these countries have legitimized and institutionalized treating non-European's (appropriate to the specific country) as second-class citizens?

*threatens you with a tomahawking for daring to hijack this thread....*

That doesn't make any sense. You don't sign a treaty with someone if you don't believe they are the owners of what you are signing the treaty over.
Sure you would. If I wanted land which didn't have clearly defined ownership, but I fear you might someday dispute my right top the land, then getting you to agree now that it's my land saves me a lot of trouble later.

That said, the treaties do appear to be about the natives abandoning land, not abandoning claim to the land. Your characterisation was accurate.

*threatens you with a tomahawking for daring to hijack this thread....*

A good tomahawking might knock some sense into us.

Have you tried it?

Excuse me? Show me one instance where we are refusing to abide by the treaties!
I appear to ahve left out a conditional in my remark. Sorry about that. I was supposing that the written treaty had been violated, and had not meant to assert that was the case.

And no, the only contract is NOT the one you wrote down.
I would (obviously) disagree with that.

Oral histories have been used as evidence in land claims, and the oral promises made (but often not included) in treaties were nonetheless documented and are now being used to back up specific land claims.
And I think the courts erred in allowing them. The oral agreements were written away from the treaties, and as such there's no way to verify that they are written accurately. It's the same reasoning behind the chain of custody for criminal evidence.

The only treaty that has a 'medicine chest' clause written into it is Treaty Six, yet all Indians receive this.
That the benefit is offered is not evidence that it was promised.

Again, luckily some white guys decided to write down what we knew as fact, so we could make you live up to your words, ordered by your own courts to do so.
And again, I think the courts erred in doing so.

I often think that of courts. I still complain about Riggs v. Palmer (1893).

That the benefit is offered is not evidence that it was promised. It is more than adequate evidence to us, we who are an oral people and abide by our promises, written or otherwise.

I know that you do not respect that. I understand that you do not value oral traditions as much as you value the written word. That is part of your worldview. But the treaties are not about a single worldview, they are about the meeting of two worldviews. We would never had treated otherwise.

The oral histories have been verified again, and again in various ways. There has been substantial reseach to back up our claims...this is not just about interviewing a few elders.

We realise that our worldviews will never be fully compatible, and this is why we fight for sovereignty. We want to return to our traditional ways of governance, where what is promised is held to, rather than snuck out of. Dishonesty is, in our minds, at the heart of your system of laws, and we want to be goverened by our own.

Thankfully, this dream is being realised.

And I wonder...what kind of history would you have if you lost all your writings?

Ours would still exist.

Dishonesty is, in our minds, at the heart of your system of laws

i'd bet that a significant number of us think so too

i'd bet that a significant number of us think so too
It's all about the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law...make the language so convoluted that no one can understand it, are forced to rely on 'experts' who claim to have their best interests in heart, and who turn around and screw you with that letter of the law. Been there, done that...I'm studying it so I can reject it.

If you ever get a chance, pick up the book "The Spirit of the Alberta Indian Treaties" by Richard Price. It gives a good history on the treaties, and also includes the elders' accounts of those treaties.

The primary problem I continue to have is the ethnic basis of the tribal/nation system. I do not believe that a governmental organization can have any legitimate claim, if the only people who are allowed to experience the benefits of that governmental form are of a certain ethnicity. If a person such as myself, of Swiss-German/Polish descent, would be allowed to join a tribe/nation then I would gladly agree with their right to exist as a separate entity. But I get a bum feeling from one that wouldn't allow me to join just on the basis of the fact that my ancestors were from Northern Europe. Naught more than a feeling, something that's hard to put into words, but a feeling all the same.

Am I even conveying what I want to say correctly?

make the language so convoluted that no one can understand it, are forced to rely on 'experts' who claim to have their best interests in heart, and who turn around and screw you with that letter of the law

well we couldn't have the rubes thinking they were the equals of their social betters, now could we?

Am I even conveying what I want to say correctly?


Yes you are, and this is my primary concern. Unfortunately, I don't think it is something that can be addressed, or resolved, until the bulk of aboriginal people are no longer goverened by the Indian Act, but instead are self-governing. There are two reasons for this:

1) The Canadian government, as does the US government, defines aboriginals by their blood quantum. If we got rid of that totally, before sovereignty, it would in fact invalidate our claims, as we would lose status as aboriginals.

2) Until we have established our governments, and created the tools to maintain our culture (language in particular), we can not allow non-aboriginals to have a say in the process. The reason for this is fairly simple...you will be working from your own cultural context, and not ours...you are not familiar with our culture, and you are not privvy to our traditions. That may come later, once our cultures are not in such a desperate state and in danger of extinction.

Think of it like creating a wildlife refuge. I'm not comparing us to animals, but I am comparing our cultures to an endangered species. At first, the endangered population can not handle any stresses...even stresses that are a normal part of its lifecycle. Once the population stabilises, normality can resume.

I do believe that eventually, non-aboriginals will be integrated into the governance of our territories...but it will be on our terms.

well we couldn't have the rubes thinking they were the equals of their social betters, now could we?
Now you're talking like a communist...want to become my second husband?:D

Yes you are, and this is my primary concern. Unfortunately, I don't think it is something that can be addressed, or resolved, until the bulk of aboriginal people are no longer goverened by the Indian Act, but instead are self-governing. There are two reasons for this:

1) The Canadian government, as does the US government, defines aboriginals by their blood quantum. If we got rid of that totally, before sovereignty, it would in fact invalidate our claims, as we would lose status as aboriginals.

2) Until we have established our governments, and created the tools to maintain our culture (language in particular), we can not allow non-aboriginals to have a say in the process. The reason for this is fairly simple...you will be working from your own cultural context, and not ours...you are not familiar with our culture, and you are not privvy to our traditions. That may come later, once our cultures are not in such a desperate state and in danger of extinction.

Think of it like creating a wildlife refuge. I'm not comparing us to animals, but I am comparing our cultures to an endangered species. At first, the endangered population can not handle any stresses...even stresses that are a normal part of its lifecycle. Once the population stabilises, normality can resume.

I do believe that eventually, non-aboriginals will be integrated into the governance of our territories...but it will be on our terms.

Do you not believe that your cultural traditions can be maintained in the current Canadian framework? (Not that you would necessarily have to, with the current landclaims and such.) Numerous peoples from all over the world, not just ones with a 'western' worldview, have emigrated here and manage to maintain their culture. Many congregate into small communities while still working with the outer community at large.

Granted, many of these communities have a 'home' nation that's near and dear to their hearts, and there's little danger of losing that culture... (did I just answer my own question here?)

Yes you are, and this is my primary concern. Unfortunately, I don't think it is something that can be addressed, or resolved, until the bulk of aboriginal people are no longer goverened by the Indian Act, but instead are self-governing. There are two reasons for this:

1) The Canadian government, as does the US government, defines aboriginals by their blood quantum. If we got rid of that totally, before sovereignty, it would in fact invalidate our claims, as we would lose status as aboriginals.

2) Until we have established our governments, and created the tools to maintain our culture (language in particular), we can not allow non-aboriginals to have a say in the process. The reason for this is fairly simple...you will be working from your own cultural context, and not ours...you are not familiar with our culture, and you are not privvy to our traditions. That may come later, once our cultures are not in such a desperate state and in danger of extinction.

Think of it like creating a wildlife refuge. I'm not comparing us to animals, but I am comparing our cultures to an endangered species. At first, the endangered population can not handle any stresses...even stresses that are a normal part of its lifecycle. Once the population stabilises, normality can resume.

I do believe that eventually, non-aboriginals will be integrated into the governance of our territories...but it will be on our terms.
I see, thanks.

(did I just answer my own question here?)

pretty much. there are no other places where the various indigenous cultures are massive and dominant, so there is no 'cultural backup' for them. cultural extinction is a very real threat - one that has already taken its toll on far too many peoples.

Do you not believe that your cultural traditions can be maintained in the current Canadian framework? (Not that you would necessarily have to, with the current landclaims and such.) Numerous peoples from all over the world, not just ones with a 'western' worldview, have emigrated here and manage to maintain their culture. Many congregate into small communities while still working with the outer community at large.

Granted, many of these communities have a 'home' nation that's near and dear to their hearts, and there's little danger of losing that culture... (did I just answer my own question here?)
Sorry! I must have missed this post! And yes, you answered your own question.

A big aspect of our culture is our tie to the land...to specific territories in fact. Were we 'just like any other Canadian', we would be dispersed, and that tie severed. That, we fight at all costs. It is the foundation of our culture, and the reason so many of our claims centre around land.

Sorry! I must have missed this post! And yes, you answered your own question.

A big aspect of our culture is our tie to the land...to specific territories in fact. Were we 'just like any other Canadian', we would be dispersed, and that tie severed. That, we fight at all costs. It is the foundation of our culture, and the reason so many of our claims centre around land.

I don't see why territory must be that important to your culture, nor while a culture cannot hold core values while adapting to new environments.

I don't see why territory must be that important to your culture,
You're right, you don't. That's because you do not have the same kind of connection with your environment that aboriginal people do...your link was severed a long, long time ago.

Our link has not been severed.

I'll explain a bit more, without going to far into what shouldn't be discussed on an open forum.

There are certain medicines that are unique to certain territories. We rely on those medicines. Take us away, and we lose a great deal.

There are sacred spaces within our territories. Again, take us away, and we can not simply replicate that.

Many of our teachings are specific to our territories, and grounded in them. That can not be transferred.

So when you talk about relocating and simply packing up your culture and taking it with you, understand, even if you can't really understand, that this is not possible for us.

I understand all too well.

I'll explain a bit more, without going to far into what shouldn't be discussed on an open forum.

There are certain medicines that are unique to certain territories. We rely on those medicines. Take us away, and we lose a great deal.

There are sacred spaces within our territories. Again, take us away, and we can not simply replicate that.

Many of our teachings are specific to our territories, and grounded in them. That can not be transferred.

So when you talk about relocating and simply packing up your culture and taking it with you, understand, even if you can't really understand, that this is not possible for us.

Would you say that aboriginal groups that aren't fortunate enough to still live near ancestral lands (i.e. Trail of Tears) are forever cut off from their culture?

(sidenote: you must have some strange forumpowers that allow you to edit your posts without making it evident that you have edited... this is twice now...)

If you edit before anyone else posts...or views your post, it doesn't show up as having been edited.

To a certain extent, those aboriginal groups that have been permanently cut off from their territories have lost a vital piece...the foundation...of their culture.

*threatens you with a tomahawking for daring to hijack this thread....*
My bad, that was a bit of a digression and maybe a subject for a seperate thread. My point was just that the accusation that aboriginal societies base their membership on ethnicity ignores the fact that many other nations essentially do the same ... while they may not deny them the rights of citizenship, they essentially deny them full participation of society. (Not by legal means, but the social norms essentially exclude them).

All of this being said while remaining conscious that aboriginal societies do not necessarily define membership based on ethnicity. That's what the government does.

Now you're talking like a communist...want to become my second husband?:D

done and done

If you edit before anyone else posts...or views your post, it doesn't show up as having been edited.

Oh, okay. I thought maybe you were invoking traditional Cree internet spirits or something. I was wowed and amazed.

To a certain extent, those aboriginal groups that have been permanently cut off from their territories have lost a vital piece...the foundation...of their culture.

Gotcha. (And thanks!)

It's all about the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law...make the language so convoluted that no one can understand it, are forced to rely on 'experts' who claim to have their best interests in heart, and who turn around and screw you with that letter of the law. Been there, done that...I'm studying it so I can reject it.
Because the spirit of the law isn't knowable with certainty. If I enter a country, there's no way I could possibly know the spirit of the local laws. But the letter of the laws can be found in a book somewhere.

I understand that you do not value oral traditions as much as you value the written word.
Because oral traditions are not independently verifiable.

We want to return to our traditional ways of governance, where what is promised is held to, rather than snuck out of. Dishonesty is, in our minds, at the heart of your system of laws, and we want to be goverened by our own.
Because we realise that some people are evil, and the laws need to be able to handle that.

I encourage you to seek sovereignty. I think a declaration of independence is the best way for you to get that.

And I wonder...what kind of history would you have if you lost all your writings?

Ours would still exist.
Yes. While you cannot outlast your histories, your histories also cannot outlast you.

We are not so constrained.

Because oral traditions are not independently verifiable.



Written traditions are not independently verifiable either. The fact that someone commits something to writing does not make it an objective fact. it is usually still that person's opinion or perspective, just in written form.

Written traditions are not independently verifiable either. The fact that someone commits something to writing does not make it an objective fact. it is usually still that person's opinion or perspective, just in written form.
But contracts are.

If you and I have a contract, it's a physical record that we both agreed to the text in contains. That text persists without alteration, and we can always go back and check the original document to see exactly to what we've agreed.

Man there were a lot of things about the Indians that make me so glad we conquered them. There was a lot of sick torture going on throughout most (if not all) of their histories. I am not one to blame the children for the sins of the past though. I am just glad that America put a stop to their sadistic behaviors. Everything else about the Indians was cool though. I think we kind of screwed 'em over. It would be great if we could give them a bunch of land. Maybe we could give them all the inner cities and we could bulldoze the ghettos and let 'em build teepees or wigwams or whatever. This way we could help the Indians and get rid of the darn ghettos and slums.

Oh and nobody should get me wrong, there was a lot of sick stuff that whites did to Indians too. Also whitey killed way too many bison.

But contracts are.

If you and I have a contract, it's a physical record that we both agreed to the text in contains. That text persists without alteration, and we can always go back and check the original document to see exactly to what we've agreed.
No ... not all contracts are written. You can have oral contracts, and even contracts that are implied from the conduct of the parties (e.g. I get on the bus, pay my $2, and without a word, it is implied that the bus driver will take me from Point A to Poiunt B). You can also have oral or implied terms to written contracts. It all depends on the circumstances.