Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Apr 21 2005, 09:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Apr 21 2005, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Apr 22 2005, 02:53 AM
So what you are saying is that the government should unilaterally break those treaties, disregard the constitution, land claims, benefit packages et cetera and "cut them off"?# Do you think that is even a slightly realistic solution?# You and I will be long dead and buried before anyone even tries that, let alone gets it through the 5 billion court challenges.
You say "stop whining about things that happened hundreds of years ago".# Don't you think it should go both ways?# Whining about natives getting federal loot is to whine about things that took place an awful long time ago.# Can't you just let it go?
|
No, I'm saying that the Feds should GIVE the first nations what they want (self government) in return for getting off the dole. The first nations get self government starting in 2010 or 2015, and with that the last check arrives. Seems like its a win-win and could be NEGOTIATED pretty easily of they tried.
As for the "stop whining" bit, you bare aware that the natives claims are from a coule hundred years ago and those folks are long dead? You are also aware that just last week another series of checks were cut to first nations peoples all over the country? We're still paying for something that happened two hundred years ago. Hey, if you like seeing your hard earned money being funneled into that money pit more power to you. I kind of like the idea of limiting taxation to basic needs and making people stand on their own two feet. An endless supply of money to the first nations is not what I call basic needs. I think its time for the first nations to attain maturity and stand on their own. I think they are a little old for an allowance.
Any how, off to press my sheet. Good night all.
[/b][/quote]
To put a really simplistic spin on it some of these treaties read something like "you give us the land, we'll give you money now, and forever, and hunting rights".
Do you think they should just give that up? Would you? I know I wouldn't.
The deals were signed. White people made out like bandits but now it's time to renege?
My family owns land and mineral rights in this province and the papers were signed a mighty long time ago, by people who have been dead for 60 years. Should we be willing to just give it up because the deed is getting old and someone wants to renegotiate even if we don't want to?
One piece of that land is actually on contested land and a native group is now trying to renegotiate a deal that went down in 1935. It's not something my family is particularly enamored with. If the proposition was "we don't like that old deal so we'll give you something else", then we are not interested. That is what you are suggesting.
Even with the altruistic "we'll give you self-government" gesture, it just doesn't work that way. You can't just tear up a contract because you want the terms to change and it's getting old. It's not a solution. It doesn't work. It can't. Come up with another one or you've got nothing but "cut them off and offer something else".
Quote:
|
And is it also not the native who is the one who has over-fished and hunted the game to unsustainable levels?
|
Is this a joke? It's a pretty good one.