Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
I think he was suggesting the same plan as you were, and demonstrating (to me, anyway) how absurd and unfair it would be when you are on the receiving end of "the solution" you proposed. I didn't think it was any more emotional (or unworkable) than your post.
Breaking promises, imposing ultimatums, expelling people from their homes.. these are the things your are suggesting. Haven't we heard this story before? And call me crazy, but I think anyone who doesn't want to join a society that condones (or outright promotes) this kind of behaviour from its government is the smart one.
|
Are you seriously suggesting that in a 99 year timeframe, where people (who are not even born yet) will be given a large sum of money (I'm not talking $50 and a clean suit, like they just got out of prison) upon reaching the age of majority to do whatever they like with, in compensation for the loss of their treaty rights, is somehow comparable to a modern-day Trail of Tears? Nobody currently on the reserve loses anything at all - they can live there until they die, if they want.
The newly born simply won't have treaty rights. That's all. Nothing stops the band leaders from leasing out reserve land to these non-treaty people now, and nothing will stop them then, either, so if they want to stay on the reserve, they can, they just will need to understand that after 99 years, the new landlord will be the government, and the infrastructure is their own responsibility, not the taxpayers.
This is no different than the umpteen developments on native land now, where 99 year leases are the norm, and I don't hear a huge outcry about how these poor condo-dwellers are going to be turfed after a mere century to prepare.
As far as breaking promises go, governments are sovereign entities that can unilaterally abrogate any agreements they wish to, and this is built into the Constitution via the notwithstanding clause for this very reason. Whether or not the First Nations agree, the goverment has the legal power to end the treaties and possess the land if it has the will to do so, whereas the First Nations do not have the power to do likewise. This is a fundamental difference that invalidates the comparison Vulcan made.
You are right in that this not fair or just. Let me repeat that, since it didn't get thru the first time I said it - I don't think this is justice; but the question remains - what is justice in this case? Is it right to condemn future generations of Natives to apartheid because their ancestors tried and failed to preserve their way of life by signing these treaties? Is it just that the Native leaders live in luxury while their people can't even get clean water to drink? What should we do about the Native suicide rate being 2-3 times the baseline rate for the rest of Canada, or the fact that 11% of the population in our prisons are Native? If you think, as I do, that the root of the Native's problems is their special status, then the solution is to end that status.
If you have a better way of doing it, by all means share it, or show me where I am wrong; however, I am not interested in long-winded explanations of what I already know - that the Natives get a raw deal, and if it was me in their shoes, I'd be pissed. True, but irrelevant to the issue, except for anyone who thinks feelings validate opinions.