First nations will blockade roads as part of 'Idle No More' protest

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Cardston is on leased land, ironically enough, from the reserve.

I remember it was set to expire a while back and it caused a bit of conflict in town between the natives and town.

As is Redwood Meadows in Bragg Creek and Hidden Valley - which the Siksika just voted to not renew, so ~ 300 familys will be moving by October.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by First Lady

My forefathers lived on another continent, can I opt out? (jesting of course)


My husband wrote a piece on this a year ago.

http://corymorgan.com/get-used-to-seeing-it/

... but could write the same piece today and ten years from now if we don't move towards change.

Mine actually did as well. At the time the Indian Act was signed, my forefathers were still in Transylvania. When they came over to Canada, the government offered them land in exchange for developing the farmland. They have absolutely nothing to do with any 'stealing' of land, much less with the signing of the Indian Act.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Azure

Mine actually did as well. At the time the Indian Act was signed, my forefathers were still in Transylvania. When they came over to Canada, the government offered them land in exchange for developing the farmland. They have absolutely nothing to do with any 'stealing' of land, much less with the signing of the Indian Act.

Hell I am an immigrant....

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just out of curiosity how long ago would you say that Spence ought to have been chastised? Most of the audit period she wasn't even the Chief.

True. But if you look at the summary of missing and incomplete documentation it actually goes from "fair" in the early years, to "dismal" under her watch.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Mine actually did as well. At the time the Indian Act was signed, my forefathers were still in Transylvania. When they came over to Canada, the government offered them land in exchange for developing the farmland. They have absolutely nothing to do with any 'stealing' of land, much less with the signing of the Indian Act.

I arrived from the UK 26 years ago, but you know as well as I that as soon as I took on Canadian citizenship I took on the legal obligations of my goverment.
Legally I am as responsible for those treaties as J.A. McDonald

[Azure]

I might be legally responsible, but I'm not morally responsible.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I suppose it was crown land. Where did they get it from? Sure, if you want to go that far back you can argue that the government stole it from the Natives.

I suppose we should give all their land back, and let 600,000 people live on 10 million sq km.

An arguement the U.S. might decide works well in their favour as well, hell those Canucks don't need all that land, all they do is play hockey and ban guns!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I might be legally responsible, but I'm not morally responsible.

fair enough but you and I are legally responsible.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Rathji

We took their land, but more importantly we destroyed the way they live and set up a reserve system so crappy that it has systematically destroyed the chance most natives have to be a productive part of society.

People all over like to rag on natives for being unproductive, useless, or whatever, but the reality is we created the system that made them like that, so we need to fix it.

How is it the system's fault that they don't pick up their trash? The photo below makes me lose sympathy for them, not gain it.

Originally Posted by Flacker

This would be why:

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

An arguement the U.S. might decide works well in their favour as well, hell those Canucks don't need all that land, all they do is play hockey and ban guns!

Huh? What does this even mean?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Azure

I might be legally responsible, but I'm not morally responsible.

Wait what

Originally Posted by Azure

We have a moral obligation because they are Canadians, and we ought to help the poor and helpless. It has nothing to do with taking their land.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How is it the system's fault that they don't pick up their trash? The photo below makes me lose sympathy for them, not gain it.

Ironically most of the things we complain of as traits in natives are also similer to the complaints against gypsies in the UK, I am of the opinion that to some degree it is the problem of a nomadic culture recently forced into a stationary life style.

Essentially what we are watching is the final extinction of hunter gatherers by farmers, a conflict that started over 5,000 years ago

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Wait what

There's a difference between the land and caring for the people. I don't feel like there's any moral duty to return land, but there's certainly a moral duty to care for people, regardless of their heritage.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

There's a difference between the land and caring for the people. I don't feel like there's any moral duty to return land, but there's certainly a moral duty to care for people, regardless of their heritage.

ah seen.

I was thinking he was still on the same line of thought.

Cheers

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Huh? What does this even mean?

It is the arguement of manifest destiny, that the land should be taken away from the less populus and developed by those that have the power and are able to use the land better, but the arguement can be used against us just as effectively, both the Russians and Yanks could argue that we Canadians have done a piss poor job of developing our country, most of it is empty and devoid of population, and would be better off under their supervision.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It is the arguement of manifest destiny, that the land should be taken away from the less populus and developed by those that have the power and are able to use the land better, but the arguement can be used against us just as effectively, both the Russians and Yanks could argue that we Canadians have done a piss poor job of developing our country, most of it is empty and devoid of population, and would be better off under their supervision.

Well that's great, and if they choose to take it by force and succeed, well they win. Of course you have massively oversimplified an incredibly complex situation, which is ridiculous.

[J epworth]

Wow, Manitoba chief refusing to meet today (as well as many other chiefs), yet he's talking right now on CBC saying who knows what will happen if tangible results don't come out from the meeting today. Maybe if the cheifs actually met with the Ministers results could happen! They're creating a self-fulfilled prophesy right now.

[Sliver]

Has this been posted before? I saw it on Reddit and thought it was well said:

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

Wow, Manitoba chief refusing to meet today (as well as many other chiefs), yet he's talking right now on CBC saying who knows what will happen if tangible results don't come out from the meeting today. Maybe if the cheifs actually met with the Ministers results could happen! They're creating a self-fulfilled prophesy right now.

From Eldon Weasel Child's (Siksika) Facebook

Alberta Chiefs have decided in favor of attending the meeting with the Prime Minister. As stated by Treaty 7 Grand Chief Charles Weasel Head "we have too much at stake to NOT be at the table with the PM!" And Chief Rabbit Carrier stated "We have an obligation to our people and we have many unrenewable resources to protect. Siksika hereby supports the decision to meet with Harper." It's an emotional and intense time for all leaders. We the Treaty 7 leaders were unanimous that the AFN Does Not Speak For Us!! If we don't attend they'll be talking for us in our absence. We are the leaders that our people chose to protect our rights and future! We have a sacred obligation to put our position forward today for a better tomorrow!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Like I've mentioned before in this thread, that is as much on the dept. of indian affairs as it is on Spence and the band. He is paid by the band but mutually agreed upon.

Just out of curiosity how long ago would you say that Spence ought to have been chastised? Most of the audit period she wasn't even the Chief.

This whole situation is a complete mess at this point, with a lot of half-truths and misinformation from both sides.

the time that she's been chief has shown the worst of the offenses from the overall period of the audit. Before she was chief starting in 2010 she was deputy chief from about 2005 so you can pretty much chastise her for the entire period of the audit.

I've said before that the government has to take responsibillity, however remember when the housing crisis flaired up the Government sent a administrator to work with the tribe on the finances and that administrator was thrown out as a threat to sovereignty basically.

So Aboriginal Affairs has to look at the fine line, if they start demanding to look at the books they're accused of infringing on the rights of the bands to self governance.

The Bands want the government to cut them the checks and take the blame but not take an active role in the running of the reserves.