Systemic Racism in US and Canada

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I definitely agree its awkward having 2 legal/political systems in Canada. IMO everyone should be a Canadian Citizen and subject to the same rights/laws. One option would be to 'cash them out' (FN), give them the land the Reserves sit on (cut into parcels and distibuted), and cut a gigantic, massive cheque, and then say 'you're the same now!', and treat them like regular Citizens just like everyone else.

Obviously there would be a ton of issues with that, in particular the legal aspects of just shredding some treaties...

I'd love a solution that leaves us all 'the same' legally at the end, but probably not possible. Not really a fan of 'Canadian Apartheid' (harsh? ), 2 peoples 1 country.

I don't think Canada or the US have the financial resources to give payments.

I agree with the idea of removing the reserves and handing out the land, but this isn't 1900s Canada anymore. Land is not worth much to someone who can't really develop it, and individual families won't actually gain much from that.

One idea would be to exchange the land on the reserves for established housing at a community of each families choice.

EDIT: and by community I don't mean something like an apartment block. I mean a detached home in a nice community/city/province of their choice. I actually think that would be a massive benefit. Having a home available has been shown to be a big plus for someone trying to get back on their feet.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ped

My sister has 8 kids. No one's ever suggested, hinted, or otherwise implied she's a prostitute.


Then again she's white.

I know families with 8 kids. 7 kids. 6 kids.

Great families, amazing parents.

To label the moms of those kids as prostitutes based on the amount of kids they have is about the dumbest thing I've seen on here in a while.

Given the posting history of the poster who did it, I'm not surprised. Labeling seems to be his thing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

Even just fixing land title is a mess. It seems simple just giving title to the bands and ending the approval in the Indian Act but that certainly wouldn’t be universally agreed to by First Nations people. Then there would be the question of how those lands are distributed would the federal government dictate they be given to individuals or would they go to the band themselves. If they go to the bands themselves then how you you ensure it is not misappropriated. Is it even the Canadian Government role to ensure that band assets aren’t misappropriated?

And on and on and on.

I think giving ownership over land and houses to individuals rather than beholden to Nation leadership and government leadership would be a start but it would be a radical change to how Treaty lands are administered and would requires decades of negotiations with hundreds of individual nations and members.

I think the starting point is to define what success looks like.

To me it isn’t necessarily integration and being the same as the rest of Canada.

Individual ownership of land on a reserve doesn't solve the problem of what is basically apartheid.

Land on a reserve isn't worth much.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Individual ownership of land on a reserve doesn't solve the problem of what is basically apartheid.

Land on a reserve isn't worth much.

I would disagree in that giving the members the land takes away the bands leaders power to effectively drive out anyone that opposes them, it would also give band members the power to leave the res and then return years later, leave mum with the house while they try and make some money in the city, there is more value to a house than just money

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

Individual ownership of land on a reserve doesn't solve the problem of what is basically apartheid.

Land on a reserve isn't worth much.

Are you describing the treaties as apartheid or the Indian act?

[JohnnyB]

Some things once broken never really get fixed. A country founded on a history of genocide and the establishment of a population and system of government that marginalizes the victimized group isn't going to make everything better by simply ensuring the laws on the books aren't racially biased in a vacuum.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I would disagree in that giving the members the land takes away the bands leaders power to effectively drive out anyone that opposes them, it would also give band members the power to leave the res and then return years later, leave mum with the house while they try and make some money in the city, there is more value to a house than just money

While I agree that putting powers into the hands of the individual people is important, I just don't see how dividing up and handing out land on a reserve will actually accomplish anything other than a 'we gave you land, now shutup and stop complaining' approach.

Maybe I'm wrong. Most of the Native friends I have who are successful left their reserve.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you describing the treaties as apartheid or the Indian act?

I am calling what has resulted because of those policies apartheid.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Azure

I am calling what has resulted because of those policies apartheid.

Any South Africans on here that could respond to that?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

While I agree that putting powers into the hands of the individual people is important, I just don't see how dividing up and handing out land on a reserve will actually accomplish anything other than a 'we gave you land, now shutup and stop complaining' approach.

Maybe I'm wrong. Most of the Native friends I have who are successful left their reserve.

That’s the point of individual land rights. Right now reserve living is incentivized by the Indian act and governing structures.

[CliffFletcher]

Band leadership have a powerful interest in maintaining the reserve system. Being able to control who is on a band list and allocating homes and other resources to those members is the source of most of their power.

[8 Ball]

Look at the storm that destroyed NE Calgary earlier this summer. People there are still fighting with their insurance companies. During the floods, which destroyed rich communities, #### was rebuilt at an impressive rate.

[Flamenspiel]

^^Well, that’s not racism, that's about money. Maybe lookup the Spadina expressway in Toronto, it stops halfway to its destination because “rich communities” stopped it.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

^^Well, that’s not racism, that's about money. Maybe lookup the Spadina expressway in Toronto, it stops halfway to its destination because “rich communities” stopped it.

Is that my homework assignment? Of course it’s about money. Ask someone in the NE how long it took to hear from an adjuster.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

While I agree that putting powers into the hands of the individual people is important, I just don't see how dividing up and handing out land on a reserve will actually accomplish anything other than a 'we gave you land, now shutup and stop complaining' approach.

Maybe I'm wrong. Most of the Native friends I have who are successful left their reserve.

I think that is part of the problem that some benefits are tied to living on the reserve. By eliminating that part of the governance and directly giving benefits to individuals helps to address that issue. However you would really need to hear from both on reserve and off of the affects of such an initiative.

Right now reserve living is incentivized through the Indian Act. This is a problem.

[PaperBagger'14]

I've thought this for a while, however I still can't fully put it into words as well as it sounds in my mind.

We keep hearing of Reserves needing clean drinking water, and in AB right now we have a huge surplus of construction workers and Engineers. Wouldnt it make sense to have our federal and provincial governments investing to build this infrastructure?

Clean drinking water for reserves, getting Albertans to work and improving indigenous relationships. There are obviously a lot of other engineering considerations but at a high level, it just makes sense to me.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Any South Africans on here that could respond to that?

Apartheid was a word, IMO and from my understanding, specific to SA.

It should not be, IMO, used for anything but reference to SA and their system.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I've thought this for a while, however I still can't fully put it into words as well as it sounds in my mind.

We keep hearing of Reserves needing clean drinking water, and in AB right now we have a huge surplus of construction workers and Engineers. Wouldnt it make sense to have our federal and provincial governments investing to build this infrastructure?

Clean drinking water for reserves, getting Albertans to work and improving indigenous relationships. There are obviously a lot of other engineering considerations but at a high level, it just makes sense to me.

Who is paying for it? The bands? No chance.

You think our province or feds want to drop more money into that bottomless pit?

[Mr.Coffee]

to be fair it strikes me that the feds want to throw money into literally anything if possible so they may be on board. I mean, are there any kickbacks friends and family can receive? Then they'd be in 110%.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

When you treat people differently those people will have different outcomes. Three different treatment is a better explanation than "systemic racism" for difference in outcomes that we observe.

"Treating people differently creating different outcomes" is actually a pretty apt description of systemic racism.