"Got land? Thank an Indian."

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Not sure how that's an example of racism towards whites. Here's the example:



Your reading comprehension also needs some serious work if you think I was suggesting those actions were justifiable or tolerable. There's a vast difference between exploring the root cause of a problem and accepting or tolerating that problem. Children who are abused are much more common to abuse their own children, but that doesn't mean it's OK.

If you think the reaction from her peers was simply about getting a job, then you are naïve. These situations are not uncommon and I have come across them as well (even mentioned in this thread), and they are about not wanting their peers to mix racially with white people. That is racism in its purist form.

You want them to "let go" of their constitutionally protected rights without any kind of compensation? And how exactly does throwing them all out on the street help them better their lot in the long run?

Because I said that we should throw them out on the street? I am talking about complete integration instead of segregation. These "constitutionally protected rights" are also what divides them and keeps them as wards of the federal government. If it hasn't worked in 200 years, it won't work in 200 more. I'm not saying ripping off the Band-Aid won't hurt at first.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Your reading comprehension also needs some serious work if you think I was suggesting those actions were justifiable or tolerable. There's a vast difference between exploring the root cause of a problem and accepting or tolerating that problem. Children who are abused are much more common to abuse their own children, but that doesn't mean it's OK.

If you want to talk about reading comprehension, why are you responding to a post that wasn't directed at you or directly quoted from your post?

[BloodFetish]

I wonder what would happen if I walked up to an indian and said...

"Hey guy. Thanks for the land".

Nothing good, I imagine.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If you want to talk about reading comprehension, why are you responding to a post that wasn't directed at you or directly quoted from your post?

I wasn't responding to your post; I had used your anecdote as an example and was more clearly referencing it in my next post. Hence the phrase "here's the example:" prior to it.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If you think the reaction from her peers was simply about getting a job, then you are naïve. These situations are not uncommon and I have come across them as well (even mentioned in this thread), and they are about not wanting their peers to mix racially with white people. That is racism in its purist form.

Because I said that we should throw them out on the street? I am talking about complete integration instead of segregation. These "constitutionally protected rights" are also what divides them and keeps them as wards of the federal government. If it hasn't worked in 200 years, it won't work in 200 more. I'm not saying ripping off the Band-Aid won't hurt at first.

Complete integration (at least the type of one-sided integration that is akin to tearing off a Band-Aid) is assimilation by another name and hundreds of years of attempted assimilation has been an abject failure. They don't want to be assimilated and never have; the prospects of it working now are fairly slim.

The Constitution and the Supreme Court have clearly supported the idea that within the law there exists a place for unique rights among First Nations, so IMO the idea that they can essentially be compelled to be assimilated is shaky on both practical and legal grounds; effectively it's a utopia.

I can certainly understand the attractiveness of that thought. We're a settler and immigrant society which is largely based on people coming from around the world and assimilating into Canadian culture, and there's obviously a sense of egalitarianism to the idea. But again, it's not any more realistic now than when progressives were making the exact same argument 150 years ago. Any solution with a plausible chance of success is going to have to respect and support the idea of Native distinctiveness. It's written into our Constitution just as Quebec's distinctiveness is.

The end of the reserve system as it exists should obviously be the goal, but it's not going to be forced upon First Nations and it's likely not happening any time soon. And even if land issues themselves are solved (as some BC tribes have done with settlement claims which have resulted in a sort of quasi-municipal 4th level of government) there still remain serious social problems that will take generations to sort out even in the best case scenario.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So you'd be okay with government tearing up contracts for land purchased for the extraction of minerals by private companies, if said extractions proved to have negative effects on the say the collective's environment?

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the issues to intelligently argue what a viable solution could look like. I would like to believe over time, however, that this is a problem that eventually evaporates similar to how our society seems to progress on the collective viewpoint of human rights, homosexual rights, etc.

In general I agree with the gist of what you're laying down rubecube but I just can't let this one slide and that is that in fact the Alberta government has arbitrarily imposed unilateral changes that are material to contracts.

One example would be the change to royalties payable under mineral leases / licences granted for PNG rights on Crown lands, where a company has purchased the lease to explore and develop under a given set of royalties only to have the royalties randomly changed because it "wasn't a fair share".

Another would be the very recent clawback the Alberta government just pulled for certain oilsands leases under their new land regional plans.

There are lots of examples throughout history of governments unilaterally making decisions and arbitrarily ignoring contracts, that's because they're the government. You can sue them I guess but... anyway. Bit beside the point but I guess that what I'm saying is- I'm not advocating that any treaties or contracts get torn up without proper due diligence. But what I do think should happen on this issue is that maybe the government should spend some time and money and actually do a proper investigation, do the proper research and make a commitment to native populations across Canada that we will strive to make things better by building a plan, and then executing on the plan. Whether or not that actually involves the tearing up of treaties or not, I'm not sure. But if you can show native populations that you can improve their standard of living whilst maintaining their desires to preserve their culture, way of life, and traditions then maybe you can make some headway. Torn up contracts or not. But it HAS to work, no broken promises.