Sorry for exploiting your land and letting you live in poverty. Here's a $1000.

[Stay Golden]

Not speaking with regards to the USA and their native policies. This is always a sensitive topic with Canadians and Native groups in Canada and unfortunately there is usually a racial undertone from some with regards to the topic.

I was at the re-enactment of the treaty #7 as a tourist near Blackfoot Crossing like 1000's of other people were that day in 1977 when Prince Charles was there and several provincial and federal politicians and the leaders of all the Blackfoot tribes that were involved.
There was quite allot of pageantry that day and they re-enacted the whole event as close to how it looked back in 1877.
If it was accurate i can say that the RCMP had Dozens of cannons on the 3 sides of surrounding hills of the valley and countless horseback forces.
The Blackfoot nations had teepees in the valley near the river with an estimated 300 braves.
The Chiefs and the British officers met in large tents on the side of one the hills and signed the deal.
Even though the Chiefs chose this location as they didn't trust a meeting in Fort MacLeod. They had no choice but to sign treaty #7 or from what i saw they would have been wiped out.
Just an observation anyways.

As a parent it is sad to see my kids have learned very little in our schools about Alberta's own history but yet my daughter has been learning about the Ukraine extensively the past 2 months.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The difference is we have historical documentation of these atrocities and land theft, committed by those who considered themselves "enlightened." I'm hardly one to promote the idea of the noble savage, but we just do not possess the necessary evidence to make any kind of contextual judgement beyond a certain period of history.

Besides which, the taking of land is only part of the problem. The mistreatment of Native Americans in the centuries since is absolutely deplorable.

Agreed and not to mention that it wasn't simply that lands were taken, despite treaties and promises that they weren't, the US government then turned around and gave the land away to settlers for the express purpose of enticing them to come in and physically displace the people that they took the land from.

Talk about adding insult to injury.

Sure there's a historical precedent of "might makes right" but that doesn't mean we can't challenge whether that's an appropriate stance for our society to take and damn fairness....

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

I just think it's a little ridiculous to frame this as some sort of reparations or an attempt to buy forgiveness for the manner in which lands were acquired when it is nothing of the sort.

Fair enough. Thread title changed.

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

Them not knowing doesnt change what their rights are.

No it doesn't at all, i'm merely suggesting that many would see the cheque and instead of questioning it would be off spending it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't disagree. But from a legal perspective, I know I don't have to tell you that a court shouldn't just throw out actual evidence due to speculation that there might or might not be more evidence.

Well if we want to take this as a purely legal argument then you have to factor in the laws under which the acquisitions occurred. I'm no expert in this area, but acquiring title to frontier land like that by force was certainly legal under that regime, and as we know the winners get to make the rules. Whether it's just in hindsight is another question, but from a purely legal standpoint title was acquired, treaties were signed etc.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

The racism and ignorance by some on this forum and by a great many Canadians is upsetting and disappointing.

For all of those people who believe that we as Canadians should have no part in treating First Nations (FN), Metis, etc. with dignity and respect and that we should take no responsibility for working towards a mutually beneficial solution to the numerous issues facing FN, Metis, etc., I suggest you educate yourselves and exercise some empathy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia..._school_system

.

The oppression and abuse of the FN, Metis, etc. by the government, we as Canadians, and Canadian institutions didn't end hundreds of years ago like so many ignorant folks seem to believe; it was happening during the lifetime of the majority.

I think those are important words to emphasize, people need to realize that a solution that helps FN people to break out of the poverty cycle is beneficial to everyone.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Seems like 2 issues getting mixed up and bigots being bigots who would make the same comments regardless.
CP par for the course...

Why do people always say that every time a controversial topic comes up?

"Oh look, a wide variety of disparate opinions from a wide variety of disparate individuals. Some insensitive, some borderline racist, some uninformed, some just flat-out jokes and some, perhaps most, actually on topic and interested in discussion."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well if we want to take this as a purely legal argument then you have to factor in the laws under which the acquisitions occurred. I'm no expert in this area, but acquiring title to frontier land like that by force was certainly legal under that regime, and as we know the winners get to make the rules. Whether it's just in hindsight is another question, but from a purely legal standpoint title was acquired, treaties were signed etc.

Except we also know that treaties were ignored or simply torn up. And are we sure it was legal under that regime? It really depends on how far back you think common law applies. I'm also pretty sure there would have been some legal squabbles if white ranchers were appropriating land from each other via force during this time.

[polak]

First Nations leadership are condoning their own oppression by refusing to give up reserves, corruptly spending federal funds and shunning those that choose to leave and start a new life off of their lands.

The reserves are colossal mess. Every single quality of life indicator is worse, on reserve then off. The mistreatment won't stop until they are abolished. Until that happens First Nations on reserves will continue to live a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Assimilation may sound wrong, but is 10000000x better then Segregation.

As for the "stealing" of land, well unfortunately that was the way the world worked until the last century. You can't really change the past. Reparation payments (I realize that is not what the OP is about, but a lot of the conversation in this thread is geared towards that issue) are absolutely stupid. No one benefits from them outside of the immediate short term. It makes the "guilty" party feel a bit better about their ancestors actions and gives the "victim" party funds that they usually don't have the resources or knowledge to invest properly and most will end up losing it anyways.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except we also know that treaties were ignored or simply torn up. And are we sure it was legal under that regime? It really depends on how far back you think common law applies. I'm also pretty sure there would have been some legal squabbles if white ranchers were appropriating land from each other via force during this time.

The difference is that those ranchers would have had a recognized title to the lands they were on, the natives would not. I'm not saying that's right, but the fact is that the law at the time only respect certain types of claims, namely those that followed the protocols set out by the government.

I'm not sure what wouldn't have been legal under that regime. I'm talking about the expulsion of natives by government forces under government order.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by return to the red

No it doesn't at all, i'm merely suggesting that many would see the cheque and instead of questioning it would be off spending it.

As is their right. The land is theirs and held in trust. Any income generated off of their land is theirs to do with without any question or judgement from others.

This isn't land that was taken and sold to settlers 200 years ago. This case involves land that is held in trust for different groups. The Federal Government didn't uphold their end of the trustee relationship and was caught so they are paying for it.

[Tinordi]

Predictably here comes the canard that the real problem is all about First Nations leadership.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Predictably here comes the canard that the real problem is all about First Nations leadership.

In this thread - yes you are right.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Fair enough. Thread title changed.

I don't think your title is much better. The land isn't being exploited and the case had nothing to do with poverty. How about "Sorry for breaching our fiduciary duty, Here's $1000"

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

Whats happened to the FNs in Canada and the USA is exactly why they are in the position they are. They have been slaughtered, deculturlized, mistreated, slaved and the list goes on.

The cycle is so vicious that I can't even imagine what the remedy would be.

The remedy is assimilation. How we get there with the least amount of issues is a problem though.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

The difference is that those ranchers would have had a recognized title to the lands they were on, the natives would not. I'm not saying that's right, but the fact is that the law at the time only respect certain types of claims, namely those that followed the protocols set out by the government.

I'm not sure what wouldn't have been legal under that regime. I'm talking about the expulsion of natives by government forces under government order.

Yeah, unfortunately I don't know enough about American law to really go that far back. I suppose it would also depend on how much land was appropriated pre and post constitution, with consideration to state status as well. The argument could be made, as it was in Canada, that native title could be assumed under common law amongst a tribe, regardless of official title with the government, as the idea of legally documented title is obviously very culturally specific. Again though, I think Canada is less rigid in these areas than the U.S.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Azure

The remedy is assimilation. How we get there with the least amount of issues is a problem though.

I think this is the first time in history we agree on something.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't think your title is much better. The land isn't being exploited and the case had nothing to do with poverty. How about "Sorry for breaching our fiduciary duty, Here's $1000"

Breaching your fiduciary duty is a form of exploitation, IMO, especially if the government was profiting from it.

And, from the article:

On South Dakota's Native American reservations, reactions are mixed. The checks will help Native Americans deal with the challenges of intense poverty during the cold winter months, but some say the government is still shortchanging those who were cheated out of royalties for decades.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by polak

First Nations leadership are condoning their own oppression by refusing to give up reserves, corrupt spending of federal funds and shunning those that choose to leave and start a new life off of their lands.

The reserves are colossal mess. Every single quality of life indicator is worse, on reserve then off. The mistreatment won't stop until they are abolished. Until that happens First Nations on reserves will continue to live a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Assimilation may sound wrong, but is 10000000x better then Segregation.

As for the "stealing" of land, well unfortunately that was the way the world worked until the last century. You can't really change the past. Reparation payments (I realize that is not what the OP is about, but a lot of the conversation in this thread is geared towards that issue) are absolutely stupid. No one benefits from them outside of the immediate short term.

Ironic that initially Canada decided to segregate FA and wanted it that way over a period of centuries and now that they have been conditioned to live a certain way, you suggest turning a 180 on them, and the rest of Canadians, and expect it to go over well and expect it to work.

I'm not bashing you and I'm not necessarily opposed to your opinion and I wish I had a magic answer to solve all of this but the complexity of the situation may not ever allow for a solution, but that doesn't mean I don't want to work towards it.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by Azure

The remedy is assimilation. How we get there with the least amount of issues is a problem though.

Why should they adjust to our way of life?