$5 billion hydro project shelved after losing Aboriginal support

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Treaties are a Legal CONTRACT between the Crown (the government that represents you whether you voted for it or not) and the other parties (the First Nations). You can't just rip them up, or renege on them when they no longer suit you. I have said this earlier in this thread and many other times in other threads, if you don't like the treaties, pressure your government representatives to re-open treaty negotiations. Somthing that the First Nations communities REALLY, REALLY want!!!

I've always wondered this - would the treaties become invalid if Canadians voted to remove the queen as the head of state? I.E. Become a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy?

Also, just a side note: Dealing with the Aboriginal Population is a mixed bag - you're going to get some good ones, and some bad ones. I'd ask everyone not to judge the population by some of the more visible groups, such as the Tsuutina. However, the younger generation is becoming a lot more affluent in this regard and you're likely going to see the social progress of many tribes advance in the next few decades.

It's the older generation who are the worst offenders. I don't think there is another Culture in the world who has a longer memory than the Aboriginal population - we're talking about a lot of people who can't even see residential schools without breaking down and crying.

In some cases it feels like it gets played up like a worse tragedy than the holocaust by some of the elders. I'd like to say I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. The elders in some cases are the biggest barriers to their own progress.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I've always wondered this - would the treaties become invalid if Canadians voted to remove the queen as the head of state? I.E. Become a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy?

Also, just a side note: Dealing with the Aboriginal Population is a mixed bag - you're going to get some good ones, and some bad ones. I'd ask everyone not to judge the population by some of the more visible groups, such as the Tsuutina. However, the younger generation is becoming a lot more affluent in this regard and you're likely going to see the social progress of many tribes advance in the next few decades.

It's the older generation who are the worst offenders. I don't think there is another Culture in the world who has a longer memory than the Aboriginal population - we're talking about a lot of people who can't even see residential schools without breaking down and crying.

In some cases it feels like it gets played up like a worse tragedy than the holocaust by some of the elders. I'd like to say I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. The elders in some cases are the biggest barriers to their own progress.

As far as I understand it, yes. However, some constitutional lawyers may be better equipped to answer this question than I am.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Treaties are a Legal CONTRACT between the Crown (the government that represents you whether you voted for it or not) and the other parties (the First Nations). You can't just rip them up, or renege on them when they no longer suit you. I have said this earlier in this thread and many other times in other threads, if you don't like the treaties, pressure your government representatives to re-open treaty negotiations. Somthing that the First Nations communities REALLY, REALLY want!!!

Legal contract blah blah blah - these legal contracts are destroying the people of these reserves. The sooner they are torn up - the better EVERYONE will be.

It's not that it suits me - it would suit the native people as well. Unless you think things are going well out there?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Why must every thread that involves First Nations people turn into a free pass for the racists to come out and spout any kind of garbage that they want?

Would you make these kinds of comments in a thread about Black people? Or Asians? The perception of a free pass to take shots at First Nations really sickens me.

Yes.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Man, it would be pretty sweet if it worked that way. I didn't sign up for the GST or vote for the government that brought that in. Heck, I don't recall voting in favor of income tax either.



There's a difference between moving to Europe today to live amongst Europeans and showing up in Canada effectively claiming sovereignty over all the land and the people that had occupied it for centuries.

Not to mention that when Europeans came, they chose to treat the First Nations as sovereign trading partners and did not 'conquer' the lands. It's pretty disingenous to blame the First Nations for asserting Treaty Rights since that was the entire point of Treaties from the European standpoint. If it had been up to the First Nations, treaties would never have been necessary as they were already on their lands and didn't have a concept of land ownership, they would have been happy to share the land and set up territorial boundaries as they did amongst themselves before Europeans were on the scene, but as far as a traditional First Nations culture is concerned, the European claim to sovereignty over any part of traditional native lands is bogus.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Not to mention that when Europeans came, they chose to treat the First Nations as sovereign trading partners and did not 'conquer' the lands. It's pretty disingenous to blame the First Nations for asserting Treaty Rights since that was the entire point of Treaties from the European standpoint. If it had been up to the First Nations, treaties would never have been necessary as they were already on their lands and didn't have a concept of land ownership, they would have been happy to share the land and set up territorial boundaries as they did amongst themselves before Europeans were on the scene, but as far as a traditional First Nations culture is concerned, the European claim to sovereignty over any part of traditional native lands is bogus.

I’m pretty sure greed cut both ways at the time - if you didn’t believe in land ownership, or the exclusivity of land ownership, it was easy to sign treaties handing away vast regions of land for a relatively small amount of imported goods, since the “cost” to you was nothing more than a signature, and you got access to fantastic items and supplies you’d never had before.

Conversely, the Euro’s were swindling the first nations by not offering a rate of exchange commensurate with the amount of land involved.

Neither side did a great job in those early treaty negotiations, in my opinion.

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

There is a large movement among Sub-Arctic First Nations communities to return to traditional land use activites (hunting, trapping) as a way to reduce their reliance on government support.

Without touching on the other issues at hand, and granted there are many, I get irritated right about here. What kind of traditional land uses are we talking about? Like hunting and trapping with high-powered rifles, quads, sleds, rhino side-by-sides, synthetic-fibre jackets, jet-boats, moose calls, depth sounders, and coolers for the Lucky Lager, or like.....actual TRADITIONAL land use activities?