Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-21-2005, 08:26 PM   #81
Thunderball
Franchise Player
 
Thunderball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Apr 21 2005, 08:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Apr 21 2005, 08:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Apr 22 2005, 02:03 AM
I think many Natives, Canadians and Politicians would love to see the end of reservations, myself being one of them. Its self-defeating for them, and a problem for society.

The problem is simply how to get rid of the reserves, integrate Natives into society and have them as productive members without being labelled as history's greatest monsters for assimilating their culture into our own.
Question for you. Natives are very connected to the land and want to be able to maintain that connection to the land in as pristine a manner as possible, so how do you propose they have the opportunity to continue to do this without reservations?

Question for everyone. How can the plains indians, who were nomads and had no permanent home, claim that they have any more connection to the land than anyone else? Plus how do you explain the polution and wildlife issues (over hunting and fishing) that take place on reserves when these same people claim to have a connection to the land and a responsibility to that land? [/b][/quote]
Good question. Very tough answer.

I think part of the answer comes from your question to everyone else, for the most part, the natives in our region were not actually settled in that area and tended to roam vast portions of Southern Alberta. That being said, I would say one possible solution (and I'm not gonna guarantee this could even work) is to buy the reserve land from them, give each member a portion of the proceeds or allow them to buy the land freehold. This way, they have the option of living on the land, combining their land into a private reserve (Hutterites), or to take their proceeds and move into the cities. Either way, they are not bound by their pathetic, inept and frequently corrupt leadership and have their own decisions to make. Furthermore, a small portion of the land could have a cultural centre built on it so they have a place to gather and celebrate their culture.

The plus for us is that the province/city can freely expand into reserve areas, and deal directly with the landowners, not to mention that they will gain the oil and gas royalties from native lands. Money that can be used to improve education, health care (or build a new Dubai-style tourist tower in Downtown Calgary...)

The plus for those who choose to keep their own little portion is that they don't have to share any proceeds of oil and gas development on their property. They are no longer shackled to a failing system yet can hold onto their culture via the cultural centre, and they are forced to be self-reliant, the kick in the pants many need to truly prosper.

I freely admit I may be wrong... I haven't given this massive thought.
Thunderball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 08:32 PM   #82
Hakan
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: do not want
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Apr 21 2005, 07:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Apr 21 2005, 07:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Apr 22 2005, 02:03 AM
I think many Natives, Canadians and Politicians would love to see the end of reservations, myself being one of them. Its self-defeating for them, and a problem for society.

The problem is simply how to get rid of the reserves, integrate Natives into society and have them as productive members without being labelled as history's greatest monsters for assimilating their culture into our own.
Question for you. Natives are very connected to the land and want to be able to maintain that connection to the land in as pristine a manner as possible, so how do you propose they have the opportunity to continue to do this without reservations?

Question for everyone. How can the plains indians, who were nomads and had no permanent home, claim that they have any more connection to the land than anyone else? Plus how do you explain the polution and wildlife issues (over hunting and fishing) that take place on reserves when these same people claim to have a connection to the land and a responsibility to that land? [/b][/quote]
It's a well documented fact that poverty predicates environmental degradation and pollution. It's about that simple.
Hakan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 08:41 PM   #83
Lanny_MacDonald
Lifetime Suspension
 
Lanny_MacDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Fozzie_DeBear@Apr 21 2005, 11:24 PM
Are Laff fans a race?

All kidding aside here is a test I found on prejudice that is kinda interesting you can do race, or Canada/US relations

Bias Test

Takes about 10 minutes

....Wow I bet many will think that it is fataing bullshinguard but it IS interesting nonetheless
I did these three tests with the following results.

Gender... slight association between science and males. Doesn't surprise me as I think men are better at hard science.

Race... slight predisposition toward white people. Doesn't surprise me. I was raised with whitey so I should be wired that way.

Countries... Neutral. No disposition toward either, which surprised me. Based on what a negative view I have toward the government and the majority of the yokels who voted for the ###### from Texas I thought it would show through that I had a predisposition to Canada.

Very cool test! Thanks Fozzie.
Lanny_MacDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 08:45 PM   #84
Lanny_MacDonald
Lifetime Suspension
 
Lanny_MacDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hakan@Apr 22 2005, 02:32 AM
It's a well documented fact that poverty predicates environmental degradation and pollution. It's about that simple.
So adoption of western norms in regards to explaining their inability to manage their own lands is okay, but expecting them to live up to those norms in regards to civic responsibilities is not right and racist?
Lanny_MacDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 08:46 PM   #85
Calgary Flames
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by JiriHrdina+Apr 21 2005, 06:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JiriHrdina @ Apr 21 2005, 06:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Calgary Flames@Apr 21 2005, 05:50 PM


I also don't know if this is fact but don't natives get Free post secondary education? or discounts?? How is that fair to regular joe tax paying canadian?

I believe this is indeed true but in terms of how money should be dolled out I can't see how anyone could disagree that helping Aboriginals with post secondary education is a bad thing. If they are more educated they will get better careers and become role models for others. All good things. [/b][/quote]
Definetely agree, so why don't more of them take advantage of such things? I have to pay $10,000 next fall and i'd kill to have that taken for of for me.
Calgary Flames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 08:53 PM   #86
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Apr 21 2005, 08:01 PM
Nope. I'm completely against that. I'm all for cutting them off in the future, but right now is the wrong time.
So what you are saying is that the government should unilaterally break those treaties, disregard the constitution, land claims, benefit packages et cetera and "cut them off"? Do you think that is even a slightly realistic solution? You and I will be long dead and buried before anyone even tries that, let alone gets it through the 5 billion court challenges.

You say "stop whining about things that happened hundreds of years ago". Don't you think it should go both ways? Whining about natives getting federal loot is to whine about things that took place an awful long time ago. Can't you just let it go?
__________________

RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 08:59 PM   #87
Hakan
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: do not want
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Apr 21 2005, 07:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Apr 21 2005, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@Apr 22 2005, 02:32 AM
It's a well documented fact that poverty predicates environmental degradation and pollution. It's about that simple.
So adoption of western norms in regards to explaining their inability to manage their own lands is okay, but expecting them to live up to those norms in regards to civic responsibilities is not right and racist?[/b][/quote]
Care to explain western norms? The poverty and environment issue is a global norm.

Your argument here is muddled, unclear and false. Using the dualist benefits - responsibility argument (in your case civic responsibilities) implies that there are benefits. But we were just talking about pollution and poverty on reserves. Therefore, why should they feel like they have responsibilities when the benefits are poverty as you seem to imply? Also by tying poverty and subsequent civic responsibilities to "western norms" [which is still confusing me] is a false analogy.
Hakan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 09:06 PM   #88
Hakan
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: do not want
Exp:
Default

Anyway, I've had enough p*ss and vinegar to last a week.

I should have taken rouge's cue when he said he was done with this thread about 30 posts ago.
Hakan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 09:33 PM   #89
Lanny_MacDonald
Lifetime Suspension
 
Lanny_MacDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hakan@Apr 22 2005, 02:59 AM
Care to explain western norms? The poverty and environment issue is a global norm.

Your argument here is muddled, unclear and false. Using the dualist benefits - responsibility argument (in your case civic responsibilities) implies that there are benefits. But we were just talking about pollution and poverty on reserves. Therefore, why should they feel like they have responsibilities when the benefits are poverty as you seem to imply? Also by tying poverty and subsequent civic responsibilities to "western norms" [which is still confusing me] is a false analogy.
Are you trying to say that what our societal norms are here in North America (and Europe) are the same norms that would be deemed acceptable in Asia or Africa? What is deemed as poverty and environmental issues vary greatly from society to society. What we in North America define as a norm could, and likely is, defined as deviance in Asian societies. So yes, the Western norms are what we are discussing here.

I think its your argument is muddled and that you are chasing your tail. You sit there and say how hard done by the first nations people are, and how they have been given nothing and only want what is rightfully theirs, yet when it is pointed out that they have been given more than their fair share of what they want, and they have misused or abused that very thing they want, you try double talking your way out of what you said. You say that the natives want and deserve all of these wonderful things (like self government and our ever dying respect) but they are not required to accept the responsibility that goes with it. You also intimate that the white man is some how responsible for the natives polution and natural resource management problems that are so evident. How is that possible when it is the native who fails to look after his housing and vehicles, does not bother to have proper sanitation and then proceeds to let the litter land where it may? And is it also not the native who is the one who has over-fished and hunted the game to unsustainable levels? Have the first nations peoples not learned the word responsiblity? According to you, no they haven't. But we should continue to give them more housing, more cars and continue to allow them to mismanage their natural resources. Makes sense to me. And there's definitely no benefits to that is there?

Hey Hakan, found a picture of you hard at debate. Enjoy!

Lanny_MacDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 09:44 PM   #90
Lanny_MacDonald
Lifetime Suspension
 
Lanny_MacDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Apr 22 2005, 02:53 AM
So what you are saying is that the government should unilaterally break those treaties, disregard the constitution, land claims, benefit packages et cetera and "cut them off"? Do you think that is even a slightly realistic solution? You and I will be long dead and buried before anyone even tries that, let alone gets it through the 5 billion court challenges.

You say "stop whining about things that happened hundreds of years ago". Don't you think it should go both ways? Whining about natives getting federal loot is to whine about things that took place an awful long time ago. Can't you just let it go?
No, I'm saying that the Feds should GIVE the first nations what they want (self government) in return for getting off the dole. The first nations get self government starting in 2010 or 2015, and with that the last check arrives. Seems like its a win-win and could be NEGOTIATED pretty easily of they tried.

As for the "stop whining" bit, you bare aware that the natives claims are from a coule hundred years ago and those folks are long dead? You are also aware that just last week another series of checks were cut to first nations peoples all over the country? We're still paying for something that happened two hundred years ago. Hey, if you like seeing your hard earned money being funneled into that money pit more power to you. I kind of like the idea of limiting taxation to basic needs and making people stand on their own two feet. An endless supply of money to the first nations is not what I call basic needs. I think its time for the first nations to attain maturity and stand on their own. I think they are a little old for an allowance.

Any how, off to press my sheet. Good night all.

Lanny_MacDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 11:11 PM   #91
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Apr 21 2005, 09:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Apr 21 2005, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Apr 22 2005, 02:53 AM
So what you are saying is that the government should unilaterally break those treaties, disregard the constitution, land claims, benefit packages et cetera and "cut them off"?# Do you think that is even a slightly realistic solution?# You and I will be long dead and buried before anyone even tries that, let alone gets it through the 5 billion court challenges.

You say "stop whining about things that happened hundreds of years ago".# Don't you think it should go both ways?# Whining about natives getting federal loot is to whine about things that took place an awful long time ago.# Can't you just let it go?
No, I'm saying that the Feds should GIVE the first nations what they want (self government) in return for getting off the dole. The first nations get self government starting in 2010 or 2015, and with that the last check arrives. Seems like its a win-win and could be NEGOTIATED pretty easily of they tried.

As for the "stop whining" bit, you bare aware that the natives claims are from a coule hundred years ago and those folks are long dead? You are also aware that just last week another series of checks were cut to first nations peoples all over the country? We're still paying for something that happened two hundred years ago. Hey, if you like seeing your hard earned money being funneled into that money pit more power to you. I kind of like the idea of limiting taxation to basic needs and making people stand on their own two feet. An endless supply of money to the first nations is not what I call basic needs. I think its time for the first nations to attain maturity and stand on their own. I think they are a little old for an allowance.

Any how, off to press my sheet. Good night all.

[/b][/quote]

To put a really simplistic spin on it some of these treaties read something like "you give us the land, we'll give you money now, and forever, and hunting rights".

Do you think they should just give that up? Would you? I know I wouldn't.

The deals were signed. White people made out like bandits but now it's time to renege?

My family owns land and mineral rights in this province and the papers were signed a mighty long time ago, by people who have been dead for 60 years. Should we be willing to just give it up because the deed is getting old and someone wants to renegotiate even if we don't want to?

One piece of that land is actually on contested land and a native group is now trying to renegotiate a deal that went down in 1935. It's not something my family is particularly enamored with. If the proposition was "we don't like that old deal so we'll give you something else", then we are not interested. That is what you are suggesting.

Even with the altruistic "we'll give you self-government" gesture, it just doesn't work that way. You can't just tear up a contract because you want the terms to change and it's getting old. It's not a solution. It doesn't work. It can't. Come up with another one or you've got nothing but "cut them off and offer something else".

Quote:
And is it also not the native who is the one who has over-fished and hunted the game to unsustainable levels?
Is this a joke? It's a pretty good one.
__________________

RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy