Systemic Racism in US and Canada

[you&me]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Can you expand on what you mean?

I don't want to reach, or put words in his mouth, but I think he's saying that the notion that the native lands in Canada would have been left alone, and the indigenous people free in their own territory in 2020 is rather naive and totally unrealistic.


I don't see what's hard to understand about that, or how anyone could reasonably hold the view that Canada would be much different than it is today - a developed, first world nation.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by you&me

I don't want to reach, or put words in his mouth, but I think he's saying that the notion that the native lands in Canada would have been left alone, and the indigenous people free in their own territory in 2020 is rather naive and totally unrealistic.


I don't see what's hard to understand about that, or how anyone could reasonably hold the view that Canada would be much different than it is today - a developed, first world nation.

I think without the British, French, and subsequent Canadian/American expansion in North America, it is almost a certainty that Russia would have held on to Alaska and continued expanding east (through conquest).

The question I have is whether aboriginal peoples in Russia's frontier are better off than they are in North America. I really don't know the answer.

The fisheries issues on the east coast are pretty similar to one on the west coast. It actually leaves me very conflicted, but I think the law is on the side of aboriginals. Those laws were pretty darn convenient for the British and Canadian governments (and inconvenient for the native population) when they were implemented, I must say.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by you&me

I don't want to reach, or put words in his mouth, but I think he's saying that the notion that the native lands in Canada would have been left alone, and the indigenous people free in their own territory in 2020 is rather naive and totally unrealistic.


I don't see what's hard to understand about that, or how anyone could reasonably hold the view that Canada would be much different than it is today - a developed, first world nation.

Well, I certainly disagree with that. For instance, I see no reason to presume that the current territory which makes up the "Dominion of Canada" would, in this alternate reality, constitute one single state. Indeed, that seems rather unlikely to me. Parts of that territory may have become a French colonial state (or states), or Dutch, or even Spanish. Perhaps the American colonies would have expanded and conquered some parts of the territory. Perhaps other parts would have remained sovereign first nations territories. Who could possibly speculate?

However, I think its very safe to say that it would look nothing like modern day Canada.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

The fishing rights thing is unique, really the goal is to address conservation, if you kill all the animals there will be nothing left. Going forward, it does not matter which group is destroying the resource, it can’t continue.

The narrative that Canada's indigenous peoples are sacred custodians of the land, and conservationists by tradition, is an attractive one. It fits the myth of the noble savage fending off corruption by modern society. But it's not true. Native bands have demonstrated a capability to exhaust natural resources like fish and game just as readily as non-Natives.

I covered a case in the NWT where several indigenous hunters using snowmobiles and high-powered rifles took down 10 caribou in a few minutes, cut only the prime parts off the animals, and left the rest to rot. Fish and wildlife officers were hated by the locals because they tried to enforce limits on hunting and fishing.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The narrative that Canada's indigenous peoples are sacred custodians of the land, and conservationists by tradition, is an attractive one. It fits the myth of the noble savage fending off corruption by modern society. But it's not true. Native bands have demonstrated a capability to exhaust natural resources like fish and game just as readily as non-Natives.

I covered a case in the NWT where several indigenous hunters using snowmobiles and high-powered rifles took down 10 caribou in a few minutes, cut only the prime parts off the animals, and left the rest to rot. Fish and wildlife officers were hated by the locals because they tried to enforce limits on hunting and fishing.

Don't really understand what triggered this comment in this thread? Is there a post which advanced that narrative?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, I certainly disagree with that. For instance, I see no reason to presume that the current territory which makes up the "Dominion of Canada" would, in this alternate reality, constitute one single state. Indeed, that seems rather unlikely to me. Parts of that territory may have become a French colonial state (or states), or Dutch, or even Spanish. Perhaps the American colonies would have expanded and conquered some parts of the territory. Perhaps other parts would have remained sovereign first nations territories. Who could possibly speculate?

However, I think its very safe to say that it would look nothing like modern day Canada.

I guess I was being too general. I'll agree that there are several ways the territory of what is now Canada could have ended up. The one thing I can't allow for - and I think this was 81MC's point - is that the land mass that is now Canada would have remained some undeveloped utopia.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Don't really understand what triggered this comment in this thread? Is there a post which advanced that narrative?

Even if it was a bit tangential, I can't disagree with what Cliff is getting at.

We've set aside these lands and rules, according to the treaties, but much like interpreting anything from 200 years ago, like the US constitution, there's no way that our modern technology was factored into the original agreements. Our modern interpretations must evolve as society and technology does. And yes, many of these decisions are derived from more modern court interpretations but those are based on the treaties we have. These aren't tribes in the rainforests of Brazil who haven't discovered the white man or technology yet. But for some reason that type of interpretation continues whenever we discuss indigenous rights. At some point we need to examine their rights through a modern lens and realize that we need to work together to come up with a new solution.

It is worth examining whether indigenous people can live the life our ancestors "promised" them. I'm of the opinion that it is impossible and we need a full teardown of the current structure but we all know why that's basically a no-go.

Or maybe I'm completely missing the point. That's not impossible either.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The narrative that Canada's indigenous peoples are sacred custodians of the land, and conservationists by tradition, is an attractive one. It fits the myth of the noble savage fending off corruption by modern society. But it's not true. Native bands have demonstrated a capability to exhaust natural resources like fish and game just as readily as non-Natives.

I covered a case in the NWT where several indigenous hunters using snowmobiles and high-powered rifles took down 10 caribou in a few minutes, cut only the prime parts off the animals, and left the rest to rot. Fish and wildlife officers were hated by the locals because they tried to enforce limits on hunting and fishing.

Oops, my middle finger drug across the screen and thanked this post-my inner racist exposing himself again. On the other hand I have witnessed such actions myself. You can see it in forestry, fishing, hunting....

[OMG!WTF!]

Seems like they just need to define "moderate livelihood" a bit better to resolve the problem. Lobster fishing to sustain a band is a bit different than poaching as much as possible to sell during off market seasons. Of course people take a mile. It's what we all do.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Don't really understand what triggered this comment in this thread? Is there a post which advanced that narrative?

I mean this is Cliff's schtick. You're not used to it by now?

[81MC]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Can you expand on what you mean?

Sure. Colonization did not start, nor stop, with Canada and it’s indigenous inhabitants.
As an example: The war of 1812, France tried in the 1800s to colonize Mexico, with an Austrian emperor. Cuba went through a brutal colonization of Spanish rule until the early 1900s, the Philippines were Spanish until 1898. Almost the entirety of Africa was colonized by the 1900s. Russia had colonized Alaska until sold to the states in the 1867.

And that’s after literal thousands of years of empires. Nowhere in the history of modern man has a nation looked at a vast, unknown land and decided ‘eh, it probably has people living there, so we’ll let it be’.

You could even get into native tribalism and warfare. The Iroquois were undoubtedly more humane and democratic than they were ever given credit for. But let’s not pretend native tribes just sat in their space and never engaged in battles over territory.

There is zero chance that native territories from hundreds of years ago would be intact today.

[GGG]

I think it’s funny that colonialists today are mad that the colonialists who made treaties to swindle people didn’t do a good enough job so now want to tear them up.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Even if it was a bit tangential, I can't disagree with what Cliff is getting at.

We've set aside these lands and rules, according to the treaties, but much like interpreting anything from 200 years ago, like the US constitution, there's no way that our modern technology was factored into the original agreements. Our modern interpretations must evolve as society and technology does. And yes, many of these decisions are derived from more modern court interpretations but those are based on the treaties we have. These aren't tribes in the rainforests of Brazil who haven't discovered the white man or technology yet. But for some reason that type of interpretation continues whenever we discuss indigeynous rights. At some point we need to examine their rights through a modern lens and realize that we need to work together to come up with a new solution.

It is worth examining whether indigenous people can live the life our ancestors "promised" them. I'm of the opinion that it is impossible and we need a full teardown of the current structure but we all know why that's basically a no-go.

Or maybe I'm completely missing the point. That's not impossible either.

The courts interpret them the way they do because we have a common law system that relies heavily on legal precedent. Whether that legal precedent is being interpreted correctly is a discussion that the lawyers here can have, but this is the foundation of our legal system and it's functioning as it should.

The changes you're asking for need to be done legislatively and in negotiation with the various First Nations.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The courts interpret them the way they do because we have a common law system that relies heavily on legal precedent. Whether that legal precedent is being interpreted correctly is a discussion that the lawyers here can have, but this is the foundation of our legal system and it's functioning as it should.

The changes you're asking for need to be done legislatively and in negotiation with the various First Nations.

I'm aware of how our law system works.

I specifically said the changes need to be done together (between governments and with first nations).

The problem is we all know that's basically impossible for a long list of reasons.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The narrative that Canada's indigenous peoples are sacred custodians of the land, and conservationists by tradition, is an attractive one. It fits the myth of the noble savage fending off corruption by modern society. But it's not true. Native bands have demonstrated a capability to exhaust natural resources like fish and game just as readily as non-Natives.

I covered a case in the NWT where several indigenous hunters using snowmobiles and high-powered rifles took down 10 caribou in a few minutes, cut only the prime parts off the animals, and left the rest to rot. Fish and wildlife officers were hated by the locals because they tried to enforce limits on hunting and fishing.

All native people are tree huggers. It's actually one of those racial stereotypes similar to ones like "Asians are all good at math", or "black people are naturally gifted athletes". Dressing up racism as a compliment is still racism. People are not mindless automatons beholden to their ethnic background. Plus, the narrative is false. It suggests people are locked into a task because of their genetics and takes away their creativity and hard work. By applying that stereotype to aboriginals, it creates a climate for people to judge them negatively if they aren't pursuing that racialized agenda.

I work for an environmental firm in BC with a few First Nations as clients, and I can tell you that most are very driven by economic growth through development of their land and resources. And yeah, they want to do it in environmentally sustainable ways, but most people (aboriginal or otherwise) want the same thing in that respect.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Even if it was a bit tangential, I can't disagree with what Cliff is getting at.

We've set aside these lands and rules, according to the treaties, but much like interpreting anything from 200 years ago, like the US constitution, there's no way that our modern technology was factored into the original agreements. Our modern interpretations must evolve as society and technology does. And yes, many of these decisions are derived from more modern court interpretations but those are based on the treaties we have. These aren't tribes in the rainforests of Brazil who haven't discovered the white man or technology yet. But for some reason that type of interpretation continues whenever we discuss indigenous rights. At some point we need to examine their rights through a modern lens and realize that we need to work together to come up with a new solution.

It is worth examining whether indigenous people can live the life our ancestors "promised" them. I'm of the opinion that it is impossible and we need a full teardown of the current structure but we all know why that's basically a no-go.

Or maybe I'm completely missing the point. That's not impossible either.

The bolded is (roughly speaking) the courts' interpretative approach to treaties and treaty rights in Canada:

It was established in Simon, supra, at p. 402, that treaty provisions should be interpreted “in a flexible way that is sensitive to the evolution of changes in normal” practice, and Sundown, supra, at para. 32, confirms that courts should not use a “frozen-in-time” approach to treaty rights.

SOURCE: R. v. Simon, para 53.
LINK: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../1739/index.do

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Sure. Colonization did not start, nor stop, with Canada and it’s indigenous inhabitants.
As an example: The war of 1812, France tried in the 1800s to colonize Mexico, with an Austrian emperor. Cuba went through a brutal colonization of Spanish rule until the early 1900s, the Philippines were Spanish until 1898. Almost the entirety of Africa was colonized by the 1900s. Russia had colonized Alaska until sold to the states in the 1867.

And that’s after literal thousands of years of empires. Nowhere in the history of modern man has a nation looked at a vast, unknown land and decided ‘eh, it probably has people living there, so we’ll let it be’.

You could even get into native tribalism and warfare. The Iroquois were undoubtedly more humane and democratic than they were ever given credit for. But let’s not pretend native tribes just sat in their space and never engaged in battles over territory.

There is zero chance that native territories from hundreds of years ago would be intact today.

Don't really understand what the point of this hypothetical alternate reality is though? I mean, what is the significance of this observation (even if, for the sake of argument, we accept it as true).

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Don't really understand what the point of this hypothetical alternate reality is though? I mean, what is the significance of this observation (even if, for the sake of argument, we accept it as true).

...because I was asked to expand on an idea of an earlier post? One that supported another’s assertion that, regardless of means, some group other than the mi’kmaw would likely be living in the area. And I believe that was asserted because someone else claimed the non-natives were only living there as a result of the treaty.

So...I guess the point is that it was in direct response to a a request?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by 81MC

This is an impotent point, one I feel is often overlooked. The notion that the native lands in Canada would have been left alone, and the indigenous people free in their own territory in 2020 is rather naive and totally unrealistic.


I’m also intrigued by the thought of treaties vs. conquest. I have no idea about the particulars of the treaty, but an agreement in perpetuity is a bad idea. If conquest were in fact the only way to change this...

The treaties were made with absolute no forethought or consideration of the long term future. It was all about doing what had immediate benefits to win against other colonial nations at the time. They never conceived of a world where the treaties would be forever binding and that conquest wasn't the eventual solution. Treaties were considered a stop-gap solution until they could get the upper hand.

When the UN adopted the Indigenous Rights declaration, only 4 nations of 159 voted against it (Canada, U.S.A., New Zealand, and Australia). All of which used similar treaty systems that recognize indigenous groups as "nations" under treaties. Eventually, all 4 adopted it (Canada in 2016). Countries like Mexico for example, never had that system. They have recognized indigenous people, but none of them are legally classified as "nations". While it sounds like semantics, the UN definition of a "nation" gives aboriginal groups more power.

In Mexico, being one nation, most things will have a "yes/no" solution. Aboriginal groups have similar rights when is comes to protecting their culture and using their resources, but they don't have a separate legal basis for negotiating anything. In Canada, everything has to be negotiated on a nation-by-nation basis under the UN declaration.

[Weitz]

I'm not sure how the path we are currently on is supposed to make everyone better in the next 20-100 years. If anything as resources and money start to dwindle there is going to be more anger and more division. Two sets of rules for 2 different sets of people will never end well. No matter what old treaties or case law says.