HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2019, 10:23 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Just working within the framework we have.

Yes a different set of laws for different people based on ethnicity is odious.
Indian Act is based on ancestry, not ethnicity. It isn't open to all indigenous people, just First Nations people who trace their lineage back along certain lines. That's why so many white people have status now, and many natives face significant hurdles getting it. It's not likely my mom will ever be able to actually get her status card, and that prevents me from getting one. I can prove I'm a certain percentage native through a DNA test but this is based on documented genealogy and we're missing too many documents. Now that my grandmother has passed away (she only got status in the late 1990s) we probably can't get it at all.

Not that I'm particularly upset about it, it's a bizarre system:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
I am pretty damn certain that at some point in the future (on that distant day when a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, which I think will inevitably come) people will look back at Canada and be astonished that this racial apartheid system lasted through the 20th century and into the 21st. It's incredibly anachronistic and I guess you have to be looking from the outside to see it. Similarly, it's possible South Africans in the early 1990s who grew up with their system found it normal too - "its just the way things are and have (from living memory) always been".
Yes, it's something I've pointed out a lot. South Africa and the Nazis both got inspiration from how we treat native people, but somehow, we're the ones still doing this? A chief in Manitoba back in the 1980s invited white supremacists from South Africa to his reserve and they made a big deal about how it was "exactly like apartheid". But most Canadians reacted to it with their usual "?!? No it isn't. You seem totally unhinged and disconnected from reality and we're pretty much going to stop paying any attention to you from now on."
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2019, 10:48 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,014
It's a bit of a poisoned gift, that status. If you want to be glass-half-full about it, be happy you don't have it.

Remember SSPer freeweed? I distinctly recall he said he could have had status (pretty sure he's from NWO like you) and that the best decision he ever made was to get out of that system and become a normal Canadian. Last I checked he had a six figure engineering job in Calgary - probably living more comfortably than anyone on reserve but corrupt chiefs.
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2019, 3:09 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
There isn't really anything stopping someone with status from being successful. At the same time, it doesn't really help them be successful either. The issue is the quality of life on the reserve.

You don't have to live on the reserve to have a status card, my grandmother never lived in Couchiching at any point in her life but was a member for over 20 years, my great grandmother lived there briefly after the residential school era then moved into the town (if native women married white men, they lost their status and had to leave—because it is not a race-based policy).

Most people here are just using it for the tax break, since Ontario has point of sale PST exemptions for status card holders (under certain conditions but you can never follow them or you get accused of racism so you just accept it every time—technically a fully native person who lives in the city should only ever use it for services, and never goods, but no one follows that rule). A lot of people bitch about it but I know several native people that never use them because of the racism they get when they pull the card out. On the other hand, I know several white people with native spouses (male and female) who take their spouse's card with them and use it when they shop because it's "for them" and "we live on the rez". In the end the whole thing is an incredible hassle and on average, the customers at my work who use it to save money are saving less than $5.

With the exception of people with status who work on a reserve, all native people pay income tax on earned income like everyone else does. If they live on the reserve and work off the reserve (like those in Attawapiskat who work at the Victor mine), they pay income taxes. If the mine were located on reserve lands, they'd be tax exempt.
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2019, 3:20 AM
Bishop2047's Avatar
Bishop2047 Bishop2047 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 693
Personally I am against anything that gives someone a leg up (or hinders them) based upon the birth lottery in this country. For this reason I am pro-equalization in Canada (you don't controls what resources are found under what ground) and pro immigration (I count myself lucky to have been born here and many others are born into less fortunate situations).

Anything that gives an individual special treatment based upon lineage will only perpetuate discrimination, and make reconciliation more difficult.
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2019, 7:19 AM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is online now
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop2047 View Post
I work in the North, and on First Nations in several provinces.

My observations have concluded that FN leadership is made up entirely of human beings and they are prone to the same shortcomings and disappointments any other human being placed in leadership is prone to.

At the same time those in leadership positions are capable of improving the lot of those they are in power over.

These are just the wild observations of an outsider.
ding ding ding
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2019, 8:02 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,657
In 50 years, we will be having this exact same conversation and continue to discuss why Natives are so economically and socially disadvantaged unless things change radically. Unfortunately I don't see that happening and most of that being entirely due to Chiefs. Native Chiefs hold a huge amount of sway and influence upon the the citizens of the Reserves, far more than any mayor does. On the Reserves, the Chiefs are only one step down from being feudal lords and they very much relish the wealth, power, and influence that comes with their positions.

In order to truly tackle the social ills that plague our Native people and especially ones on the Reserves, the entire political structure of the Reserves themselves needs to change at a fundamental level. Chiefs, in general, are loath to give up the privilege and money they enjoy and because they are the representatives at the FCN with whom Ottawa negotiates, that fundamental change will never come.
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2019, 11:51 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Indian Act is based on ancestry, not ethnicity. It isn't open to all indigenous people, just First Nations people who trace their lineage back along certain lines. That's why so many white people have status now, and many natives face significant hurdles getting it. It's not likely my mom will ever be able to actually get her status card, and that prevents me from getting one. I can prove I'm a certain percentage native through a DNA test but this is based on documented genealogy and we're missing too many documents. Now that my grandmother has passed away (she only got status in the late 1990s) we probably can't get it at all.
Granted. Though it's still problematic to have different "classes" of people within the same country based on ancestry.

That being said, I can kinda understand the rationale for keeping indigenous people "apart" from the wider population, and in spite of all the comparisons to South Africa (which are admittedly apt in some cases) it's not entirely a question of the non-indigenous people saying "ewww keep those people away from us".

All of the policy instruments that set indigenous people apart in Canada are intended to help maintain their cultures and way of life. Do they miss the mark? Yes. Arguably more often than not.

But that was still the goal and indigenous leadership has generally always been on board for at least that aspect of things.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2019, 12:25 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
It's a bit of a poisoned gift, that status. If you want to be glass-half-full about it, be happy you don't have it.

Remember SSPer freeweed? I distinctly recall he said he could have had status (pretty sure he's from NWO like you) and that the best decision he ever made was to get out of that system and become a normal Canadian. Last I checked he had a six figure engineering job in Calgary - probably living more comfortably than anyone on reserve but corrupt chiefs.
But that's exactly what indigenous people (or at least a lot of them) don't want: to be Canadians just like everyone else that simply blend into the mass.

And that's also what most Québécois don't want as well: to simply be Canadians comme les autres.

Of course, in the case of Québécois we have a whole bunch of favourable factors that allow us to mostly live that way, and that indigenous people do not have on their side.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2019, 7:09 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
But that's exactly what indigenous people (or at least a lot of them) don't want: to be Canadians just like everyone else that simply blend into the mass..
A very good point and one of the primary reasons why Natives tend to be socially & economically shunned by the general population. If one demands special recognition and the ability to run their affairs then how can one simultaneously be surprised that Canadians treat them differently than the society at large? If one makes a conscious decision to rebel against the general societal views then how can that same person {or group} be offended when the society turns around and obliges them?

There are benefits and consequences of all decisions we make as both individuals and a society. It is both immature and irresponsible to demand one and not be willing to expect the other but this is what Natives Chiefs expect much to the detriment of the people they are suppose to be representing.
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2019, 9:59 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Granted. Though it's still problematic to have different "classes" of people within the same country based on ancestry.

That being said, I can kinda understand the rationale for keeping indigenous people "apart" from the wider population, and in spite of all the comparisons to South Africa (which are admittedly apt in some cases) it's not entirely a question of the non-indigenous people saying "ewww keep those people away from us".

All of the policy instruments that set indigenous people apart in Canada are intended to help maintain their cultures and way of life. Do they miss the mark? Yes. Arguably more often than not.

But that was still the goal and indigenous leadership has generally always been on board for at least that aspect of things.
I imagine that all the "settlers" could leave, but that might be even more problematic ...
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2019, 10:02 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
A very good point and one of the primary reasons why Natives tend to be socially & economically shunned by the general population. If one demands special recognition and the ability to run their affairs then how can one simultaneously be surprised that Canadians treat them differently than the society at large? If one makes a conscious decision to rebel against the general societal views then how can that same person {or group} be offended when the society turns around and obliges them?

There are benefits and consequences of all decisions we make as both individuals and a society. It is both immature and irresponsible to demand one and not be willing to expect the other but this is what Natives Chiefs expect much to the detriment of the people they are suppose to be representing.
How then would you explain the same reactions experienced by aboriginal Canadians who have tried to assimilate into mainstream society?
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:08 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
I just read this article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...dent-1.5420764

...and want to understand the rules a little better (just for personal knowledge).

Quote:
Both Zheng and his now defunct company, Guang Da International, were charged after a federal fishery officer intercepted a shipment of lobster at the Halifax airport in October 2017.

Zheng said it was an accident that lobster caught out of season by Indigenous fishermen was shipped for sale to China from his lobster pound in Belliveau's Cove.
Quote:
The food, social and ceremonial license conditions prohibit the sale of the catch. Various shipping documents indicating the lobster had been sold to an Asian market were seized.
Quote:
Stares also noted the case has nothing to do with the landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling that recognizes an Indigenous right to fish for a moderate living.

"As a non-Aboriginal, Mr. Zheng may not claim shelter under Aboriginal rights." he said. "In its simplest form, non-commercial lobster was sold."
Based on the above quotes, I surmise that it is legal for Aboriginal people to fish out of season, and sell their catch, but illegal for a non-Aboriginal to re-sell it?

Is that correct? The wording of the article is not completely clear.
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:18 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,014
Heard this story yesterday evening on CBC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...bank-1.5419519

What stood out there to me was this part:
Quote:
He believes the employee might have been suspicious because he had $30,000 in his account — an amount he and every other member of the Heiltsuk nation received in December from the federal government as part of an Aboriginal rights settlement package.
Imagine if every single Québécois just got $30,000 no strings attached appearing in their bank account just for existing, while other Canadians didn't get anything. (We were conquered, after all. Got to have some compensation!)

That's completely nuts. I can understand how local non-natives wouldn't be too fond of local natives in that kind of context. Imagine a Thunder Bay divided among poor whites with nearly empty bank accounts and poor natives in equivalent socioeconomic positions but with $30,000 that fell out of the sky into their bank account just because they have a pulse and the "correct" ancestry. Of course that would stoke resentment and division.

I mean, if you think Walloons and Flemish dislike each other already, then imagine an alternate reality in which every single Walloon with a pulse just received 25k€ no strings attached wired into their bank accounts, courtesy of the Belgian treasury into which every one (including the Flemish) all pay. Surely that'll help, right?
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:27 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
I just read this article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...dent-1.5420764

...and want to understand the rules a little better (just for personal knowledge).
You can have a license to fish for a specific reason. For example, you might be allowed to catch lobster to eat yourself but not to sell commercially. The people selling this lobster did not have the right license.

Some native bands negotiate for these fishing licenses since they might, for example, subsist off of something year-round. And it may be perfectly sustainable as long as it's 200 people eating the fish, while it might be unsustainable at commercial export scale.
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:40 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
I imagine that all the "settlers" could leave, but that might be even more problematic ...
You mean the settlers that in many cases have ancestry going back twenty generations in this country?

They are not settlers. Civil and legal rights must never be qualified by how long ago one's ancestors came to Canada, to do so would result in a country little different from apartheid South Africa.

For the record, every single human being that existed in 1608 or 1759 or 1812 or 1867 is now dead.

Despicable comment.
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:46 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
You mean the settlers that in many cases have ancestry going back twenty generations in this country?

They are not settlers. Civil and legal rights must never be qualified by how long ago one's ancestors came to Canada, to do so would result in a country little different from apartheid South Africa.

For the record, every single human being that existed in 1608 or 1759 or 1812 or 1867 is now dead.

Despicable comment.
You might like to look up “sarcasm” in the Oxford ...
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:50 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
They are not settlers. Civil and legal rights must never be qualified by how long ago one's ancestors came to Canada, to do so would result in a country little different from apartheid South Africa.
I am not sure how to square the pro-indigenous settler rhetoric with pro-immigration rhetoric about how the world is full of potential Canadians and we shouldn't say anything about the guy who doesn't speak English or French, lives overseas, and bought his investor class PR in 2015.

Or how we square the actual immigration itself with the idea that there was some kind of ideal state that pre-Columbian people lived in. Aren't we drifting farther from that by encouraging 300,000-500,000 new people to move here every year?

I'm not saying I am against one side of this or the other. But the federal Liberals seem to maintain these two incompatible social constructs concurrently.
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:56 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I am not sure how to square the pro-indigenous settler rhetoric with pro-immigration rhetoric about how the world is full of potential Canadians and we shouldn't say anything about the guy who doesn't speak English or French, lives overseas, and bought his investor class PR in 2015.

Or how we square the actual immigration itself with the idea that there was some kind of ideal platonic state that pre-Columbian people lived in. Aren't we drifting farther from that by encouraging 300,000-500,000 new people to move here every year?

I'm not saying I am against one side of this or the other. But the federal Liberals seem okay to maintain these two incompatible concepts concurrently.
Plain and simple, immigration policy should be designed to meet the economic needs of the country and correspondingly the social needs of its people, with very important considerations for conservation of land and water resources. Current policy is nothing short of reckless. On a per capita basis, Canada has been slipping in and out of technical recession for several years.
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 8:13 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
You can have a license to fish for a specific reason. For example, you might be allowed to catch lobster to eat yourself but not to sell commercially. The people selling this lobster did not have the right license.

Some native bands negotiate for these fishing licenses since they might, for example, subsist off of something year-round. And it may be perfectly sustainable as long as it's 200 people eating the fish, while it might be unsustainable at commercial export scale.
Parts of the 2nd and 3rd quotes I posted are where my confusion lies, specifically:
Quote:
The food, social and ceremonial license conditions prohibit the sale of the catch.
and
Quote:
the case has nothing to do with the landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling that recognizes an Indigenous right to fish for a moderate living.
So if it's prohibited to sell the catch, and this has nothing to do with fishing for a moderate living... I would guess we can draw from this that they were being sold illegally. But then, how come only the non-Indigenous person gets trouble for it?

Or... is it legal for Indigenous to sell to anybody, even a business, but it's only illegal once the business sells it. If that's the case, wouldn't knowingly selling to a business who exists to resell lobster also be a crime?
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 8:18 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Or... is it legal for Indigenous to sell to anybody, even a business, but it's only illegal once the business sells it. If that's the case, wouldn't knowingly selling to a business who exists to resell lobster also be a crime?
I don't get that part. I know people who have those special licenses and they are aware that they're not allowed to sell what they catch to anybody. I don't know what the penalties are.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.