First Nations in Canada

[someone123]

Originally Posted by vid

You refer to the 19th/20th century treaties as "fairly balanced" but you should know (since you've never actually lived under any of them, like I have for my entire life) that they were negotiated and signed in a process that involved the crown sending semi-literate messengers to chiefs that barely understood English, resulting in a lot of assumptions on both sides as to what the treaties actually contained in them. The native people, as they did for centuries, passed down their understanding of the treaties orally. The government kept it on file but didn't put much effort into actually following through with what it said on paper let alone what the Chiefs interpreted it as saying and therefore agreed to.

Well, I posted one from the 18th century. You have to take the historical context into account when evaluating how reasonable these treaties were. Most people were not literate in the 18th and 19th centuries and travel was difficult. The main goals of European authorities were to keep a basic peace and prevent native groups from allying with enemy powers (in NS the Mi'kmaq were on the side of France for a while after France handed over the territory).

I am mostly comparing the documented history against the popular narrative that has coalesced up over the past 10-20 years, at least in NS. A lot of people consider Cornwallis a bloodthirsty guy who encouraged pogroms to clear out natives from the area. In reality he was only there for 3 years and signed a peace treaty before he left. I doubt he was a very good person by today's standards or even that day's standards but he wasn't a mini Hitler either. I don't know much about the history of the Thunder Bay area so it's hard for me to comment on that. If it is particularly awful though it's not necessarily representative of all of Canada.

If there are problems with the treaties that's to be expected. They should be replaced with a more modern legal framework, and these agreement will always be imperfect. I would prefer to phase out the entire system and focus on making sure everybody has personal freedoms, property rights, and good quality public infrastructure. I am generally against "blood and soil" politics.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There are many wrongs that were done within the past century that definitely need to be corrected, and 'we' (society and the government) need to act to correct them (though as with most things - 'correction' is just compensation, as you can never undo most things that were done).

Attitudes must continue to change and work has to be done - but mostly I think we need to find common ground where we all can put our differences to rest. If we could retain the individuality of ourselves and of our cultures, while understanding and respecting others', that's where I think our country could be at its best. Will we ever get there? I'm not sure, but I really hope that we continue to try...

You are correct, there have been many wrongs done in the past. Not sure what more can be done to correct these wrongs though. I hear a lot about reconciliation but there can be none if there is no forgiveness.

During the last federal elections, there was a lot of of talk of Aboriginal issues. there was a whole segment about Aboriginal issues during the debates. Barely a day goes by when I dont hear something aboriginal related on the radio. No other single ethnic group gets that much attention to their concerns in the media.

What ever Aboriginal leadership wants or ask for should be given to them. Just give them what every they feel they need to improve their situatuion. At the end of the day for some it will probably never be enough, but that's just the way the system has been set up. The ball is really in their court.

From what I see though, future generations of Canadians will not be as sympathetic to their cause.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I understand that.

But the pragmatist within me has to ask the question - what do we do with that?

I mean, the Canada of today has virtually nothing in common with the Canada of the 1700s. There have been a lot of wrongs in the last 300 years but rightly - or wrongly - the country has been built up to be what it is today.

In some way we all benefit from Canada in its current state, and IMHO, it is now one of the best countries in which to live. Not perfect, true, but what is?

There are many wrongs that were done within the past century that definitely need to be corrected, and 'we' (society and the government) need to act to correct them (though as with most things - 'correction' is just compensation, as you can never undo most things that were done).

Attitudes must continue to change and work has to be done - but mostly I think we need to find common ground where we all can put our differences to rest. If we could retain the individuality of ourselves and of our cultures, while understanding and respecting others', that's where I think our country could be at its best. Will we ever get there? I'm not sure, but I really hope that we continue to try...

Totally agree about moving forward but for groups whose existence as unique human entities actually pre-dates the establishment of the current federal state (or even any of its predecessors) they're going to be hesitant about going "forward" (sic) if that means repeating the mistakes of the past, or even be touchy about the future that we are marching forward to being a clear departure from a past that was unpleasant for them.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Possibly. But most people with status already live off-reserve and the off-reserve population is growing 4x faster.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...71025a-eng.htm

I know a few people with status who live typical lives in metro Vancouver and seem to have no desire to move to a rural area to connect with the land or whatever the stereotype is. Obviously there's selection bias here, but they seem to be following the usual trend of urbanization, and in doing so they are picking more cosmopolitan cities over a more distinct lifestyle and stronger cultural connection.

Although, and while it might seem contradictory to some, a high percentage of the urban indigenous population these days has a heightened degree of identification with indigenous culture and issues, and the level of militancy and activism seems to increase progressively as you go downwards into younger generations.

Young indigenous people who have either moved to cities or where born and raised there tend to be quite adamant about indigenous rights, accommodation and recognition.

My guess is that this probably isn't chiefly a product of them being in urban areas, but rather part of generalized trend of increased awareness of indigenous identity of young people across Canada, whether they live in indigenous communities like reserves or in cities as fairly small minorities.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Totally agree about moving forward but for groups whose existence as unique human entities actually pre-dates the establishment of the current federal state (or even any of its predecessors) they're going to be hesitant about going "forward" (sic) if that means repeating the mistakes of the past, or even be touchy about the future that we are marching forward to being a clear departure from a past that was unpleasant for them.

"forward" (sic)

?? Is there a grammatical/spelling error there?

IMHO we don't have much choice in the matter - the world moves forward whether we like it or not, and not always in the best way for all people - some times in the worst way for most people. Regardless, whether we like it or not, things have changed - we don't still trade animal skins as currency, nor do I think that anybody wants to. I don't see anybody using horses or birch bark canoes as their main means of transportation (though the environment might be better if we did). We've mostly accepted that things are different than they were 300 years ago, and we generally accept and embrace the benefits that have been afforded by change. So in a way, much of this has already happened - assimilation of the modern world, that is.

That doesn't change the fact that 'Canada' needs to equalize things for its indigenous people, and perhaps the only struggle point is what 'equalization' actually consists of - I'm not sure - but it's clear things are still not good for our indigenous people. I guess my main point of contention is where we go with all of that.

...So therefore, I can't help but think that it would be at its best if we could all work together to make it the best world that we can rather than spend the rest of eternity fighting among ourselves (which humans appear to be very good at).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

?? Is there a grammatical/spelling error there?

IMHO we don't have much choice in the matter - the world moves forward whether we like it or not, and not always in the best way for all people - some times in the worst way for most people. Regardless, whether we like it or not, things have changed - we don't still trade animal skins as currency, nor do I think that anybody wants to. I don't see anybody using horses or birch bark canoes as their main means of transportation (though the environment might be better if we did). We've mostly accepted that things are different than they were 300 years ago, and we generally accept and embrace the benefits that have been afforded by change. So in a way, much of this has already happened - assimilation of the modern world, that is.

That doesn't change the fact that 'Canada' needs to equalize things for its indigenous people, and perhaps the only struggle point is what 'equalization' actually consists of - I'm not sure - but it's clear things are still not good for our indigenous people. I guess my main point of contention is where we go with all of that.

...So therefore, I can't help but think that it would be at its best if we could all work together to make it the best world that we can rather than spend the rest of eternity fighting among ourselves (which humans appear to be very good at).

Oh, we're moving forward. No question about that. But where are we marching to is a decision that we can and do make, and another part of that decision if we march together or not, harmoniously or not.

I don't think we disagree much on this BTW.

[OldDartmouthMark]

...And FWIW, I don't believe that "forward" always equals "better" or "improved", at least not by my definition. Sometimes it can be that symbolic treadmill that we have no choice but to run with ...or not, and I agree that the decision is ours to make... or not make (which is a decision unto itself). Hopefully whatever that is will at least be better for most, if not all (the musings of an eternal optimist)...

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Although, and while it might seem contradictory to some, a high percentage of the urban indigenous population these days has a heightened degree of identification with indigenous culture and issues, and the level of militancy and activism seems to increase progressively as you go downwards into younger generations.

Young indigenous people who have either moved to cities or where born and raised there tend to be quite adamant about indigenous rights, accommodation and recognition.

My guess is that this probably isn't chiefly a product of them being in urban areas, but rather part of generalized trend of increased awareness of indigenous identity of young people across Canada, whether they live in indigenous communities like reserves or in cities as fairly small minorities.

I live in a city where about 15% of the population in indigenous and it is also the fastest growing demographic. I agree that the younger indigenous people are much more politically active than the older ones. We now have a fairly young indigenous city councillor. (she's racially half indigenous and half black)

But I do have to say that the vast majority of indigenous youth are not SJW type people. Many are much more open and wanting to connect with others of different backgrounds in various ways. I work with a number of indigenous people and get along well with all of them as do others in our office.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Here's a case where the feds should step in and do something. The amount of funding needed to help this organization would be a drop in the bucket for the feds and would provide real improvement for peoples' lives.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...lems-1.5425085

Tawaak Housing Association was formed in 1981 and manages 142 units in Nova Scotia using government subsidies and affordable rents that range between about $300 and $1,000 per month. The units, which are mostly duplexes, are meant to provide suitable and low-cost homes to Indigenous people having trouble finding homes.

"Our subsidies were frozen in 2009," he said. "We haven't received an increase in subsidies, while all [our] costs have increased."

Dezagiacomo said when Tawaak was set up in the 1980s, some of its operating subsidies were tied to its mortgages. As mortgages are now being paid off, those subsidies are ending. He said that caused a 12 per cent drop in funding each of the past two years.

"It's been fairly bleak over the past number of years," he said.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I live in a city where about 15% of the population in indigenous and it is also the fastest growing demographic. I agree that the younger indigenous people are much more politically active than the older ones. We now have a fairly young indigenous city councillor. (she's racially half indigenous and half black)

But I do have to say that the vast majority of indigenous youth are not SJW type people. Many are much more open and wanting to connect with others of different backgrounds in various ways. I work with a number of indigenous people and get along well with all of them as do others in our office.

I guess it depends on your definition of SJW. (I'd add I don't think SJW people generally frown on contact with "others".)

But anyway, if I use my definition of SJW, most indigenous young people (20s and 30s) I know would certainly qualify as SJW types in terms of indigenous issues.

And most would also have (what you might call) SJW stances on most non-indigenous issues as well. Though some are pretty indifferent to those, and just focused on the indigenous - but will play lip service to the others, if asked.

[Luisito]

Most natives I know are apolitical. The ones I know that do pay atention to politicas seem to be the very stereotype of SJW's. Things I hear often from them are that we live in a white supremacist patriarchy. Christianity bad and Islam good because they are POC (people of color) like us. I hear this shit at work all the time from Natives.

I have been called a right wing facist at work for saying I can't stand drug addicts. I was talking about something that came out in the news about needles found near a playground and the fact my car had been broken into. Just because I complained I was a right wing facist.

If they think things are bad now. Wait until Indians and Chinese are the majority, they will give even less fucks about them.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Mostly as a result of white men forcing them to, no...?
.

Sure, the origins of democracy are generally credited to Ancient Greece which is in Europe. But that's at least partly a reflection of our historical prism. They were arguably a proto-democracy (and obviously the one that gained the most worldwide traction) but proto-democratic systems also existed in the Tigris-Euphrates region and also in parts of India.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree with those who say this conversation should migrate to another thread about First Nations governance - perhaps this one?

On the point, I am tiring of people indicating this is "white man" vs indigenous people - that narrative sounds like it's a throwback from a century ago. Clearly it's a case of many indigenous communities banding together to put pressure on the government of Canada to help a lone indigenous community who has had a legal decision fall not in their favour.

Let's just try to keep our narratives clear?

That's not a clear narrative to me at all.

Fundamentally it's not about a "lone indigenous community who has had a legal decision fall not in their favour".

The elected leaders of the community in question actually struck a deal to let the pipeline go through their land.

Some people in the community who are not elected don't agree (mostly this elders group) and set up blockades.

The legal decision went against these guys, not against the wider community. And was basically ordering them to dismantle their blockage. It's not directly related to the project's approval itself.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's not a clear narrative to me at all.

Fundamentally it's not about a "lone indigenous community who has had a legal decision fall not in their favour".

The elected leaders of the community in question actually struck a deal to let the pipeline go through their land.

Some people in the community who are not elected don't agree (mostly this elders group) and set up blockades.

The legal decision went against these guys, not against the wider community. And was basically ordering them to dismantle their blockage. It's not directly related to the project's approval itself.

Ah... thanks for providing an actual clear narrative.

"My bad" on my post.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's not a clear narrative to me at all.

Fundamentally it's not about a "lone indigenous community who has had a legal decision fall not in their favour".

The elected leaders of the community in question actually struck a deal to let the pipeline go through their land.

Some people in the community who are not elected don't agree (mostly this elders group) and set up blockades.

The legal decision went against these guys, not against the wider community. And was basically ordering them to dismantle their blockage. It's not directly related to the project's approval itself.

It is very important to realize the "hereditary chiefs" causing trouble are damaging the interests of theWet’suwet’en people as well. This very interesting fact was in the Globe & Mail today:

...Two Wet’suwet’en Nation members at the forefront of the opposition to Coastal GasLink – Freda Huson, a Wet’suwet’en Nation hereditary chief, and Warner Naziel, who goes by the name hereditary Chief Smogelgem – actually ran in the Witset Band Council election (in Wet’suwet’en) last August. Chief Smogelgem would have maintained jurisdiction over the land either way, since the Supreme Court’s Delgamuukw decision upheld aboriginal title over unceded land, essentially meaning that hereditary chiefs – not elected chiefs and council – have authority over off-reserve land. But the election was nevertheless an opportunity for Chief Smogelgem to represent his band as both an elected spokesperson as well as a Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief.

The Witset membership, however, had other ideas, and elected a pro-GasLink candidate, Sandra George, over Chief Smogelgem and Ms. Huson. That outcome, along with the council’s approval of the pipeline, ought to signal the temperature of members on the issue....(bold mine)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...-that-support/

[Acajack]

I wonder if anyone will point out the irony that we don't like the idea of hereditary chiefs when the head of state of the entire country is, well, you know...

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=fr&t...4dUDCAU&uact=5

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's not a clear narrative to me at all.

Fundamentally it's not about a "lone indigenous community who has had a legal decision fall not in their favour".

The elected leaders of the community in question actually struck a deal to let the pipeline go through their land.

Some people in the community who are not elected don't agree (mostly this elders group) and set up blockades.

The legal decision went against these guys, not against the wider community. And was basically ordering them to dismantle their blockage. It's not directly related to the project's approval itself.

Wasn’t the point of contention that the elected reps have no authority off the reserve?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Wasn’t the point of contention that the elected reps have no authority off the reserve?

If so, then why would the elders, for their part, have any more authority off the reserve?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I wonder if anyone will point out the irony that we don't like the idea of hereditary chiefs when the head of state of the entire country is, well, you know...

https://www.google.ca/search?hl=fr&t...4dUDCAU&uact=5

Easily addressed by a slightly amended statement - "hereditary chiefs having any actual power is an idea we find unpalatable". We're fine with them existing, having a ceremonial role, and seeing their picture here and there within the context of their tribe.

If the Queen of England took a firm position against the (approved by Canadian authorities) Trans Mountain pipeline, wouldn't we tell her to shut up and mind her own business? We probably (hopefully) would. But she's wise enough to not ever do that, so moot point. Let those hereditary chiefs be like her.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Easily addressed by a slightly amended statement - "hereditary chiefs having any actual power is an idea we find unpalatable". We're fine with them existing, having a ceremonial role, and seeing their picture here and there within the context of their tribe.

If the Queen of England took a firm position against the (approved by Canadian authorities) Trans Mountain pipeline, wouldn't we tell her to shut up and mind her own business? We probably (hopefully) would. But she's wise enough to not ever do that, so moot point. Let those hereditary chiefs be like her.

Solution accepted.