Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Ron Paul: The immorality of taxpayer funded abortion | Main | The absurdity of ‘misconduct’ in politics »

Monday, July 27, 2009

Abolish the Reserve System

This is an update to a post I made in April of 2008.

A paper published in April 2008 by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy suggests leaving the reserve might be the key to success for First Nations people.

Leaving reserve is key to aboriginal success: think tank

Many reserves are short on resources, recreation, education and other necessities They often have higher rates of suicide, alcoholism and spousal abuse compared to urban centers, leaving the reserve is not a bad idea if a person is living in these sorts of conditions.

Jacqueline Romanow, acting director of the Aboriginal Governance Program at the University of Winnipeg, agreed with (The Frontier Centre's) findings.

"The reason why people do better off-reserve is because there's more access to resources and education and opportunities," she said. "So how do you bring those opportunities and resources and make them accessible to everyone in Canada?"

A PDF of the full report from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

What I propose is different though.

Reserves are funded by the federal government through what are called transfer payments. For example, Manitoba reserves received $582 million dollars in transfer payments in 2000.

Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada Transfers to Indian Bands by Region 1992-2000

45% of the federal government's income is from income tax. So, the reserve system takes the income from one group of people and transfers it to another group of people, it is wealth re-distribution, which is an immoral practice and should only be done on a consensual, voluntary level.

While recognizing that treaties have been signed in the past which accounts for these transfer payments, the people of today were not a party to those agreements, yet they are on the hook to pay for them.

The reserve system keeps the people living on reserves dependant on government handouts. Dependency is not a good thing in these sort of cases, with it there is little incentive for competition, innovation, bettering one's self, etc.

Often reserves were set-up in areas that the people didn't already live; they might have been moved there, often to less than ideal surroundings. Traditionally, Aboriginal people lived off of the natural resources of the land; but if put in a less than ideal area it becomes harder to do that, then the dependency occurs.

Something I think that many Aboriginals will have to face is that much of their traditional lands are gone; they were taken over by the European settlers and later the Canadian government which claims ownership over all lands in this country. Lands claims have dragged on for generations and are rarely settled because the government doesn't want to give up control; government is about control.

I propose 3 things;

First - Self Reliance

Firstly, the federal government gets out of the business of funding and running reserves, with full control being given back to the communities. They can choose which system they want, be it with chiefs, a hereditary system, communal property or some other system; they can choose. They can govern themselves according to their own customs and practices. They can live as they see fit and use their resources as they see fit. They will not need any permission from federal or provincial governments in how they choose to use their resources or do business.

The reasons for this are many; firstly it will foster self-reliance. This is very important; when things are handed to you often they will not hold the same value as if it was something you earned. In the current reserve system, the band owns most of the houses, not the individuals. Incentive is important when becoming self-reliant. The government has created a culture of dependance which is damaging aboriginal people.

Second - Private Property

The second thing to look at is land claims. If the land claim process is to expedited, then some measure of surrender needs to be conceded. Trying to get the land back that the government stole from aboriginal people hundreds of years ago is going to be nearly impossible, as evidenced by the generations of efforts already put forth to little reward. Be willing to take less than you want.

Make it true private property with clear boundaries and definitions, get a large enough area that your people can live off of and use for both survival and perhaps leasing to companies for forestry, hydro, mining etc. That can provide a very nice income for a community without the interference or permission of the federal government.

Gone will be the many instances of the federal government giving permission to companies to do work on traditional lands without the consultation of the communities; which is an all too often occurrence. Gone will be the need for road blocks and violent conflicts over land (such as the Oka Crisis) if there is true private property.

Third - Sovereignty

Has the federal government ever fully honored a Treaty? I would be glad to see one, because they are like talking dogs; they don't exist. The Canadian government has a long history of abuse when it comes to Aboriginals; residential schools, outlawing their ceremonies, racism, not being able to vote, etc. Withdraw from all of these treaties, they have all been breached and there shouldn't be an expectation that they will be honored through enough negotiation and diplomacy, stop doing business with the Canadian government.

Declare yourselves independent, sovereign, self-efficient nations that can exists peacefully between each other. If a particular first nation didn't sign treaties (such as the Gitxsan) then they are already one step closer to true sovereignty.

These steps will promote native self government, freedom, and I am convinced that it would improve conditions on reserves tremendously because once you are no longer dependant on the government teet you can go forward with all of your will and power and make a life for yourselves. The people of today will no longer be responsible for the mistakes and crimes of people that lived before, as they shouldn't be.

The first step has already begun. The Lakota Nation in parts of the U.S. have withdrawn from all treaties and declared themselves a sovereign nation.

Republic of Lakotah

A step in the right direction as I see it.

Doing these things will allow aboriginals to govern themselves. It won't be the same way it was 500 years ago, that isn't very likely to happen on a large scale, but aboriginal communities can once again flourish if the federal government would get out of the business of running the lives of the Aboriginal people.

To quote Aboriginal actor and activist, Russel Means;

Anyone of integrity in the world would be insulted that their government has a department that is strictly to oversee an ethnic group.

Please keep replies cordial and on topic about the issues, racists comments may be deleted.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on July 27, 2009 in Aboriginal Issues | Permalink

Comments

"Trying to get the land back that the government stole from aboriginal people hundreds of years ago is going to be nearly impossible"

We didn't steal anything. The land upon which I currently live was paid for, in full, as per the terms of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, as is the land that many Canadians currently live upon. There are good land claims, and bad ones, and to the extent some treaties haven't been fulfilled, the Indians have been more than compensated by the ten billion plus dollars a year we currently give them. What concerns me about people perpetuating the entirely false claim that we stole their land is that it gives Indians an enormous sense of grievance towards white people which explains a lot of the racial strife that exists between our peoples.

Take the Inuit, for example. They wiped out the Dorsets who preceded them, a complete genocide, and that only happened about a thousand years ago. Relations between tribes were rarely peaceful; read about the Massacre at Bloody Falls to get a sense of what happened when Crees encountered Inuit. They slaughtered them in their sleep.

The system you advocate, one for which I have some time by the way, was tried once before.

The problem: it was tried in South Africa and the new sovereign nations were referred to derisively as Bantustans. The rest of the world did not recognize their sovereignty, and recognition by others is fundamental to sovereignty.

It's quite rich of you to propose a system that so closely parallels that of apartheid South Africa while calling for civility and no "racist" comments, you know what they say about glass houses and stones, Carengie.

I agree with you broadly in this case, and so does international law. Self determination is a human right as per the UN. Consider the consequences, though: not only does this give French Canadians in Quebec the right to self determination, it also gives Anglo-Celtics that right too.

As a white Anglo-Celtic man, I am explicitly discriminated against by my own government via race quotas in the workplace and in the legal system. Adding the millions of new Canadians from other cultures who have arrived in the past 30 odd years, and who have not established good relations with the Anglo-Celtic settlers who founded and populated Canada before their arrival, an even better case for self determination can be made for Anglo-Celtic Canadians than that of French Canadians in Quebec.

Taken further, a case could be made for a homeland for Afro-Canadians in the GTA, for Chinese Canadians and East Indian Canadians in the Lower Mainland.

Finally, I'd like to respond to this:

"Anyone of integrity in the world would be insulted that their government has a department that is strictly to oversee an ethnic group."

If Indians were to give $20,000 a year per capita to Anglo-Celtic Canadians, as we do to them, they can insult me all they want. What is insulting is the billions of dollars a year hardworking Canadians pay to support Indians and their utter lack of gratitude.

It's nice to see you taking a politically incorrect stance for once and presenting it in a well thought out piece, Scott, well done.

Posted by: 745754754 | 2009-07-27 3:12:15 PM


Scott -

If you want to be taken seriously, you should learn how to write grammatically (correct punctuation would also be nice - for example, "racists comments").

I am sorry to be a pedant, but I blog here on occasion and your amateurish prose lets the side down.

Having said that, I am sympathetic to what you are arguing, but I don't think you've thought it through. For example, how do you propose to reconcile the sovereignty of the Crown with that of these new "nations." After all, there are non-natives - lots of them - living on the lands in question. Do you expect them to submit themselves to native jurisdiction?

In addition, your desire for private property and greater individual freedom on reserves is in tension with your embrace of native sovereignty. Do you really think that creating "nations" with extensive self-governing powers (unchecked by any external authority) will lead to greater individual freedom? Given the unaccountable nature of current aboriginal elites, I doubt it.

Posted by: Craig | 2009-07-27 4:40:40 PM


A bad reserve isn't much different than a bad town. A good reserve might actually have many successful natives. It's hard to measure the level of success, based on whether or not someone stays on the reserve.

There are plenty of towns, in Alberta, where kids have to leave to achieve any sort of success. Kids who grow up, and stay, in towns like Consort, Manning, Wainwright, Viking, Valleyview, High Prairie, Bassano, just to name a few, are at high risk of becoming crackhead losers.

Native kids who stay on reserves, such as Loon Lake, Atikameg, Assumption, or Peerless Lake have little hope of personal success. Native kids who stay on some of the nicer reserves have great opportunities to live a traditional life, and work to better their communities.

It's not simply about the reserve system, it's also connected to the opportunities in the given area.

Posted by: dp | 2009-07-27 7:04:24 PM


Not all reserves are terrible, some are better than others, I have been on a few that have a decent economy and good housing; yet they are still a part of a damaged system.

@ Carig "I blog here on occasion and your amateurish prose lets the side down."

I could use a proofreader if you want to volunteer.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-28 7:36:57 AM


"Do you really think that creating "nations" with extensive self-governing powers (unchecked by any external authority) will lead to greater individual freedom?"

Central planning generally does a poor job when compared to more control given to local organizations. At the least, being sovereign means more control over their affairs rather then being managed from Ottawa.

It would lead to more individual freedom in one way because non-reserve residents won't be forced to pay for them anymore. The less money taken out of our pockets the better.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-28 7:42:57 AM


Hey, who is talking here? Pardon me, you make no sense, go back to your daydreaming, we are a nation who are not controlled by the boogie man, my advice, take a long vacation and quit trying to give us advice.

Posted by: Sylvia | 2009-07-28 9:09:49 AM


Sylvia, I had no idea that this site, which is on the world wide web, was your private personal property, my mistake.

If you can't understand sarcasm, let me translate. Maybe you should take the long vacation, because your the one who's living in a dream world.

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-28 9:43:31 AM


"Pardon me, you make no sense"

Do you care to actually address specific issues?

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-28 9:49:28 AM


In addition to the wise words of 745... above, your solutions only involve native people as a series of collectives. It would be better to deed parcels of land to individuals allowing them to decide whether or not to collectivize (in apartheid-like homelands) or join with the rest of Canada where governance is established and generally less corrupt and debilitating.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-07-28 10:09:18 AM


John Chittick said
"your solutions only involve native people as a series of collectives."

Not really. It is about the reserve system, which is seperate from the individuals. If full ownership and control is turned over to the bands then they can choose what system to impliment.

Under the first proposal I said "They can choose which system they want, be it with chiefs, a hereditary system, communal property or some other system"

John Chittick said
"It would be better to deed parcels of land to individuals allowing them to decide whether or not to collectivize"

Good idea, I like it.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-28 10:31:39 AM


Doug, you don't even know me so quit talking to me like you do. I, for one, was brought up in my town and I don't like the word reserve, makes me feel like I am different from the so called establishment. Get real, I love my town, if I were to move to Terrace or Vancouver, how close can I get to the land that we are so blessed with? I don't like concrete jungles and I will always admire the closeness and caring of our small-closed-knit community. We may not be rich but we are wealthy in culture and I will not change my world with another, this is coming from my own perspective. I don't daydream at all, I am a realist who knows my highest levels of achievements and am never a quitter. PEACE!!

Posted by: Sylvia | 2009-07-28 11:28:21 AM


Sylvia,

No one is saying you would be forced off your land. What is being suggested is that natives be given full autonomy through some kind of final land negotiation. The solution being proposed would also result in the ending of subsidies. Do you care to comment on any of those matters?

Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-28 11:56:11 AM


Political debates, call it what you may, I make use of my time picking the vast gardens of berries in my yard and will start smoking and canning more fish. Summer months, I don't talk about Indian politics, life is too short, not everyone feels the way we do and take one day at a time and count your blessings:)

Posted by: Sylvia | 2009-07-28 12:17:38 PM


Sylvia, I only have two predjudices. Stupid people and hypocrits. If anyone says anything stupid, I will call them on it.

To understand what I mean, read any of "Dr. Shane Matthews' posts.

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-28 12:17:47 PM


I see Sylvia is of the Nisgaa. Scott, you said you are unaware of any treaty that has been honoured, here is one example of one that has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisga%27a_Final_Agreement

I lived in BC at the time it was signed and know a bit about this treaty, an unusual one by Canadian standards. I invite readers to read the text and summary of the Nisgaa Final Agreement and judge for themselves whether this is a good treaty or a bad treaty, I'll keep my comments to myself on this one.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/nit-eng.asp

Sylivia says: "Hey, who is talking here? Pardon me, you make no sense, go back to your daydreaming, we are a nation who are not controlled by the boogie man, my advice, take a long vacation and quit trying to give us advice...you don't even know me so quit talking to me like you do. "

This is exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about when I said in my above comment that:

"What concerns me about people perpetuating the entirely false claim that we stole their land is that it gives Indians an enormous sense of grievance towards white people which explains a lot of the racial strife that exists between our peoples."

I am less concerned with the grievances past and present we European peoples are accused of than the astonishing hostility that Natives express towards us today, a hostility that appears to increase in intensity and exponentially the more we try to get along with them and accommodate their demands. They could scarcely hate us any more if we tore up every treaty and took away the ten billion dollars a year we spend on them.

Summary of The Nisgaa Treaty:

Key Features of the Agreement

The Nisga'a Treaty sets out the land and resources that form part of the agreement between Canada, B.C. and the Nisga'a Nation. The Treaty sets out the Nisga'a's right to self-government, and the authority to manage lands and resources. Together, the Treaty and related agreements provide the Nisga'a with:

* $196.1 million dollars (in 1999 dollars);
* 2,019 square kilometers of land;
* an average yearly allocation of 44,588 sockeye salmon, 11,797 coho salmon, 6,330 chum salmon, 6,524 chinook salmon, and 4,430 pink salmon, protected by the Treaty;
* a commercial yearly allocation averaging 28, 913 sockeye and 88,526 pink salmon under an agreement which is not part of the Treaty;
* limited allocations of moose, grizzly bear and goats, for domestic purposes;
* $11.8 million to increase participation in the general commercial fishery;
* $10.3 million in Canada's contribution to the Lisims Fisheries Conservation Trust (to which the Nisga'a provide $3.1 million);
* transition, training and one-time funding of $40.6 million;
* a water reservation for domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes;
* authority to operate their own government, and the ability to make certain laws; and,
* funding to help deliver health, education, and social services to their members and other area residents.

Prior to the Treaty, the Nisga'a Villages delivered health, education, social and other services through a variety of federal and provincial programs. These programs will now be delivered through the Nisga'a Lisims Government under a Fiscal Financing Agreement, which is not part of the Treaty. The first Fiscal Financing Agreement provides funding of $32.7 million per year (1999 dollars).
...
The Nisga'a live in a fairly remote area of northwestern B.C. Approximately 2500 of the 5500 Nisga'a live in the Nass Valley, which they share with about 100 non-Aboriginal residents. Forestry is the dominant economic activity in the Nass Valley, but fishing, eco-tourism, pine mushroom harvesting and service industries are also important.

Posted by: 745754754 | 2009-07-28 12:27:14 PM


Yawn...I am so bored with this topic, enjoy the sun and quit trying to figure me out, you don't have to like what I say, I speak the truth and I get bored too easily with people who make no sense, good day to all.

Posted by: Sylvia | 2009-07-28 1:29:12 PM


745754754 are you must a number and have no name? Why are you trying to start an argument for over a simple perceived inconsistency as :"...trying to get the land back that the government stole from aboriginal people hundreds of years ago is going to be nearly impossible"?

Put it any way you want, Scott the writer is acknowledging both the indignity of being vacated from lands through swindles and dupes and the futility of trying to regain lost ground.

Your tack is typical of a white mans argument, which is basically to start from a polemic made of sand while trying to wedge in faulty logic that ignores the most basic premises of native i.e human rights.

Problem that most people have when wading into this problem from the fringes is refusal to acknowledge basic tenets of Indian (native indian) psychology, which is totally separate from all avenues of Western thought processes.

For instance, based on my own personal experience, sending natives away or encouraging them to leave the reserve puts their lives in jeopardy thanks to the the wide open jungle laws of the city and "survival of the fittest" mentalities of numbered peoples like 745754754.

White people have just not experienced the fine edge of racial discrimination, which is different from outright prejudice.

Posted by: Max | 2009-07-28 1:50:18 PM


Scott -

You need more than a proofreader. I would suggest getting a good book on grammar and punctuation. I would start by looking up comma splice or comma fault. Your post is full of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_splice

You also haven't addressed the hard questions. For example, natives are currently claiming far more territory than the existing reserve lands (especially in B.C.). If they get the kind of sovereignty you want, then they will be governing non-natives without their consent. So how do you propose to reconcile your plea for aboriginal sovereignty with the rights of non-natives who surely would choose to remain under Canadian jurisdiction?


Posted by: Craig | 2009-07-28 2:00:27 PM


The Indian question will never be resolved so long as there is race-based privilege. You may or may not have certain rights, based on a one-eighths-by-blood law straight out of the Jim Crow South. Only when there is one law for all and everyone has the same rights and same responsibilities will the situation ebb. Even then it'll take several generations to vanish completely. Bitterness has the longest shelf life of any fruit.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-28 2:12:18 PM


Awww, we have a philosopher in our midst, makes no difference to me what you feel, emjoy life and be proud of who you are, I am.

Posted by: Sylvia | 2009-07-28 2:21:23 PM


And Scott, any declaration of sovereignty would be an open invitation for the Canadian government to finish the job of conquering these "nations" by force of arms. The treaties, imperfect and outdated though they are, are the only thing currently protecting aboriginal title. If either side walks away from them, that protection vanishes.

Craig has stated that Indians are claiming far more territory than existing reserve lands. In B.C. the picture is even more ludicrous--they have laid claim to 111 percent of the entire land area of the province, based solely on race. So the question, Scott, is: Where will the other 96 percent of the population live?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-28 2:21:27 PM


"Put it any way you want, Scott the writer is acknowledging both the indignity of being vacated from lands through swindles and dupes and the futility of trying to regain lost ground."

Those indignities were not visited by us upon the current generation of Indians. They were visited by the settlers' ancestors against the Indians' ancestors. We are not legally liable for the actions of our antecedents.

"Your tack is typical of a white mans argument, which is basically to start from a polemic made of sand while trying to wedge in faulty logic that ignores the most basic premises of native i.e human rights."

The concept of rights is itself not logical. And nationhood is not a basic human right; by universal custom, usage, and law, a nation is a nation only if it is recognized as such by others.

"Problem that most people have when wading into this problem from the fringes is refusal to acknowledge basic tenets of Indian (native indian) psychology, which is totally separate from all avenues of Western thought processes."

Rights do not derive from psychology and thought processes. This is an example of special pleading. You don't get special privileges or the right to ignore the law just because you think differently.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-28 2:28:17 PM


If you find the discussion boring, Sylvia, why are you here?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-28 2:29:21 PM


"Your tack is typical of a white mans argument"

Yeeesh, and people call me racist.

Scott, I hope you will holding everyone to the same level of civility that you demand from your conservative and white debate opponents, and if the above quote isn't racist, just what the hell is? White bashing is OK here, or what?

"White people have just not experienced the fine edge of racial discrimination"

Baloney, white males are explicitly discriminated against in the workplace via race and gender quotas in both the public and private sector.

An Indian actually gets more consideration for a job than a similarly skilled white man. If I were an Indian and worked at one of the many quota based workplace I would be embarrassed to cash my paycheque and they should be too.

It's not the blatant discrimination against white people that bothers me so much as the sense of entitlement and hostility that flows from it from people like Max and Sylvia. They hate us, they feel justified in hating us, and it's obvious in the way they talk to us.

BTW, your writing is fine, Scott, this is a typical passive aggressive debate tactic of the left when they have no other way to debate you. Brock's writing, on the other hand...

Posted by: 745754754 | 2009-07-28 2:30:48 PM


@ Craig

"You also haven't addressed the hard questions. For example, natives are currently claiming far more territory than the existing reserve lands"

I did address this when I said...
"If the land claim process is to expedited, then some measure of surrender needs to be conceded. "

"You need more than a proofreader. I would suggest getting a good book on grammar and punctuation"

So you just want to complain then. Great, very helpful...

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-28 2:42:18 PM


You ask me why I am bored? There is nothing to argue about and we don't make the laws that governments implement. I don't like the Nisga'a Treaty but I will not dwell on this topic, there is too much in life to enjoy and if you feel that you know what is good for all mankind, man, you are a winner. I don't think you will understand my stand on basic human rights and my pride in my birthright. No government can ever take away my birthright, handed down my cool ancestors from the past, even though we lose our Indian Status in 2012, who has to tell me I am status, it was the white man that me that I am numbered, whether I liked it or not. I will forever be grateful for my birthright and enjoy the rest of the blog, some make sense but there are better things to do that sit in front of a screen when there are blue skies and sunshine around.

Posted by: Sylvia | 2009-07-28 3:23:08 PM


You come back again and again, Sylvia, to remind us that you won't be sticking around.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-28 3:48:31 PM


Scott - grammar is conceptual; it has to be taught. I don't have time to do that with you (teaching is my day job, btw). It's great that you have such passion for aboriginal rights. But, as I said in my first post, you won't be taken seriously unless you know how to write properly. In your case, the problem includes not knowing what constitutes a sentence.

As in the following is not one:

"They often have higher rates of suicide, alcoholism and spousal abuse compared to urban centers, leaving the reserve is not a bad idea if a person is living in these sorts of conditions."

Again, look up comma splice. And get a copy of Strunk & White.

Given the extent of current land-claims (which, as Shane notes, exceed the total land mass in B.C.), we'll need more than "some measure of surrender . . ."

Posted by: Craig | 2009-07-28 4:01:02 PM


"emjoy life and be proud of who you are, I am.

Posted by: Sylvia | 2009-07-28 2:21:23 PM"

So, you're saying that I should embrace WHITE PRIDE? Well, who am I to argue with the wisdom of a Nisgaa elder?

Between Scott's neo-apartheid proposal, wise elder Sylvia's encouragement of WHITE PRIDE, and the tacit acceptance of racial slurs such as Max's, this is turning out to be one of my favourite threads evar! Now, if we could only do something about gay sex marriage...

Posted by: 745754754 | 2009-07-28 4:26:35 PM


"neo-apartheid proposal"

I'm advocating getting the federal government out of their lives so they can run their own affairs, how is that apartheid?

@ Craig, I'm not too worried about being grammatically correct in every sense. I'm not writing a thesis, I'm blogging :)

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-28 5:05:04 PM


Scott, you advocate getting all levels of government out of everyone's lives. That is where you depart from the credible.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-28 6:38:47 PM


Whatever you say, Scott. After all, who needs those tiresome rules of English grammar? Surely not those of us who write at one of the best read political blogs in the country.

Posted by: Craig | 2009-07-28 6:52:39 PM


"After all, who needs those tiresome rules of English grammar?"

Craig, you have spent more time complaining about grammar than talking about the subject of the post. Not very productive...

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-29 7:32:48 AM


You and Craig have something in common then, Scott. You have wasted very few words on your subject as well. People write you lengthy replies, only to receive blithe one-liners in return, if that much. Why would you bring up a subject you have little interest in talking about?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-29 8:58:18 AM


Scott -
You really are beyond the pale. In my original post, I asked you two serious questions, neither of which have been answered.

Posted by: Craig | 2009-07-29 6:40:36 PM


"there shouldn't be an expectation that they will be honored ..."

Our courts still recognize the treaties. They are part of Canadian law.

Your suggestions are naive. It isn't up to us to decide. It seems the main thing you are suggesting is that all of Canada's debts to Indigenous Peoples should be written off. That just is not reasonable.

Posted by: granny | 2009-08-09 12:46:01 AM


"Our courts still recognize the treaties."

That may be true but they aren't honoured by the Canadian government. The Aboriginal people have seen the Canadian government violate treaty after treaty.

"Your suggestions are naive."

In what way?

"It isn't up to us to decide"

Who decides?

"the main thing you are suggesting is that all of Canada's debts to Indigenous Peoples should be written off."

No, the main thing I am suggesting is that Aboriginal nations should be independant of the Canadian government.

"That just is not reasonable."

Why?

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-10 3:36:51 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.