First Nations Treaties

gerryh
#1
Canada has been going round and round with this "treaty" bullsh*t for over 300 years and it never seems to end. Is it time to say enough is enough? Scrap the whole "treaty" crap, close the "reservations", make those with status cards a monatary offer (10 or 20 grand each) and they can either sink or swim like the ROC.
 
Ron in Regina
#2
Is that even a legally viable (if not morally ethical) option?
 
CDNBear
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Canada has been going round and round with this "treaty" bullsh*t for over 300 years and it never seems to end.

You should see it from this side dude!

Quote:

Is it time to say enough is enough?

I asked my Grandfather something a kin to that, years ago. Well actually I asked him why we didn't just slaughter the lot of ya, as you poured over the sides of the ships. He just told me that we would have missed out on so much.

Quote:

Scrap the whole "treaty" crap, close the "reservations", make those with status cards a monatary offer (10 or 20 grand each) and they can either sink or swim like the ROC.

Perhaps you could just throw a couple life preservers, then we could at least tread water while you swim.
 
CDNBear
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Is that even a legally viable (if not morally ethical) option?

Actually yes.

I'm not sure if it still is, but at one time you could sell your status to the Crown.
 
gerryh
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Is that even a legally viable (if not morally ethical) option?


Is it "morally ethical" to continue to "baby" First Nations people? Insulate them on reserves from the ROC?
 
gerryh
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

You should see it from this side dude!

I have, through my Mother, Grandmother, and Great Grandmothers eyes.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Perhaps you could just throw a couple life preservers, then we could at least tread water while you swim.

The ROC have thrown enough life preservers over the last 300 years.
 
CDNBear
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Is it "morally ethical" to continue to "baby" First Nations people?

There's a monumental difference between ethically upholding contractual obligations and the social engineering that has also taken place in the last 30 years. The two should not confused or lumped together.

Quote:

Insulate them on reserves from the ROC?

Don't you mean segregate? I mean this whole idea was great when you guys were raping our land for resources and all.
 
CDNBear
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I have, through my Mother, Grandmother, and Great Grandmothers eyes.

And yer still bitchin'?

Quote:

The ROC have thrown enough life preservers over the last 300 years.

No, most of those were big round rocks, just painted to look like life preservers.

Try again. You're confusing social agendas from the last 30 years, with actual contracts.
 
gerryh
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

There's a monumental difference between ethically upholding contractual obligations and the social engineering that has also taken place in the last 30 years. The two should not confused or lumped together.

Don't you mean segregate? I mean this whole idea was great when you guys were raping our land for resources and all.


We have paid enough for these "contractual" obligations. The only ones that are making money on any of this at this point in time are the Lawyers from both sides and the "chiefs" and their "yes men".

Enough is enough, we have more than paid our "obligation" for the land.

As for "raping your land"..... the indians have been more than lucky that the English and French that first came to this continent didn't just wipe out the few savages that were here and take what they wanted. They were more than generous in what was offered and what has been paid.
 
gerryh
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

And yer still bitchin'?

The 3 of them had nothing good to say about indians.


Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

No, most of those were big round rocks, just painted to look like life preservers.

Try again. You're confusing social agendas from the last 30 years, with actual contracts.

No, just because your people called them rocks doesn't mean they were. I'm not confusing anything, I'm looking at this bottomless pit and saying we need to stop throwing money into it.
 
CDNBear
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

We have paid enough for these "contractual" obligations. The only ones that are making money on any of this at this point in time are the Lawyers from both sides and the "chiefs" and their "yes men".

Sure, they're making more then their fair share, but the rest are just scraping by.

Do you actually know what the average 'Injun' actually gets in the way of subsidies from the MIA?

$4500/year.

Quote:

Enough is enough, we have more than paid our "obligation" for the land.

Not by the wording in the contracts...

Quote:

As for "raping your land"..... the indians have been more than lucky that the English and French that first came to this continent didn't just wipe out the few savages that were here and take what they wanted. They were more than generous in what was offered and what has been paid.



You do realise that the treaties were written because you couldn't defeat us right?
 
CDNBear
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

The 3 of them had nothing good to say about indians.

I'm beginning to smell some jealousy. Just like that half breed Gfed......

Quote:

No, just because your people called them rocks doesn't mean they were.

Ya, being segregated onto useless land you couldn't grow a rock farm on was for our benefit.

Quote:

I'm not confusing anything, I'm looking at this bottomless pit and saying we need to stop throwing money into it.

I would otherwise agree, on some levels. But when it comes to legitimate land claims, contractual obligations and righting wrongs...suck it up buttercup...
 
Machjo
#13
Teaties, wheaties; contracts, schmontracts. What do you think we are? Honourable?
 
CDNBear
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Teaties, wheaties; contracts, schmontracts. What do you think we are? Honourable?

 
gerryh
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Sure, they're making more then their fair share, but the rest are just scraping by.

Do you actually know what the average 'Injun' actually gets in the way of subsidies from the MIA?

$4500/year.

and free housing( which they turn into dumps within a few years of them being built).... and no taxes ( and how much that amounts to is VERY evident by how cheap cigs can be purchased from status indians).... and and and...........
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Not by the wording in the contracts...

Should we look at the wordng of the "contracts"? and I don't mean the updated, "let's make it pertinant to today" wording. The wording that says treaty 7 natives will get a few bags of seed a year, shovels, hoes............


Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

You do realise that the treaties were written because you couldn't defeat us right?

Yup...... those bows, spears, and clubs were a real problem.
 
lone wolf
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

You do realise that the treaties were written because you couldn't defeat us right?

And you didn't get the best land? Has it ever occurred to you defeat wasn't the intent? Compromise never has worked well for GWM, eh?
 
FiveParadox
#17
I think that The Crown of Canada absolutely must honour its contractual obligations to our Aboriginal peoples. Whether or not it was Her Majesty’s Government for Canada that signed on to these agreements, or some previous manifestation of the Canadian Crown, we as a nation (as a sovereign institution and as a people) are responsible for ensuring that we honour and uphold those treaties unless, and until, we are able to change them pursuant to the rule of law.

However, that is not to say that those contractual obligations cannot be changed—with the consent of both parties, of course. Given that modern Canada has the resources to support both our Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, it seems to make sense to me that we should create an instrument whereby Aboriginal citizens can volunteer to revoke any special status that they hold (perhaps, as suggested above, for one-time monetary compensation).

We could also lobby The Honourable Chuck Strahl P.C., M.P. (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, to launch an immediate renegotiation of existing treaties to promote one-time compensation in lieu of treaty rights. It would most probably take us decades to conclude such renegotiations, but the end-result would be a single tier of citizenship and rights, and ultimately the re-absorption of reserves. Let us be quite clear, though, that any changes or revocations of these treaties must be done with the support and agreement of the Aboriginal peoples whom they cover—The Crown absolutely must honour its commitments.
 
CDNBear
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and free housing( which they turn into dumps within a few years of them being built).... and no taxes ( and how much that amounts to is VERY evident by how cheap cigs can be purchased from status indians).... and and and...........

And your point?

A deal is a deal. Deal with it.

BTW: How you set for smokes, I have a box of Podium Blue King size left......need any hand guns? Alcohol? I got about a dozen 60 pounders of Vodka and Rum, brand names to boot...


Quote:

Should we look at the wordng of the "contracts"? and I don't mean the updated, "let's make it pertinant to today" wording. The wording that says treaty 7 natives will get a few bags of seed a year, shovels, hoes............

Ya, but then there's the fact that health, welbeing and care, were worded in. That puts modernization in the mix, hence the redressing of the contracts.


Quote:

Yup...... those bows, spears, and clubs were a real problem.

You forgot death mauls. And numbers, then you have ferocity too.

Seamen were pressed into service. Warrior look forward to dying in battle. Guaranteed spot at the Council Fire in the hereafter...
 
gerryh
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

I think that The Crown of Canada absolutely must honour its contractual obligations to our Aboriginal peoples. Whether or not it was Her Majesty’s Government for Canada that signed on to these agreements, or some previous manifestation of the Canadian Crown, we as a nation (as a sovereign institution and as a people) are responsible for ensuring that we honour and uphold those treaties unless, and until, we are able to change them pursuant to the rule of law.
However, that is not to say that those contractual obligations cannot be changed—with the consent of both parties, of course. Given that modern Canada has the resources to support both our Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, it seems to make sense to me that we should create an instrument whereby Aboriginal citizens can volunteer to revoke any special status that they hold (perhaps, as suggested above, for one-time monetary compensation).
We could also lobby The Honourable Chuck Strahl P.C., M.P. (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post

I agree with you...to a point..... the "decades" thing I say BS to. It's been centuries already. We make the offer, if they can't agree, then we impose the offer. If our exising laws won't support it, then we change the laws to allow it and use the "not withstanding clause" to push it through.
 
CDNBear
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

And you didn't get the best land? Has it ever occurred to you defeat wasn't the intent?

Yep.

Quote:

Compromise never has worked well for GWM, eh?

It hasn't worked well for us 'Injuns'. But I'm not sure how it affected gay white males?

Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

I think that The Crown of Canada absolutely must honour its contractual obligations to our Aboriginal peoples. Whether or not it was Her Majesty’s Government for Canada that signed on to these agreements, or some previous manifestation of the Canadian Crown, we as a nation (as a sovereign institution and as a people) are responsible for ensuring that we honour and uphold those treaties unless, and until, we are able to change them pursuant to the rule of law.
However, that is not to say that those contractual obligations cannot be changed—with the consent of both parties, of course. Given that modern Canada has the resources to support both our Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, it seems to make sense to me that we should create an instrument whereby Aboriginal citizens can volunteer to revoke any special status that they hold (perhaps, as suggested above, for one-time monetary compensation).
We could also lobby The Honourable Chuck Strahl P.C., M.P. (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Nicely said Paradox. A pipe dream, but I like how you dream.
 
Machjo
#21
Ah 5P. But there's a problem here. What happens when the demagoguic will of the majority conflicts with ethics, the law, and contracts?

Ah, gotta love demagoguery...

Oh, sorry, I emant democracy. Democracy, honest!
 
lone wolf
#22
I wonder how many Treaties have actually run their courses as generations passed or waters that run free were dammed?
 
Machjo
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I agree with you...to a point..... the "decades" thing I say BS to. It's been centuries already. We make the offer, if they can't agree, then we impose the offer. If our exising laws won't support it, then we change the laws to allow it and use the "not withstanding clause" to push it through.

Don't ya love it. If you dont' like a contract, let the demagoguic will of the majority prevail.
 
CDNBear
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I agree with you...to a point..... the "decades" thing I say BS to. It's been centuries already. We make the offer, if they can't agree, then we impose the offer. If our exising laws won't support it, then we change the laws to allow it and use the "not withstanding clause" to push it through.

Speaking of pipe dreams.

No pol's have the balls to use that clause to fix more serious issues. You think they're gunna risk their political neck over us...

Pass the peace pipe and a bag of whatever you be smoking skippy.
 
lone wolf
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

But I'm not sure how it affected gay white males?

...and that has what to do with the topic?
 
CDNBear
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I wonder how many Treaties have actually run their courses as generations passed or waters that run free were dammed?

Tried and failed. Even though some treaties have the phrases...

"So long as the sun shines"

"So long as the rivers flow"

It is in the premise that the bond is made, not the literal translation.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Don't ya love it. If you dont' like a contract, let the demagoguic will of the majority prevail.

God...err...Great Spirit bless democracies...
 
CDNBear
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

...and that has what to do with the topic?

gwm?
 
gerryh
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

And your point?

A deal is a deal. Deal with it.

BTW: How you set for smokes, I have a box of Podium Blue King size left......need any hand guns? Alcohol? I got about a dozen 60 pounders of Vodka and Rum, brand names to boot...

There's a perfect example of why the treaties should be scrapped. Indians who have disregarded the laws and the agreements. Non taxed tobacco and alcohol etc... is supposed to be for their own use...NOT for resale to non natives. This alone should be enough to say....too bad, so sad....you f*cked up.... cya later baby.


Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Ya, but then there's the fact that health, welbeing and care, were worded in. That puts modernization in the mix, hence the redressing of the contracts.

and there's that "treating indians like they were children" thing again. Even our own kids need to grow up and make it on their own at some point in time.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

You forgot death mauls. And numbers, then you have ferocity too.

Seamen were pressed into service. Warrior look forward to dying in battle. Guaranteed spot at the Council Fire in the hereafter...

death maul...glorified club..... and both France and England had standing armies that could have taken care of the "problem" without much of a sweat. Instead they chose a diferet route that has cost us, Canadians, far more than anticipated. Enough is Enough.
 
lone wolf
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Tried and failed. Even though some treaties have the phrases...

"So long as the sun shines"

"So long as the rivers flow"

It is in the premise that the bond is made, not the literal translation.

The Judge sees evidence. Why do you think they're written in flowerspeak?

GWM = Great White Mother
 
FiveParadox
#30
With such a patchwork of treaties to wade through and attempt to renegotiate, I have no doubt that it would take decades to conclude. I’m not sure that it would be possible for The Crown to revoke, on its own, the treaties that it had signed with Aboriginal groups; the notwithstanding clause does not apply to s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the section that guarantees the continued respect of treaties by the Government).
 

Similar Threads

20
Lakotas withdraw from treaties
by Nuggler | Dec 21st, 2007
20
Why the United Nations?
by Retired_Can_Soldier | Apr 17th, 2006
no new posts