The one we gave them before failed so yeah it's time to butt out and shut up.They can develop on their own path.
The one we gave them before failed so yeah it's time to butt out and shut up.They can develop on their own path.
And what exactly is untraditional about guns? They are a pretty old technology.
This wierd believe that someone native groups should have to stay stone age. Europeans dumped swords when the they started facing guns in the mid east (trickling down from China)
I don't get this idea they should either stay museum relics from the stone age or mimic another culture comes from. They can develop on their own path.
Who forced them to "submit" to "application" waiving their natural rights?
sorry Eagle smack ..let me clearify..Give the red necks guns to protect the national parks.(refering to Obama's credit card reform bill..republicans added a gun law that allows them to have their guns in national parks.For what ever reason.)Any better?...lol
In a perfect world, I would agree.That's just wrong. Everyone should have a say.
This is true, but Canadians aren't so good at Canadian history...;-)Didn't stop the Canadians either did it?
Captain, I agree 100%. If this was about sustenance providing, I would feel differently though.I believe that in the context of 'ceremonial' activity, spears would have been the available implement. If the argument that is being forwarded relates to cultural/ceremonial import, one would assume that the participants would desire to remain as close to the original practice.
Again, I agree.No one is suggesting that this group 'have to stay in the stone age', however, if this activity is being sold as tradition and celebrating roots, using a rifle would taint the entire activity.
We are, but some Chiefs and their friends and family are more equal..... But I thought that we are all equal?... The document you quoted said so!
That gavel swings two ways Strickland.In a perfect world, I would agree.
Out here we have many issues between Natives and Whites. Hatred doesn't show it's ugly face often, but it does come up on occasion.
Maybe on the law books we are all equal, but in real life and in real court it is far different.
That may be true, the Gov't is not oft on the ball. But so long as Otter are of a concern, I would say hold off on the ceremonial cull, but at 20 a year, I'm not sure which way I go on this yet. Given differring numbers and a low cull count.At the moment we have the Nuu-chah-nulth that want to hunt otters. The DFO says there are about 3500 right now. With their track record on counting I would guess there are twice that.
I don't see an issue here. I've tanned Deer pelts, never sold them though. Just used them to make art and clothing given away as gifts. But I can understand the urge to get in touch with their roots though.The Natives would like to "harvest" 20 a year. (the first year anyways)
20 will not harm the numbers and it will let them find out if they can- #1- skin the animals. #2- tan the hide (not easy to preserve). #3- fashion a head dress for the Chiefs and #4- sell the pelts.
That's not always a given, but your concern is not without merit.There is simply no point in arguing or fighting this. They will do it, it's a fact.
The gov't will allow it because for them to fight it, they would lose in the Supreme Court.
I would agree, I have been in my fair share of battle with corrupt leaders in my community. Living far to high off the hog, while their people suffer.Seen this battle a few times, don't want my tax $$$' s going for it anymore when we have hungry and needy people in the area,and many other good uses for the money.
You may be right.As for the Foot Guards hats. The Queen (or her spokespeople) say "we will search for a synthetic" to get the PETA type people to shut up. There is no substitute for the real thing, and I guarantee that the meat is not being eaten.
Though I won't eat it for spiritual reasons, I can not agree, I find it greasy and gamey, lol. But that's just my opinion. ;-)Damn shame too, bear meat is very palatible.
Where does it say they aren't? They CHOOSE to submit to regulation. It's not forced submission. Wake up and smell the bannock buddy. You listened to some else's thought and misinterprtations and now that skewed thought is your reality..... But I thought that we are all equal?... The document you quoted said so!
We are, but some Chiefs and their friends and family are more equal.......
......I would agree, I have been in my fair share of battle with corrupt leaders in my community. Living far to high off the hog, while their people suffer.....
Insinuated? I've been sued, unsuccessfully, I might add. And I agree. In an argument with another member here over my being or not being Native, because of my political views. I had a thought that mad me go "Hmmm". Not only is it detrimental to the community en mass to be led by criminals, but it is IMHO, even more detrimental to be led by people whom poses preconcieved notions of how they are precieved and seen. In which I mean, if you are led by someone that continuously tells you that out side the Rez gates, lies a world filled with people who hate you because of your colour, the police will beat you up, just because your Native and that the Gov't is out to kill every last one of us. What is you incentive to spread your wings and view the world from on high?What you have insinuated above is no doubt the biggest tragedy relative to the average first nations person. There has been ;lots of money and programs made available, but if the cash doesn't filter down to the entire community, the cash/program is useless.
And for good reason. Could you please send them to Scott Free's house, he seems to think I'm not Native because I don't tow the community line.I am not a part of the FN community, however, some friends of mine are and the do not describe the senior leadership in the most complimentary terms.
This is the very reason my Grand Father moved us off the Rez. But I still feel drawn back to it, go figure. So people, no matter the race, are gluttens for punishment. ;-)Sadly, it's the average FN person that gets the sh*t-end-of-the-stick as he/she is the pawn in the game.
I'm not that fond of it. It makes good dog food, though...........As for the Foot Guards hats. The Queen (or her spokespeople) say "we will search for a synthetic" to get the PETA type people to shut up. There is no substitute for the real thing, and I guarantee that the meat is not being eaten.
Damn shame too, bear meat is very palatible.
As long as it's only a few %, then it's OK, right?
More hysterics. 1%, not a few. And if you read my post, I CLEARLY said there may be reasons to stop it, but, to call 1% cull a 'decimation' of the population is hilariously dramatic.
No, I am not familiar... I would imagine that there was quite an outcry. I naively believed that the predominate weapon would have traditionally been a device related to spears. I find it extremely interesting that the feds would 'ban' implements (other than guns)related to hunting aquatic targets.
Perhaps I can read-up about that, can you give me an idea of where i can find this info? An idea of what is banned?
I eagerly await your response.