New relationship needed with Crown or risk widespread unrest: chiefs


dumpthemonarchy
#1
I'll be very interested to hear what politicians have to say about about the crown and the relationship with aboriginals.


New relationship needed with Crown or risk widespread unrest: chiefs - Winnipeg Free Press (external - login to view)



New relationship needed with Crown or risk widespread unrest: chiefs

By: Chinta Puxley, The Canadian Press
Posted: 01/11/2012 1:22 PM

WINNIPEG - Native chiefs say Prime Minister Stephen Harper must come out of this month's First Nations summit willing to forge a new relationship with aboriginals or risk widespread unrest.

Chiefs from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario gathered in Winnipeg on Wednesday to talk strategy before the summit in Ottawa on Jan. 24. Many have concerns about the lack of housing, clean running water and education in their communities, but virtually all say they don't expect to solve those issues in a day.

They want the prime minister to commit to holding at least one first ministers meeting on aboriginal issues and to appoint a commissioner to ensure that treaties signed more than 100 years ago are being followed.

Grand Chief Derek Nepinak, head of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, said Third-World conditions in native communities are a symptom of the unequal relationship between aboriginals and the Crown. Harper must take immediate action following the summit or frustrated young people will start taking matters into their own hands, he warned.

"Our young people are fed up with the way things are," Nepinak said. "We've made several attempts to deal with this through diplomatic means and political means, but we're reaching a point where the winds have shifted.
"People are frustrated. If diplomacy fails, we can't speak for what happens beyond that."

Harper announced the long-awaited summit last month when a housing crisis in the Cree community of Attawapiskat became high profile. First Nations chiefs had been asking for such a meeting since the summer of 2010. Harper called it a "historic" opportunity to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing aboriginal people.

The summit is only for one day and Nepinak said First Nations are tired of being trotted out for photo opportunities. They want to see some real change.

"It's a small window of opportunity. We're going to do our best to kick that window in."

Grand Chief Stan Beardy, who represents dozens of northern Ontario First Nations, said the treaties signed by his ancestors promised to share the land and its resources, yet his people live in poverty while governments make millions off the north's natural resources.

Beardy said he has managed to convince some people to give diplomacy a chance, but that hasn't paid off so far.
"With the information highway, a lot of my young people have access to information today," said Beardy, head of Nishnawbe Aski Nation. "They know what their basic human rights are. They know what their legal rights are. It's no longer possible to keep us in the dark and continue to exploit our natural resources without (sharing)."

First Nations have waited for a century to be treated equally, Beardy continued. They aren't going to wait much longer.
"We're very, very patient people. Being nice is not helping me today. I think I need to stand up and say it's time."

Perry Bellegarde with the Little Black Bear First Nation in Saskatchewan said he and his colleagues want to set up a way to give First Nations better access to the prime minister and premiers on an ongoing basis.

Treaties, human rights declarations and royal commissions are just gathering dust, he said. There must be a system in place that ensures native people are treated fairly.

"The rest of Canadian society doesn't see or doesn't want to see that there are Third-World conditions in this country and that's not acceptable," Bellegarde said.

"We're not a minority. We're indigenous peoples."
 
dumpthemonarchy
#2
================================================== ===

No one has commented on this, very interesting. Call Dr Freud or Jung please.

Imagine Indians are like the Gauls, and Canada is like the Roman empire, when it comes to conflict the Gauls had no chance of winning, ever. Overly tough talk from people who get billions is not politic.

The Tories are all about the money and that means a lack of flexibility. Harper is like a smaller, slower, duller Chretien. Both likes things neat and tidy. Harper likes to say, "That is not on our agenda." The issue vanishes. This might be different though as many really want to sink their teeth into this. This is an issue that is not entirely about the money. Then it gets back to Romans against the Gauls, and power wins and everyone in Canada becomes a Canadian citizen. Boy, it didn't take long to resolve that issue. Those Romans were smart, and tough guys.
 
CDNBear
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

================================================== ===

No one has commented on this, very interesting. Call Dr Freud or Jung please.

Why, the thread isn't about psychiatry.? Do you have an oedipus complex? Or have you been sexually assaulted?
 
L Gilbert
+2
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

I'll be very interested to hear what politicians have to say about about the crown and the relationship with aboriginals.


New relationship needed with Crown or risk widespread unrest: chiefs - Winnipeg Free Press (external - login to view)



New relationship needed with Crown or risk widespread unrest: chiefs

By: Chinta Puxley, The Canadian Press
Posted: 01/11/2012 1:22 PM

WINNIPEG - Native chiefs say Prime Minister Stephen Harper must come out of this month's First Nations summit willing to forge a new relationship with aboriginals or risk widespread unrest.

What sort of reply are you expecting?

Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

================================================== ===

No one has commented on this, very interesting. Call Dr Freud or Jung please.

Imagine Indians are like the Gauls, and Canada is like the Roman empire, when it comes to conflict the Gauls had no chance of winning, ever. Overly tough talk from people who get billions is not politic.

The Tories are all about the money and that means a lack of flexibility. Harper is like a smaller, slower, duller Chretien. Both likes things neat and tidy. Harper likes to say, "That is not on our agenda." The issue vanishes. This might be different though as many really want to sink their teeth into this. This is an issue that is not entirely about the money. Then it gets back to Romans against the Gauls, and power wins and everyone in Canada becomes a Canadian citizen. Boy, it didn't take long to resolve that issue. Those Romans were smart, and tough guys.

Gauls? Romans? In Canada? Funny, I haven't seen anyone running around in skirts and brass helmets.

BTW, Freud and Jung are dead. You may want to see a live one about your condition.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#5
Then there are people, not Indians even, I have heard say that Canada "technically" belongs to Indians. What does "technically" mean here? does it mean theoretically? legally? politically?

I'd like to see some issues decisively sorted out once and for all. Does Canada belong to the crown, Indians, govt, or Canadians?
 
L Gilbert
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Then there are people, not Indians even, I have heard say that Canada "technically" belongs to Indians. What does "technically" mean here? does it mean theoretically? legally? politically?

Ask them. I have no idea what's in their heads.

Quote:

I'd like to see some issues decisively sorted out once and for all. Does Canada belong to the crown, Indians, govt, or Canadians?

As the Crown and gov't represents citizens, it isn't theirs. I'd suggest that Canada belongs to its citizens alone, be they native or whatever.
 
SLM
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Why, the thread isn't about psychiatry.? Do you have an oedipus complex? Or have you been sexually assaulted?

Freud was all about the ***** envy.

Hey, don't look at me, he's the one that brought Freud up.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

What sort of reply are you expecting?

Needy isn't he?
 
Liberalman
#8
Like the Conservative government really cares about visible minorities.
 
Ariadne
#9
I remember there were all sorts of concerns like this way back ... wasn't it in the late 60s or early 70s? I was young, but somehow I got it into my head that by recognizing all sorts of land transfers and providing annual financial compensations, those problems could then be resolved more or less internally. That is, by recognizing the autonomy of first nation peoples and their rights to land and compensation, the first nation peoples could address problems of education, housing etc., as they wished, and would no longer have those problems. What happened? Did the government make compensations and nothing changed? Was there change but it made no difference? What is the core of the problem? Is it that the government isn't stepping in and giving more or is it that no matter how much the government does, everything remains the same? Is autonomy the objective, or is the objective that the government provide for all first nation peoples in perpetuity? If the latter, why?
 
Spade
+1
#10
As long as the grass is green and the rivers flow.
 
Ariadne
#11
I watched part of an interesting program ... think it was on CBC ... about how many first nation peoples enjoy the best of both worlds ... unlike most Canadians. People interviewed talked about how they live in the city when they want, but can enjoy living in the countryside when they want. That's more than what most Canadians have.
 
CDNBear
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

Did the government make compensations and nothing changed?

Yes little, and yes, little.

Quote:

What is the core of the problem?

I honestly can't put my finger on just one.

Quote:

Is autonomy the objective, or is the objective that the government provide for all first nation peoples in perpetuity?

You're still confusing contractually obligated funding, with autonomy to allocate it, and govern autonomously.

Quote:

If the latter, why?

Because the Crown is contractually obligated to do so.

Why do you keep asking the same silly question?
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

As long as the grass is green and the rivers flow.

And the sun rises and so on...

Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

I watched part of an interesting program ... think it was on CBC ... about how many first nation peoples enjoy the best of both worlds ... unlike most Canadians.

Unlike most Canadians? How so?

Quote:

People interviewed talked about how they live in the city when they want, but can enjoy living in the countryside when they want.

Millions of Canadians do that.

Quote:

That's more than what most Canadians have.

Or want or can afford to do. If you can't afford it, get a mortgage, a better job.
 
Spade
+1
#13
Thank you, Great White Mother Across the Sea!
 
dumpthemonarchy
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

I watched part of an interesting program ... think it was on CBC ... about how many first nation peoples enjoy the best of both worlds ... unlike most Canadians. People interviewed talked about how they live in the city when they want, but can enjoy living in the countryside when they want. That's more than what most Canadians have.

Financial freedom zero for some. Meaning, when some lucky aboriginals are born into the right family, they have money coming to them forever and they can live a pretty easy life. The old British crown that gave away perpetual cash payments from Canada for a metaphor?
 

Similar Threads

14
Preparing for Civil Unrest in America
by Stretch | Mar 26th, 2009
12
Unrest spreads in Europe
by Praxius | Dec 12th, 2008
0
Kazakhstan unrest
by Jersay | Feb 22nd, 2006
no new posts