Why doesn't the rest of the band support hereditary chiefs and vote them into the ruling band council? Should be a no brainer if they are truly the ruling class Cliffy
Most bands and reservations are not much different than most communities, you have the makers and takers . If the takers out number the makers the takers form council , and vice versa . As well in most smaller tribes any one can trace their heritage back to past chiefs , therefore every member is a hereditary chief . Rarely is any idea given 100% support , hence nothing will ever be implemented if hereditary chiefs can stop any program .Why doesn't the rest of the band support hereditary chiefs and vote them into the ruling band council? Should be a no brainer if they are truly the ruling class Cliffy
The Haida are a different kettle of fish . They occupy the Queen Charlotte Islands and parts of S.W.Alaska . Their language and culture is not the same as other northern natives . The Natives in this particular dispute are different tribes but the rest of your post holds true .Are Haidi chiefships actually hereditary? And what are the limits of their powers?
I ask because I really don't know. But, just shooting from the hip, I do know that with most North American nations, chiefship is not kingship. It is neither hereditary nor all-powerful.
Again, I don't know and would love some clarification on the Haida, but it seems to me as if Cliffy is imposing European concepts where they don't belong.
I'm sure nobody will look there, . . . . . especially now.Scary . I will be hiding in the shed .
Except for two things the biased article misses
1) An agreement was signed
2) The resources don't come from their lands, it's a pipeline not an oil well
The agreement was signed by elected chiefs who have no authority off the rez. When the pipeline leaks, and it will, then it will impact their land.Except for two things the biased article misses
1) An agreement was signed
2) The resources don't come from their lands, it's a pipeline not an oil well
Are Haidi chiefships actually hereditary? And what are the limits of their powers?
I ask because I really don't know. But, just shooting from the hip, I do know that with most North American nations, chiefship is not kingship. It is neither hereditary nor all-powerful.
Again, I don't know and would love some clarification on the Haida, but it seems to me as if Cliffy is imposing European concepts where they don't belong.
The agreement was signed by elected chiefs who have no authority off the rez. When the pipeline leaks, and it will, then it will impact their land.
Not 'them.' 'It.' Beer is a non-count noun. Review your grammar!He's trying but he keeps spilling them.
In order for there to be Crown Land, it would have had to be ceded by treaty or purchased by the Crown. Most of the province is unceded and therefor not Crown Land.
"The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III on October 7, 1763."
In order for there to be Crown Land, it would have had to be ceded by treaty or purchased by the Crown. Most of the province is unceded and therefor not Crown Land.
"The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III on October 7, 1763."
"And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the Security of Our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds. …"
The status of the First Nations, Aboriginal people of British Columbia, Canada, is a long-standing problem that has become a major issue in recent years. In 1763 the British Crown declared that only it could acquire land from First Nations through treaties.[1] Historically only two treaties were signed with the First Nations of BC. The first of which was the Douglas Treaties, negotiated by Sir James Douglas with the native people of southern Vancouver Island from 1850-1854.[2] The second treaty, Treaty 8, signed in 1899 was part of the Numbered Treaties that were signed with First Nations outside of British Columbia.[3] British Columbian Treaty 8 signatories are located in the Peace River Country or the far North East of BC. For over nine decades no more treaties were signed with First Nations of BC; many Native people wished to negotiate treaties, but successive BC provincial governments refused until the 1990s.[4][5] A major development was the 1997 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw v. British Columbia case that Aboriginal title still exists in British Columbia and that when dealing with Crown land, the government must consult with and may have to compensate First Nations whose rights are affected.[6]
wrong precedent to use Cliffy only recognizes hunting rights on non ceded lands Not their land just hunting rights like the rest of the Crown lands.
LINK
Also Cliffy treaties were signed in BC only the FN's want to renegotiate them individually Treaty 8 for the Mainland Douglas treaty for Vancouver Island