Status of Native Canadians. Canada needs to discuss this.

[Zzarchov]

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 issued by King George.

I can't seem to copy/past from the page so the link will have to do. It clearly shows how we encroached on their territory and took their land away despite a very clear cut proclamation proclaiming that only the king had such a right and that he would purchase the land. This proclamation has been instrumental in many of our laws and is absolutely still valid. It is even referenced in the constitution act of 1982.

Unless we wish to be like the early ancestors and just rob native people of their land we must pay up! Both for land we have already taken and land we may want. It is expensive but it only gets more so as we let every year slips by. Time is not going to let us dodge our obligations - or more rightly; it shouldn't.

Those who would claim they are not the ones oppressing the native people have an invalid argument. Until such time as our government starts living up to its legal and financial obligations to native people (an unconquered people too I might add) we are all exactly those oppressive SOBs that illegaly took the land in the first place.

As stated, I should point out those outside of Quebec who were granted "Native land" were by and large "natives", from a different region. Ones still given first nation status despite not being first in this nation. They then (allegedly) sold that land. If they did or not is up for debate, real estate laws were a big problem back then, one of the reasons its so heavily regulated now.

How do you deal with that flaw in the logic? How do we "pony up" to native land claims when most of the natives in "Indian Land" are immigrant Haudonausee, and most of our actual natives live in so called "ruperts land"

 

[Scott Free]

Yes...in the same way that Newfoundland is a possession of Canada. You need to understand what terms like that mean on a political level, they are not chattel slaves.

Slaves no, chattel yes. That is what being a possession means. :roll: That is actually what being "status" means. Being status means being a ward of the Queen much like a child is under their parents protection. Which is why only the king could "purchase" native land because he owned them and their land. You can't make such rules about something you don't own. That is how natives are able to get the oppressive tax, land, alcohol, cigarette breaks etc, that so many people bitch and moan about. A native person can give those up if they wish and then they are no longer under the Queens thumb.

 

[Scott Free]

How do you deal with that flaw in the logic? How do we "pony up" to native land claims when most of the natives in "Indian Land" are immigrant Haudonausee, and most of our actual natives live in so called "ruperts land"

It's easy - you don't know what your talking about.

The native people in BC didn't immigrate from anywhere. They lived here for 10,000 years or more. They were the sole occupants of this land and so owned it.

 

[Risus]

As stated, I should point out those outside of Quebec who were granted "Native land" were by and large "natives", from a different region. Ones still given first nation status despite not being first in this nation. They then (allegedly) sold that land. If they did or not is up for debate, real estate laws were a big problem back then, one of the reasons its so heavily regulated now.

How do you deal with that flaw in the logic? How do we "pony up" to native land claims when most of the natives in "Indian Land" are immigrant Haudonausee, and most of our actual natives live in so called "ruperts land"

There are actually the First Nations and the Six Nations, and both groups are treated differently.

 

[Zzarchov]

Slaves no, chattel yes. That is what being a possession means. :roll: That is actually what being "status" means. Being status means being a ward of the Queen much like a child is under their parents protection. Which is why only the king could "purchase" native land because he owned them and their land. You can't make such rules about something you don't own. That is how natives are able to get the oppressive tax, land, alcohol, cigarette breaks etc, that so many people bitch and moan about. A native person can give those up if they wish and then they are no longer under the Queens thumb.

Uhm... Citizens of Crown Dependancies aren't possessions of the Crown... The territory is..thats like saying anyone who lives on Crown Land is a chattel....

You really need to read about things beyond 2 lines. The king is the only one who could purchase land because back then purchasing land in many cases still refered to feudal practices where only a sovereign could own land. Kings and Yeoman.

This was particularily important for a few more years until the Ancien Regime in france collapsed and the politcal landscape changed to render such things moot.


Crown Dependancies are crown Possessions, Citizens of Crown Dependancies are not.

 

[Zzarchov]

Many of the listed First Nations in Ontario are of 6 nations background, such as the Mohawks, the Oneida, etc

They are not treated differently.

 

[Scott Free]

... thats like saying anyone who lives on Crown Land is a chattel....
.

Um, no it isn't :roll:

 

[Zzarchov]

Um, no it isn't :roll:

Yes. It is.

Crown Dependancies are Crown Possessions, Crown Land is a possesion of the Crown.

If people who live in Crown Dependancies are chattel then by your logic, those who live on Crown land are chattel.

This is untrue, and you'd know that if you actually read on what a crown dependancy is. Its a level and system of government, thats it.

 

[Risus]

Many of the listed First Nations in Ontario are of 6 nations background, such as the Mohawks, the Oneida, etc

They are not treated differently.

Yes they are being treated differently. And I know thats a fact as I know several natives, a couple being Mohawk, so kindly make sure of your facts!

 

[Zzarchov]

It's easy - you don't know what your talking about.

The native people in BC didn't immigrate from anywhere. They lived here for 10,000 years or more. They were the sole occupants of this land and so owned it.

BC is part of ruperts land on that map of yours. Thus not impacted by the proclaimation of King George you brought up.

You forgot that was your own point didn't you?

 

[Zzarchov]

Yes they are being treated differently. And I know thats a fact as I know several natives, a couple being Mohawk, so kindly make sure of your facts!

Really? Cause I grew up about 5 minutes from Tyendinaga (The reserve is where I used to buy gas and computer parts as a kid), so..actually no, they aren't being treated differently.

They are legally considered the same as every other first nation group and are treated the same.

 

[Scott Free]

BC is part of ruperts land on that map of yours.

What map? Are you on drugs? :-?

Thus not impacted by the proclaimation of King George you brought up.

I see you read it then :roll:

You forgot that was your own point didn't you?

I forgot who I was talking to.

 

[Risus]

Really? Cause I grew up about 5 minutes from Tyendinaga (The reserve is where I used to buy gas and computer parts as a kid), so..actually no, they aren't being treated differently.

They are legally considered the same as every other first nation group and are treated the same.

Well you don't know what you are talking about. As a kid, I am sure you were not aware of the politics with the natives at that time.
As it happens agreements with the first nations are not all being passed on to the Mohawks. I know for a fact.