That reminds me, must put on my Sunday-go-to-meeting shoes and go to the community hall for brunch and brotherhood.
Government To Spend 2 Billion Buying Land And Giving It Back To Indian Tribes
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
That reminds me, must put on my Sunday-go-to-meeting shoes and go to the community hall for brunch and brotherhood.
Depending on the tribe, you don't even need 1/8 blood.
There are, however, certain omissions and errors in the statement.
Tribal "sovereignty" is nowhere near national sovereignty, or even state sovereignty ("state" in the sense of the fifty American states).
The Federal government still decides whether or not to "recognise" a tribe.
The legal standard for state vs. rez issues is "a balancing of interests," a standard which prevails nowhere else in "sovereignty" issues.
yyyyyeaaaaaahhh, I can imagine what sort of land will be given to the aboriginals. About half our land here beside Kootenay Lake is unusable for much besides logging or just plain hiking. Too steep, too rocky, etc. And what's more, those pinheads at R Dic sat down one time, drew a straight line across the top of people's properties and declared anything below that line was ALR. I doubt very much if any one of them actually came to look at what was deemed "agricultural". A lot of people sold off the tops of their properties because of that and not wanting to pay taxes on parts that are unusable. Mind you, they did drop taxes on ALR lands.
I think that's been done here in BC, but I'm not sure. I like the idea. I'd sooner spend taxes on a group that might use them better than the province and R Dic seems to.
Broad brushes and all that ...
You can't have a national goal for people who only have skin color as a common bond. Each tribe is as unique as the other.
Same ol same ol crap. Whine, snivel, mudsling. The way I see it is Duhbama is only slightly less neo-con than the GOP who seem to be about as right-wingish as is possible. Socialist? My dairy airy. Plutocrat? Maybe, but not nearly as much as his predecessor. Just another puppet for big biz who just happens to display a bit of compassion for those who aren't rich. I find his methods pretty odd.
If he were PM of Canada, he'd be off to the right of Harpy by quite a bit.
hehe capitalism being what it is, yeah.
That's interesting. Implies cooperation and compromise on one hand and heated battles on the other.
Sure there can be a national goal; to ensure the well-being of all people regardless of culture and heritage.
Ya think?
You've never met indigenous Canadians, have you?
Espercially on the West Coast, many have chinese blood. Many in this region (I live in Ottawa, many have white blood too). Their bond is based on nationality, not race.
As for inheriting their status, that is something imposed on them through the Indian Act since confederation. Prior to that, mixed-blood children in New France wre known to be far more likely to integrate into the indigenous nation rather than the French one. As a result, there is not much indigenous blood among those who identify as French Canadians. Indigenous peoples on the West Coast too were known to welcome outsiders into their nations. So it's reasonable to assume that indigenous nations may very well have been more cosmopolitan than the English and the French until the Indian Act was established to try to shift assimilation into the opposite direction.
Their identity is based on national belonging, not race as such.
who's their common enemy?
If the only thing keeping the EU together is a common enemy, what will happen when that common enemy no longer is a common enemy?
My first thought when I read the thread title was "WTF?" then I saw it was an American story and went back to feeling fine. I dont really know much about how the natives were treated after the west was settled. I've been curious but never really looked into it.
Can't really think of one off hand. Up til 1989 you could have said the Eastern Block. Thats gone now but they are still together.
Can't really think of one off hand. Up til 1989 you could have said the Eastern Block. Thats gone now but they are still together.
Ummm. . . the Soviet Union?
Have you lost the thread of the discussion? I said that a common enemy was a good way to unite disparate peoples. You came back with how it made for only a fragile and temporary unity. I cite Western Europe as an example of the unity becoming stronger and deeper even after the common enemy is gone. Let's review the history, shall we?
5,000 B.C.E.-1945 C.E. - Perpetual warfare.
1945-1991 - Playing nicely together under the threat of the USSR.
1991-2013 - Continuing to play nicely together even with the USSR gone.
During my travels recently in the US, you see museums with Indian heritage, funny thing it only dates back 200 years. That would be since the white man came. Otherwise all they have to tell of before that is the Indian raped, pillage, and claimed war on other tribes.
Simon Fraser described them as a poor scraggly starving bunch with no ambitions.
If they were here thousands of years what the hell were they doing up until we came. They certainly did not keep any records of what, or how they lived, but claim a language!!! We did no more wrongs to them that what were put upon many people in past wars, land claims etc. What about the negro man, and how they were kidnapped and enslaved? Do you hear them whining.
We owe these people nothing. They do not want the land until it is developed, before that they wanted nothing but the continued hand out of our government, via the tax payer. Give them the land, but with no developement, and they do it themselves. Learn to earn! I a tired of these land claims, and hand outs. Time the Indian learned to be like the rest of us, do it yourself, earn it yourself, pay taxes, and get to work.
Just remember the Indian did not just sprout out of the dirt in America, they once came here as newcomers as well.
They had no desire to develope land or progress, but they sure as to hell want it now, now that it has.
Simon Fraser described them as a poor scraggly starving bunch with no ambitions.
If they were here thousands of years what the hell were they doing up until we came. They certainly did not keep any records of what, or how they lived, but claim a language!!! We did no more wrongs to them that what were put upon many people in past wars, land claims etc. What about the negro man, and how they were kidnapped and enslaved? Do you hear them whining.
We owe these people nothing. They do not want the land until it is developed, before that they wanted nothing but the continued hand out of our government, via the tax payer. Give them the land, but with no developement, and they do it themselves. Learn to earn! I a tired of these land claims, and hand outs. Time the Indian learned to be like the rest of us, do it yourself, earn it yourself, pay taxes, and get to work.
Just remember the Indian did not just sprout out of the dirt in America, they once came here as newcomers as well.
They had no desire to develope land or progress, but they sure as to hell want it now, now that it has.
wow You sound cranky. I was going to say ignorance is bliss, but your post has canned the idea.
That's somewhat simplistic. The Christian Faith helped to bring about the Pax Romana.
As for united against a common enemy of the USSR, that was NATO, not the EU (or EEC before that). That was just economic self-interest. Unity meant mroe economic strength.
Since that had nothing to do with the USSR, therefore no relevence there. NATO has been shaken somewhat owing to the fall of the USSR, but then again, they still perceive common enemies today. Remove the common enemies, and NATO would likely collapse.