More Aboriginal Land Claims
- Thread starter Nuggler
- Start date
Well, eh, I shouldn't have used the term "Abo land claims". I meant it as just a short form, but not as an insult. Sorry about that. My debating style usually includes some name calling, :knob:........yah, like that, eh. But not racial slurs. Apologize I does.The land claims thing has dragged on for a long long time, and if there is a National Chief and Tribal Council, perhaps they should seek the right from the Indian people to make a final financial claim, get the money, and call it a day. Cause, I really can't see anyone giving up Toronto or the Grand River..........but, who knows8O?
In the past, haven't the ordinary Aboriginal folks got screwed by their Chiefs and/or councils when it came time to divy up? I recall reading this. Hey, just like white folks........ordinary Joe gets it........in the neck.
UNF:: Soon as I get the charter boat manned, I'll give ya a call. You like Haggis? How about single malt? Hoot mon.............that's all the Scottish I remember........:lol:
So, anyway, **** Steve!
:read2:
The land claims thing has dragged on for a long long time, and if there is a National Chief and Tribal Council, perhaps they should seek the right from the Indian people to make a final financial claim, get the money, and call it a day. Cause, I really can't see anyone giving up Toronto or the Grand River..........but, who knows8O?
In the past, haven't the ordinary Aboriginal folks got screwed by their Chiefs and/or councils when it came time to divy up? I recall reading this. Hey, just like white folks........ordinary Joe gets it........in the neck.
UNF:: Soon as I get the charter boat manned, I'll give ya a call. You like Haggis? How about single malt? Hoot mon.............that's all the Scottish I remember........:lol:
So, anyway, **** Steve!
:read2:
I'm all about single malt! :tongue9: Haggis hmmm does it come with a side of thistles? In like flint!
Legally binding treaties and bills of sale can't be thrown out just because the original signers either did not know how to read and write or had no intention of honouring deals. We thought we were suckering natives 200 years ago. Well guess what? Now they can read and write and grasp whiteman's premise on land ownership. Why don't we just march in and take the Alaskan panhandle. Just look at it. It belongs to Canada. Heck with some treaty or bill of sale. Or how about that car you sold to the idiot around the corner. Now you find out it is a collectable. Should you just go back and take it. Maybe throw him a couple of bucks. Heck, money has depreciated since you bought it of him.
I have no confusion regarding this issue. I'm of the opinion that taking away someone else's land and establishing a climate of exclusivity on any basis is fundamentally wrong. I don't understand how it can be acceptable sometimes....when a people are displaced and those remaining experience a greatly diminished quality of life under an authority that is less interested in attaining a co-operative mutual climate of shared perspectives than they are in limiting the rights of those people who remained even after their land was taken.
European's used every device available to legitimize the fluidity of "agreements" made with native North Americans and organized religions worked to subvert and destroy the culture and spirit of those same people. Whether the native folk of North America or Central America or South America, the story's the same. And while this behaviour is regarded by some as the appropriate outcome following the "conquering" of abroriginal populations, many others feel that this long history of oppression and displacement is quite similar to the conditions experienced by Palestinians and yet our friend Bear has made it quite clear that one ought not equate one circumstance with the other....
Perhaps I don't understand how the law of Britain and France as executed under various governments in Canada to introduce commerce and religion as the instruments of greatest propriety in re-shaping the landscape of Canada to suit the entrepreneurs and railroad barons of yesteryear is vasty different than the decision taken by Britain and the United States and thirteen other nations including Canada to hand exclusivity to the Israelis and rigorously pursue a policy of disenfranchisement and oppression on those remaining.
I'll argue that there are far greater similarities and commonalities between these two situations than there are differences.
Only the wealthy white folk prospered enormously from this situation here and it seems obviously apparent that the folk in Israel who've been in charge of things since the resolution was passed experience a similar situation.
While in the case of Palestine and Israel the argument offered is that there's no going back...changing the dynamic of sanctioned oppression is perhaps something that could be examined but there's no reversing the U.N. resolution so far as returning this land to the greater majority of people who occupied that same land. Isn't it entirely the same to suggest that the "agreements" regardless of how anyone might "see" those agreements in terms of their legitimacy vis-a-vis the situation in Canada is just as equally unavailable to turning the clock back?
I'm prepared to entertain the argument that these two cases are so differnt that comparison is unfair, but help me to understand why it's unfair in one case to while acceptable in the other....
European's used every device available to legitimize the fluidity of "agreements" made with native North Americans and organized religions worked to subvert and destroy the culture and spirit of those same people. Whether the native folk of North America or Central America or South America, the story's the same. And while this behaviour is regarded by some as the appropriate outcome following the "conquering" of abroriginal populations, many others feel that this long history of oppression and displacement is quite similar to the conditions experienced by Palestinians and yet our friend Bear has made it quite clear that one ought not equate one circumstance with the other....
Perhaps I don't understand how the law of Britain and France as executed under various governments in Canada to introduce commerce and religion as the instruments of greatest propriety in re-shaping the landscape of Canada to suit the entrepreneurs and railroad barons of yesteryear is vasty different than the decision taken by Britain and the United States and thirteen other nations including Canada to hand exclusivity to the Israelis and rigorously pursue a policy of disenfranchisement and oppression on those remaining.
I'll argue that there are far greater similarities and commonalities between these two situations than there are differences.
Only the wealthy white folk prospered enormously from this situation here and it seems obviously apparent that the folk in Israel who've been in charge of things since the resolution was passed experience a similar situation.
While in the case of Palestine and Israel the argument offered is that there's no going back...changing the dynamic of sanctioned oppression is perhaps something that could be examined but there's no reversing the U.N. resolution so far as returning this land to the greater majority of people who occupied that same land. Isn't it entirely the same to suggest that the "agreements" regardless of how anyone might "see" those agreements in terms of their legitimacy vis-a-vis the situation in Canada is just as equally unavailable to turning the clock back?
I'm prepared to entertain the argument that these two cases are so differnt that comparison is unfair, but help me to understand why it's unfair in one case to while acceptable in the other....
Hell pay what it was worth back then and let's get on with things. For those who want to reclaim built up areas, pony up the cash for all the development on that area, and then have at it.
I find most of this boils down to some people just being a pain in the ass.
I find most of this boils down to some people just being a pain in the ass.
I know First Peoples got a raw deal. Greedy governments will do that. Government seized my great-grandfather's property. I have never seen it. I have suffered no real loss because I never knew those times. Do I have the right to reclaim that which was my great-grandfather's?
Yes, the land should be in the hands of those who will care for it. In benuding it of forests and poisoning the air and water, we haven't done such a great job. In tearing open sixteen garbage bags filled with rotting pike at a Nipissing 10 garbage dump - because Pickeral is the money-maker - I wonder how much care and respect was shown for Mother Earth there?
Woof!
Yes, the land should be in the hands of those who will care for it. In benuding it of forests and poisoning the air and water, we haven't done such a great job. In tearing open sixteen garbage bags filled with rotting pike at a Nipissing 10 garbage dump - because Pickeral is the money-maker - I wonder how much care and respect was shown for Mother Earth there?
Woof!
I whole heartedly agree.
The land claims thing has dragged on for a long long time, and if there is a National Chief and Tribal Council, perhaps they should seek the right from the Indian people to make a final financial claim, get the money, and call it a day. Cause, I really can't see anyone giving up Toronto or the Grand River..........but, who knows8O?
But a National rep, is a whole other ball of wax.
YES!!!
Absolutely and not seldomely either.
BTW...I new what you were saying when I saw you thread title, I didn't take it as an insult or a slur...and I'm sorry someone took offence to it...
I sure didn't.