Until Canada gives Indigenous people their land back, there can never be reconciliation

93 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Until Canada gives Indigenous people their land back, there can never be reconciliation

I don't recall this being discussed here. If it has been then please delete. 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2017/01/until-canada-giv...

In practical terms we need to look first at the results of colonial dispossession: the minuscule land base that Indigenous peoples have in contrast tosettler Canadians. Our Indian reserves are only 0.2  per cent of Canada's land mass yet Indigenous Peoples are expected to survive on that land base.....

 Plus recognize we have exclusive rights to a land base starting from 3-to-5 million acres so we can protect our language, culture, laws and economy.

I have no idea how much land that is.  Canada is 3.8 million square miles (9.9 million square kilometres)

5 million acres is, nevermind, I tried, I could do the math eventually but it would take all day. 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

This should be the outlier to reconciliation

More in depth Canadian land

progressive17 progressive17's picture

There are 640 acres in a square mile...

6079_Smith_W

It's 20,000 square km. Not a lot of space at all - just double the area of Jasper National Park.

Canada's largest FN - the Blood Reserve, is 1414 square km.

Navajo Nation is over 17.5 million acres, or 70,000 square km.

Of course it isn't just about the numbers, but cautionary tales like this 158 acres:

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/kapyong-is-a-symbol-o...

There have been developments since that article, but you get the idea.

 

Pondering

So, Canada is  9.9 million square kilometres. He's only saying 20,000 square km? He must mean per nation not in total for all indigenous people. 

He says the current is .2 percent. That is 20% of 1 % right? The indigenous population is about 4.3 % of the population of Canada and is the fastest growing population. 

So Canada is about 10 million sq km, indigenous population is around 5%, 5% of 10 million is .05 times 10,000,000 = 500,000 sq km. Would that be enough to cover the 20,000 per nation in Canada?

I just found this. 

https://native-land.ca/resources/

 

Mwolf

North American, Native American tribes and the game of Footy,soccer origins and who first played the beautiful game.

1600 In Alaska and Canada the native Eskimos played a game called aqsaqtuk on ice, using balls stuffed with grass, caribou hair, and moss. One legend tells of two villages playing against each other with goals 10 miles apart.

1620   In North America, native American Indians  Native American tribes, primarily the Algonkin and Powhatan tribes playing a variation of the sport known as pasuckuakohowog. Pasuckuakohowog, literally meaning "kicking ball sport" was reported to be played on fields a half mile in diameter and as long as nearly a mile.Teams would have nearly 100 people,Pasuckuakohowog which literally translates to "they gather to play ball with the foot. 

1885   The  USA and Canada, played in Newark and ended with Canada winning 1-0.

In 1957, Canada entered qualifying for the FIFA World Cup for the first time and met the United States and Mexico in qualifying for the finals in Sweden in 1958. Canada won its first World Cup qualifying game 5-1 against the U.S. in Toronto, but played Mexico twice in Mexico City and lost 2-0 and 3-0. In the final group game, Canada beat the U.S. 3-2 in St. Louis, but group winners Mexico advanced to the Finals.

 

Some more Footy,Soccer Timeline

5000-300 B.C. There is evidence in China that military forces around 2nd and 3rd century BC (Han Dynasty) played a game, originally named "Tsu Chu", that involved kicking a leather ball stuffed with fur into a small hole. Like Soccer, no hands were permitted during the play of the game.

2500 B.C There was possibly a version of a type of ball game played by young women in Egypt during the age of Baqet III, as images of this sport were depicted on his tomb, though there is not much known of this sport except that it was played with a ball.

1000 B.C. The Japanese version of 'soccer' was called Kemari, a game much like modern hackysacks, played with two to twelve players, and played a larger ball stuffed with sawdust. There was also a field designated by four trees (cherry, maple, pine and willow).

B.C. In ancient Greece, they played a game called Episkyros, in which two equal numbered teams would try to throw the ball over the heads of the other team. There was a white line between the teams and another white line behind each team. Teams would change the ball often until one of the team was forced behind the line at their end.

50 B.C. China's Tsu Chu players and Japan's Kemari players were the first to have an "International" game of their versions of soccer, believed to have occurred roughly 50 B.C.. There is a definite date of such a game occurring in 611 A.D.

600 - 1600 A.D. In Mexico & Central America the rubber ball was created, and used in a game on a recessed court 40-50 feet long shaped like a capital "I". In the middle of each wall, was a mounted stone or wooden ring and the object was to project the hard rubber ball through the ring.

700s The first Football games played in Britain was between the locals of east of England, starting after a 'legendary' game that involved kicking around the severed head of a Danish prince that they had defeated in a war. These games were violent, where injury and death were not uncommon

1331 Despite the violence of these celebratory games, they were still popular. This led King Edward III of England to pass laws in 1331 to stop the game

1424 King James I of Scotland also passed a law banning the game

1500 In Italy they played a game called "calcio" with teams of 27+ people. The game involved kicking, carrying or passing a ball across a goal line. In 1580, Giovanni Bardi published a set of rules of the game of calcio.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I don't recall this being discussed here. If it has been then please delete. 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2017/01/until-canada-giv...

In practical terms we need to look first at the results of colonial dispossession: the minuscule land base that Indigenous peoples have in contrast tosettler Canadians. Our Indian reserves are only 0.2  per cent of Canada's land mass yet Indigenous Peoples are expected to survive on that land base.....

 Plus recognize we have exclusive rights to a land base starting from 3-to-5 million acres so we can protect our language, culture, laws and economy.

I have no idea how much land that is.  Canada is 3.8 million square miles (9.9 million square kilometres)

5 million acres is, nevermind, I tried, I could do the math eventually but it would take all day. 

 

 

So how do you do that? Serious question, what's the framework?  

Is anyone of a non-Indigenous background given an eviction notice above/below/east or west of a certain latitude and longitude? 

Removed from certain cities? Counties or even provinces?

Are people rmoved from their homes compensated by the government or do they have to leave everything behind?

What about local infrastructure? Does it get taken when non-Indigenous leave, like computers and fire trucks and school text books or is it left in place?

Is it just a matter of expanding reserves?  Isn't the nepotisim found on reserves one of the majory complaints of Indigenous people?

Would the government still give FN communities up north money?  In 2013/14, Health Canada spent almost $1.1 billion on supplementary benefits such as dental care, vision care and pharmaceutical drugs for eligible First Nations and Inuit Canadians.  That coverage is not required by treaties or by constitution. Would they be autonomous from government health and dental care?

 

What does giving their land back mean?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What does giving their land back mean?

To be fair, the Crown does have plenty of it, and it probably doesn't have to mean "downtown Toronto".

Really, downtown Toronto would be absolutely terrible for fishing, hunting, trapping and suchlike.

Pondering

Indigenous people realize they won't be getting Vancouver or Ottawa back. Whenever the government has been willing to negotiate settlements have been reached. Canada has a great deal of uninhabited or sparsely populated land. Sometimes the government buys land back from private owners. That land becomes reserve land and nothing else changes. 

Indigenous peoples are Canadian and I do believe the federal government has a legal obligation to fund things like education. Even if there is no legal obligation we have a moral obligation. Our most far flung communities established our claim to the territory. Our claim to the arctic is based on it being Inuit land therefore Canadian. We patrol the Northwest Passage to establish it as Canadian territory. The grand majority of people willing to settle and permanently live in the farthest reaches of Canada are people who are born there.  They establish our sovereignty. We should be eternally grateful. We should be making it as easy as possible for those communities to thrive. I'm sure it isn't a huge population. There is so much that could be done to ease their lives. Deep poverty is in and of itself very damaging. 

I'm not talking about just throwing money at it either. We could involve universities in developing sustainable housing solutions for the North instead of delivering bungalows designed for a suburb. Involve the community in building as much as is possible. There is a wealth of innovative talent to be tapped in Canada. 

Canada is an extremely wealthy country in which the wealth is pooled at the top. 

"The richest 86 Canadians… have the same wealth as that country's poorest 11.4 million.  Expressed in other terms, 0.002 per cent of Canadians have wealth equivalent to that held by 34 per cent of the population."

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2016/01/extreme-wealth-plutocrats-and-canada...

86 people. That isn't the 1%.

The problem is not lack of resources or knowledge it is lack of political will. 

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What does giving their land back mean?

To be fair, the Crown does have plenty of it, and it probably doesn't have to mean "downtown Toronto".

Really, downtown Toronto would be absolutely terrible for fishing, hunting, trapping and suchlike.

I dunno. I'm bringing the famjam down to ripleys aquarium, might be some good fishing there :)  Can't stand hunting though yuck.

 

Pondering wrote:

Indigenous people realize they won't be getting Vancouver or Ottawa back. Whenever the government has been willing to negotiate settlements have been reached. Canada has a great deal of uninhabited or sparsely populated land. Sometimes the government buys land back from private owners. That land becomes reserve land and nothing else changes. ledge it is lack of political will. 

Thanks for the reply Pondering. 

Large swaths of undeveloped land doesn't seem too appearing to me. With reserves often struggling to subbort basic infrastrure with the land they have I can't see new land helping all that much, unless the idea would be to sell natural resources. 

Speaking of which you mention private owners. I've heard from FN friends when speaking about this subject (hence why I chimed in here, call it curiosity) that the first thing that would happen is people would fight over who gets the land. Makes sense.

Wouldn't there be a whole mess of territorial arguments of which land actually belonged to which tribe? Land back then was hardly marked off with surveyors equipment.  Who gets how much of what land. Is it fair one tribe gets mostly swamps and another lush forest?  Supposing 10'000 kilometers was given back, who would own that land? Would the reserve council own and control it?  Would the land be devided up so all members of the land get an equal share? Backdoor deals here some get more than others?  Could someone recieving land turn around and sell it to someone else? Or sell it back to the government? I've heard of councils trying to block members from selling their private property to people or businesses.

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Large swaths of undeveloped land doesn't seem too appearing to me. With reserves often struggling to subbort basic infrastrure with the land they have I can't see new land helping all that much, unless the idea would be to sell natural resources. 

Speaking of which you mention private owners. I've heard from FN friends when speaking about this subject (hence why I chimed in here, call it curiosity) that the first thing that would happen is people would fight over who gets the land. Makes sense.

Wouldn't there be a whole mess of territorial arguments of which land actually belonged to which tribe? Land back then was hardly marked off with surveyors equipment.  Who gets how much of what land. Is it fair one tribe gets mostly swamps and another lush forest?  Supposing 10'000 kilometers was given back, who would own that land? Would the reserve council own and control it?  Would the land be devided up so all members of the land get an equal share? Backdoor deals here some get more than others?  Could someone recieving land turn around and sell it to someone else? Or sell it back to the government? I've heard of councils trying to block members from selling their private property to people or businesses.

Yes there would be endless negotiations. That is no excuse not to start. It doesn't matter if it helps them or not, I think it will, but either way they are legally entitled to the land. The Queen refused to sign the Constitution without a guarantee that all treaties will be honored. 

That is why indigenous people have been winning so much in the courts. They have legal rights. They are entitled to the land and nowadays they are well informed enough not to accept swamp land in exchange for Ottawa. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm bringing the famjam down to ripleys aquarium, might be some good fishing there :) 

Mrs. Magoo kind of wanted to go there recently, until I looked online and found that admission for the two of us would be >$80 after taxes and public transport.  Let us know if you find Nemo.

6079_Smith_W

Well, just to take one example, what the Metis got screwed out of when Canada disregarded the Manitoba Act was 5,500 square kilometres. So it makes that foot-dragging over Kapyong Barracks kind of funny, in a not-so-funny way.

As  for what urban land can be used for, it is exactly the same thing we use it for. We call them urban reserves out here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Indian_reserve

I don't have a great understanding of it, and I know it is just one model, but there are several such business sites here in Saskatoon that I am aware of. They are First Nations land. The city has a framework for investment and land purchase as a way of resolving land issues. And in addition to this there is also the Saskatoon TribalCouncil, which has representation from all the Treaty 6 First Nations, and coordinates services in and around Saskatoon:

https://www.saskatoon.ca/business-development/planning/regional-planning...

In fact, there was a new urban reserve established here just last month: 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/idylwyld-retro-petro-urban-reser...

So yes, it is complicated, but no moreso than any government, and it is already an example of a structure that is in place.

NDPP

The Canadian thieves will never give back the land. They will ensure they always hold on to the underlying title or 'give' it or money settlements to their crown agent band council 'First Nations' but never back to the peoples it truly belongs to. Unless forced to...

'Time For Reconciliation Over' - South Africa Votes To Confiscate White-Owned Land

https://on.rt.com/9039

"The South African parliament voted on Tuesday in favor of a motion seeking to change the constitution to allow white-owned land expropriation without compensation. 'The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice,' Malema told the parliament. 'We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land..."

Paladin1

NDPP wrote:

The Canadian thieves will never give back the land. They will ensure they always hold on to the underlying title or 'give' it or money settlements to their crown agent band council 'First Nations' but never back to the peoples it truly belongs to. Unless forced to...

'Time For Reconciliation Over' - South Africa Votes To Confiscate White-Owned Land

https://on.rt.com/9039

"The South African parliament voted on Tuesday in favor of a motion seeking to change the constitution to allow white-owned land expropriation without compensation. 'The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice,' Malema told the parliament. 'We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land..."

 

*

‘Bury them alive!’: White South Africans fear for their future as horrific farm attacks escalate

NEARLY every day, horrific acts of rape, torture and murder are carried out on a community under siege. WARNING: Graphic.*

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-whi...

Quote:
“Her head was covered with a towel. Her eyes were swollen shut. She was partially clothed with just scraps of her shirt remaining. Her breasts and upper body was bloody. The plastic bag, shoved down her throat, took some effort to remove because her jaw was clamped down tightly.

 

Really something to emulate eh NDPP?

 

 

NDPP

The people of South Africa regaining their own lands as with Indigenous here, has nothing to do with 'rape, torture and murder', more accurately associated with the colonizers, pirates and thieves.

NDPP

And not only land either...

Official Statement Of The Indigenous Students' Council

https://twitter.com/ISC_UofS/status/968959020282327041

Indigenous students call for non-participation in unversity reconciliation and indigenization efforts until other terms are met. Indigenous Student Autonomy Now!

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

And not only land either...

Official Statement Of The Indigenous Students' Council

https://twitter.com/ISC_UofS/status/968959020282327041

Indigenous students call for non-participation in unversity reconciliation and indigenization efforts until other terms are met. Indigenous Student Autonomy Now!

That is so inspiring! I hope they get everything they want and then show us how it's done. 

NDPP

"Jody Wilson Raybould. You are First Nations. Canada is on Indigenous lands. You are in charge of Justice Canada. What are you going to do to correct this?"

https://twitter.com/1Mohawklawyer/status/970007862175965185

Paladin1

Purely conjecture and hypothesis on my part.  What about the trouble FN on reserves are currently (and historically) facing?   By returning land to FN people would those problems of poverty abuse and corruption improve, remain the same or get worse?

That's not an argument to not return the land by any stretch of the imagination. But in doing so will it cause more problems? At least in the here and now? Would time and effort by all be better spent fixing the current reserve system and the systemic infrastructure problems they face?

If corruption and greed is a concern by local band members then will lucrative land being thrown in the mix just compound the issues?  Give their land back 100%, no argument.  But in doing so do we owe them to do it in a responsible way? 

JKR

I think the way to fix the reserve system and many other aspects of Canada/First Nations relations would be for the Canadian government and First Nations governments to negotiate openly and in good faith on modernizing treaties for the 21st century.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Give their land back 100%, no argument.  But in doing so do we owe them to do it in a responsible way?

Can you owe someone something if they don't want it?

Give them their land.  Tons of it.  It's not like the Crown is doing anything with most of it anyway.  And let them decide how to govern it.

If they ask for our help in that, give it as best we can.  And if it does turn out that some get very wealthy and others stay poor, refrain from acting like we have magical remedies for that.

6079_Smith_W

One example of leases which are now expiring. But there are more long-term arrangements involving farmland on other First Nations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/crooked-lake-cottagers-rent-i...

Rev Pesky

To support this initiative, I will return all the land I own to any First Nation that wants it.

6079_Smith_W

Probably not expected or necessary (there is plenty of good crown land, after all), but some have done that for real:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.41125...

When an 86-year-old retired rancher donated half his land to a B.C. First Nation this week, it was not so much a gift as an act of reconciliation, says Esk'etemc Chief Charlene Belleau.

"When he talked with me, I thought, you know, this is reconciliation in its best form," Belleau told As It Happens host Carol Off. "He's not just talking about reconciliation; he's actually doing something about it."

Rev Pesky

Not to put too much of a damper on that wonderful story, but that land is worth mostly nothing. In that part of the world, a half-section of land probably couldn't generate the income to pay the taxes. Still, it's something, although it was only a portion of what this fellow owned, as opposed to my promise to give back all of the land I own.

How about you, 6079_Smith_W, are you going to return your stolen land to the rightful owners? How about the others in this thread who refer to it as stolen land. Are they willing to return the stolen land they 'own'.

Or is the idea that you and they want others to return the land?

6079_Smith_W

I get the cute rhetorical point of trying to make those who promote land claim settlements out to be hyopcrites unless we turn our own deeds over (and at this point it is up to the credit union, not me).

But unfortunately, no cigar. These are agreements and processes between nations, and they can be settled that way. As I just said, there is plenty of good land available. And there are enough examples of governments willing to take part in the process - like our own city in Treaty Six Territory.

Of course if your point is to question the premise that this actually is stolen land, you might want to read some of our own history. Sorry, but it isn't just an opinion; it is fact, and how any of us responds to it doesn't change that. It is a debt left owing and agreements ignored.

As for what we can do on an individual level,  recognising the reality of our privilege and systemic racism and acting to resolve that debt might not be worth as much on paper as our land title, but I think it will go a lot further in the long run toward honouring our broken agreements.

In a practical sense it is the best I can do. Frankly, no one is asking for my house. But they are asking me to treat them like human beings and wortk to correct the wrongs that have been done and the debt that is owed.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not to put too much of a damper on that wonderful story, but that land is worth mostly nothing.

Perhaps mostly nothing in White Man Dollars.  Mostly nothing in terms of resources that can be exploited from it.

But it's my understanding that Indigenous peoples don't look at land in terms of how many condos they can build on it.  The monetary value of it is missing the point.

Quote:
In that part of the world, a half-section of land probably couldn't generate the income to pay the taxes.

If we give it back, why would there be taxes?

Pondering

When our constitution was signed by the Queen it was with the commitment that all treaties and agreements with First Nations had to be kept. We are legally bound by our constitution to abide by the agreements between the Crown and indigenous peoples. 

They don't expect us to hand back downtown Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver. All we have to do is negotiate in good faith. On the whole I think indigenous peoples have proven themselves to be more than reasonable. It is we who have abused the legal system to force FNs through the courts for every measly concession to honouring their legal rights. It is we who have taken an adversarial approach. It is we who have failed to make restitution for the virtual genocide of destroying generations of families through seizing their children. I can't even imagine the horror of a small community emptied of its children like some science-fiction plague. To lose one child can devastate a small community, to lose all children? Unimaginable. 

Paladin1

Rev Pesky wrote:

How about you, 6079_Smith_W, are you going to return your stolen land to the rightful owners? How about the others in this thread who refer to it as stolen land. Are they willing to return the stolen land they 'own'.

Or is the idea that you and they want others to return the land?

 

No one seemed interested in helping me raise money to help an FN woman get her ceptic tank fixed. I don't really see anyone returning land anytime soon. It's a nice mantra to post though.

6079_Smith_W

Here is one that is in the works:

http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/ontario-slowly-closing-in-o...

It includes the city of  Ottawa. Remember the talk last summer at Canada 150 about Parliament Hill being on unceded territory?

And the one in Manitoba I mentioned.  Not strictly a treaty, but the Manitoba Act. It includes Winnipeg.

A lot left undone still though.

One specific issue that has been on the table here in SK is revenue sharing. Unfortunately even the NDP backed away from its promise to share provincial royalties with First Nations. Hopefully that policy can be changed:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-resource-revenue-sharing...

http://www.fsin.com/overview/natural-resources/ 

Here is another perspective worth reading. Sorry kids; it also concerns the justice system:

Daschuk said true reconciliation means a shift in power and resources — and people won't like that.

"I think it's tough for mainstream people, for non-Indigenous people, to really understand the depths of the unjust relationship that we've had with these people."

"The white people are asking:'hey, can you just, like, forgive us?'" he said.

That's not how it will work, Daschuk said, adding tensions seen in recent weeks shows "we've got a pretty high hill to climb."

"We've still got a lot of people, if not only resistant to reconciliation, who are overtly racist."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/is-reconciliation-possible-pr...

quizzical

Relocated First Nations formerly from here got land this month.

https://www.therockymountaingoat.com/

NDPP

#WhitePaperTheSequel  *  #EndOfTheTrail

https://twitter.com/RussDiabo/status/976287086922772481

"This is what you're going to get from PM Justin Trudeau's and Jody Wilson-Raybould's 'Rights Recognition Act'!"

NDPP

Tsilhqot'in Apology Must Come With Recognition of Real History of Colonialism

https://ricochet.media/en/2158/tsilhqotin-apology-must-come-with-recogni...

"Reconciliation is the most popular word in Canada where its Indigenous population is concerned. However, the word is met with caution and cynicism in most Indigenous communities. Can anyone blame us?

Every time the government creates anything supposedly for our benefit, it seems to either cost too much to implement or only fulfils the words portion of the thought-words-action troika. The latest announcement comes today in the form of a federal exoneration from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Canadian government in Ottawa..."

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

I get the cute rhetorical point of trying to make those who promote land claim settlements out to be hyopcrites unless we turn our own deeds over (and at this point it is up to the credit union, not me).

...Of course if your point is to question the premise that this actually is stolen land, you might want to read some of our own history. Sorry, but it isn't just an opinion; it is fact...

The point is that stolen property belongs to the person it was stolen from, regardless of whether the current holder of that property bought it in good faith.

If you own some property, and have built up some equity in it, that equity would  belong to the person or group that the property was stolen from.

6079_Smith_W

Except Rev, that isn't what anyone is asking for. Claims are against the Crown.

The best thing we settlers can do is to pressure our governments to act in good faith in settling claims, transferring available lands to First Nations, and not pressing Nations to give up more of their land.

A good example is our province's announcement last year to sell off Crown pasture land, initially with no consultation with First Nations.

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/public-consultations-on-pastur...

Note that this involves financial transactions, just like the creation of urban reserves here in Saskatoon. I know I posted the link to the city's site upthread. But here's a link to the brochure on that page to show you what it looks like on a map:

https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/default/files/documents/community-service...

So there are actually serious issues that relate to this and real potential solutions. On a local level that also means supporting FN businesses which are on urban reserves here in town, and recognizing the Tribal Council and local First Nations as an integral part of our local government.

So no, it's not a case of "if it's all stolen why doesn't the whole city of Saskatoon just pack up and leave."

NDPP

"Apparently the going rate for top down collaboration of the National Organization of Chiefs with the federal government is $35 million."

https://twitter.com/RussDiabo/status/979019962248396800

Occupiers' Justice, Canada's Broken Constitution and Ongoing Genocide

https://dissidentvoice.org/author/bruceclark/

"Canada and Israel equally practice occupiers' justice. Both occupy land in contravention of their constitutions..."

6079_Smith_W

And another example of First Nations and Indigenous people being shut out of new economic opportunities:

https://www.theleafnews.com/news/senate-committee-studying-legal-cannabi...

NDPP

How Canadian Bureaucrats Make State Territory In The Name of 'Restoring' Indigenous Rights

https://jeremyjschmidt.com/2018/01/24/how-canadian-bureaucrats-make-stat...

"The paper looks at how bureaucrats in Canada used the development of new legislation regarding private property on lands reserved for First Nations to convert Indigenous claims to territory into spaces akin to municipalities. These changes took place in two ways. First, bureaucrats situated Aboriginal property rights into a series of 'regulatory gaps' regarding voting thresholds, certainty of title and the historical misrepresentation of FN economies.

Second, the government crafted legislation under what is known as the First Nation Property Initiative that, by closing regulatory gaps, would produce private property regimes analgous to municipal arrangements elsewhere in Canada. These bureaucratic practices realigned internal state mechanisms to produce novel external boundaries among the state, indigenous lands and the economy.

By tracking how bureaucratic practices adapted to Indigenous refusals of state agendas, the article shows how the bureaucratic production of territory gave form to a new iteration of settler colonialism in Canada."

'Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no indian question...that is the whole purpose of our legislation.' Duncan Campbell Scott - Bureaucrat,  Indian Affairs Canada, 1920

His truth goes marching on..

6079_Smith_W

I can't get in to the article. Can you? It seems like he is talking about privatizing Reserve land, but there's no actual information there.

 

NDPP

Well there certainly is information there, but the posting is just the Abstract. The link to the article is below the title. American Association of Geographers. 

6079_Smith_W

I tried to get in, but it seems you have to pay or be part of a university to do so.

 

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Except Rev, that isn't what anyone is asking for. Claims are against the Crown.

That statement is untrue, but even if it was true, all property orginates from the Crown. Thus, any claim against the Crown could very well end up being a claim against privately held property. 

Even if people are not evicted from their homes, they could very well end up paying for them again, because any agreement reached with First Nations that involves a monetary transfer will be paid by the taxpayers.

6079_Smith_W

You do understand this is about jurisdiction, right?

There are disputes which involve non-Indigenous renters on FN land, and there is currently a dispute in Oka involving a developer (but which is really between the town and Kanesatake), but spinning this as FNs making land claims that will throw people out of their houses?

That's fearmongering, Rev. And it is turning on its head the reality that we are continuing to steal their land. That's not how these claims are being settled, and no one is going to come and shovel your lawn into a truck and take it away.

Though some are acting like that is what is happening. Read the comments on this article about Kapyong Barracks. Some are supportive, but others are deeply racist, and whining that the city should be getting the tax revenue. Funny that they didn't think about it that way when the army was their neighbour. So yes, it is still us pressing for their land.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/meeting-about-kapyong-barracks-ur...
 

Even disputes on FN land still fall under government jurisdiction. Like this one in Sakimay which has been all over the press. It's worth mentioning that valley is some of the most beautiful land in the province, yet the court still enforced a discount because it is Reserve land. They don't do that in white resort towns like Elbow, where I have seen bungalows selling for the same price as our house in Saskatoon. And what they enforced? Considerably less than my property taxes for a house that is about the same size on lakefront property.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/crooked-lake-cottagers-rent-i...

And of course it is going to cost; I just said that. It should cost, because it is a situation where we have had unfair advantage for over a century. We have money going into our general revenues that should in part be going to sustain their communities as they have ours.

Really, the first step is to stop making up horror stories of what you think it might look like and learn the history of how it really works. Even though this is a process that has been abused, it is one that has been going on for hundreds of years. In the case of our city, it is here because of agreements between the Dakota and the British from over 200 years ago. It is worth noting that it wouldn't even be here if Chief Whitecap hadn't invited the settlers in, rather than behaving the way a lot of white people are now.

http://whitecapdakota.com/history-culture/

I don't know where you live, but are you familiar with the political history of your territory? It might be worth learning.

 

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

There are disputes which involve non-Indigenous renters on FN land, and there is currently a dispute in Oka involving a developer (but which is really between the town and Kanesatake), but spinning this as FNs making land claims that will throw people out of their houses?

That's fearmongering, Rev.

There's nothing fear-mongering about it. I am merely pointing out a fact in law, that is, that property that has been stolen belongs to the original owner, no ifs, ands, or buts. The person who currently holds the property, even if they acquired it in good faith, is not the owner. Any increase in the value of the property also belongs to the original owner.

It's true that most land claims negotiations are based around trading some property for other property, but that is a matter of negotiation, not of law.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well if what you are claiming is real and not fearmongering feel free to show me examples of people being forced to pay for their homes twice or anyone being forced out by encroaching First Nations. No land claims settlement has ever awarded anything like that.

That is not how these broken promises and unsettled agreements are being dealt with. In fact, the Supreme Court decision on the Tsilhqot’in land claim explicitly excluded any claim against private landholders. The Mississauga land claim settlement was for $145 Million, but they did not displace anyone living in Toronto. Nothing like that is happening in Winnipeg either.

I am sure there are a lot of people who believe the myth that First Nations are going to kick us out of our homes, but what you are saying is simply not true. That's just ironic cover for the fact that we are continuing to take their lands.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I am sure there are a lot of people who believe the myth that First Nations are going to kick us out of our homes, but what you are saying is simply not true. That's just ironic cover for the fact that we are continuing to take their lands.

Do you own a house and/or land?

6079_Smith_W

Yes Paladin, I own a house.

Paladin1

As a white settler living on stolen land will you be giving your house and land over to the local FN reserve or people and offering to rent the land and house off them?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

We could certainly deal with that if any Indigenous groups start demanding suburban subdivisions back.  But until then, it shouldn't be unreasonable to ask the government to stop clawing back Indigenous lands, nor to give them some of the Crown's many, many hectares of unused land, nor even to acknowledge that we mostly snapped up the good stuff.

I suppose, theoretically, if we use our imaginations, Indigenous Canadians could draw a line in the sand and say "we want it back.  ALL of it!".  But they're not going to demand it all back, and really, we wouldn't hand it over anyway.

And I'll be really blunt and honest here.  I would far, far rather that the government deal fairly with Indigenous Canadians, and repatriate some of their lands, and treat them with the respect we show to other nations than to have to spend my whole life identifying as "Mr. Magoo, priveleged white colonial settler living on stolen land on Turtle Island".  

Maybe if we did the right thing we could lose the hair shirt.  But if Indigenous Canadians are still drinking beige water and living in clapboard pre-fabs, we really haven't done what we can.  There's just so much light in between doing nothing differently, and handing all of Canada back and living under Indigenous rule.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin, I know you read Rev asking the same absurd question at #26 because you responded to it.

Did you bother reading any of the follow up, and if so, why are you asking exactly the same thing over again?

And Magoo, fact is we are privileged white settlers and there is really nothing we can do to change that status. We can only, as you say, urge the government to deal with Indigenous people fairly when it comes to treaty obligations and repatriation, and treat them with respect ourselves. Recognizing that reality doesn't mean wearing a hair shirt any more than it involves giving your house away.

 

Pages