THE ISSUE OF THE NATIVES IN CANADA!!!!

There's been a lot of comments on this issue so I decided to open my own blog on this touchy issue!






Anonymous said...
This letter in Gleaner may be of interest to Spinks. Dan Innis makes compelling case:

=======
Treaties didn't sign away all resources in Canada
I would like to offer comment on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on Indians and Crown land wood. For any Euro-Canadian court to pass fair, unbiased and just judgment on Canadian natural resources it must begin from the standpoint of the land that now is known as Canada is the homeland of the Beothuk, Maliseet, Haida, etc. It must also take into account that our homeland was acquired by Euro-Canadian sthrough genocide, deceit, religion and theft.

How many Canadians today would trust a treaty that is written in a strange language with no opportunity to acquire appropriate translation and are forced to sign that treaty under duress at the point of a gun?

Another thing which must be taken into consideration is the fact that those treaties between our people and the transplanted Europeans did not sign away any land or resources. They were simply treaties of peace and friendship. All that these latest rulings affirm is the Euro-Canadian arrogance and racist mind set of "white is right" and "might is right."

The reason Euro-Canadians are now pushing for so-called modern treaties is so all of the things (land and resources) that their forefathers neglected to include within the old treaties can now be included so as to make the theft of our homeland look legitimate and legal. For any self-respecting modern day Indian to fall for that bit of deception is dumber than how Euro-Canadians already think of us.

One final but crucial point. That being the Euro-Canadian concept of their rule of law. This rule of law is something that Euro-Canadians speak highly of in terms of the origins of civil government and society and at its heart is third party adjudication when disputes arise between two parties. Without third party adjudication the rule of law is a hoax and will be seen as a hoax.

Since the Euro-Canadian act of genocide was incomplete there are a few of us who are still here, and because the signed treaties did not sign away any of our land or resources. We still have the outstanding issue of jurisdiction.

All along the white man's law, under the rule of law principal, has said that because the Indians were here first, and are humans, until territory has been purchased from them by the newcomers that the Indians have territorial jurisdiction. As has been previously mentioned our homeland was never purchased by the newcomers.

Dan Ennis Tobique, N.B.

5:24 PM


Spinks said...
Mr. Ennis probably writes more letters to the edirot than any other native in N.B. He's considered a bit of a maverick even among his own people and I've never been clear on what it would take to make him happy. I suspect if 3 trillion dollars was offerede, he'd want 4 and so on. What's the price on injustices done in the past? I don't think anyone knows.

8:57 AM


Anonymous said...
You have serious problem in comprehending things other than your own blinkers and what you see. Mr. Innis makes lot of sense. You did not suffer genocide, natives did. So it is easy for you to say all that stuff and hold your narrow-minded views.

11:33 AM


vivenewbrunswick said...
I agree, that was kind of snide. That letter makes a lot of good points, the fact that the author writes many such letters is hardly a damning retort.

Native groups are similar to everyone else in that it is made up of individuals, so that he would be considered 'a maverick' by some isn't pertinent. No doubt I am considered a maverick by some, no doubt you are. Such a label has no real meaning and only serves to detract people from the real issue-which is the CONTENT of the message. If you can't comment or criticize the comment, everything else is just distraction.

This is a very real issue and must be dealt with openly. Natives have a fundamentally different way of viewing society, and they have valid reasons for attempting to recognize those rights. Our disservice is that we refuse to even discuss it. You'll notice that native representatives have never even asked for reparations, even though they would be perfectly justified in doing so. What they want now is commercial access to the land and self government. Continuous talking about the absurdity and amounts of 'reparations' just detracts from the REAL conversations that need to take place.

11:51 AM


Spinks said...
Interesting theory Vive, but lots of discussions over the years have taken place. What's a real discussion and again what's a real workable solution short of throwing exorbiant amounts of money which doesn't exist without taxing the population to the poorhouse.

12:30 PM


vivenewbrunswick said...
Find one quote from a native representative that asks for an amount of money that would 'send us to the poorhouse'. Find one. Somebody posted a post away back mentioning an absurd number, perhaps even being tongue in cheek. However, anonymous blogs at a blogsite is hardly representative.

So ask yourselves this: what negotiations have taken place? Where? What was said? What is the natives position? WHat have natives asked for?

I'll answer it for you, you have no idea. In fact, I'd do a poll right now and ask anybody who may still be reading this for the name of three native organizations in New Brunswick. Name them and who their representative is.

It's a good bet that hardly anybody knows because New Brunswickers have no idea what is going on. We almost had a ruling that would have let natives run to the woods and cut trees for commercial use. Obviously natives want that. Why do they need a ruling? Why CAN"T they do that? As New Brunswickers we own 50% of the land in NB, why can't half of that be set aside for natives to manage? This would actually be good because natives hire far more people per capita than Irving or the forestry companies do.

Native use would be closer to the management of private woodlot owners, where people take care of one certain section, rather than having Irving with it's not even 1500 cutters simply using technology (which our tax system lets them depreciate) to wipe out vast tracts.

Now, this is just me talking and thats just my opinion. I doubt that natives have even asked that much, even though as a voter and taxpayer I would GLADLY offer that deal.

So the question is, how many have asked their representatives what the government's position is? How many know what the native position is? From the above letter we can quite easily understand their point of view, but that has nothing to do with negotiations. The point of racism in Canada is that of course we ASSUME that government is doing it's job and playing by the rules, etc. The opposite is the case, and ignorance of that is no excuse. I'm not preaching here, I'm no different than anybody else, I don't know what their position is either, so I'm going to stop wasting time here and go find out.

3:12 PM


Spinks said...
Intriguing and you have a good point. I think part of the problem is there are so many different native organizations, MAAIW is one that comes to mind and they've never really spoken with once clear voice because of course there are hundreds of independent First Nations. Then you add in that if one group does sign a deal, people within the group buck it and want more on top of it. Big Hole Tract in 1995 on the Miramichi would be one example. It boils down to this, there's a whole bunch of different opinions out there among natives as to what they want and just like non-natives (the municipalities issue is probably the closest example I can think of) there doesn't seem to be that magic solution. That's part of the reason I raised the question, what's sufficient for the most people possible. Racism might play part of it but I suspect the bigger problem is a lack of understanding of what the solution is. I sure don't have it or I'd be a millionaire lawyer.

5:31 PM


Anonymous said...
How many cents lawyer are you then?

5:48 PM


vivenewbrunswick said...
Just because some people will try to skirt the law doesn't mean that's a reason to not negotiate. I read an article that talked about how the federal government is trying to dump native issues onto provinces. Even though we won't be making decisions, it's a good idea to know what's going on.

Native groups have chiefs(mayors) and councillors, just like municipalities. However, we have to remember that SOME reserves have huge problems with this because native culture has always been far more democratic so they don't always like the one group speaking and acting for them. There current form of government is one that has been forced on them.

However the bands themselves have various memberships just like your municipality does. This isn't confusing, your town council is a member of literally HUNDREDS of organizations. That doesn't mean it has any effect on the actual decisions that the council makes.

The so called 'warrior societies' are a different matter altogether. Usually if they get involved then something radically out of the ordinary is going on. When they are involved you have to be VERY careful where you get your information, because it's a good bet that editors have been at it.

12:39 AM


Anonymous said...
Before we get onto worrying about native demands we should keep in mind that our own government had a Royal Commission on Aboriginals which had a series of recommendations which are gathering dust on a shelf.

12:46 AM


Anonymous said...
That 12:46 AM post makes lot of sense. There is a lot of lip service but no action on the part of governments.

8:19 AM


Spinks said...
I've observed several different native negotiations for various things first hand and I just don't see a solution. I think you can satisfy some of the First Nations and then others will want more and then the first ones you settled with will want more again. It doesn't mean you stop trying but negotiations are just that, give and take. Given what I've observed there seems to be little room for give. It's usually all or nothing. Former NB Indians Assn. Chief Roger Augustine was an exception and saw how negotiation could move things forward and the First Nation he was Chief of - Eel Ground, is to this day one of the better off in N.B. I have tremendous respect for the man which is why I do get defensive when I'm called racist and hate natives because I simply have criticism or questions some people don't want asked. Although Vive, since you've added your name, you've been nothing but respectful.
St. Mary's First Nation has done some phenomenol work as well by creating business and jobs in the community. So many are grumbling instead and waiting for something to drop out of the sky such as the comments by Mr. Anonymous earlier about trillions and that every non-native should start paying rent and back-rent. I'm not familiar enough with First Nations outside of N.B. to offer comment.

1:31 PM


vivenewbrunswick said...
We'd really have to have more detail on that before we just buy into that bit about negotiations. You mean to say that you were a negotiator? Or that you simply followed it in the press?

Under federal law if one band receives a certain concession, then other bands are obligated to recieve the same concessions. No band I have heard of has ever asked for reparations, so we can simply drop that. The federal government has a clear history of breaking its own laws, there are tons of information on that on the web-even from government sources.

The propaganda in Canada is exactly supposed to be the above-you are SUPPOSED to think that it's all or nothing, that natives want so much and so our government has to 'be reasonable'. This is FAR from reality. In fact not even close.

There are of course different native tendencies, they want to 'manage' their own affairs. That doesn't mean they don't negotiate, or negotiate 'reasonably'. They have 5% of the cut, which is miniscule, even though they often hire non-natives. To suggest that if we offered 10% they would refuse and say "we want it all or nothing" is simply absurd. They would JUMP at it. It may not stop their court cases, but it would spur on negotiations.

2:03 PM


Spinks said...
No not a negotiator, an observer. There just never seemed to be much room for negotiation. That's why I can't agree with the propaganda comment. I am certain there are those who are willing to give and take, I've just never witnessed it and considering so little has been settled in hundreds of years, that would seem to be the way it's going. I have little doubt governments are to blame too and on certain issues aren't willing to move either, but it is a two way street. Both have to be willing to move significantly and I just haven't seen it. Again, I've been very impressed with native leaders who want to continue the negotiations but are also willing to create better lives for their people within the confines of what currently exists instead of waiting for whatever to take place. There are far too few of those leaders.

3:16 PM


Anonymous said...
I think that trillion of dollars thingy, Spinks, someone was just pulling your leg as you were making outlandish statements about natives and on the issue of racism. In final analysis we are all humans and there is a basic human goodness in all of us. It depends which part of the person you appeal, good or bad.

If certain issues were not solved for centures that does not mean that there is no solution. As was said before governments (Federal ,Provincial and to certain extent municipal) pay lot of lip service to buy time and push things under the rug. When there is sincerity on the part of governments there may be a backthrough. Also natives have to get their act together otherwise divide and conquer tactics of whiteman will continue.

3:37 PM


Spinks said...
I'm not sure what was outlandish but I'll chalk it up to point of view and that it's a sensitive issue so things can be perceived as such. I agree if First Nations want to make serious progress, unity is required with a common plan of goals and objectives. Can't say I agree with the the statement "divide and conquer tactics of whiteman", although you may not have meant it the way it sounds. I don't think every white person is looking for that although I'm sure a few are. I still think statements like that are racist because it's categorizing everyone the same because of their skin colour, it just happens to be white, but I know I'm alone on this thread about that one.
Sincereity would be a major step but given the current Minister Andy Scott's track record on say one thing and do another, I don't think it will happen with this minister.

4:15 PM


Anonymous said...
I said 'whiteman' on purpose to draw you out that how quickly you will react to that and how sensitivity works when it is directed at the person himself/herself. Yes it is wrong to generalize and I am glad you recognize that. If you met a few natives then you cannot generalize that particular encounter to the whole first nation - such as that they are racist or other attributes you assigned to them.

The "divide and conquer" have been tactics of those who are in power and those who control. In colonial times those tactics were used successfully and still that approach is being used by powerful nations of the world against weaker nations. I will go so far as to say that U.S is using those tactics in Iraq as those fellows are killing each other more so than fighting occupying forces.

'Divide and conquer' is reference to the government in control. I hope we are on the same wavelength now.

4:52 PM


Spinks said...
Sure. I'm really not offended and never have been by terms such as whitey. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find s white person who was. The point was that there is a double-standard on such terms. I don't think every native is racist, nor do I think every white person is racist, but racism is alive and well on First Nations just as much as it is in the north end of Saint Joh or anywhere else. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right.

5:01 PM


Anonymous said...
Here is another fact of life we must recognize. A dominant group in a society does not suffer from racism as much because minorities know if they push their luck too much there will swift consequences. Unfortunately opposite is not true. Here in Canada, natives and minorities (as word applies they are not dominant) suffer the brunt of racism. However, in the long run the whole society suffers. Dominant group has to set an example to have more livable and peaceful society. In Canada we have a long way to go to achieve that livability and peace. You will be wrong to say that natives are racist therefore we are equal. Not at all.

I will give you an example. Rich can ignore the poor for a long time but poor and hungry sooner or latter will break into the rich man’s house because they do not have food, TV or microwave and money. To say that let us ignore the problem because rich man has his own hardships to deal with and poor do not work hard and are lazy. That approach in the long run helps no one. There are many factors in play here. That is why governments have programs to get people in the job market and reduce the poverty. Hey you cannot eliminate the poverty completely but you cannot ignore it either. Same goes for racism.

6:04 PM


Spinks said...
Interesting point of view. Obviously I don't totally buy into it, because if a white person is racially attacked in say, China, he's the minority but let's be honest I don't think it would be reported as racially motivated even if it was. However you have sold me on the fact natives for example aren't really equal in many respects. I'm still of the view racism is unacceptable no matter who you are and to whom, and there is no excuse no matter what the people of one race have done to another but you've given me an understanding about why some natives may feel that way and feel justified.

7:04 PM


Anonymous said...
"...but you've given me an understanding about why some natives may feel that way and feel justified." That is very encouraging to hear. You have come long way my friend since your early posts.

Someone posted earlier that how well they were treated in China. I have never heard any racial attacks in China. The people, that I know, who have traveled to China have nothing but praises for Chinese society and its people. Now we are not talking about governments and its agencies we are talking about society in general.

Yes there are anti-American sentiments in China and elsewhere for totally different reasons. It has nothing to do with race. If you are an American and black or native and you are known to be American then there may be a problem. Race does not matter. My experience is that as soon as you show maple leaf and that you are Canadian people's attitude changes.

A dominant group has a responsibility to treat minorities well if we want a peaceful society or if we want to be known as a civilized society. We have more resources to do so then most nations in the world.

Natives have received short end of the stick for centuries. There is that built up anger.

Let me come at you from another perspective. Statistics show that crime rate is higher amongst poor than rich. You know why? Not that poor are criminal minded. Poor kids have suffered growing up and there is that built up anger. There is considerable literature in sociology which reveals that frustrated youth from poverty stricken environment retaliate against the society. As a society we have to understand that anger before we start laying the total blame on the poor. More understanding there is fewer problems there will be.

If you want to understand the world then travel the world if you have not done so already.

8:32 PM


Spinks said...
I hear what you're saying. I'm simply more of the mind that the individual still has a choice on which direction they want to take their lives. Lots of poor people have overcome the adversity and anger and made a difference in their lives and often in many others. Aboriginals the same thing. That's why I have so much respect for those who try and not as much for ones, who for lack of a better term simply "whine" about their lot in life. There was a great story on 60 minutes 15-20 years ago about a black woman in Chicago or N.Y. who worked with ghetto kids and told her students to stop wallowing in self-pity and make a difference in their own life. The when life gives you lemons make lemonade adage. 95% of her kids went on to college in an area where almost none did. That story always stuck with me as I went through a similar situtaion as a youngster (except for the black part, obviously). Tougher for poor, minorities, etc. no doubt but not impossible.
It's interesting this discussion started with my criticism of CBC for trying to create a story about a second attack on Chinese students. I stand by it when even the Chinese student interviewed told the reporter she had no way of knowing that particular attack was racism although the first one definately was. Too often stories are created and not reported on. I've witnessed native disputes drag out for days or weeks solely because of media manipulation (most often CBC was the culprit thus the target of my disgust). Anyway I digress and we have covered the gamut. You've given me a different point of view to ponder. I hope I've done the same for you.
Our critics are our friends;
they show us our faults."
-Benjamin Franklin

9:14 PM


Anonymous said...
Native: We are our own nation not part of yours, we want our own system of governance, we want our freedom.

Colonizer: You aren't being reasonable, here, we will give you access to some of the land under our guidelines, we will provide some investment and money to sustain and educate you.

Native: We are our own nation not part of yours, we want our own system of governance, we want our freedom.

Colonizer: You aren't being reasonable, we'll give you some more money, we'll let you handle your own books (sometimes), we'll give investment when you come up with a business plan.

Native: We are our own nation not part of yours, we want our own system of governance, we want our freedom.

Colonizer: You aren't being reasonable. Just because our supreme court SAID you could manage your own affairs doesn't mean you can. You might get irresponsible with the environment (unlike us) and damage it. We'll train some of you and get you some equipment.

Native: We are our own nation not part of yours, we want our own system of governance, we want our freedom.

Colonizer: Clearly you simply can't be reasonable, we are doing our best but we simply can't let you be 'free'.

Remember, at Burnt Church the natives came up with their OWN fisheries management program which was studied by Fisheries officials and recognized as being very sound. It was SENIOR fishery officials-who know NOTHING about fisheries who called in the police and made the whole issue unsustainable and resulted in the violence.

10:19 PM


vivenewbrunswick said...
There is some validity to a point earlier made, but as usual, some closer inspection shows that it really isn't an issue.

At the committee on wood supply, the following was stated by Pat Paul:
Whereas the Wulustuk Grand Council has never ceded any land and is the rightful owner of said territory, we hereby advise any person, community or corporation to not presume to buy, sell, cede, auction any land described heretofore.

Now, if this was reported in the media, one could well imagine that readers would think that the post above is correct. Clearly this quote seems 'unreasonable', and means that we can't do ANYTHING on the land.

First, we have to realize that the speaker was the leader for the 'traditional council', meaning that he is not part of official negotiations with the province. However, one could argue that he SHOULD be, as he is the 'traditional leader'.

So if we assume he speaks for many people, let's look closer at what he actually says. He says that no entity shall "buy, sell, cede or auction" any land. This is perfectly reasonable, since he is talking about discharging land, not the utilization of it. So really it is not such an 'unreasonable' claim.

To go further, we can skip what natives are saying altogether and look at what our own government said:
(d) There is a presumption in respect of the historical treaties that

• treaty nations intended to share the territory and jurisdiction and management over it, as opposed to ceding the territory, even where the text of an historical treaty makes reference to a blanket extinguishment of land rights; and

• treaty nations did not intend to give up their inherent right of governance by entering into a treaty relationship, and the act of treaty making is regarded as an affirmation rather than a denial of that right.

This is what the Royal Commission had to say, and current government policy is far, far different.

So let's look a little closer. Natives are allowed 5.3% of the allowable cut, therefore they have a significant interest. 92A of the 1982 Charter grants forestry power to the provinces, but clearly states that it is subject to Section 35 which guarantees treaty rights. The charter clearly stipulated that natives must be a PARTNER in forest planning, not merely another presenter to wood supply committees.

So we can also note that Stephen Ginnish, Chair of NAFA, states unequivocally that third party management of crown land is completely opposed by First Nations members. Now, we can also note that third party management is opposed by virtually EVERYBODY who presented-except for industry. We can also note that third party management is now the norm at the Department of Natural Resources.

So we see that when we discuss these things and find out the facts, there are very simple steps that can be done to 'bridge the gap' between natives and non natives. We can first note that a significant similarity exists between native and non-natives, and the only ones 'on the other side'- is industry and our own government.

12:32 AM


Anonymous said...
I see Spinks is still around with his misguided and misleading views. Sloganist style such as poor can pull themselves out of poverty. His examples are exceptions and not the rule. Some from poor can make it but not the majority. Do not blame the poor. The hurdles are simply too many and that is when society and government's role comes in. Take an enlightened approach.

Chinese students: All attacks on them were racially motivated. It is odd to assume that someone threw stuff and Chinese students happened to be in the way everytime.

CBC: the best news. The least biased media outlet compared to all others. Thank God we have CBC.

Natives: They were wronged for centuries and continue to be wronged.

9:59 AM


Spinks said...
5.3% of the allowable cut seems fair. The aboriginal population in NB is 1 to 1.5%, I believe although I stand to be corrected. Seems reasonable. We do have to all live together no matter what transgressions were made in the past. Probably an argument for a bit of a higher percentage given the high unemployment on First Nations but I wouldn't suspect much more.

11:47 AM


vivenewbrunswick said...
It isn't based on YOUR idea of fairness. In fact, that was the argument before, that since there are hardly any natives (once we killed them all off) then they shouldn't get ANY of the land, we'll simply hire some of them if they will work for it. The plan was to 'integrate' them into society and then all the land would be everybody's. That didn't work, thank god, and its never morally justified when trying forcibly integrate another culture.

So the colonial mindset is exemplified PERFECTLY above, because it ASSUMES that natives are the same as any other minority and their access should represent their demographics.

This is NOT an 'equal opportunity' debate. The above argument, even if it were reasonable, does not take into account future population growth and most importantly CONTROL. Natives do not WANT our forestry system, in fact a good percentage of european descent New Brunswickers don't want it either. That 5% does not include control, that merely means that we will let a certain amount of them work in the forestry industry. The allowable cut does not mean we 'set aside' a certain amount of acreage for them to manage-they dont' get the rights of private woodcutters who themselves have very strict rules in how they cut. The are simply 'brought into the machine'.

Human rights have NOTHING to do with demographics, look it up in the UN and canadian charter. The one with the whip ALWAYS assumes they are being fair, its when you try to walk a mile in their shoes that the colonial mindset finally departs. These are issues of justice and rights, not issues of governmental policy. I hate to sound derogatory, but essentially the definition of a narrow mind is one that only sees issues within certain parameters. Take the blinders off and actually LISTEN to some natives and you'll hear a whole different story.

12:39 PM