How much do you know about the history of Indigenous people under Canadian rule?

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: chupacabra

They would have never let a bunch of rich white kids go unaccounted for in the first place, but if it was poor white kids that died 50 to 100+ years ago I doubt the government would do much but find someone to blame.

I think these graves are a turning point for public understanding because it can't be ignored and most people really don't know what the history is with residential schools.

I replied to this yesterday but it looks like it got lost in the ether of a poor reception on Seymour.

If it was poor white kids that were being stolen from their parents on the same level it was happening to Indigenous kids there would have been some level of noise/action on the problem instead of it just being ignored. Even though it was government backed, broader society would have spoken up. Because it was Indigenous kids though, white society didn't care. I hope that this is a turning point, but what really needs to happen is white/dominant society needs to change their attitudes and recognize that Indigenous people are important and should be a valued part of our society. We have much to learn from them, particularly when it comes to living in coexistence with the natural world. I think society will feel some level of sadness, some may even feel guilt/shame, but I honestly don't think this will be a switch flipping moment for people that currently don't care, want Indigenous people to "just get over it" or simply want the issue to go away. The change that should take place will happen over a few generations, even though it should happen overnight. It's easier though for people to be comfortable in their privilege than to challenge their identity.

Hopefully people will accept that there needs to be change and allow the government to act on it.  The calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission cover most of this ground well, so the framework is in place for the feds to follow, but I there are a few landmines within that report for anyone in public office trying to tackle it.

One of the calls to action is this:

Repudiate concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous lands and peoples such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius.

The Assembly of First Nations has produced a document, Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery that takes this call to action further;

Ensure that the violation of First Nations’ rights to lands, territories and resources that were taken without their free, prior, and informed consent are effectively redressed

I think this is the part the clogs the gears.  In laymen terms it is saying the the English did not discover these lands, that Canada does not have sovereignty and they are in fact Indigenous lands, and this is to be redressed.  That is a lot of toothpaste to put back in the tube.  I think even the most well meaning politician would have a very hard time grappling with this concept and without any language that defines the rights of the non-natives of Canada I can see why governments continue to stonewall.  You questioned me for refusing to use the term "settler", but this is why.  There has to be a middle ground and these documents and pretty much every legal decision made on native rights does not answer the question.  If Canada is not legitimate, then what are Canadians?

Posted by: chupacabra

I think this is the part the clogs the gears. In laymen terms it is saying the the English did not discover these lands, that Canada does not have sovereignty and they are in fact Indigenous lands, and this is to be redressed. That is a lot of toothpaste to put back in the tube. I think even the most well meaning politician would have a very hard time grappling with this concept and without any language that defines the rights of the non-natives of Canada I can see why governments continue to stonewall. You questioned me for refusing to use the term "settler", but this is why. There has to be a middle ground and these documents and pretty much every legal decision made on native rights does not answer the question. If Canada is not legitimate, then what are Canadians?

Did Canada (England) really "discover" these lands though? By saying that "we" did it instantly erases the people and their societies, culture, technology, laws and systems of governance that existed before "we" got here. What about the royal proclamation by King George III in 1763? One could say it's a question of privilege. White/dominant/settler society had/has the privilege/advantage of power due to some technology and numbers that was used to oppress the societies that were already here - and thriving.

In terms of finding that middle ground what about the thought that Indigenous peoples were willing to share the land? What are we willing to give up to find that middle ground? If we're not willing to give something significant back then that's not finding middle ground, that's holding onto our privilege. In terms of what are Canadians, you could ask that of any society/culture and the answer will shift over time. But who are we really? We've only been here really for about 150 years, as opposed to some Indigenous groups who've been here for millennia. So part of answering who we are is determining whether we're a society of oppressors that wants to continue to oppress or do we want to be better than that? At present, in greater Canadian society, there seems to be little appetite for giving these questions serious consideration.

Edit: Consider how the logging dispute at Fairy Creek factors into this. Consider the wider implications of logging in BC in general; if Indigenous people had had more say in logging practices over the past century do you think we would be worrying about saving the last few strands of a blanket of giant old growth trees that once covered the South Coast of BC?

Google  royal proclamation of 1763 where the brits were suposed to pay the FN except by the time they got to BC they had run out of money/didnt wana which is why BC is unceded land

then google Delgamukw and Tsilcotin descisions

+ In Canadian civil disobedience cases, largely over pipelines and mining sites, 76% of injunctions filed against First Nations by corporations have been granted, while 81% of injunctions filed against corporations by First Nations have been denied.

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2021/06/19/remains-10-Native-American-children-buried-Carlisle-return-tribes/stories/202106180113?fbclid=IwAR21ixFBTGJuApu-lRIC1D_SP3bnvBJ7QXsBjUej44dfAxxIi96NXBwVNxs

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: bux-bux

Man have to say.. Did no one give a shit when this was going on? Or was it another crimes against children show starring the catholic church?

It seems like the further back in time you go, the less anyone gave a shit, but the churches (not all of them were run by Catholics) did have the ultimate responsibility of making sure they were cared for and I would assume that the families of the kids were informed as to there well being.  Their attitude was so callous though I wouldn't doubt that they didn't even keep track of who the parents were.

I saw on IG a Catholic priest publicly stating in mass that "we should not forget the good things" that residential schools brought to these children. 

I literally had to watch it a few times to make sure that I did not misunderstand him. 

And I think even today quite a few do not understand, do not want to do so, play the history of the residential schools down or are openly racist towards FN. 

Ultimately it all comes down to perspective, and if a person acts out of a position of (perceived) superiority and privilege, well, there is not much anyone can do except being in educating them again and again for a long time.

A number of people have been stupid enough to say residential schools were good for the FN ^^ (google lynn beyak ) but even if that were true it is the most politicaly stupid thing TO say when one could just say nothing at all or change the subject or wtf

imagine being a little kid and taken away from your family

the brits often sent their kids to boarding school so maybe they did think it was good, duno  but obviously residential schools  failed in Canada

I met some local FN when i was fixing bikes on the blue bike program (shittly bikes) for bottle pickers, these guys were compromised by lifestlye/ alcoholism, one guy didnt go but his dad took him away to avoid residential schools so he never learned to read so if you cant read yer kinda fucked, i would see them around the small town over 15yars to say hi, sometimes in good shape often in not so good shape

in any case they were my age or younger and they are all dead

I honestly think the residential school system was enforced and put to practise because of colonialism, ideas of white superiority and blatant racism, and, ultimately, control of the country, sort of like the white settlers acted in the US. 

By the way, there are quite a few reading lists on FN (non fiction and fiction) floating around the web for those who do not know where to start.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: chupacabra

I think this is the part the clogs the gears. In laymen terms it is saying the the English did not discover these lands, that Canada does not have sovereignty and they are in fact Indigenous lands, and this is to be redressed. That is a lot of toothpaste to put back in the tube. I think even the most well meaning politician would have a very hard time grappling with this concept and without any language that defines the rights of the non-natives of Canada I can see why governments continue to stonewall. You questioned me for refusing to use the term "settler", but this is why. There has to be a middle ground and these documents and pretty much every legal decision made on native rights does not answer the question. If Canada is not legitimate, then what are Canadians?

Did Canada (England) really "discover" these lands though? By saying that "we" did it instantly erases the people and their societies, culture, technology, laws and systems of governance that existed before "we" got here. What about the royal proclamation by King George III in 1763? One could say it's a question of privilege. White/dominant/settler society had/has the privilege/advantage of power due to some technology and numbers that was used to oppress the societies that were already here - and thriving.

In terms of finding that middle ground what about the thought that Indigenous peoples were willing to share the land? What are we willing to give up to find that middle ground? If we're not willing to give something significant back then that's not finding middle ground, that's holding onto our privilege. In terms of what are Canadians, you could ask that of any society/culture and the answer will shift over time. But who are we really? We've only been here really for about 150 years, as opposed to some Indigenous groups who've been here for millennia. So part of answering who we are is determining whether we're a society of oppressors that wants to continue to oppress or do we want to be better than that? At present, in greater Canadian society, there seems to be little appetite for giving these questions serious consideration.

Edit: Consider how the logging dispute at Fairy Creek factors into this. Consider the wider implications of logging in BC in general; if Indigenous people had had more say in logging practices over the past century do you think we would be worrying about saving the last few strands of a blanket of giant old growth trees that once covered the South Coast of BC?

I get what you are saying but you are not addressing the issue I brought up.  To follow through 100% on the commission recommendations as they are written and interpreted by our courts we need to give back the whole ball of wax including the power to govern the people. 

BC is 100% claimed by the various First Nations and they are fighting for this every day in court.  Everything I have read on the subject says that to right the wrongs FNs need to have title over 100% of their traditional territory.  If we really were just settlers we could all sail back home and this plan would work, but we aren't, which is why I reject the term.   

The truth is that I am prepared to accept having the FN control much of the country as it is the traditional territory, but there has to be a compromise because we don't have homes to sail back to.  So where do we go from here?  Do we split the land 50/50?  Does each nation become it's own country?  It's own province or territory within Canada?  This is not just about cultural shifts and we have to sort out these answers.

Posted by: chupacabra

I get what you are saying but you are not addressing the issue I brought up.  To follow through 100% on the commission recommendations as they are written and interpreted by our courts we need to give back the whole ball of wax including the power to govern the people. 

BC is 100% claimed by the various First Nations and they are fighting for this every day in court.  Everything I have read on the subject says that to right the wrongs FNs need to have title over 100% of their traditional territory.  If we really were just settlers we could all sail back home and this plan would work, but we aren't, which is why I reject the term.   

The truth is that I am prepared to accept having the FN control much of the country as it is the traditional territory, but there has to be a compromise because we don't have homes to sail back to.  So where do we go from here?  Do we split the land 50/50?  Does each nation become it's own country?  It's own province or territory within Canada?  This is not just about cultural shifts and we have to sort out these answers.

I think the idea of giving up the whole ball of wax is up for some debate. If we follow through on all the recommendations does it mean Canada is going to change? Yes, but I don't think it has to mean the end of Canada as we know it. When settlers first came here, Indigenous people were willing to share the land. In light of what has happened, that has probably changed some, but there is willingness for compromise. You and I may not directly be settlers ourselves, but our existence here is a direct product of colonialism and settler mentality.

In terms of where we go from here I don't have those answers. IMHO, I don't think we - "settlers" - can have those answers on our own, they have to be found in conjunction with Indigenous people across this land. Having that conversation has to start with recognizing what has been taken from Indigenous people. They have lost far more than just their land, they are fighting to regain their identity. Their identity has been taken from them and they slowly gaining it back - it's known as resurgence. You and I can have good conversation about this, agree on some things and disagree on others, but that is not the dominant thinking in Canadian society. Most of Canada still sees Indigenous people as not worthy of the same value and respect they give to their settler friends. It's the settler or colonizer attitude that needs to change, the idea that Indigenous people are nothing more than an inconvenience to be dismissed and swept aside.

From what I've learned, Indigenous people want to be recognized as equal and valuable parts of this society. So until an Indigenous man can take his granddaughter into a bank to open an account for her and not get arrested, handcuffed and detained on the streets of this city for over a half hour then our society is nowhere near recognizing Indigenous people as valuable members of this society. To state it bluntly, we are a long fucking ways away from recognizing and appreciating Indigenous people for who they are, and that's where reconciliation needs to start.

A lot of BC are unceded lands ?

I live in a house with a fee simple title in unceded Wetsuet en lands so what does that mean ?

they don't get my house back but they now have a big say in what goes on in the territory but those precedents in law were ignored on the CGL project

I told buddy I had expedited groceries for i wasn't impressed with the end run christy clarke & CGL had pulled  and that i thot what they did was against the law

So buddy knew better than to ask me to drive up the Morice or into the RCMP camp

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: chupacabra

I get what you are saying but you are not addressing the issue I brought up.  To follow through 100% on the commission recommendations as they are written and interpreted by our courts we need to give back the whole ball of wax including the power to govern the people. 

BC is 100% claimed by the various First Nations and they are fighting for this every day in court.  Everything I have read on the subject says that to right the wrongs FNs need to have title over 100% of their traditional territory.  If we really were just settlers we could all sail back home and this plan would work, but we aren't, which is why I reject the term.   

The truth is that I am prepared to accept having the FN control much of the country as it is the traditional territory, but there has to be a compromise because we don't have homes to sail back to.  So where do we go from here?  Do we split the land 50/50?  Does each nation become it's own country?  It's own province or territory within Canada?  This is not just about cultural shifts and we have to sort out these answers.

I think the idea of giving up the whole ball of wax is up for some debate. If we follow through on all the recommendations does it mean Canada is going to change? Yes, but I don't think it has to mean the end of Canada as we know it. When settlers first came here, Indigenous people were willing to share the land. In light of what has happened, that has probably changed some, but there is willingness for compromise. You and I may not directly be settlers ourselves, but our existence here is a direct product of colonialism and settler mentality.

In terms of where we go from here I don't have those answers. IMHO, I don't think we - "settlers" - can have those answers on our own, they have to be found in conjunction with Indigenous people across this land. Having that conversation has to start with recognizing what has been taken from Indigenous people. They have lost far more than just their land, they are fighting to regain their identity. Their identity has been taken from them and they slowly gaining it back - it's known as resurgence. You and I can have good conversation about this, agree on some things and disagree on others, but that is not the dominant thinking in Canadian society. Most of Canada still sees Indigenous people as not worthy of the same value and respect they give to their settler friends. It's the settler or colonizer attitude that needs to change, the idea that Indigenous people are nothing more than an inconvenience to be dismissed and swept aside.

From what I've learned, Indigenous people want to be recognized as equal and valuable parts of this society. So until an Indigenous man can take his granddaughter into a bank to open an account for her and not get arrested, handcuffed and detained on the streets of this city for over a half hour then our society is nowhere near recognizing Indigenous people as valuable members of this society. To state it bluntly, we are a long fucking ways away from recognizing and appreciating Indigenous people for who they are, and that's where reconciliation needs to start.

I agree, but this discussion is happening in the courts right now and it is focused on land and rights over territory.  BC crown land is what is on the table and these cases are not going to wait for us to reach reconcilliation.

This might help:

What does Aboriginal Title Mean for Private Property Interests?

Issues of outstanding Aboriginal title does not mean that private property will be expropriated, or that homeowners will be evicted from their homes. Many Aboriginal leaders have consistently stated that this is not their desire. Many have emphasized that their goal is to resolve an inequitable system that has marginalized Aboriginal peoples in their own homelands in order for non-Aboriginal interests to profit off Aboriginal territories.5

The Delagmuukw decision affirmed that the Crown holds underlying title to lands, and Aboriginal title represents a burden on this underlying title. This means that the Crown has the responsibility to negotiate terms with the Aboriginal title-holders should a third party have interest in the land.  Many First Nations have entered into agreements directly with third party interests in order to create an equitable relationship between business and local Aboriginal peoples. The cases Haida Nation v. British Columbia and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia have further determined that the Crown has a responsibility to consult and accommodate First Nations peoples even if existing Aboriginal title to the lands has not yet been proven in court—an act that many laud as another positive step towards the recognition of Aboriginal title.

https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_title/

It looks to me that things will be going beyond the Delagmuukw decision.  Jack Woodward, a lawyer representing the Nuchatlaht First Nation is saying this;

“Much of the Crown land in B.C. isn’t Crown land — it is owned by Indigenous people,” says Woodward, drawing on his reading of history, constitutional law and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in the Tsilhqot’in title case in 2014
“Over the next generation we’re going to see a replacement of ownership of large parts of the province. It is going to be a big shock and a big change and a big adjustment for the system to get used to.
“There’s going to be a different landlord — not for the entire province … but fairly large chunks of it.”

^^^ Maybe, time will tell.

From your same article" "The question of title arises because Europeans settled B.C. for the most part without the treaties that clarified ownership in other parts of North America."

There's also some strength to the idea that many/most of those original treaties in other areas should be declared null and void as they were negotiated under false pretenses and took advantage of differences in language, beliefs and understanding of those treaties. The Douglas treaties here in BC are a good example of that. Europeans came here in the interest of profit by taking what they wanted. The goal was to plunder the resources that existed for profit and push the people that were here out of the way if they interfered with that. They viewed the "uncivilized world" as theirs for the taking. That's the global history of Western European culture for the most part.

On the subject of land tho, we should also recognize that much of the crown land in that map has nothing on it anyways, so I would think that there is not a lot to be "lost" by the Crown if title reverts back to Aboriginal people. And if private corps want to take advantage of resource extraction on Aboriginal land then they should have to work to the terms set out by Aboriginal people.

Edit: To put in into stark contrast it's like a gang of thieves walking into your house and taking over and allowing you to exist to some small degree in the back corner of the yard as long as you don't put up too much of a fuss.