New posts

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

July 1, 2021, 7:31 a.m.
Posts: 15157
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra

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.”

After Delgamuukw you wana read Tsilcotin ( july  2014) which strongly reinforced Delgamuukw and was the nail in the coffin for the Northern Gateway project

still Christy Clarke got the CGL project started in Wetsueten lands by getting approval from the band council instead of the heredetary chiefs,

band councils run the res NOT the territory which is why i say CGL was illegal so I wasnt doing any work out there for money

Horgan did nothing to stop CGL , in fact brought in the cops arrested abunch of FN who were never actulay charged and we had all those blockades and a heavy police presence out in the Morice

July 1, 2021, 9:24 a.m.
Posts: 15557
Joined: May 29, 2004

Posted by: XXX_er

Posted by: chupacabra

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.”

After Delgamuukw you wana read Tsilcotin ( july  2014) which strongly reinforced Delgamuukw and was the nail in the coffin for the Northern Gateway project

still Christy Clarke got the CGL project started in Wetsueten lands by getting approval from the band council instead of the heredetary chiefs,

band councils run the res NOT the territory which is why i say CGL was illegal so I wasnt doing any work out there for money

Horgan did nothing to stop CGL , in fact brought in the cops arrested abunch of FN who were never actulay charged and we had all those blockades and a heavy police presence out in the Morice

Thats the problem with current legislation, consultation is only required with elected officials, but we both know thats not how it works.

Both the federal and provincial governments are going to die on this hill, by not following through with any of their promises. Its too bad...Justin was the only hope to modernize the indian act, the next government isnt going to do anything either.

July 1, 2021, 11:25 a.m.
Posts: 1477
Joined: Nov. 8, 2003

Posted by: Mic

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.

215 in Kamloops

751 in Saskatchewan

182 near Cranbrook

There were 130 residential schools run by religious authorities. Current estimates I've read are that 6,000 children died there, in squalid conditions after being told they had "no souls". 

Now that they are checking these sites with ground penetrating radar those tragic numbers are just going to keep rolling. 

Eventually the reminders will be too loud to ignore even for the most willfully ignorant among us.

July 1, 2021, 11:51 a.m.
Posts: 15157
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

yup ^^ the hy goes thru all the IR's from here to Rupert so if the FN get pissed off ( and they did) buddy & 25 of his brothers/cousins/uncles decide to throw up a road block and there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it cuz nothing is gona move on the highway or the CN mainline,the lawn order types can't really understand that the 2 cops on duty can't deal with an extended family of pissed off native without calling in more cops fr om somwhere and btw johnny law will have to deal with all those citizens after this is all over and i think that was worth 1 million a day to industry

The last load of food i drove into morrison they ask me to drop the truck at the sign painters after, so I figure out they had spray painted out the company logo to run food incognito to the RCMP camp which was arresting the Unistolten, I later had to drive their cook/ biker chick to the airport ( she was funny) and she told me 3/4 of them cops realized it was all BS but the job is the job eh

July 2, 2021, 10:12 a.m.
Posts: 11499
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: syncro

^^^ 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.

Your analogy is totally accurate, but if thieves take over your house and force you to live in the shed I think we can all agree the only fair verdict from a court would be for the thieves to leave (go to jail) and the homeowners to be paid in full for everything they lost. And the courts are mainly deciding the fate of the country and the province so I tend to agree with the lawyer as to where this is all headed.

From my perspective there is another inequity happening as the country's political elite grapple with reconciliation. The rural communities will have to sacrifice much more because they are not protected by massive tracts of land that are private and their livelihoods are much more likely to be based on the land. If you live in small town BC you are probably surrounded by crown land and money comes in to the community from logging, fishing or mining. All of the decisions come from the big cities where life won't change much. Where I grew up it is traditional territory of the Sechelt people. The Sechelt band controls the waterfront through a dock management program, several place names were officially changed without any consultation with the locals, and all of the local government parks were claimed by the Sechelt band by building longhouses in them including in a park that was created on donated private land (they admitted their mistake but it is still there as far as I know). Meanwhile I don't see Stanley Park going anywhere. The Premier might want to watch the symphony there one day.

I worry about my home town. The animosity toward the Sechelt people grows all the time and other than typical small town racists being assholes it didn't used to be like that. The government is screwing it up by sitting on their hands while the Sechelt band feels as though they don't need to discuss it with the residents once the province gives them the green light.

Anyway, that was a bit of a rant but my worry is that reconciliation is going to be very hard when the small communities across the province, communities that are typically integrated much more than the larger cities, have to accept the changes and the loss of livelihood in ways that the urban centers don't. I don't know how to answer this, but the government seems to be sticking their heads in the sand.


 Last edited by: chupacabra on July 2, 2021, 10:34 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Aug. 2, 2021, 10:34 a.m.
Posts: 13016
Joined: Nov. 24, 2002

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but this is a good read, the footnotes alone are worth it.  

Paul, Cecil: Stories from the magic canoe of Wa'xaid, as told to Briony Pen. Rocky Mountain Books 2020.

"You don't learn from experience. You learn from reflecting on the experience."
- Kristen Ulmer

Aug. 5, 2021, 11:31 a.m.
Posts: 3540
Joined: May 23, 2006

Canada Is Waging an All-Front Legal War Against Indigenous People

To get a sense of the scope of Canada’s legal war on First Nations, I looked at a Canadian legal database containing decisions (case law) pertaining to First Nations. I also looked at the hearing lists of the Federal Court of Canada for ongoing cases. My initial goal was to identify where Canada could easily settle or abandon cases, bringing about a harmonious solution to these conflicts. Two things surprised me.

The first was the volume and diversity of lawsuits Canada is fighting. Canada is fighting First Nations everywhere, on an astoundingly wide range of issues.

The second thing: Canada is losing.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/08/05/canada-is-waging-an-all-front-legal-war-against-indigenous-people/

Aug. 5, 2021, 1:53 p.m.
Posts: 11499
Joined: June 29, 2006

Under Indigenous sovereignty, Canadians could truly be guests of the First Nations, capable of fulfilling their obligations to their hosts and their hosts’ lands, rather than the pawns of the settler state’s war against those from whom the land was stolen.

Is this really what people here want?  Is it what you think is fair and just?  I have no reason to believe that this is not the end goal of most of the First Nations legal challenges.  It is to end Canada and take full control of all the land again.  That is why we are "settlers".  I don't think history has a rewind feature and I think that outcome would be disastrous.

Thoughts?

Aug. 6, 2021, 1:24 p.m.
Posts: 11499
Joined: June 29, 2006

Nobody touching this one eh?

Aug. 6, 2021, 5:46 p.m.
Posts: 15157
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

By the time they got all the way west to BC the brits didnt wana pay the FN which is a  real problem for any corp trying to get anything done

I still own my fee simple home but its also Wetsuet en  lands which means the FN have a real say in what what happens

Aug. 6, 2021, 10:40 p.m.
Posts: 1729
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra

Under Indigenous sovereignty, Canadians could truly be guests of the First Nations, capable of fulfilling their obligations to their hosts and their hosts’ lands, rather than the pawns of the settler state’s war against those from whom the land was stolen.

Is this really what people here want?  Is it what you think is fair and just?  I have no reason to believe that this is not the end goal of most of the First Nations legal challenges.  It is to end Canada and take full control of all the land again.  That is why we are "settlers".  I don't think history has a rewind feature and I think that outcome would be disastrous.

Thoughts?

What some people may think is fair and just may not be what they want. What other people want may not be fair and just. Some Indigenous leaders do not necessarily want to dismantle the governments and take back control of the land. Some of those in rhe Resurgence movement want to take the land back and all that that involves. 

I think there is a compromise possible that keeps Canada intact and gives Indigenous people much greater control of the lands. 

We came as univited guests and became settlers because of the way we treated Indigenous people and the land. We're still settlers because of the way we treat Indigenous people and the land. To understand why one has to understand the importance of the land to Indigenous people. Imho that's where reconciliation starts.

Aug. 7, 2021, 12:03 a.m.
Posts: 26
Joined: July 24, 2013

There is no correct answer or solution.  Things are happening fast though.  Dialogue and discussion is good whether we agree or disagree.

Aug. 9, 2021, 10:41 a.m.
Posts: 11499
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: chupacabra

Under Indigenous sovereignty, Canadians could truly be guests of the First Nations, capable of fulfilling their obligations to their hosts and their hosts’ lands, rather than the pawns of the settler state’s war against those from whom the land was stolen.

Is this really what people here want?  Is it what you think is fair and just?  I have no reason to believe that this is not the end goal of most of the First Nations legal challenges.  It is to end Canada and take full control of all the land again.  That is why we are "settlers".  I don't think history has a rewind feature and I think that outcome would be disastrous.

Thoughts?

What some people may think is fair and just may not be what they want. What other people want may not be fair and just. Some Indigenous leaders do not necessarily want to dismantle the governments and take back control of the land. Some of those in rhe Resurgence movement want to take the land back and all that that involves. 

I think there is a compromise possible that keeps Canada intact and gives Indigenous people much greater control of the lands. 

We came as univited guests and became settlers because of the way we treated Indigenous people and the land. We're still settlers because of the way we treat Indigenous people and the land. To understand why one has to understand the importance of the land to Indigenous people. Imho that's where reconciliation starts.

I am not so sure "what people want" is relevant to how this is all going to go down.  Like I said, the courts are ultimately the arena where this is being sorted out and the precedents so far are clear.  The various first nations will likely own large parts of their territories and have rights over resources and land management outside of those territories permanently enshrined.  If there is a compromise what does it look like.  Can there be a sunset clause?  

I think that land is important to everyone, which is what makes this so complicated and why I will continue to reject the term settler.  I am not a citizen of any other country, so this is the only land I am connected to.  At this point if I went to Europe that is where I would be a settler.  I can't conceive how I can be a true citizen when I can only be a guest here.  A guest is temporary.  They eventually leave and go back to their own home, except there is no other home.

The more we lean into this whole "We are just settlers on stolen land" mantra the more we will see Canada be dissolved in the courts and the more we are creating a 2 tier class of citizen which cannot work long term.  Some of it doesn't even make sense now.  We can't have a "guest" class of citizen and expect that to just work out. 

I get a lot of flack for my outlook on culture and tradition because I don't put that much value in the trappings.  Historically speaking putting too much importance on our cultural traditions typically leads to violence.  I never had parents that taught me any ancient traditions or told me stories of the old country.  As a 7th generation Canadian mutt and atheist I don't feel like having an ever changing culture where I need to give up some of the past is a bad thing.  Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are aspects of most cultures that we are much better off without.  I shouldn't be able to claim any kind of privilege or rights for my heritage or culture.  Quite the opposite in fact.  Most of what is seen as "white settler culture" is just greed and cruelty which I publicly denounce.  We should all seek to eradicate the shitty parts of the cultures we were handed and prop up the good parts.  Incorporating positive aspects of another culture and rejecting the shitty parts of my own is real progress.  So to me the best way forward is to allow our cultures to merge and make the best of all our cultures as one people.  That is the Canadian dream.  We can do that while we give back land.  We can do that while we spend money and resources to help native people recover their past and re-establish those important cultural aspects that make their people stronger.  We can do that while we honour the traditional names of the mountains, stream and villages across the country.  We can do that while we acknowledge to ancient history of this land.  What we can't do is break the people of this country into owners and permanent renters and think that will not lead to a bad outcome.

Aug. 9, 2021, 7:13 p.m.
Posts: 1729
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: chupacabra

I am not so sure "what people want" is relevant to how this is all going to go down. Like I said, the courts are ultimately the arena where this is being sorted out and the precedents so far are clear. The various first nations will likely own large parts of their territories and have rights over resources and land management outside of those territories permanently enshrined. If there is a compromise what does it look like. Can there be a sunset clause?

I think that land is important to everyone, which is what makes this so complicated and why I will continue to reject the term settler. I am not a citizen of any other country, so this is the only land I am connected to. At this point if I went to Europe that is where I would be a settler. I can't conceive how I can be a true citizen when I can only be a guest here. A guest is temporary. They eventually leave and go back to their own home, except there is no other home.

The more we lean into this whole "We are just settlers on stolen land" mantra the more we will see Canada be dissolved in the courts and the more we are creating a 2 tier class of citizen which cannot work long term. Some of it doesn't even make sense now. We can't have a "guest" class of citizen and expect that to just work out.

I get a lot of flack for my outlook on culture and tradition because I don't put that much value in the trappings. Historically speaking putting too much importance on our cultural traditions typically leads to violence. I never had parents that taught me any ancient traditions or told me stories of the old country. As a 7th generation Canadian mutt and atheist I don't feel like having an ever changing culture where I need to give up some of the past is a bad thing. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are aspects of most cultures that we are much better off without. I shouldn't be able to claim any kind of privilege or rights for my heritage or culture. Quite the opposite in fact. Most of what is seen as "white settler culture" is just greed and cruelty which I publicly denounce. We should all seek to eradicate the shitty parts of the cultures we were handed and prop up the good parts. Incorporating positive aspects of another culture and rejecting the shitty parts of my own is real progress. So to me the best way forward is to allow our cultures to merge and make the best of all our cultures as one people. That is the Canadian dream. We can do that while we give back land. We can do that while we spend money and resources to help native people recover their past and re-establish those important cultural aspects that make their people stronger. We can do that while we honour the traditional names of the mountains, stream and villages across the country. We can do that while we acknowledge to ancient history of this land. What we can't do is break the people of this country into owners and permanent renters and think that will not lead to a bad outcome.

How can you say you're not sure "what the people want" is relevant? The whole thing is about what the people want - the Indigenous people.

Saying land is important to everyone is like saying "no it's all lives matter not just black lives matter." Indigenous people's connection to the land is an integral part of their culture and helps define who they are.

I think until you move away from this idea you have that the end goal is to create a country of owners and renters then you won't understand why the term settler is apt for people who are foreign to this land even if you're 3rd or 4th generation "Canadian". Many Indigenous people are willing to share the land as that is part of their identity and their culture. The land does not belong to us, we belong to the land. Until we as a society can sort that out, and as long the people that are here today are not willing to recognize that their existence is a direct result of the colonization of Canada and the oppression of the Indigenous people that were here before us, reconciliation won't take place and we will be fighting this issue for a long time to come. We're either willing to accept that we have to give up some of the privilege we have that we take for granted or eventually the whole thing is going to crumble down around us.


 Last edited by: syncro on Aug. 9, 2021, 10:56 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Aug. 10, 2021, 10:42 a.m.
Posts: 11499
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: chupacabra

I am not so sure "what people want" is relevant to how this is all going to go down. Like I said, the courts are ultimately the arena where this is being sorted out and the precedents so far are clear. The various first nations will likely own large parts of their territories and have rights over resources and land management outside of those territories permanently enshrined. If there is a compromise what does it look like. Can there be a sunset clause?

I think that land is important to everyone, which is what makes this so complicated and why I will continue to reject the term settler. I am not a citizen of any other country, so this is the only land I am connected to. At this point if I went to Europe that is where I would be a settler. I can't conceive how I can be a true citizen when I can only be a guest here. A guest is temporary. They eventually leave and go back to their own home, except there is no other home.

The more we lean into this whole "We are just settlers on stolen land" mantra the more we will see Canada be dissolved in the courts and the more we are creating a 2 tier class of citizen which cannot work long term. Some of it doesn't even make sense now. We can't have a "guest" class of citizen and expect that to just work out.

I get a lot of flack for my outlook on culture and tradition because I don't put that much value in the trappings. Historically speaking putting too much importance on our cultural traditions typically leads to violence. I never had parents that taught me any ancient traditions or told me stories of the old country. As a 7th generation Canadian mutt and atheist I don't feel like having an ever changing culture where I need to give up some of the past is a bad thing. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are aspects of most cultures that we are much better off without. I shouldn't be able to claim any kind of privilege or rights for my heritage or culture. Quite the opposite in fact. Most of what is seen as "white settler culture" is just greed and cruelty which I publicly denounce. We should all seek to eradicate the shitty parts of the cultures we were handed and prop up the good parts. Incorporating positive aspects of another culture and rejecting the shitty parts of my own is real progress. So to me the best way forward is to allow our cultures to merge and make the best of all our cultures as one people. That is the Canadian dream. We can do that while we give back land. We can do that while we spend money and resources to help native people recover their past and re-establish those important cultural aspects that make their people stronger. We can do that while we honour the traditional names of the mountains, stream and villages across the country. We can do that while we acknowledge to ancient history of this land. What we can't do is break the people of this country into owners and permanent renters and think that will not lead to a bad outcome.

How can you say you're not sure "what the people want" is relevant? The whole thing is about what the people want - the Indigenous people.

Saying land is important to everyone is like saying "no it's all lives matter not just black lives matter." Indigenous people's connection to the land is an integral part of their culture and helps define who they are.

I think until you move away from this idea you have that the end goal is to create a country of owners and renters then you won't understand why the term settler is apt for people who are foreign to this land even if you're 3rd or 4th generation "Canadian". Many Indigenous people are willing to share the land as that is part of their identity and their culture. The land does not belong to us, we belong to the land. Until we as a society can sort that out, and as long the people that are here today are not willing to recognize that their existence is a direct result of the colonization of Canada and the oppression of the Indigenous people that were here before us, reconciliation won't take place and we will be fighting this issue for a long time to come. We're either willing to accept that we have to give up some of the privilege we have that we take for granted or eventually the whole thing is going to crumble down around us.

I am saying it is irrelevant to the process.  The courts are making the decisions and that is based on law and precedent, not on what people are asking for.  Unless that person is a lawyer.

I respect your point of view on this and I agree with most of it, but you are not saying anything concrete and I think you may be a little naïve.  When vast sections of BC crown land are transferred to the various First Nations in the province they are not going to share it.  Why would they?  From our own user group perspective I could see a lot of the trails remaining open for use, but if they decide to fence it off they will do it and have every right to.  The problem is that there will still be no treaties for the remainder of the province and most non-natives are going to want some assurance that this is still their country.  It's not going to feel like a shared land, and I think that is going to be a very big problem even though I agree with the idea of massive land transfers.     

Reconciliation is the restoration of friendly relations, but this is not possible where the relations were never friendly.  What is needed first is conciliation (the action of mediating between two disputing people or groups).  So we need to move ahead and settle land claims..  We need to finally put native rights disputes to bed and agree on a permanent set of laws.  But we can't do that without putting all of our cards on the table and agreeing on our shared future together as Canadians.  No guest status, or settlers when it is all over.  Then we can reconcile.  

Saying land is important to everyone is like saying "no it's all lives matter not just black lives matter." Indigenous people's connection to the land is an integral part of their culture and helps define who they are.

No it's not the same.  People don't share lives and land disputes are at the core of conciliation.

Forum jump: