|
|
#41 | ||||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why is this arrangement anything less than unacceptable? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Before I do a proper read-through of the Indian Acts etc, Kilroy, are those "why"s of the "You can't just make a claim like that" flavour or the "You may well be right but I don't know the situation in Canadian-Aboriginal relations" kind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Yes, both. None of those were arguments, they were conclusions. They need arguments to back them up, one possible way to do that would be to invoke historical or legal facts. That isn't to say I would accept all presented arguments, but we'll cross that bridge when we find it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | ||||||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now some explanation to the Canadian-specific statements that Cavernio was making. Quote:
Canadians (or Non-status Indians), Métis (Those of mixed aboriginal/european ancestry), the Inuit (Those tribes living in the arctic regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland) and Status Indians (of various tribes throughout the country) The Inuit were granted the largest land claim in Canadian history just recently, which resulted in the creation of the territory of Nunavut in what was the eastern part of the Northwest Territory, and northern Quebec. Other than that, there are no special rights for any of those groups except for 'Status Indians' who are protected (If you want to call it that) by the text of the Indian Act of 1876, giving them both some special rights and special disabilities unique to them. Under the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rights exclusive to status indians under the terms of the Indian Act are beyond legal challenge. How this effects land claims is that basically, unless you are provably a member of a tribe recognised by the Indian Act as being a valid tribe under the terms of the treaties, you are basically indistinguishable from a Canadian in the eyes of the law, and thus have no claim to ancestral lands etc. Mind you, if you reject the validity of the Canadian government, its laws are also worth ignoring, but if for the sake of arguement you grant the validity of the Canadian government, that's how they interact with claimsto ancestral lands. Basically: If you're on this list of tribes that count, we can talk, otherwise sorry no. Quote:
Quote:
While Status Indians benefit from an exemption from paying taxes on purchased goods (Also goods they sell are exempt from being taxed as well, thus many people buy their cigarettes on Reserves) and have their tuition to university/college subsidized as well, they are also limited in that they have to live on reserves to qualify for these benefits. In fact, in 1985, the Canadian Government passed Bill C-31 as an amendment to the Indian Act to redress a number of discriminatory practices of the older versions of the act, and among other things, allowed under some circumstances, for natives to live off reserves and still be protected under the act, which has caused a mess of legal issues, because many of the programs in place for natives specified that you must be living on reserve to qualify, and they are getting bogged down in deciding just what and to what extent these benefits should extend to natives living off reserve. Quote:
(Mind you I -am- personally opposed to a very certain type of native I've come across a lot recently [Barely qualifies by ancestry, doesn't know what tribe they're from, doesn't know the history, doesn't follow any of the practices and traditions, lives off reserves, etc etc] who nevertheless -insist- that they derive every benefit from their status, and get incredibly offended and indignant if you even so much as suggest that they shouldn't) |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#45 | |||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Sorry, I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment. I'll give a more thorough response later.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#46 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Er...you said "use equates to ownership" and I said "That's the same argument the europeans used, they claims the natives weren't demonstrating use, thus weren't demonstrating ownership". I don't recall saying that the Europeans were correct, or whether the natives were using the land or not, I just supported you by pointing out that they set the same standard you did, regardless of how accurately or inaccurately it was applied.
Quote:
Quote:
I was simply providing the actual information that needed to accompany cavernio's claims earlier, not applying values of veracity to them. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#47 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
No, it wasn't applied very accurately. There's a reason why post-colonialism is such a widespread view these days. You get folks like Dierdre David and Edward Said pointing out exactly how inaccurate and inherantly prejudiced the Europeans were about how their way of life was intrinsically superior to everyone else's.
They were absolutely using that land, but they weren't using it "properly" (read: "how they use it in Europe") so clearly they weren't using it at all. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|