Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-12-2007, 12:35 AM   #41
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio View Post
If such a point were easily identifiable, then there wouldn't ever be any problems, now would there be.
The reason it isn't readily identifiable is because there is no non-arbitrary basis for it.

Quote:
It is possible for land to be unowned, however, if this is the case, then there's no problem with a government taking it.
Yes there is. Government traditionally takes things by decree. For instance, they decree everything west of the Mississippi to be within their territory. The traditional idea of what makes property ownership valid is that when labor is in some way mixed with something unowned, it creates ownership.

Quote:
If you want to get picky, I believe originally, aboriginals didn't claim any land. In their opinion, land was not to be owned. So technically, they had no legitimate claim to property, under, what I guess we can consider standard western law, that they did not agree with.
I've heard this about virtually every indigenous group ever to exist. I'm not even sure if it's true. Land is frequently communally owned. It is rarely considered completely unowned. Even so, they would have a claim to land, based on their combination of labor and natural resources. They would just be rescinding that claim by stating otherwise.

Quote:
However, re-iterating my point, even if they did, it still does not mean that 4 generations or something of the like, down the line, 'us' who're now people who never took the land, should not have to give back land to 'them', whose land was never actually taken.
In some cases I think we do. In cases where land was considered the communal property of a specific tribe, for instance, any claim of blood heritage seems like a valid basis for a claim to land.

Quote:
As far as aboriginal rights to land are concerned, it's totally up to whether or not you consider them canadian or not.
Um, ok.

Quote:
That aboriginals were treated terribly at one point, that land was immorally taken away from them, is generations past, and really isn't the issue.
...why?

Quote:
Currently, aboriginals follow canadian law and benefit from canada's tax dollars through countless public programs, while not having to pay taxes.
Why is this relevant. Suppose I benefit indirectly from the murder of neighbor B, who neighbor A kills. Neighbor A then gives me neighbor B's car, under the condition I come play poker with him every Tuesday. Other neighbors have to play poker every Tuesday and Wednesday.

Why is this arrangement anything less than unacceptable?

Quote:
Also, does it make sense that someone should be able to have access to resources that other canadians don't have access to, considering that that someone follows other canadian regulations, simply because of their ancestry?
Yes, because the ancestry gives a legitimate claim to those resources.

Quote:
Should there be special government intervention for these essentially fully canadian people where help is desperately needed? Yes.
Why?

Quote:
Keep in mind this would all be different if all aboriginals stood up and made some sort of formal, unified claim that they're officially independent.
Why?
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2007, 01:02 PM   #42
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

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?
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2007, 01:32 PM   #43
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

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.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2007, 02:58 PM   #44
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio
It is possible for land to be unowned, however, if this is the case, then there's no problem with a government taking it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_X
Yes there is. Government traditionally takes things by decree. For instance, they decree everything west of the Mississippi to be within their territory. The traditional idea of what makes property ownership valid is that when labor is in some way mixed with something unowned, it creates ownership.
If you read pretty much all of the documentation that accompanied European land claims in North America, you'll find that's actually exactly how they argued it. Because they had a clear idea in their mind what proper land use looked like, and that wasn't present here, it was concluded that the Natives had no ownership of the land (As evidenced by lack of demarcations of property lines, lack of appropriate resource exploitation, lack of obvious use of labour to gain resources from the land, and lack of comprehension when approached to sell the land) So it was basically the official decision of at least the British Government anyway (Quoting my recent 'British Empire and Commonwealth' class here) that all the land here except possibly that which actual native dewllings were located on, was un-owned and completely legally and ethically claimable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio
If you want to get picky, I believe originally, aboriginals didn't claim any land. In their opinion, land was not to be owned. So technically, they had no legitimate claim to property, under, what I guess we can consider standard western law, that they did not agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_X
I've heard this about virtually every indigenous group ever to exist. I'm not even sure if it's true. Land is frequently communally owned. It is rarely considered completely unowned. Even so, they would have a claim to land, based on their combination of labor and natural resources. They would just be rescinding that claim by stating otherwise.
Also don't underestimate the extent to which native groups, especially north american native groups, would be happy to claim that they didn't own the land all along, if simply to further the romantic and sympathetic notion that all natives lived in wonderous and perfect harmony with the earth. The simple fact of the matter is, tribes absolutely claimed and held territory. They formed into political and economical aliiances with other tribes, made war on those who encroached onto their land, and always made sure to stay within quite clearly created bounderies. Even if Native A doesn't own "All the land from this river to that path to that tree" if, for example, the Six Nations Iraquois "control" all the land from that river to that forest to that lake, that is absolutely a property claim sufficient to satisfy Kilroy's requirement.

Now some explanation to the Canadian-specific statements that Cavernio was making.

Quote:
As far as aboriginal rights to land are concerned, it's totally up to whether or not you consider them canadian or not.
Basically, Canadian law currently recognises four states of being for those of aboriginal descent.

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:
Originally Posted by Cavernio
That aboriginals were treated terribly at one point, that land was immorally taken away from them, is generations past, and really isn't the issue.
I'm with Kilroy on this one. Given the huge amount of recent and ongoing negotiation with Native Rights groups over land claims, I'd say that it most certainly is the point now. One of the things that cost Canada its number 1 ranked spot on the UN list of best places to live was our shoddy relationship with Native populations, and we're making lots of steps lately to remedy that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio
Currently, aboriginals follow canadian law and benefit from canada's tax dollars through countless public programs, while not having to pay taxes.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 actually grants Natives a whole subset of rights that Canadians don't have under Canadian law. This includes logging, fishing and hunting rights on ancestral lands, the right to defend treaties signed between the Natives and Britain/France/Canada in Canadian courts, and though the Supreme Court of Canada hasn't ruled on it yet, the potential exists that section 35 actually protects Native rights of self-government.

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:
Also, does it make sense that someone should be able to have access to resources that other canadians don't have access to, considering that that someone follows other canadian regulations, simply because of their ancestry?
They are required to live on reserves, you aren't. There is such a more complex interaction between Canadian Law and being a Status Indian than you seem to think. There've been hundreds of legal cases surrounding exactly which rights do and don't transfer around.

(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)
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2007, 07:23 PM   #45
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Sorry, I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment. I'll give a more thorough response later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
If you read pretty much all of the documentation that accompanied European land claims in North America, you'll find that's actually exactly how they argued it. Because they had a clear idea in their mind what proper land use looked like, and that wasn't present here, it was concluded that the Natives had no ownership of the land (As evidenced by lack of demarcations of property lines, lack of appropriate resource exploitation, lack of obvious use of labour to gain resources from the land, and lack of comprehension when approached to sell the land)
None of those things are requirements for land ownership.

Quote:
Even if Native A doesn't own "All the land from this river to that path to that tree" if, for example, the Six Nations Iraquois "control" all the land from that river to that forest to that lake, that is absolutely a property claim sufficient to satisfy Kilroy's requirement.
No it isn't. Land doesn't have to be formally demarcated to be owned. Any land which is demonstrated to be used, in any capacity, is owned.


Quote:
Basically, Canadian law currently recognises four states of being for those of aboriginal descent.
Using Canadian law to justify the practices of Canadian government is just a tad bit circular.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2007, 07:53 PM   #46
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
None of those things are requirements for land ownership.
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:
No it isn't. Land doesn't have to be formally demarcated to be owned. Any land which is demonstrated to be used, in any capacity, is owned.
Right...once again, I was supporting what you said, namely "Even if the natives weren't staking individual property, the tribes as a whole were, thus landowners"

Quote:
Using Canadian law to justify the practices of Canadian government is just a tad bit circular.
See above where I stated explicitly: "If you don't think they are legitimate, you won't think their application of law is legitimate either, but if you do, this is how that application occurs"

I was simply providing the actual information that needed to accompany cavernio's claims earlier, not applying values of veracity to them.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007, 01:19 AM   #47
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
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.
Hmm. Well it seems to have been applied very inaccurately, as continuous use is not a necessary standard for property ownership.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2007, 10:47 AM   #48
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

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.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution