I don't get it… Can someone help me out here?

Thanks for being the voice of reason in my absence Malachi, some very good points brought up.

My two cents:

Never-mind,  the residential schools and avoid any debates about “cultural genocide” Garg.

Instead, do all of your calculations, then decide how much the government has paid on average every year. Then divide that number by the total Canadian population in that year (exclude Status Indians if you wish). By this you will obtain the imputed “rent” that immigrants pay to the original occupants of “Canada” each year.

Lets do 2011 just for fun (its the last year for which we have population statistics and the last fiscal year 2011/2012 to be officially “in the books”)

Budget for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2011/2012: $7.4 Billion

Source: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1315184396556/1315184508951#chp1

Canadian population, 2011: 34,484,000

Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm

Divide $7.4 Billion by 34 484 000 = $214.59

Divide $214.59 by 12 = $17.88

Thus in 2011 you, me all of us descendant-of-immigrant" folks. Effectively paid $17.88 a month for the right to live, work, and own property anywhere in the second largest country in the world. This amount was then transferred to the indigenous people who originally inhabited this land and willingly surrendered its use and ownership to immigrants in exchange for, effectively, a rent of $17.88 a month each.

Doesn’t sound like such a bad deal to me.

Canuck12, it took less than two hours to get a down vote for your last post I see.  And with my vote it goes back to zero for the time being.

That is gross rent.  If you factor in the taxes that natives do end up paying the ‘rent’ becomes even less.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

That is gross rent.  If you factor in the taxes that natives do end up paying the ‘rent’ becomes even less.

I suppose, but that is difficult to calculate. Perhaps compensated for by the fact that I didn’t subtract all Status Indians from the gross Canadian population.

We paid compensation to the Japanese who were in internment camps during WW II.  That was racist, you had to be Japanese to get that money!  I protest!   :wink:

Democracy for ya.  I have to pay for welfare moms because they keep popping out bambinos.  That is so unfair because as a man I can never get in on the action……

We don’t always get to pick and choose where our tax dollars get spent.

Many Canadians don’t like that French is forced upon us.  Price we had to pay for not having a continuous war with the French, a compromise for confederation.  The BNA was also a compromise that we cannot completely do away with, so lets change what we can change and accept some imperfections.

Garg, just marry a native chick…

The treaties are legal documents of contract law between the Crown and the First Nations.

The first British settlers didn’t “buy” Canada from the First Nations, which is why the bill is never “paid.” They came to terms by-which new immigrants could use the land in exchange for sharing a very minuscule portion of the wealth they generated on that land in the form of housing, healthcare, education for them and their descendants. It has no more to do with race then the fact that you’re father inherited his father’s wealth when he died and you will inherit your father’s. It’s not because you’re white, but its because you’re father wrote in a legal document that he wished you to have it. Same goes for the treaties. (Not to mention the fact that there are over 100 000 Non-Status Indians who receive no more benefits from the government than you and I.) I have a friend who’s great great grandfather, whom she never met, had investments at his death worth over a billion. He wrote in his will, ie: legal contract, ie: treaty, that it was to be kept as an endowment and the wealth it generated would be paid to his descendants. This is no different. We got an entire country, they got free healthcare, housing and education for their descendants. Whooptee-fuckin-do.

It amounts to 58 cents a day. Can you really think of nothing else to be irate about?

@Gargantua:

• The treaties back east were with the British Crown, and when Canada became an autonomous nation (no longer a colony) those treaties are arguably annulled.

Who made that argument? All legal documentation, including  the Canadian Constitution states that the Treaties are “Recognised and Affirmed”

You may read those words in your country’s constitution here: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html along side your right to work and live anywhere in this country.

@Gargantua:

Nowhere else on earth, and nowhere else in history, do you see one group of people paying another group of people ‘rent’ for lands they conquered/colonized.

This is probably the root of your misunderstanding. No one was conquered. It was agreed by legal, international treaty that the lands inside Canada could be occupied and used by settlers in exchange for small concessions. If you spent a little time studying history you would know that. You might also know that the Spanish “Colonization of British Columbia” consisted of a single settlement and lasted only 6 years.

I encourage you to look into the legal history of indigenous relations with the Crown. It may help you understand these issues in a legal rather than racial lens. You may also sound more informed in your opinions. You can Start here: Read the 1969 Trudeau/Chretien “White Paper” which tired to abolish the Indian act, Indian status, and the treaties. Then read “The Red Paper” which was a response to the white-paper’s policies and the beginning of the road to having the Treaties Enshrined in the Constitution.

The White paper can be found here: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/inac-ainc/indian_policy-e/cp1969_e.pdf

The red paper can be found here: http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/11690/8926

Se also, The Unjust Society by Harold Cardinal Who was a Harvard lawyer who also had input into “The Red Paper”

Other articles of interest may be some of the work of Alan Cairns, who was a professor at UBC and worked at length to try and reconcile indigenous rights with a liberal capitalist society.

Happy reading!

I think it’s lucky white’s weren’t asked to drive the natives around in rickshaws….I would pay to see a photoshop’d pic of Garg operating a rickshaw with Tecumseh in full garb!

If it wasn’t for the Natives most of Canada would belong to the natives Americans as the war of 1812 was won primarily with the help of native allies.  Their reward was to be screwed over by the British.  60 cents a day is a bargain for that classic betrayal.

No, the White and Red Paper WERE NOT about future treaties. Please read them.

Calder v. British Columbia (1973) WAS about future treaties. You may want to read that too. It will also help you understand why we are still signing more treaties.

The argument you are making states that all contract law and international treaty is “wrong.”

You may make that argument if you wish. But you should understand that that’s what your position rests on.

You can’t pick and choose the contracts that you think are “wrong” just because you don’t like them. Especially when they have been upheld numerous times by the supreme court. Either you stand behind property rights (contract law) and the rule of law and you live with the decisions you don’t like or we toss the entire foundation of democracy and capitalism out the window.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOzG7bBylRo

Garg, in your neck of the woods the native treaty issue is more hot.  Like I said before, as you move west the natives were less pacified/diluted/weakened.

On the other hand, the war of 1812 really had very little western component.  I had miss-wrote a previous sentence.  The natives are largely responsible for ‘upper Canada’ being Canadian.

If it wasn’t for the Natives most of Canada would belong to the natives Americans as the war of 1812 was won primarily with the help of native allies.  Their reward was to be screwed over by the British.  60 cents a day is a bargain for that classic betrayal.

The land out West was very thin on Europeans loyal to the monarchy.  Don’t underestimate the fear the US army would come in and crush the natives of the west and take that land for themselves as it was ‘un-claimed’.  In order to secure the land and form what is now Canada, a certain bit of bribery was required.  The alternative was to let the US pacify the natives at which they were getting quite good at.  Do not forget the context of when those early compromises were made.

From the White Paper: “Finally, once Indian lands are securely within
Indian control, the anomaly of treaties between groups within society and
the government of that society will require that these treaties be reviewed
to - how they can be equitably ended.”

This is why I said the White paper was about past treaties. One of it’s goals was to have them annulled much like you suggested. So, if it planned to unilaterally cancel past contract obligations it obviously wasnt interesting in signing more. But it’s main goals lie with past treaties. (And I thought you didn’t like Chretien and Trudeau…) Also, If you read the Red Paper, you will understand why that first phrase “once Indian lands are securely within Indian control” is so antithetical to its meaning.

But onto your list of demands:

@Gargantua:

Lets recap what we are discussing.

**1- Should/Can Treaties/Land-Claims be phased out or not?

2- Is the Canadian Government responsible for disease related deaths in schools?

3- Should we be paying benefits to non-treaty first nations?

4- Should today’s Canadian Public be blamed for treatment of either group of first nations ancestors?

5- Is it time to progress past race based legislation?**

1. Asking if treaties should be “phased out” is like asking if the Government should “phase out” your ownership to your house.  It wouldn’t be legal and would not stand up under rule of law. So in short: Should/Can Treaties/Land-Claims be phased out or not? The question of should disappears as we discover that it is impossible. So the answer is simply: No.

Is the Canadian Government responsible for disease related deaths in schools?

Maybe not. Is the government responsible if you die waiting in the emergency ward? You would have died anyway right… ? What the government IS responsible for and has recently apologised and paid compensation for is the myriad other horrors (I wont list them all here.) befallen by the children forcibly removed from their homes and taken into custody by the state.

Should we be paying benefits to non-treaty first nations?

This is debatable. The government pays benefits to all “status Indians” you can find the definition yourself, but Status is not automatic and you have to apply. This is partly because not all indigenous people are covered under treaty and the government would prefer to keep these rather arbitrary divisions to a minimum. How can we define who was a descendent of which treaty-band when records were not kept at the time and people have been moving and intermarrying for a century since then? We basically decide if you are part of this political division in society based on weather your parents were part of the political group entitled to benefits. Plus it helps keep the calls for more treaties to be signed quiet, something I would expect you to approve of Garg.

Should today’s Canadian Public be blamed for treatment of either group of first nations ancestors?

No.

Is it time to progress past race based legislation?

What race-based legislation?