Renaming of things

[Hobbs]

Just looked at the website: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/...2-3057-eng.asp

HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTIONS TO ALL FIRST NATIONS 2-3057

Ottawa (June 18, 2008) - The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, with Patrick Brazeau, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, today announced that legislation extending fundamental human rights protections to all First Nations communities has received Royal Assent.

Wow. Thank you for giving them fundamental human rights by "Royal Assent." Note the date: 2008. So for the years previous to this, did they have these rights?

[jackfaire]

We will not "join the crowd" and such talk is so offensive, I won't even humor you with a response other than this.

It is? What I get form the Join the crowd thing is don't expect us to give you all of the benefits of our culture but not expect any of the responsibilities. It's like the immigration debate honestly.

Yes the Native American people were here first and if they want to live the way their ancestors did more power to them.

But if they work for the companies I work for, pay the taxes I pay and are American citizens like me then they have already joined the crowd.

Whatever religion and culture they celebrate is their own deal like anyone else. If anything I have as much right to be pissed off that my ancestors left Wales or the fact that Wales isn't its own country anymore.

[Fryk]

Oh and about their own religion, the vast majority of First Nations I've met are Christian, or identify as so. Explain that one.

In many cases, it was missionaries using the most abominable tactics to convert their ancestors, and finally wearing them down into acceptance.

[infinitemonkies]

Natives:

You want to preserve your traditional beliefs, religious practices, and language?
You want the option to live off the land the way your ancestors did, and be completely free of any government involvement?
I'm all for it. Start a petition, I'll sign it. Call a referendum, I'll vote for it. Hell, escalate it to a civil war, I'll sign up on your side to fight, and if need be, die for it.
But I also think those options should be available to anyone, not just natives.

On the other hand, if you're going to be a part of western society, you should have to pay your taxes just like everyone else. You do not deserve an absolutely free university education. If you start a commercial fishing business, or logging business, you should be bound by the exact same laws as all the others.

[Hobbs]

Raps gave me the go-ahead for writing an essay on the subject. I hope that you (Muses) have the maturity to read it once I've posted it up. If anyone wants, I can post my research before I actually write.

[muses_nightmare]

I'm 23, every First Nations person I've ever met has had fundamental human rights, or at least has been treated as such since the time I went to school with an almost half native town population. Just because an article says something just happened doesn't mean they have been treated like they haven't had those rights. You can't just go by statistics and articles, which while they can be useful are not always accurate to what is happening in the actual towns/cities. What population of Native to Other races have you seen in school? I'm curious, because I grew up with at least half my school being Native, never bothered me in the slightest. I have no problem with First Nations having rights and such, what I do have a problem with, which I think you are not getting, is that First Nations are treated differently, and whether they get benefits or disadvantages it's not right. For example some law courses here don't require Natives to take all of the courses, they make it easier for them, now how is that a benefit? Less education because they're Native? That's not right. I'm sure you can agree on that one, if not, what is wrong with you?

Also, I'd like to point out that this was not the intended point of my original post. Just to be clear. I should know better than to post my opinions of these things because I repeatedly get attacked by people ignorant of my experiences, and unwilling to accept that what I've experienced is valid. You also seem to think I'm racist or intolerant when I'm not, I just have views about land ownership and history that many people don't agree with. My best friend up until Junior high is native, I'm still friends with her, I got along with pretty much everyone in my classes, and I never thought less of anyone if they are being a responsible member of society.

How dare you call my maturity into question. Obviously you can't listen to what I'm saying, yet I have yet to call yours into question. This was rude and I very nearly consider it a personal insult. I'll read your essay when you write it, but I'm sure it will just be another of many I've read on the subject. You assume I'm not well read on this subject, because of the way I am in an internet message board. Frankly, if I had the time and resources I could also write an essay on my side of the subject. Maybe I will after I'm finished school a few months from now. Do you think it would change your mind? As you seem to think yours will mine?

[Hobbs]

Well, I'm currently finishing up one class (got an 'A' yay!) and am starting another. That's the reason why I said it might take me a week or so before I can even do the research. Frankly, I'm taking time aside from my studies to do this, as it seems you feel uncompelled to do your own reading/research on the subject, and leave it solely to personal experiences. Of course if you came from an area largely populated by indigenous people you will have a different experience. As a Hispanic growing up in a largely Hispanic city, I too know there is a difference from my city and how I was raised than say...Chicago or even Dallas/Ft. Worth. You may not be racist, but I do think you are ignorant of what goes on outside of your locality, since the only references you've made are towards said locality. To use your own words, you can't just go by personal experiences because the region you live in, circumstances that arise from how/where you live are different than the rest of the country.

I questioned your immaturity with your little, pouty "I'm not gonna listen!" post you said the other day. I assume you are not well-read because you did not even offer a valid response to human rights abuses your government is being called on in respect to the First Nation people. If it was on some pro-Indian rights website I might have ignored it, but this is the UN and Amnesty Int'l we're talking about. I know, at least, Amnesty is usually on the ball about human rights abuses.

As for the law courses, I see that as something stemming not from the First Nation, but from Canadian sentiment towards the First Nation. Has the First Nation actively lobbied for easier courses in law degrees, or easier classes? If not, then why do you place the blame on those of the First Nation?

[muses_nightmare]

I've lived in three different places, I've also done a lot of reading on the subject. Yes I refer to my hometown a lot, because I grew up there, our school curriculum in social studies and a few other classes focused a lot on First Nations history and culture, I also took a couple of university level Canadian history courses. Given I'm not a history major, but I do know a thing or two about this despite what you may think.

I say that because any mention of anyone disliking anything the First Nations do results in a HUGE debate about whether they have the right or not. It's tiring. I generally don't bring these things up unless something is really bothering me, which was the intended conversation of the proposed renaming of Stanley park. Somehow we got off track of that topic.

(I'm not being as succinct with my words as I should be, I've been working through a very taxing program that requires a lot of time and energy, I'm taking 5 classes, with more than 40 hours of homework a week so I'm sorry if I'm coming across as someone who knows nothing on the subject, it's just that it's not my area of focus right now. I hope you understand. Ask me about typography or InDesign and I'd be more prepared. )

Oh and now that I'm going into my second week of this quarter, I probably won't be on the boards as often as I have been.

[Hobbs]

Huh, your semesters are oddly placed to me. Anyhow, I'd like to say that it sounds as if you've taken lower-level history courses. As a historian, I can tell you that history classes get very more...involved...as you progress. That said, has each place been predominantly of a certain ethnic race? If not, have you ever been in a more "white" area, or been to the locations mentioned by Amnesty International or the UN? Did you even know that these abuses were going on?

Like I said, growing up in S. Texas, a lot of the classes I had in school focused on the Hispanic heritage of the region. I'm not condemning your experience/education, but trying to explain that, when one ethnicity dominates a region, it is somewhat expected that history lessons will focus on that ethnicity.

As an addendum, from what I've read, only a few people have voiced the want to change the name. The article I found states, *"Squamish Chief Ian Campbell said he plans to discuss the idea with council and with other aboriginal leaders before bringing a proposal to the city and to provincial and federal levels of government." From what I gather, this means the leaders of the First Nations haven't even agreed to propose the change. Are people really so reactionary to a few people stating their desire to react so negatively? (Referring to some of the offensive replies on the article page)

*http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/De...218/story.html

[muses_nightmare]

Yeah I'm doing an 18 month graphic design program, so we don't really have the same semesters as university courses do. It's condensed and fast paced, learning a lot in a short amount of time, hence the lots and lots of homework.

No doubt they do, I'm not claiming that they don't. I'm not a history major, and I know that my grade school social studies (which I think may be the equivalent of History class in the US, I'm not sure) and my first year of University studies don't compare to what I'm sure you're studying I just wanted you to know that while I may not have the same amount of knowledge you do, I'm not ignorant.

I've also known people who lived on reserves, and I've been to Native cultural events, many of them in fact. My hometown has a celebration for aboriginal day every year. So knowing quite a few First Nations people I don't think my own experiences can be dismissed so easily. I have no problem allowing the same rights and privileges as everyone else, but when I see people just ignoring their culture, ignoring the benefits being extended to them (and there are benefits, you can't deny that, even if they are to "even the playing field"), I actually had a First Nations guy tell me that he repeatedly failed college on purpose because he wanted to get the money he was being given to go to school, and no, he wasn't a straight A honor roll student, I went to school with him since Primary school. It pisses me off. Yes I know that not all First Nations do this, but it's aggravating. I've worked my ass off to be in school right now, the threat of not being able to finish has been hanging over my head since day 1, if I fail one course, I don't finish because I can't afford to. Yet I'm told I'm "privileged" and should be glad I'm white and so on.

Right now I'm living in Burnaby, which is pretty diverse, but the area I live in has a lot of Eastern European people. Given, it's not like it's the same as living in a small town.

It was a pretty knee jerk reaction on my part, and quite a few others, but it is a landmark. People get touchy on these subjects. It's been all over the news here, on the front page of papers, so I think the media makes it look like it's a more people. And for the record I would be annoyed if anyone tried to rename a landmark like that, not just First Nations. But really, it only takes a few sometimes. This is pretty much the reaction I had:

"I think it's the most ridiculous idea," said Michael Robins. "This is Stanley Park — it would be like changing the name of Central Park in New York. While I absolutely respect First Nations stuff, it's an icon of Vancouver."

I think that's the problem people had. You also have to remember that this is the internet, and people are generally less closed-mouth online. Does that make sense?

[Hobbs]

A fine explanation. The human right's abuses? Any take on those?

[muses_nightmare]

From the links you posted:

The residential schools, I don't agree with those, and I think the First Nations do deserve an apology for those, as some are still affected today.

As for the First Nations women going missing and being murdered? I get that oftentimes the police don't do anything right away, or at all, but these are still the actions of individuals, not Canada itself. Every country has bigots and murderers, and Unfortunately corrupt police forces. And not all police forces do nothing, ever heard of the highway of tears? RCMP have been involved in the investigation of the disappearances along it. While it hasn't been solved, work is being done. Is this a human rights abuse?

As for the relocation, I'm not sure about that one, the wiki article seems a bit one-sided in a way to me. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and say that they were trying to help, but went about it in the wrong way. as the article states:

"acknowledge that they understand that in planning the relocation, the government officials of the time were acting with honourable intentions in what was perceived to be in the best interests of the Inuit at that time"

What about the States? What abuses are still going on there? What benefits to the Natives there have? I'm genuinely curious.

[Hobbs]

For the most part, the last major conflict involving Indian rights was in 1973 when members of the American Indian Movement took control of the town of Wounded Knee. The seige lasted for 71 days and was in response to the lack of government response to Indian affairs. One activist, Leonard Peltier, is still imprisoned for his participation, though he denies involvement with the movement and asserts that the charges were trumped up against him. Since then, while social problems like unemployment and alchoholism affect a portion of the Indian community, there have been drastic changes in Indian Affairs and in securing their rights. Indian reservations are under the governance of their own councils, and outside of the jurisdiction of federal authority (except in certain circumstances). This sovereignty is the reason why they can legally operate casinos within their territory.

So, I got your responses to the other articles...what about the Lubicon Cree case?

[BlaqueKatt]

I still have a problem with it since as far as I'm concerned they have no rights to that land anymore, unpopular opinion I'm aware. We have to be accepting of their culture, but they can walk all over ours without a second thought.

problem is they do still have rights-you may not think so-but have you gone through archives and read leases that the tribes signed with the government-only to have the government later violate that lease? Some tribes are suing and making deals with the government-as the government has NO LEGAL STANDING-due to the legal and binding documents that were signed and later violated.

Case in point -the Shinnecock tribe has sued and won part of their native lands back-"They lost land steadily as more and more Europeans began to farm their traditional territory, eventually leading to an agreement in 1703 that saw them confined to a broad swath of land around Southampton under a 1,000-year lease. However, in 1859 the pressure of development saw that deal scrapped by the settlers and the Shinnecock reduced to their current tiny holding."

Yes the Shinnecock tribe actually has legal right to the entirety of the South hamptons-not the wealthy people who own the($12 million dollar) houses there-technically they could sue for all of it-and win-as they have the legal documentation to back it up-they are going for the South hampton hills-that were stolen and now house a golf course-it is their legal property-according to LEGAL DOCUMENTS signed by the US Government.

If someone steals your car, gets a new legal title for it and sells it-is that car still LEGALLY yours, or does it now belong to the person that bought it from the thief? You both have legal paperwork, however the thief did not have any LEGAL right to sell it. Same with Native land-usually there was a lease or other legal paperwork involved-so yes they do still have rights to the land, or other land, that was misappropriated-so in order to make a new deal-the government may say-well we'll let you rename x, y, and z parks in exchange for you not suing to take over this suburb that you legally own.

[muses_nightmare]

But not all of them have those legal titles, that's what you have to remember, a lot of them just claim that because they lived on the land they should get it all back, would you want them to? I was born in Canada and have been here my whole life, I have as much right as they do, in my opinion. The car analogy is different. Land title and rights are far more complicated than that kind of personal property. Especially when dealing with things that happened a long time ago.


and Hobbs

The Lubicon Cree case is despicable, but frankly anything to do with making money from oil tends to get that way. I absolutely don't agree with this because it was on their land, I actually don't have a problem with the government giving some lands. Unfortunately stuff like this happens all over the world, it doesn't make it right, but when oil's involved ethics and human rights seem to fly out the window, it's disgusting.