First Nations Day of Action Protests

[AndreaPalladio]

Maybe they should. That doesn't remove our obligations.

 

[ShonTron]

I'm not going to call you names, though I strongly disagree with your sentiments.

We must remember that the illegal blockades are the product of fringe protesters, not the mainstream Council of First Nations, which is not condoning those actions. There are many legal marches today, and I for one, support the general cause. That said, better to have relatively peaceful blockades for a day (as wrong as they are) than Ipperwash (and I'll take McGuinty's passive, near-inept approach over Mike Harris' get the ___ out of the park" approach anyday).

By finally renegotiating (or in many cases negotiating) the land treaties, we can address the injustices and start to move on. This is finally happening in British Columbia. There are some innovative ideas that should be explored as well, as the reserves generally don't work.

 

[Observer Walt]

The political and practical reality is that some 800 land claims are outstanding and most of them apparently have been moving forward at glacial speed if at all. These claims must be resolved in a more speedy way. Apparently a new proposal is now coming forward in Ottawa to do just that. Whether it will work, we'll see, but it can hardly be a lot worse than the current situation. Compensation is due, the only question is exactly what forms it is to take.

Having said that, it's not a contradiction, IMO at least, to also say that natives could improve their lot by moving from some of the more remote reserves to urbanized areas. This isn't a thinly disguised way to obliterate their history or identity, it is a practical way to ensure their economic future and dignity. Many aboriginals now live off-reserve, in cities, and the majority of them do well, living "normal", if you'll pardon the expression, lives. Those who live on reserves within commuting distance of cities or significant employment sources also tend to do reasonably well. Some bands in northern Alberta are doing quite well thank you, as economic developement and real jobs are present on-reserve or nearby. The ones who live in despair are the ones who live in isolated communities with no economic base.

My own little theory, for what it's worth: The story of economic development, over the past 100 years or more, is the story of people bettering their prospects by moving from rural to urban locations. This can be seen in virtually every nation on earth, developed or not. Why would it be any different for aboriginals in remote parts of Canada? Perhaps part of any settlements with them, over and above land, could consist of assistance to those in the isolated communities, in relocating to places where the jobs are, and assistance in getting established in the urban economy.

 

[EnviroTO]

When is the expiry date on legal claims? Could someone who had their home bombed in London during the world war sue Germany? Could Turkey be sued for the doings of the Ottoman Empire, Greece for its wars, etc. These natives are breaking the law. Even a good cause doesn't justify law breaking. After the land claims are settled can we go throw these people in jail?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

just like the environment, those who came before us left us with a mess.

 

[Admiral Beez]

IMO, the smartest thing the natives of North America could have done is kill every European settler that got off a boat, minus one, to send home the message that they'd better not come back. The Europeans would not have survived their first winters without assistance from the Natives. The Europeans were'nt coming as visitors, but as conquerors.

The Afghans did this well against the British at the the Battle of Kabul and the retreat to Gandamak in 1844, where they killed everyone except for Dr Brydon, the last survivor of an British army of 16,500 soldiers and civilians. The British had superior weaponry, but not tactics.

 

[Ummagumma66]

the thing I don't understand, is we allow this to go on, fine we took thier land, why should I suffer or feel ANY obligation to these people. The people who took thier land have been dead for at least 150 years, but we allow these people to do whatever they want, they disagree with someone building some thing they occupy the land and claim its "sacred burial grounds" (read OKA, IPPERWASH, and CALEDONIA), in my opinion those people who occupy someone elses property with weapons, the police/government should treat it as an armed uprising and should do what needs to be done to restore order to the area. this may not sit well with alot on this forum, but I am so tired of the bending to the will to special interest groups that our government does, there are legal channels for a reason, and if people want to do things thier own way, then be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions.

 

[EnviroTO]

The British had superior weaponry, but not tactics.

Standing in a line with horns and flags to let the enemy know exactly where you are. How could that tactic possibly fail?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Standing in a line with horns and flags to let the enemy know exactly where you are. How could that tactic possibly fail?

Against the right enemy, the thin red line of a few thousand British infantry supported by a hundred pipers was terrifying effective. In the Anglo-Indian wars (that's in India, not North America) the Indians would charge a smaller force of British soldiers, making a huge racket, while the British made no noise at all, just before the Indians engaged the British, the pipers would start and the red coats would roar in action. In the days before rifled or quick firing weapons, standing in a line wasn't suicide, but instead ensures that your combined salvo did maximum damage.

Of course, any who's watched Last of the Mohicans can see that this tactic would fail miserably against the native North Americans, who understood the terrain and had the tactics to win.

 

[MisterF]

IMO, the smartest thing the natives of North America could have done is kill every European settler that got off a boat, minus one, to send home the message that they'd better not come back. The Europeans would not have survived their first winters without assistance from the Natives. The Europeans were'nt coming as visitors, but as conquerors.

The Afghans did this well against the British at the the Battle of Kabul and the retreat to Gandamak in 1844, where they killed everyone except for Dr Brydon, the last survivor of an British army of 16,500 soldiers and civilians. The British had superior weaponry, but not tactics.

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure if the natives had realized what the Europeans were going to do they would have fought back more. By the time it became obvious, it was too late. Also the natives weren't a homogeneous group. There was a complex system of alliances and relationships between native nations. The Europeans were very good at dividing and conquering.

 

[Hipster Duck]

IMO, the smartest thing the natives of North America could have done is kill every European settler that got off a boat, minus one, to send home the message that they'd better not come back.

It is not human character to cease and desist - especially after a perilous months-long journey at sea into the great unknown. They would have come back in greater numbers.

Also the natives weren't a homogeneous group. There was a complex system of alliances and relationships between native nations. The Europeans were very good at dividing and conquering.

The European did not even have to resort to guile. For example, Hernan Cortes did not simply defeat the Aztec empire because he had a bunch of men with muskets and smallpox, he had the collaboration of countless native tribes in southern Mexico who had it up to there with periodically losing people to the Aztecs for their ritual sacrifices.

And about homogeneity: 500 years after Europeans first colonized the Americas, how many native people can claim pure aboriginal ancestry? To me, the idea that there is a certification of "Indian status" in this country, which entitles people to a different form of government treatment (whether positive or negative) along blood or genetic lines, is stupid and effete. The only other groups which would have measured the racial makeup of their citizens were extreme right wing, nationalistic groups in various countries drawing up a plan for eugenics. If we want to live up to our name as a multicultural country in a post-racial world, we have to dump this bullshit anachronism once and for all.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

as the following video clearly demonstrates, natives and typical blue collar americans can clearly live side by side in peace, regardless of land disputes.

there's a new town where there's no need to be unhappy. they have created a place where you can go that has many ways to have a good time.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y-CQbArqwhs


if they can do it in america, why can't we do it here?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Also the natives weren't a homogeneous group. There was a complex system of alliances and relationships between native nations.

This also exactly describes the Europeans circumstances.

 

[Ummagumma66]

Guns, Germs and Steel....(good book by Jared Diamond...) is how we "conquered" the native population

 

[scarberiankhatru]

IMO, the smartest thing the natives of North America could have done is kill every European settler that got off a boat, minus one, to send home the message that they'd better not come back.

As ummagumma suggests, what if the last survivor had the flu and coughed on them?