Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sandman]

I address the old system simply because it is still the majority.

I agree completely - I feel we have been talking at cross-purposes here for a spell, because we seem to agree.  However, since you mentioned the Tsawwassen band, I shall speak on it as well.  As a Tsawwassen resident, born and raised, I have always noticed that the orientation of land division (seperate tribal lands) has led to extreme divides between the two communities.  I have never really understood why such a fissure exists, as we are all Canadians, living seemingly across the street from one another, and yet we cannot seem to extend common courtesies to each other!  While I think that we have made strides in the issue of land division, I not feel we are there yet.  It may well take trial and error, in a sense, to determine what the optimal arrangement is for each community.  But I do not feel that complete segregation is beneficial.

J

The land question is a bit of a quagmire simply because the First Nations have a completely different set of values when it comes to land.  The majority of First Nations do not subscribe to our western ideas of land ownership.  Land, in the First Nation cannot be "owned" by an individuals, land is held in trust for the good of all society present and future (a very Marxist ideology). This is one of the reasons why the Tribal Chiefs rejected the proposal in the White Paper 1969, which would have transferred "ownership" of the Indian lands to the aboriginals.  The fear is that this would open up these land to sale to non natives and thereby lead to the possibility of future generations being "landless".  I am afraid, therefore, that there will always be a designation of native, and non native land. 

[katfish]

Previous Canadian governments did not value aboriginal culture or language.  They believed their culture was primitive and savage.  They sought to civilize them because they believed if you took the Indian out of the Indian, then you can have a good British subject.  I have met aboriginals who have told me that they are grateful for their time in residential schools.  They learned English and generally how to function in the modern world.  Of course there is the other side:  the abuse, loss of culture, language.  All very Horrible. 

Those past mistakes were premised on the mistaken belief that they were helping Aboriginals.  There was a recognition that their humanity could transcend their ancestry. They were racists with good intentions.

While very interesting, none of this provides a legal or moral justification for race based fishing rights.

There is a legal argument that they hold rights to the land and its resources because they were a sovereign people and were in fact recognized in early history as such.  However, it is a bit of a leap to ascribe sweeping property rights to a people that had no concept of property and that only used a small fraction of the land/resources.  Then again, is it fair to deny them any rights in the modern world?  I'd say compromise is paramount.  Subsistence fishing has great historical importance but very little relevance in the modern world.  These rights should be phased out, with exceptions of some northern aboriginals who actually still subsistence hunt/fish.  For the Fraser river, it is just a means to the black market, a sham. 

Let's get real and negotiate fair FN commercial entitlements and rights and put the subsistence fishing into the historical dustbin.  And let's get over guilt based historical arguments.  Let's get over the victimization mentality.  The world has changed.  We have changed: aboriginals, British, French, Immigrants.  Time to move forward with practical soluations and end silly historical subsistence arguments.  The fact is that all of ancestors at some point subsistence farmed, hunted, and fished. 

Let's not forget the past, but above all try to right inustice in a fair, reasonable and practical manner.