Make Reconciliation Real

[maryjane48]

um he lost the deal not me lol he never produced a post with me saying i was a status first nations person or that i identifiied as one . i say we let jo make the call . and to the blind person that made the remark about land claims , there are other threads for that but not this one .

[logicalview]

um he lost the deal not me lol he never produced a post with me saying i was a status first nations person or that i identifiied as one . i say we let jo make the call . and to the blind person that made the remark about land claims , there are other threads for that but not this one .

You totally lost. If you had any integrity you would leave.

Here's another perspective on the whole issue. I know you disagree with it.

Commission should have called for an end to Indian Act

By Tom Brodbeck, Winnipeg Sun
First posted: Sunday, June 07, 2015 01:45 PM CDT

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has missed a golden opportunity.

And it’s unfortunate they have. Because until Canada gets to the root causes of the economic hopelessness, the family breakdowns, the addictions and the disenfranchisement plaguing hundreds of aboriginal communities, nothing will improve for First Nations in this country.

The TRC and its commissioner Justice Murray Sinclair released a summary of its final report Tuesday into Canada’s residential schools. Its six-year investigation has produced corroborating evidence of physical and sexual abuse, institutionalized child neglect, higher than normal mortality rates in schools, and horrific government-directed assimilation tactics.

The report confirms much of what we already knew or suspected about the federal government’s apartheid-like assimilation policies and how they were driven by a European sense of racial superiority. The TRC’s work was critically important to ensure Canadians have a full understanding of their history.

But among the commission’s 94 recommendations — some of which were good and some of which were not so good — there was one glaring omission. It was a deliberate omission because the commission obviously didn’t want to open that can of worms. It’s a can of worms not all leaders in the aboriginal community have found consensus on. But it’s one this country will eventually have to deal with if it ever wants to see meaningful improvements in the lives of affected aboriginal people.

Not once in the commission’s recommendations did they mention the federal Indian Act, the central obstacle that prevents First Nation communities from taking charge of their own lives and getting out from under the thumb of government. The Indian Act is a paternalistic piece of legislation that presumes aboriginal people aren’t fit to make their own decisions, can’t handle owning their own property, and are incapable of deciding among themselves who is and who is not a real “Indian.”

Until it’s repealed, or at least phased out over time, there’s almost no chance of fixing the social and economic ills the commission identifies, including high rates of poverty, incarceration, victimization, poor health, and chronic joblessness.

The argument against repealing the Indian Act is no one knows what to replace it with. Other than constitutionally-protected treaties, there is no other legislative framework that provides First Nations with predictable funding, some form of political system, and a definition of a status Indian, no matter how arbitrary that definition may be.

But there are alternatives. The problem is neither the politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the federal bureaucrats, nor many First Nations chiefs want to do the heavy lifting required to explore those alternatives. It’s easier to stick with the status quo than to take risks that could lead to meaningful change. Besides, many First Nations chiefs and councils, as well as federal bureaucrats, benefit from the status quo, including good salaries and financial security. Some don’t want to give that up, even if it means perpetuating the squalor and misery the Indian Act inflicts on so many rank-and-file First Nations people.

The alternatives can be found in places like the Nisga’a Nation in northern British Columbia. The Nisga’a negotiated their own treaty with government in the late 1990s and freed themselves from the shackles of the federal government in 2000. They no longer operate under the Indian Act, they make their own decisions under a municipal-like governance model, pay taxes, and can now even own their own homes and plots of land. It’s revolutionary. They have emancipated themselves from the colonial rule that has kept their people down for so many generations.

“We are no longer beggars in our own land,” Nisga’a president Joe Gosnell announced to a cheering crowd in Gitwinksihlkw, B.C., in 2000. “We are free to make our own mistakes, savour our own victories, and stand on our own feet.”

This is an alternative to the Indian Act. It’s not perfect and the Nisga’a have their problems, too. But it’s a vast improvement over the Indian Act’s reprehensible reserve system.

It’s a shame and a lost opportunity that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission didn’t recommend this course of action. Because in the long run, the entrenched problems that plague First Nations communities can only be solved through freedom and self-determination.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/06/07/c ... indian-act

[maryjane48]

lol um no , rwede never produced a post with me saying i was status first nations , i wasc even gracious enough to let him get new name .second i have said on here to throw the indian act out and make a better agreement for both sides .that is a post that can be found .if rwede has any integrity then there should be ne name . but hey if he wants to not hold up his end of the deal so be it . i was right he was wrong :)

[oneh2obabe]

Enough with the childish games. Discuss the topic - not whether someone should change names, leave, or whatever.

[maryjane48]

yes why is harper resisting change and wanting to keep first nations under goverment control ?

[FreeRights]

yes why is harper resisting change and wanting to keep first nations under goverment control ?

I don't think First Nations should be permitted to govern themselves while still eagerly accepting government money.

[alfred2]

it is time they got off the govt. teat.

[maryjane48]

lol um they want the indian act abolished , more than you.they have no choice but to work with in the indian act until it is tossed aside . but that does not and should not mean tossing the treaties . the goverment would never win that consession

[FreeRights]

lol um they want the indian act abolished , more than you.they have no choice but to work with in the indian act until it is tossed aside . but that does not and should not mean tossing the treaties . the goverment would never win that consession

First Nations, like anybody else, should be incorporated into Canadian society, like anyone else. They should not take Canadian money and govern their own lands separated from Canada.

If they want to live on their own reserves and that sort of thing, they should absolutely be permitted - just like anybody else. But they should receive no financial support that exceeds what anyone else is eligible for.

[maryjane48]

so signed deals should be ignored ? what type of a example does that set for future canadians ?

[FreeRights]

I think the example that's being set for future Canadians currently by demonstrating that one classification of people in this country receive more benefits from the government than any other classification of people. Institutional discrimination, really.

[SassySasquatch]

"Institutional discrimination, really." Agreed! Parliament > SCC