Libs Table UNDRIP Bill

Brass Monkey
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2122
Joined: Jul 9th, 2014, 6:50 pm

Re: Libs Table UNDRIP Bill

Post by Brass Monkey »

rustled wrote: How about if they offer to give up their entitlement issues when you give up yours?

Seems to me this sense of entitlement is a knife that cuts everyone who tries to grasp it.
I do not impose myself on other peoples territory whilst demanding the people of that territory recognize my claim to that land.
rustled wrote:I wonder if I'm the only one who finds some of this a little confusing: You're saying these lands still belong to First Nations' descendants via heredity regardless of title, NOT the colonials/settlers and their descendants - they have no legitimate claim. We can agree, I think, that title was not traditional part of First Nations culture (although territorial "ownership" - entitlement to use various regions - by tribe was a part of First Nations culture), and that title was never properly negotiated between the government of Canada and the tribes occupying the regions at the time of settlement, and that the negotiations that were entered into in good faith by the Okanagan Indians were never respected, but instead were rewritten by unscrupulous land barons and successive governments - none of whom were acting in good faith. This is our shared history of land occupation/use/ownership here in the Okanagan as I understand it.
We are in agreement.
rustled wrote:So: When someone half Polish feels the land does belong to them by heredity regardless of title - despite being half non-First Nations - how is it this person has precisely the same full entitlement to claim the land as their own, regardless of their personal ancestry? How is it that only half the heredity matters?
You've got a great memory remembering that I am half Polish.

The Okanagan half of my heritage matters only on Okanagan Land, I am nothing on Secwepemc or Chilcotin lands but a half blood. I guess I feel I have the same rights to the Okanagan as a full-blooded Indian because I have never disenfranchised myself from the land or the community that I grew up in.
rustled wrote:Further, if I am able to show one of my grandfathers should have had a claim via First Nations because his grandmother was a First Nations or Metis, would I be entitled to say "this is my land" too?

How far back must we go to identify who is genuinely entitled to say "this is my land", and who has "entitlement issues" they are unable to "shake"?
There comes a point when you become too far removed from your First Nations heritage to be able to identify with that heritage and the community. It is the backing of the community you supposedly belong from that you need in order to find power in your heritage as a First Nations person. There are 100% white blood members of WFN that became status Indians through marriage and because they are members of the community and culture they have the same rights as any full blooded Indians and they are supported in acknowledging those rights because the community supports them.
“I have reason to believe that the agents as a whole … are doing all they can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense." - Sir John A. MacDonald
rustled
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 15951
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: Libs Table UNDRIP Bill

Post by rustled »

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Brass Monkey.
Brass Monkey wrote:
rustled wrote: How about if they offer to give up their entitlement issues when you give up yours?

Seems to me this sense of entitlement is a knife that cuts everyone who tries to grasp it.
I do not impose myself on other peoples territory whilst demanding the people of that territory recognize my claim to that land.
I'm not sure this is accurate. How far back do you want to go to establish who's territory it is? Seems to me the oral traditions that predated written record could well show none of your own direct ancestors were among those who occupied the territory at some point in history. Is the expectation that we draw the line at confederacy, or somewhere thereabouts?
Brass Monkey wrote:
rustled wrote:I wonder if I'm the only one who finds some of this a little confusing: You're saying these lands still belong to First Nations' descendants via heredity regardless of title, NOT the colonials/settlers and their descendants - they have no legitimate claim. We can agree, I think, that title was not traditional part of First Nations culture (although territorial "ownership" - entitlement to use various regions - by tribe was a part of First Nations culture), and that title was never properly negotiated between the government of Canada and the tribes occupying the regions at the time of settlement, and that the negotiations that were entered into in good faith by the Okanagan Indians were never respected, but instead were rewritten by unscrupulous land barons and successive governments - none of whom were acting in good faith. This is our shared history of land occupation/use/ownership here in the Okanagan as I understand it.
We are in agreement.
rustled wrote:So: When someone half Polish feels the land does belong to them by heredity regardless of title - despite being half non-First Nations - how is it this person has precisely the same full entitlement to claim the land as their own, regardless of their personal ancestry? How is it that only half the heredity matters?
You've got a great memory remembering that I am half Polish.

The Okanagan half of my heritage matters only on Okanagan Land, I am nothing on Secwepemc or Chilcotin lands but a half blood.
The way you've phrased it "nothing...but a half blood" is as though you are seen as inferior to a full blood. I expect you mean in terms of law, as opposed to the way you'd expect to be treated by someone of Secwepemc or Chilcotin ancestry while hanging out with them, yet this to me is horribly reminiscent of "nothing but a woman" or "nothing but an Indian" in terms of law. It seems quite wrong to see people as "nothing but" compared to anyone else. Am I completely misunderstanding?
Brass Monkey wrote:I guess I feel I have the same rights to the Okanagan as a full-blooded Indian because I have never disenfranchised myself from the land or the community that I grew up in.
I hope you can appreciate how this does seem like entitlement to those who would be ignored for saying they have never disenfranchised ourselves from the land or community they grew up in, solely because they lack an ancestor of the correct bloodline to have that statement (or the condition it describes) entitle them to anything.
Brass Monkey wrote:
rustled wrote:Further, if I am able to show one of my grandfathers should have had a claim via First Nations because his grandmother was a First Nations or Metis, would I be entitled to say "this is my land" too?

How far back must we go to identify who is genuinely entitled to say "this is my land", and who has "entitlement issues" they are unable to "shake"?
There comes a point when you become too far removed from your First Nations heritage to be able to identify with that heritage and the community. It is the backing of the community you supposedly belong from that you need in order to find power in your heritage as a First Nations person. There are 100% white blood members of WFN that became status Indians through marriage and because they are members of the community and culture they have the same rights as any full blooded Indians and they are supported in acknowledging those rights because the community supports them.
Sounds like it's not so much about bloodline, then, and more about privilege. Who you know, who approves, who doesn't. Who marries the right person, who didn't marry the right person. Whose parents stayed in the community regardless of who they married, and who left.

This sounds very similar to the class system in place in Europe when many of our ancestors left the old country, seeking not to have their opportunities limited by the rules of heredity and the dictates of an arbitrary social structure, but rather by their own efforts.
Ideology...gives evil-doing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination...[it] is the social theory which helps to make his actions seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes...
-Solzhenitsyn

Return to “Canada”