what actually happened on oct 24 2022

[Bagua]

Numbered Treaties

The Numbered Treaties were a series of 11 treaties made between the Crown and First Nations from 1871 to 1921. The Numbered Treaties cover the area between th...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

 

[Musclemaker]

All over the world, land has belonged to someone else first and was taken in one form or the other. It sucks what happened to the natives, but they are not the first nor the last to lose a war, or some such thing and lose their land.

Lots of people original lifestyles or traditions disappeared, like the aztecs for example as they assimilated into the victors society.

The latest theories say that the native, indigenous, Indian or whatever word you’re supposed to use, weren’t here first anyway. According to the latest information, the first people here were white.

 

[Musclemaker]

The point is not about what has happened, it is what is 'happening'.
Are you saying the existing contracts should be thrown out because they have not been honoured for so long, they should now be considered moot and squatters rights prevail? That position has been argued multiple times in court, and never stood.

It is a sticky area, and governments throughout Canadian history have attempted to 'make it go away' in various ways from outright genocide to residential schools. The last big push was PETs Whitepaper to cede all existing contracts.
It is all about money.... Trillions upon trillions.

To give an example, indigenous in the middle east 4 generations ago were offered contracts for oil rights. Saudi Princes went from owning goats to opulent wealth.
The value of resources from unceded land dwarfs the value of all the oil in the middle east.

I do think that all of the treaties should be thrown out. There should just be one set of rules that apply to everyone. That’s true equality.

 

[Heraclitus]

I do think that all of the treaties should be thrown out. There should just be one set of rules that apply to everyone. That’s true equality.

Every province and territory also have different rules and negotiate their relationships with the federation of Canada.
Would you throw out all the Provincial and Territorial federation contracts too?

There are people on both sides of the issue that agree with you though, but it might not play out how you imagine.
Treaties have rights and obligations for both sides to abide to.

Everyone is familiar with the Quebec secessionist movement, and now Alberta is making similar noises. Historically BC, the Yukon, the Maritimes, NFLD, and Saskatchewan all have had a go at it too. While it may be questionable if any Province or Territory has the right to a unilaterally declare independence, in practice if it was done the Crown would lose it's proclaimed rights to those resources and the Provinces/Territories free to negotiate with any entity they wished.
Unceded land controlled by sovereign indigenous nations recognized as such by modern contracts (even ignoring the historical treaties, or the numbered treaties posted by @Bagua ) could have the stronger legal position to negotiate contracts for their resources.

Now of course Canada could use military force to prevent that happening, essentially declaring war by violation of the Treaties. The indigenous nations would have little hope of resisting. This would affect Canada's standing on the world stage as contract law is considered inviolate. ie. who would do business with a country that doesn't abide by its word? Especially as Canada is a signatory of UNDRIP.

However if say they had negotiated resource contracts or treaties with the USA or even Russia?...

Attached is a link to a map of the areas confirmed by the modern treaties signed as recently as 2018, to give an idea of just how vast these resources are. It is not comprehensive, as numerous other areas are still being contested such as the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire region. Hard to know for sure what any nation might do to have them, but one could look at the Balkanization of other resource rich countries for an idea.
Modern Treaties – Comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements


like I said, sticky situation to resolve.

The US experience was a different one, For history buffs if one digs into the origins of the independence movement, most of the literature talks of escaping onerous taxation. However a large driver was a desire for unfettered westward expansion. At the time the colonies needed to wait for the King to negotiate land claims with the indigenous nations along the way.
Btw, King George wasn't negotiating because he was a nice guy or thought he couldn't take it all by force, but because the indigenous were the major supply lines to the fur trade. It is, and always has been about following the money.

​

 

[Musclemaker]

Every province and territory also have different rules and negotiate their relationships with the federation of Canada.
Would you throw out all the Provincial and Territorial federation contracts too?

There are people on both sides of the issue that agree with you though, but it might not play out how you imagine.
Treaties have rights and obligations for both sides to abide to.

Everyone is familiar with the Quebec secessionist movement, and now Alberta is making similar noises. Historically BC, the Yukon, the Maritimes, NFLD, and Saskatchewan all have had a go at it too. While it may be questionable if any Province or Territory has the right to a unilaterally declare independence, in practice if it was done the Crown would lose it's proclaimed rights to those resources and the Provinces/Territories free to negotiate with any entity they wished.
Unceded land controlled by sovereign indigenous nations recognized as such by modern contracts (even ignoring the historical treaties, or the numbered treaties posted by @Bagua ) could have the stronger legal position to negotiate contracts for their resources.

Now of course Canada could use military force to prevent that happening, essentially declaring war by violation of the Treaties. The indigenous nations would have little hope of resisting. This would affect Canada's standing on the world stage as contract law is considered inviolate. ie. who would do business with a country that doesn't abide by its word? Especially as Canada is a signatory of UNDRIP.

However if say they had negotiated resource contracts or treaties with the USA or even Russia?...

Attached is a link to a map of the areas confirmed by the modern treaties signed as recently as 2018, to give an idea of just how vast these resources are. It is not comprehensive, as numerous other areas are still being contested such as the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire region. Hard to know for sure what any nation might do to have them, but one could look at the Balkanization of other resource rich countries for an idea.
Modern Treaties – Comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements


like I said, sticky situation to resolve.

The US experience was a different one, For history buffs if one digs into the origins of the independence movement, most of the literature talks of escaping onerous taxation. However a large driver was a desire for unfettered westward expansion. At the time the colonies needed to wait for the King to negotiate land claims with the indigenous nations along the way.
Btw, King George wasn't negotiating because he was a nice guy or thought he couldn't take it all by force, but because the indigenous were the major supply lines to the fur trade. It is, and always has been about following the

Provinces and territories? No.

Just any and all people who are treated differently based on their ethnicity, race, skin colour etc. That’s racism.

Treat everyone the same. That’s equality.

Just be Canadians.

 

[Heraclitus]

Provinces and territories? No.

Just any and all people who are treated differently based on their ethnicity, race, skin colour etc. That’s racism.

Treat everyone the same. That’s equality.

Just be Canadians.

The racist part was British/French/Canadians figuring they could take stuff because they were just savages.
What is not racist, is writing up an agreement with another nation, having delegates of both parties voluntarily sign it and agree to abide by it.

Their rights are based on nationality, and come out of binding contracts between Nations called Treaties.
You're implying they are just Canadians, and not Nations within the borders of another Nation, which they legally are. That might not feel fair, but those are the facts as enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. It isn't any different in principle than treaties we have with any number of nations around the world.
And no, we don't treat all nations 'equally' either. We negotiate terms we are willing to abide by for best benefit.

 

[Musclemaker]

The racist part was British/French/Canadians figuring they could take stuff because they were just savages.
What is not racist, is writing up an agreement with another nation, having delegates of both parties voluntarily sign it and agree to abide by it.

Their rights are based on their nationality, and come out of binding contracts between Nations called Treaties.
You're implying they are just Canadians, and not Nations within the borders of another Nation, which they legally are. That might not feel fair, but those are the facts as enshrined in the Canadian Constitution and it really isn't any different in principle than treaties we have with any number of nations around the world.
And no, we don't treat all nations 'equally' either. We negotiate terms we are willing to abide by for best benefit.

Nations have been defeating nations since time immemorial and are usually assimilated.

Once defeated they should have been assimilated and made equal in all ways.

Obviously what was done with treaties didn’t work - look at the mess we’re in because of it.

It’s time for them to quit living in the past and join the rest of us.

 

[Heraclitus]

Nations have been defeating nations since time immemorial and are usually assimilated.

Once defeated they should have been assimilated and made equal in all ways.

Obviously what was done with treaties didn’t work - look at the mess we’re in because of it.

It’s time for them to quit living in the past and join the rest of us.

yes, agreed. Like I said way above...
"If it was a lost war, that would make things simple."
But they never were and agreements were entered, like it or not.

Curious how people refer to "living in the past" when discussing modern day treaties.
A comment like that could be construed as being very racist.
How are you assuming "they" are living, and how do you assume you know best how "they" should live?

 

[Cheapshot]

The latest theories say that the native, indigenous, Indian or whatever word you’re supposed to use, weren’t here first anyway. According to the latest information, the first people here were white.

I heard some new info was found about the natives in north American are actually from chinese decente, they think the Chinese might of been first..lol. who knows

 

[Musclemaker]

I heard some new info was found about the natives in north American are actually from chinese decente, they think the Chinese might of been first..lol. who knows

Yeah doesn’t really matter anyway, that whole “we were here first” argument means nothing.

 

[Heraclitus]

Yeah doesn’t really matter anyway, that whole “we were here first” argument means nothing.

That i will also agree with, and why I've not made 'here first' the basis of argument.
But then again, the "doctrine of discovery" equally means nothing.

All that matters is what has been agreed to.
This principle is common in every culture, every society, every community. I would hope everyone on this forum would agree with it too.
If you're not a man of your word, you will soon run out of people willing to do business with you.

 

[Musclemaker]

yes, agreed. Like I said way above...
"If it was a lost war, that would make things simple."
But they never were and agreements were entered, like it or not.

Curious how people refer to "living in the past" when discussing modern day treaties.
A comment like that could be construed as being very racist.
How are you assuming "they" are living, and how do you assume you know best how "they" should live?

The natives had to sign the treaties. It had come to the point where they had killed off most of the buffalo and couldn’t feed themselves. The days of the buffalo are long gone, yes, in the past.

Modern day treaties?? In my area the treaties that apply are almost 200 years old. Out of date and irrelevant. So yeah if you want to go by something that old, you’re living in the past. It has nothing to do with racism so don’t even try to go there.

And I didn’t assume anything. I never talked about how they live. I never said anything about how they should live. I’ve maintained from the beginning that everyone should live under the same set of rules that apply to everybody. That’s equality. It’s the current situation with the treaties that is racist. Treating a group of people differently just because of their race/ethnicity.

End the treaties and you end racism.

 

[Musclemaker]

That i will also agree with, and why I've not made 'here first' the basis of argument.
But then again, the "doctrine of discovery" equally means nothing.

All that matters is what has been agreed to.
This principle is common in every culture, every society, every community. I would hope everyone on this forum would agree with it too.
If you're not a man of your word, you will soon run out of people willing to do business with you.

So why do they keep referring to themselves as “first nations”? What you are saying defeats your own argument. If the whole “we were here first” thing isn’t relevant, then they aren’t first nations, they were just people living here, which means they have no special claim to anything. We are all just people living here and no one deserves special treatment.

 

[Heraclitus]

The natives had to sign the treaties. It had come to the point where they had killed off most of the buffalo and couldn’t feed themselves. The days of the buffalo are long gone, yes, in the past.

Modern day treaties?? In my area the treaties that apply are almost 200 years old. Out of date and irrelevant. So yeah if you want to go by something that old, you’re living in the past. It has nothing to do with racism so don’t even try to go there.

And I didn’t assume anything. I never talked about how they live. I never said anything about how they should live. I’ve maintained from the beginning that everyone should live under the same set of rules that apply to everybody. That’s equality. It’s the current situation with the treaties that is racist. Treating a group of people differently just because of their race/ethnicity.

End the treaties and you end racism.

I think your understanding of indigenous cultures is wanting. Many/most had nothing to do with buffalo as a resource.

Yes modern treaties. Signed within the last 50 years. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1573225148041/1573225175098
I'd already posted this above.

Do you believe people in all other nations should all live the same as Canadians, or just the nations within Canadian borders? How about the nations that span Canadian and US borders?

 

[Heraclitus]

So why do they keep referring to themselves as “first nations”? What you are saying defeats your own argument. If the whole “we were here first” thing isn’t relevant, then they aren’t first nations, they were just people living here, which means they have no special claim to anything. We are all just people living here and no one deserves special treatment.

Do you agree that you can't just set up a farm in the US without negotiating with them? why? because they were there "first".. not as in the first people ever, but the first ones there before you got there.
That is what "first nations" means.

 

[Heraclitus]

Say you show up on an island and you have superior firepower and could easily decimate the inhabitants of the island.
But instead you choose to say, hey I will take this spot and you can still have the rest. But I want you to bring me coconuts and in trade I will give you salt.
Good deal for both of you , and you sign an agreement to do just that.
It is irrelevant if the Denisovians or Neanderthals or the dinosaurs were there before them.

 

[Musclemaker]

I think your understanding of indigenous nations is wanting. Many had nothing to do with buffalo as a resource.

Yes modern treaties. Signed within the last 50 years. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1573225148041/1573225175098

Do you believe people in all other nations should all live the same as Canadians, or just the natives within Canadian borders? How about the nations that span Canadian and US borders?

Did you even read what I said?

In my area, where I live, where I know about the situation both past and present, where the treaties are old, where the main food source was buffalo, that is what happened.

Canada / USA borders??? How people should live?? Quit putting words in my mouth. Read what I said.

Get rid of the treaties, treat everyone equally, end racism. I don’t think I can put it much simpler than that.

 

[Musclemaker]

Say you show up on an island and you have superior firepower and could easily decimate the inhabitants of the island.
But instead you choose to say, hey I will take this spot and you can still have the rest. But I want you to bring me coconuts and in trade I will give you salt.
Good deal for both of you , and you sign an agreement to do just that.
It is irrelevant if the Denisovians or Neanderthals or the dinosaurs were there before them.

Yeah but that’s not what happened.

 

[Musclemaker]

Do you agree that you can't just set up a farm in the US without negotiating with them? why? because they were there "first".. not as in the first people ever, but the first ones there before you got there.
That is what "first nations" means.

But they weren’t here first, you already said that argument is irrelevant.

 

[ajfromab]

When I read posts like this it makes me question what someone is thinking when they argue these ideas. Without getting into it I’ll say this , my wife is Cree , my brothers side of my family is Cree , my fathers side is Blackfoot , and I am a white native . I can tell you with absolute certainty that everything you said about treaties is borderline racist and you have nothing good to offer opinion wise . Maybe instead of looking at differences you should look at similiarities.

Or go try living on a reserve with no clean water , no opportunity , no way out , getting pissed on by everyone you come across for your beliefs and traditions . Etc etc etc

Quit being part of the problem. Start being part of the solution , there is more than enough to go around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk