the winnipeg sandbox
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
the winnipeg sandbox

Latest topics

» Gord Steeves should run for Mayor
by FlyingRat Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 pm

» To discontinue?
by EdWin Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:26 pm

» Sandbox breakfast get-together, Saturday, January 25, 2014.
by rosencrentz Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:27 pm

» 2013-14 Bisons/CIS Thread
by Hollywood Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:56 pm

» Katz must resign
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:09 pm

» Best Breakfast/Brunch
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

» Manitoba Action Party
by RogerStrong Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:24 pm

» Police Respond to a silent alarm With Guns Drawn
by EdWin Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:10 pm

» Details about Cineplex SuperTicket -- interesting promotion
by MattKel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:08 pm

» Freep locks out non-subscriber commentary
by Deank Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:58 pm

» 7-year sentence for Berlusconi
by FlyingRat Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm

» New Stadium
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:34 pm

» Winnipeg News Android App
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:33 pm

» First Post
by grumpy old man Fri May 24, 2013 2:43 pm

» The New Sals at Pembina and Stafford
by grumpy old man Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:35 pm

» Emma Watson wants to do nude scenes for 50 shades of grey movie
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:39 am

» Museum finally admits it needs to raise more money priovately.
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 am

» And You Thought Your Taxes Are High Now!!!
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 am

» free chocolate sample
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm

» Do you want a gift certificate for A winnipeg restraunt?
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm


You are not connected. Please login or register

the winnipeg sandbox » winnipeg sandbox.. » national... » No More Indians- The Perfect "Solution"?

No More Indians- The Perfect "Solution"?

+5
Electrician
grumpyrom
wpg_idiot
grumpy old man
rosencrentz
9 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1No More Indians- The Perfect "Solution"? Empty No More Indians- The Perfect "Solution"? Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:14 pm

rosencrentz

rosencrentz
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

Harper's Conservatives are so smart! They are re-defining the rules for determining native status, and in this way the appx 1,000,000 natives will become 134 people. This will allow the government to cut expenses from about $8 Billion to $268,000.
Brilliant idea that will be readily accepted by all of Alberta truck drivers.

OTTAWA — Parliament has less than a year to craft a new definition of “Indian” before Canadian native policy risks tumbling into chaos as the existing rules for determining native status are thrown out by the courts.
Statistics Canada also found that between 1996 and 2006, the aboriginal population grew by 45 per cent.
http://metisbarefacts.blogspot.com/2009/04/clock-ticking-on-legal-definition-of.html



Last edited by rosencrentz on Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:03 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : misquote # Indians)

http://www.elansofas.com

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Last I heard the Aboriginal population was 1 million in Canada. So 2 million is serious growth. Why is it those less able (read poor) to raise children create the most?

wpg_idiot

wpg_idiot
contributor
contributor

"Statistics Canada also found that between 1996 and 2006, the aboriginal population grew by 45 per cent."

Holy frock! affraid

grumpyrom

grumpyrom
major-contributor
major-contributor

grumpy old man wrote:Last I heard the Aboriginal population was 1 million in Canada. So 2 million is serious growth. Why is it those less able (read poor) to raise children create the most?

The poor are less likely to have full-time employment, cable tv, and internet thus leaving more time for ummmmmmmmm.....let's just say other things.

Electrician

Electrician
general-contributor
general-contributor

wpg_idiot wrote:"Statistics Canada also found that between 1996 and 2006, the aboriginal population grew by 45 per cent."

Holy frock! affraid
Is that by weight or by height???

http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1416203996

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

It has become a force that has to be accounted for , at the ballot box and in the economy . The reason for this definition is because the goverment may and could lose some key rulings coming down . If they do the structure of how we treat them natives may change for ever and they will probably get the last laugh. .
This nation has done some very wrong choices when it comes to the natives and the time of reckoning has come . The system is the one that was given to them cause they were not you . Even though we tried to make them us , would not it have been easier to have shared rather then try to control .

When we came here we thought our selves superior and made no effort to not be .

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Reckoning? Really. What? Get "even"?

There are about 33 million "Canadians" of which about 1.2 million are Aboriginal Canadians (The 2006 census counted a total aboriginal population of 1,172,790 (3.75%) which includes 698,025 First Nations (2.23%), and 389,785 Métis (1.25%), and 50,480 Inuit (0.16%)).

Consider this:
English 21.03%
French 15.82%
Scottish 15.11%
Irish 13.94%
German 10.18%
Italian 4.63%
Chinese 4.31%
North American Indian 4.01%
Ukrainian 3.87%
Dutch (Netherlands) 3.31%
Polish 3.15%
East Indian 3.08%
Russian 1.60%
Welsh 1.41%
Filipino 1.40%
Norwegian 1.38%
Portuguese 1.32%
Métis 1.31%
Swedish 1.07%
Latin American 1.04%
Hungarian 1.01%
Jewish 1.01%

So, when will this reckoning occur?

Stats from Wikipedia.

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

One of the ruling is as to the legitimate right the natives hold to there fair share of the land that was taken from them . Population has dick to do with it . To think it doe's is why we are in the mess with them we are .

There right to it was by being here when we pulled our boats up on shore. This is already recognized by the courts, as much as we feel that we have paid the debt the courts may see otherwise.

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

This is always a challenging discussion. I remember once asking who were the very first peoples to inhabit Canada. Are they truly the only ones "owed" anything as far as their "fair share of the land"?

Maybe the Ojibwa (or Cree or Dakota or Iroquois or...) were the very first inhabitants. Are they not legitimately the first?

If the Vikings actually came first are not everyone else just "Johnie come lately's"?

How is it all Aboriginals lay claim to all Canada?

Converse amoungst yourselves.

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

They have proven to have had the earliest form of governance in the land . Hence there legitimate claims . Europeans waltz in and figured them to be nothing but a bunch of savages not worth the time to invest or include.

Triniman

Triniman
general-contributor
general-contributor

Enough is enough! Let's just build a shiny new building as ground zero so that the natives can whine about how we owe them. And let's stock it full of exhibits to bolster their claims. Oh, wait. We are building such a place.....

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

Yes we could do that if you want but it would not solve the problem , we need to drop the rhetoric and do something honestly .

grumpyrom

grumpyrom
major-contributor
major-contributor

Honestly what does it matter who was first? BS argument that history has proven over and over to be false. Sorry, but the sword always wins in the end, the side with the force to keep the land is the ruler of that day.

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

Me cave man have bigger rock then you right , theres a reasonable way to see the solution .

Electrician

Electrician
general-contributor
general-contributor

I am E. I come from planet Algonquin. I come in pees.

I want my house on the shore of Lake Agassiz back!

I am the one who brought apple seeds to this planet. That guy, Johnny, he stole all the credit from me.

I am the one who taught the icemen how to fish on my lake.

(Sorry, just posting my Monday's stupid post, half an hour early... Gotta get some sleep).
lol!

http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1416203996

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

grumpyrom wrote:Honestly what does it matter who was first? BS argument that history has proven over and over to be false. Sorry, but the sword always wins in the end, the side with the force to keep the land is the ruler of that day.
Not an argument but a genuine question.

Let's assume the sword is right wins the day. There were treaties signed. The question then becomes have the treaties been honoured? If so, let's settle this once and for all. If not. Then let's settle this once and for all. Let's cut the horsesh1te man. End the indeterminate hands out... Please sir may I have more?

But, I am still curious. Who got here first? And is everyone else that followed no different than you and I in our "rights"?

rosencrentz

rosencrentz
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

G.O.M. has it right regarding the treaties being signed and having to be looked after. Perhaps the government has to pass some new laws that disregard those agreements? That say, enough is enough? We cannot spend the 8 billion dollars that we are spending, because it is obvious that we have to spend 20 billion, and we cannot look after you after Ma1 23, 2011!
You have to get off those reservations, out of the houses that we GAVE you, that you wrecked, because you have nothing to do, no education, and there are no jobs up here for you.
There are 230,000 jobs in the cities for painters, electricians, plumbers, health care workers, drywallers, general helpers, stock boys/girls, lawn care, pool attendants, retail help, gas jockeys, forum posters, dental assisstants.

http://www.elansofas.com

grumpyrom

grumpyrom
major-contributor
major-contributor

The other part of the problem is how many of the "treaty" natives are actually 50% or more aboriginal? I've known many co-workers over the years that had treaty status but yet only had 1 grandparent that was 100% aboriginal. In my opinion that makes you 75% not native, not 100% treaty. In this manner you end up with one grandparent creating 10-20 "treaty" grandchildren who are for the most part no more aboriginal than any other Canadian, but yet are entitled to all the rights and privelleges of their forefathers. This is one of the reasons the aboriginal population has soared as well.

rosencrentz

rosencrentz
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

You are right . A good friend of mine has a treaty card, because his grandmother was aboriginal. To him it was a joke to get the card!

http://www.elansofas.com

rosencrentz

rosencrentz
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

My calcu;ations are this! 8 billion dollars divided by 1.2 million people = $7500 for each aboriginal.
Let me guess that there are 3 kids and 2 parents which makes $37,500 for a family. Wow, get that money into the family's hand and there is a pretty good help. But get everyone off the reservations and into civilization.
What about a single mother and 3 kids? That would work out to $2700 per month as an aboriginal allowance. Is that enough? Maybe not. Maybe the government should double the amount and then cut the aboriginal allowance back over a 10 year period to zero?
Th way things seem to be going , the plan isn't working to get the aboriginal cash cow closed down.
Keeping the reservation system is the worst thing ever done except possibly slavery!

http://www.elansofas.com

St Norberter

St Norberter
major-contributor
major-contributor

Pavolo wrote:There right to it was by being here when we pulled our boats up on shore. This is already recognized by the courts, as much as we feel that we have paid the debt the courts may see otherwise.

Says who? And who decides what land each first nation is entitled to?

What most forget ( and what most current first nations would like you to forget as well) are the following 2 facts:

A) native territories weren't static. They were in a state of flux and constant change. If you compensate those first nations that were here in what land area they were in when the europeans arrived - are they going to in turn compensate for those that lost land due to inter-nation war and treaties? How far does it go back?

b) There was no concept of land 'ownership' - just territory for hunting and living. Nobody owned land.

If you distribute land claims based on territories occupied when europeans arrived then you are either saying that the loss of land between first nations is unimportant or that the only reason the loss of land to europeans is important only because the culture was vastly different.

What I woud like to know ( and what no political party will have the balls to propose) is what is the long term plan to dismantle the reservation system as it only breeds a society of entitlement and dependancy.

http://bgilchrist.wordpress.com/

St Norberter

St Norberter
major-contributor
major-contributor

My wife's family looked at getting a metis card. They have an aboriginal ancestor dating back to the 1600s. The problem was that this ancestor lived in Quebec. Had this ancestor lived in Manitoba, they could have received their metis card.

http://bgilchrist.wordpress.com/

rosencrentz

rosencrentz
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

Regarding the make up of Canada, does anyone have a solution to get The Polaks out?

http://www.elansofas.com

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

St Norberter wrote:
Pavolo wrote:There right to it was by being here when we pulled our boats up on shore. This is already recognized by the courts, as much as we feel that we have paid the debt the courts may see otherwise.

Says who? And who decides what land each first nation is entitled to?

What most forget ( and what most current first nations would like you to forget as well) are the following 2 facts:

A) native territories weren't static. They were in a state of flux and constant change. If you compensate those first nations that were here in what land area they were in when the Europeans arrived - are they going to in turn compensate for those that lost land due to inter-nation war and treaties? How far does it go back?

b) There was no concept of land 'ownership' - just territory for hunting and living. Nobody owned land.

If you distribute land claims based on territories occupied when Europeans arrived then you are either saying that the loss of land between first nations is unimportant or that the only reason the loss of land to Europeans is important only because the culture was vastly different.

What I would like to know ( and what no political party will have the balls to propose) is what is the long term plan to dismantle the reservation system as it only breeds a society of entitlement and dependancy.

Funny the europeans came up with it as a means to get rid of the problem also funny why did not we just give them the land they had and not take it and give them crap way up north . The Peguis band is a fine example and we all know where that case went in the courts . The white man lost , the treaties were the most peaceful take of land ever accomplished . The fact that language and education were not equal was just a foot note .
While I agree that we have to settle the issues we also have to look at it without prejudiced .
Ditch the preconcieved notion that we did nothing wrong .

St Norberter

St Norberter
major-contributor
major-contributor

Pavolo wrote:[
While I agree that we have to settle the issues we also have to look at it without prejudiced .
Ditch the preconcieved notion that we did nothing wrong .

I'm not sure how you think I have a preconcieved notion that there wasn't anything done wrong. Far from it.

http://bgilchrist.wordpress.com/

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

the winnipeg sandbox » winnipeg sandbox.. » national... » No More Indians- The Perfect "Solution"?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum