Housing

Just a note to Collen housing was not part of the treaty , and next time your chief hires a expensive lawyer remember it comes from the homes . Also I still play a game it is called how much is enough and when do we cut off the gravy train , the brakes I have found .

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/we-are-people-not-potholes-45209822.html

Well. I've just had an epiphany when reading that story.

I've finally come to understand the problem we have with some Indians. The ones that want a free ride, from my perspective.

They believe that they still own this land and that we are tenants that pay them rent. They live off this rent.

They consider this rental income so they don't have to work.

Does that put it in proper perspective ?

And why do we have to maintain your home have you not heard of birth control on the reserves give it a rest Colleen .

Based upon Simard's interpretation of the treaties we will be obligated to pay until time immemorial. If that is the truth, let's negotiate a new treaty. One that get's us out from under such onerous legacies. It'll cost us what? $10,000,000,000? Calculated at 1 million Indians x $1 million each? Wanna bet that offer is accepted and five years later their hands will be outstretched again?

Something better be done soon. I fear the average Canadian is growing very tired of this game.

GOM you missed a bunch of Zeroes! a million times a million doesn't compute, but $100,000 times a million is 100 billion which would be better than the 8 billion per year we are spending and is 12 billion short of what the aboriginals deserve each year!

"Here's a lesson in reality -- nobody "gives" First Nations money."

LOL.... oh man oh man oh man thats good

oo hey you know what instead of laughing I will just include some of the actual treaty text

"
And with a view to show the satisfaction of Her Majesty with the behaviour and good conduct of Her Indians parties to this treaty, She hereby, through Her Commissioner, makes them a present of three dollars for each Indian man, woman and child belonging to the bands here represented."
far more importantly Colleen.. care to debate this portion of the treaties openly and honestly?

And the undersigned Chiefs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and engage that they will in all respects obey and abide by the law; that they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and also between themselves and other tribes of Indians, and between themselves and others of Her Majesty's subjects, whether Indians or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tract, and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitants of such ceded tract, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract, or any part thereof, and that they will aid and assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so ceded.

ahh its nice to read Tmans comments some times

As long as the entitlement mentality pervades the Native community is exactly how long Natives will live in collective poverty.

“If your life sucks, it's because you suck.”-- Chief Clarence Louie--

If anyone other than a Native leader said that they would be called a racist.

It really doesn't matter where you start in life....it's where you finish that counts.

Manitoba Natives could learn a lesson or two from the world's most famous Indian Russell Means.

From the Frontier Center interview when Russell was in Winnipeg..

"RM: I am totally against anything for free – that’s casinos, that’s government handouts. Anything you don’t work for you shouldn’t get. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t be rewarded, period. It creates a dependency syndrome that is only beneficial to those who are in control."

Colleen Simard ought to heed the advice of Chief Louie and Mr. Means. Forget about any of those dependency creating treaties and start living like free people instead of welfare dependents if you want respect from the people who are now footing the bill. Our forefathers had no right to spend our money. The contracts our forefathers made died with them, they had no right to speak for me.

...to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen......

They cannot be their own nation if they are subjects of the Queen I thought.

Maybe this is where all that dual-citizenship (of convenience) shet started ?

Forget the legality issues for a moment, and try to understand, if you can, how it becomes a way of life to expect and allow someone else to take care of you from cradle to grave. How can you have any self respect, how can the leadership consider this acceptable? This right of entitlement has gone way, way too far.

That was my point.

Some consider themselves to be landlords, and entitled to their money.

JTF wrote:

...to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen......

They cannot be their own nation if they are subjects of the Queen I thought.

Maybe this is where all that dual-citizenship (of convenience) shet started ?

They must have wrote that after thinking of the Residential School System

I don't see the connection. Could you explain it for me please?

Schools were set up to make them into us .

And that was such a bad thing?

How many natives do you see living in teepees any longer btw?

Most immigrants assimilate into society on their own. They find work. Get an education. Buy and maintain a house. They volunteer. They contribute.

They don't whine that society owes them everything. They don't destroy everything around themselves.

Assimilation is a good thing. It does not mean give up what is special or important. It means belonging and feeling that they are contributing.

I'm telling you Canadians are very tired of this never-ending woe is me - hand outstretched crappola.

Yea they learned how too buy what they needed from us as well , Many companies proffited from that . They owned none of them
Some of what Don says makes sense
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/tear-down-kapyong-45248762.html

The only point he has can be covered by a hat.

I will fight turning Kapyong into an urban reserve. The Indians have as much right to that land as I do. Jesus H. Christ. Enough already.

Yes but if we contiune you say what and where they can do anything then we may as well resign our selves to looking after them for good .

Pav they can do ANYTHING they want ANYWHERE they want. Who is telling them what and where to do?

You are by saying that they can,t do it on Kapyong I do tend to say that it would be a risk but if controls were put in with safegaurds as to the development of the site according to zoning and what not, why not .

Au contraire Pav. Au contraire. If Kapyong was for sale, and Aboriginals bought it, then they can do what they want as long as it meets current zoning and other by-laws. As long as they pay tax on the land just like I would.

My fighting an urban reserve is no different than me fighting the construction of the next West Edmonton Mall there or a pig slaughter facility.

Yes but we are going to have to give them land as the courts have said so , and most of the affected land is the land we took from them in the early days . So they are entitled to this per the Supreme Court of Canada . If not here then elsewhere so do we play checkers .

Besides he talks of making it a development that would make the money not for them to live on , quite the difference .

I don't think this has been fought in the courts yet. Further, some experts believe this particular section of land was not "taken" by anyone. Lastly these things are all covered under treaties no?

I have a great deal of problem with the notion that something was taken from the natives. Were these people not nomads? Moving from place to place? If this is the case does the simple act of having once walked across a piece of land grant them rights to that land in perpetuity?

Let's move on to who actually has claim to the land based upon first come first served. Would not the very first (known) people not have claim to all of North America?

For the sake of argument let's say the Cree were the very first people to discover North America. Does that mean the Cree are then the only peeps that have claim here?

A second tribe shows up. Then a third. A fourth. Did not these interlopers fight over their territory? Or did they discuss the issues and agree to share?

Sounds familiar.

If this sounds flippant I'm sorry. I just don't understand these continued claims on the land. Hell Pav some peeps believe they have claim to all of Winnipeg. Some claim Vancouver.

All I am saying is the ruling came down that the goverment doe,s and will have to deal with . The native are entitled to there share so to speak . Much Like the Pequis band I think wherre they recently won there case concerning ESP north of town . The goverment is going to have to deal with them and quite dodging it . Society is going to have to change some thinking . Myself included .