To make sure I understand what you’re saying - you’re saying that the chiefs don’t want anything fixed; they just want to play on White Man’s Guilt to get themselves more money?
So let me see if I understand this right.
In an effort to keep the Indians’ traditional hunting and fishing rights, Canadian taxpayers owe them money so they can buy flat screen TVs and X-Boxes?
I’m not seeing this. Can anybody help?
I’m being facetious, but there is a kernel of truth to my questions.
What do FNs want? There seems to be a dichotomy here, between those who think FNs should be traditional hunter-gatherers (ironically, headed by a professor in downtown Toronto’s Ryerson University–how traditional is she?), and those who think FNs can do better than that.
Somewhat relating to the above, I had a great conversation with a local FN gentleman the other day. We discussed the merits of Chevrolet small-block V-8 engines. In spite of being a member of the FNs, this gentleman wasn’t interested in Idle No More or political discussion; he was only interested in Chevy small-block 8s. As a fan of such engines, I can say that we had a good discussion.
So to repeat, in the middle of all this Theresa Spence stuff, all this culture stuff, all this drumming and teepee on Victoria Island stuff, what did this native gentleman want to talk to me about?
Chevy small-block V-8 engines.
Make of that what you will.
It sounds to me that they want more money. They realize that Canada is resource-rich, that the government is prepared to sell these resources for the betterment of Canada, and they want a bigger slice of the pie.
Look here:
Is there any chance the NDP are clandestinely spearheading this? I’m serious.
I can’t defend what individual First Nations may be doing with the money they receive from the federal government, but are you suggesting that they should give up some of their sovereignty (which is clearly worth something) in exchange for no compensation whatsoever? Why should they?
I’m 
Is the suggestion here that NDP is, as you put it, “clandestinely spearheading” political action by FN’s and Chief Spence against Federal Government because of the rhetorical (and mildly delusional, dare I say) explanation by canadianawareness.org site quote?
In short, NDP is pawning FN’s for NWO where UN runs things?
I mean, this is crazier than Fox News but I’d like clarification before I jump.
Well, they’re not completely wrong about that; we do seem to be selling off our natural resources at an alarming rate. The last bit about the cashless society run by the UN seems a bit conspiracy-theorist, though.
There are countless issues all wrapped up in what is going on with the protesting right now - poverty, sovereignty, natural resource rights, the ecology, Theresa Spence’s ego, reservation corruption, domestic terrorism - it’s very complicated.
To my mind the issue appears to be this: the natives have a very valid point that the system isn’t working and they are suffering because of it.
However, their proposed solutions to that problem appear, at first glance anyway, to be intended to reinforce the existing system - and if the system isn’t working because it is fundamentally flawed, stregthening the system could reasonably be expected to result in a bad situation becomming worse.
The “native chiefs are corrupt” thing is a mere symptom, it isn’t the cause of the problem. Even if the chiefs were as clean as the driven snow, the problem would remain, and it is this: the British Crown (and hence our government) has in the past promised native groups that they would be sovereign and independent, with the sometimes stated, sometimes understood purpose that they could live their lives as they always had done. These promises were not kept. But more to the point, in the modern world it was not really possible that these promises could be kept, as modern natives are (understandably) not willing to actually live as their ancestors did - and even if they were, the natural resources available have changed so as to make it effectively impossible.
So we are putting resources into a system that really cannot work as it was originally intended, and because the system has all sorts of built-in entitlements, changing it is effectively impossible without massive protest from those it was ostensibly intended to help - whose protests generally take the form of demanding that the original, unfulfillable promises be kept (or money paid in lieu thereof).
Hence, our politicians’ natural instincts have been to kick the can down the road - maybe shilling out a little more by way or payments. Unfortunately, no amount of cash money is going to solve the basic problem, which is the system was designed to do something which really cannot be done - allow sovereign native groups to live as their ancestors did.
D’oh! I totally skipped that last sentence. Yeah, that’s nuts, and not NDP-level nuts…
You’re filling me with gloom, Malthus. Everything you say sounds accurate, and it sounds like once again, nothing is going to get solved.
That’s what really gets me. It is political suicide to try to fix it so no one ever does. Those poor people living in the horrendous conditions on the reserves will just continue.
Not all of them, of course. But how is it different than places like Iran where the leaders spend enormous effort to deflect local problems onto others outside?
I remember a W5 (or similar program) reporting on a past issue on the east coast. Conditions on the reserve were deplorable. The whole place was a mess. One of the shots was of a bucket part full of filthy water sitting next to the mop and a broom. There is nothing we can do from the outside to get people to pick up a broom or a mop and make their lives a little better.
The fellow whom Leafan cited is not a First Nations person. He supports the First Nations, however, when he goes on against corporations and against money, he is in no way reflecting what most First Nations are concerned about, for from the First Nation perspective, it is about participating in and getting a cut of resource development, which is inherently knee deep in corporations and money.
On a totally different subject, here are some recent stats from Alberta Transportation: “In 2010, there were 344 fatalities and 18,253 injuries resulting from collisions province-wide.” One year, one province. If there was another consumer product on the market that was causing that kind of carnage, we’d never stop picketing the company, but because it’s cars, we just consider it the cost of doing business.
I’m sure Ralph Nader would agree. However since the release of “Unsafe at Any Speed” car manufacturers have been introducing a lot more safety features: seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, rear view cameras, anti-lock brakes, traction control, etc.
Now if we could only introduce courtesy and common sense to the people controlling the tonne of steel, glass and plastic hurtling down the highway.
As well as mandatory, stringent training. For something as serious as driving a car, we sure take the training to do so very lightly.
And in other news, we went to see a very rousing lacrosse game tonight - unfortunately the good-hearted Calgary team, The Roughnecks, were beaten 11 to 13 by the blackhearted Toronto Rock, but we had a raucous good time anyway. 
Do we?
It’s an honest question. When I learned to drive, we attended in-class seminars (yes, I did actually see “Alice Through the Windshield Glass” and “The Adventures of Larry Leadfoot,” both starring Troy McClure :)), followed by practical training on the road. And when we passed the test and got our license, we were good for all intents and purposes. Age 16 and driving your drunken friends home at 3:00 a.m.? Go for it!
But now, as I understand things, graduated licensing prevents that. I’m unsure of the details (let’s face it, I don’t really need to know them); but from what I can see, the training is the same, though what you can do at age 16 with what you get, is vastly different. Is the training deficient, or does the graduated licensing make up for it?
Certain Native Chiefs (among them, Theresa Spence) have demanded a meeting with Governor-General David Johnston. Their claim seems to rest upon, “we negotiated treaties with the British Crown, so the British Crown (represented by the GG) should be present.”
But as the UK ceded power to Canada through the Treaty of Westminster, and the Canada Act, should the PM be the person with whom the Natives speak?
Wondering what your feelings are, in this Constitutional muddle.
No training for me, unless you call my dad yelling at me training. I got my “beginners” on my 16th birthday and was driving myself 2 months later.
I don’t understand the nuances of our graduated system in Ontario, but will be plunged into it in less than a year. (gulp!)
3:00 A.M. is a little late, but yeah, we were bullet-proof in those days. Five dollars each lasted the entire night for four of us: $1 each for gas, $1 for smokes, and $3 for beer. We called it “crop touring.”
“Hey man, wanna go on a crop tour tonight?” “OK. I’ll pick you up at 7:00. Bring 5 bucks.” (Where’d I put my “Crime of the Century” 8 track?)