I don't think they can self-govern! You just said that "if an Indigenous nation has an issue with their hereditary leader, they can request aid from Canada." If that's not a clear admission that they can't self-govern, I don't know what is.* It's an admission that sometimes, we're going to have to go in there and get colonialist as fuck, and once we open that door...
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. My point was that if we treat an Indigenous nation as genuinely sovereign, they still have recourse to intervention from other nations in exceptional circumstances, as any sovereign nation does. Being sovereign does not mean being completely isolated, and being able to ask for help does not mean handing governance over to other powers.
Why do you believe can't self-govern? Colonized groups can, and have, obtained independence and sovereignty. There is no reason they can't do the same, especially with genuine support that doesn't hinge on paternalistic mechanisms of control and domination.
Look, how hard do you think it'd be right now for the gas company to go canvassing and just find someone who has an issue with their hereditary leader? Probably not very hard, eh, especially if they throw them a few million dollars under the table. Now we have another group coming out of the woodworks claiming they're the "real chiefs" or whatever nonsense, yes? And then we would have to make a determination as to whether that claim was legitimate or not, based on some principles of our choice - boom, colonialist, no longer self-governing. Or are the First Nations leaderships now just locked forever in permanence? The bloodlines that are Clan Chiefs now are going to be the Clan Chiefs forevermore, this is the form of government they'll have until the year 7431, when all Canadians decamp the planet for the Andromeda Galaxy? And it'd still be us enforcing that, so that's colonialist and not self-governance either.
A sovereign nation determines its leadership through the mechanisms it has established for that purpose. In this case, it's hereditary chiefs. If they want to change that system of governance, they would do so internally through the systems they establish for that purpose. There is no reason to assume this would lead to some bizarre scenario of open civil war, any more than we assume Canadians are going to start shooting at each other when there's an election. (By which of course I mean, sometimes you might idly wonder, but not really.)
I think the whole point is that they already have a structure for governance. They've already decided who governs and how. The issue isn't figuring that out--the issue is that Canada refuses to recognize their decision, which is why they have forced Indigenous nations to install leaders who are accountable to the Canadian government.
Maybe we're seeing different reports. My impression is that there is not some internal power struggle between the elected chief and the hereditary chiefs and their factions of supporters. The nation itself wants to self-govern through its traditional system. The dispute is over external recognition by Canada. If there is evidence of real internal struggle, I'd be curious to see it. Most stats I've seen indicate overwhelming support for self-governance in almost every Indigenous nation.
This isn't a deadlock that seems like it can be resolved without us being colonialist and just making a decision one way or another, because we've also removed the traditional ways in which these people would have handled it, which is that they would have fought and possibly killed each other or they would have split up into new tribes/bands/clans.
This seems like a pretty offensive stance. Indigenous tribes had plenty of warfare, but they also knew how to settle disputes and peacefully transfer power through negotiation, diplomacy and institutions, and still do, because they're civilized human beings.
You seem largely concerned about this question of internal warfare being the only solution to political "deadlock." As far as I can tell, that isn't the issue. That is not something we're worried about. That's not something we should be basing our decisions on.
I don't think they can self-govern! You just said that "if an Indigenous nation has an issue with their hereditary leader, they can request aid from Canada." If that's not a clear admission that they can't self-govern, I don't know what is.* It's an admission that sometimes, we're going to have to go in there and get colonialist as fuck, and once we open that door...
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. My point was that if we treat an Indigenous nation as genuinely sovereign, they still have recourse to intervention from other nations in exceptional circumstances, as any sovereign nation does. Being sovereign does not mean being completely isolated, and being able to ask for help does not mean handing governance over to other powers.
Why do you believe can't self-govern? Colonized groups can, and have, obtained independence and sovereignty. There is no reason they can't do the same, especially with genuine support that doesn't hinge on paternalistic mechanisms of control and domination.
Look, how hard do you think it'd be right now for the gas company to go canvassing and just find someone who has an issue with their hereditary leader? Probably not very hard, eh, especially if they throw them a few million dollars under the table. Now we have another group coming out of the woodworks claiming they're the "real chiefs" or whatever nonsense, yes? And then we would have to make a determination as to whether that claim was legitimate or not, based on some principles of our choice - boom, colonialist, no longer self-governing. Or are the First Nations leaderships now just locked forever in permanence? The bloodlines that are Clan Chiefs now are going to be the Clan Chiefs forevermore, this is the form of government they'll have until the year 7431, when all Canadians decamp the planet for the Andromeda Galaxy? And it'd still be us enforcing that, so that's colonialist and not self-governance either.
A sovereign nation determines its leadership through the mechanisms it has established for that purpose. In this case, it's hereditary chiefs. If they want to change that system of governance, they would do so internally through the systems they establish for that purpose. There is no reason to assume this would lead to some bizarre scenario of open civil war, any more than we assume Canadians are going to start shooting at each other when there's an election. (By which of course I mean, sometimes you might idly wonder, but not really.)
I think the whole point is that they already have a structure for governance. They've already decided who governs and how. The issue isn't figuring that out--the issue is that Canada refuses to recognize their decision, which is why they have forced Indigenous nations to install leaders who are accountable to the Canadian government.
Maybe we're seeing different reports. My impression is that there is not some internal power struggle between the elected chief and the hereditary chiefs and their factions of supporters. The nation itself wants to self-govern through its traditional system. The dispute is over external recognition by Canada. If there is evidence of real internal struggle, I'd be curious to see it. Most stats I've seen indicate overwhelming support for self-governance in almost every Indigenous nation.
This isn't a deadlock that seems like it can be resolved without us being colonialist and just making a decision one way or another, because we've also removed the traditional ways in which these people would have handled it, which is that they would have fought and possibly killed each other or they would have split up into new tribes/bands/clans.
This seems like a pretty offensive stance. Indigenous tribes had plenty of warfare, but they also knew how to settle disputes and peacefully transfer power through negotiation, diplomacy and institutions, and still do, because they're civilized human beings.
You seem largely concerned about this question of internal warfare being the only solution to political "deadlock." As far as I can tell, that isn't the issue. That is not something we're worried about. That's not something we should be basing our decisions on.
Violence or separation/migration has been the traditional way that all humans resolve leadership conflicts. It's the traditional human way of removing hereditary leadership. All around the world, hereditary leaders were removed through violence, or through seeing what violent things happened to the hereditary leaders next door. Violence isn't the traditional way that First Nations moved away from hereditary leadership, because they never did. Simply by eliminating these options is itself colonialist and there's no stepping back from that. The First Nations are not sovereign nations. We've long seen to that already and few people who proclaim that they're anti-colonialist actually have the stomach for what true decolonization would entail.
First Nations leaders, and others, claiming legitimacy for some and delegitimizing others causes confusion and sows discord, weakening the overall credibility, legitimacy, and authority of First Nations people.
So uhh we all knew this already but thank god he didn't get the Conservative leadership
What happened to the sane conservatives in this country? Where did they all go?
They got assimilated into the alt-right over a decade ago.
+8
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
So Maxime Bernier is just a total goddamn lunatic, eh?
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
The idea that decolonizing Indigenous nations and working toward sovereignty necessarily entails violent conflict within those nations is ridiculous. The idea that the main reason for refusing to decolonize is Canada's inability to stomach this invented necessary violence is also absurd. These are bizarre positions.
The idea that decolonizing Indigenous nations and working toward sovereignty necessarily entails violent conflict within those nations is ridiculous. The idea that the main reason for refusing to decolonize is Canada's inability to stomach this invented necessary violence is also absurd. These are bizarre positions.
folk are inventing this potential for inter-tribal violence, while there's this well-documented history of cops being used to suppress indigenous people throughout the West
there's a whole twitter thread, starting at the tweet below, giving the brief version of the RCMP's relationship to indigenous suppression
I would be more sympathetic, honestly, if we were not supposed to pretend that unelected, heridetary, chefs are the true representatives. If the queen ever decide to contradict Trudeau, I would prefer that other countries ignore her.
I would be more sympathetic, honestly, if we were not supposed to pretend that unelected, heridetary, chefs are the true representatives. If the queen ever decide to contradict Trudeau, I would prefer that other countries ignore her.
It is not our moral right or responsibility to impose our systems on these nations. Colonialism is immoral.
I would be more sympathetic, honestly, if we were not supposed to pretend that unelected, heridetary, chefs are the true representatives. If the queen ever decide to contradict Trudeau, I would prefer that other countries ignore her.
It is not our moral right or responsibility to impose our systems on these nations. Colonialism is immoral.
I would be more sympathetic, honestly, if we were not supposed to pretend that unelected, heridetary, chefs are the true representatives. If the queen ever decide to contradict Trudeau, I would prefer that other countries ignore her.
We don't have to pretend anything. we just have to recognize that communities can self-organize political structures/groups based on values and systems generally accepted in the community, and treat organized groups with clear interests and constituencies seriously. One person claiming to be a hereditary chief with no actual supporter base is a crackpot. These people are clearly not crackpots, they're community organizers with supporters and a vision.
I would be more sympathetic, honestly, if we were not supposed to pretend that unelected, heridetary, chefs are the true representatives. If the queen ever decide to contradict Trudeau, I would prefer that other countries ignore her.
It is not our moral right or responsibility to impose our systems on these nations. Colonialism is immoral.
Human rights are not immoral.
I don't believe democratic elections are a human right? They are certainly not the only system by which communities can be run. We also can't force democracy on other nations.
It is quite clear that the political structure of this group is very complex. It is not the case, however, that the government has just decided arbitrarily to step in. Instead, the intervention is based on a BC Supreme Court ruling. The police are therefore obligated to act. I would hope that the court will have taken the time to carefully consider whether the group which assented to the pipeline are the valid legal representatives of this nation. I have no reason to think otherwise, and the courts do have a history of being less hostile to aboriginal interests than the rest of the government.
Certainly I trust the courts to have considered this far more than anyone posting here, who are not experts in colonial relations or the history of this particular nation.
why aren't we treating these people like a sovereign nation, I wonder
edit: calling out people for false authority then implying the courts are equivalent to experts in native culture and colonial history is certainly a debate strategy
all while ignoring actual indigenous people who disagree with the point, no less
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
+7
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
It is quite clear that the political structure of this group is very complex. It is not the case, however, that the government has just decided arbitrarily to step in. Instead, the intervention is based on a BC Supreme Court ruling. The police are therefore obligated to act. I would hope that the court will have taken the time to carefully consider whether the group which assented to the pipeline are the valid legal representatives of this nation. I have no reason to think otherwise, and the courts do have a history of being less hostile to aboriginal interests than the rest of the government.
Certainly I trust the courts to have considered this far more than anyone posting here, who are not experts in colonial relations or the history of this particular nation.
The BC government has not done as the Supreme Court of Canada ordered them to do in 1997 and negotiate a treaty with the First Nations peoples that live in northern BC. The land in question is not covered by a treaty, and is not part of a reserve, and is the traditional territory for the Wet'suwet'en nation. The Indian Act, from what I've read, says elected council members only have authority over reserve land. This is not a reserve. Unless the information I've been reading is incorrect, the agreement as signed is invalid.
So the BC supreme court ruling is wrong, and is not taking into account the aboriginal interests, or rights, over that territory.
The BC Supreme Court also seems unlikely to take a position within the sphere of advocacy for genuine Indigenous sovereignty. Their job is to assess the situation within the framework of current Canadian law, afaik; it is that framework that is disputed, which is an ongoing national issue.
There is also the issue that the folks protesting don't really have the resources to fight for their case in court, not at length--something the RCMP factors into its calculations when deciding how to act against a target
why aren't we treating these people like a sovereign nation, I wonder
edit: calling out people for false authority then implying the courts are equivalent to experts in native culture and colonial history is certainly a debate strategy
all while ignoring actual indigenous people who disagree with the point, no less
I don't want this to sound offensive but feel like it's going to come out that way.
We treat them as a sovereign nation in name only. Mainly because that's what they are....
They have very little ways of generating income and rely on Canada ( a sovereign nation) to fund them. Our whole relationship with First nations is built on a bed of sand and fundamentally comes down to we took their land and will never give it back for multiple reasons but mainly that their Land is what we call Canada.
PSN: Canadian_llama
+3
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
That's not an inaccurate way to put it.
Band councils are a system imposed on us by Canada, historically by force, and are largely seen as incredibly corrupt.
I worked for one of, at least by my reckoning, one of the better run band councils, who made a good faith effort of trying to give a legitimate voice to the traditional leadership, and they're still seen largely as a necessary evil at best.
To give an anecdote on how poorly regarded the system is, my community has a population of 8000+ and the band council elections get maybe 300 voters in a good year.
Band councils are a system imposed on us by Canada, historically by force, and are largely seen as incredibly corrupt.
I worked for one of, at least by my reckoning, one of the better run band councils, who made a good faith effort of trying to give a legitimate voice to the traditional leadership, and they're still seen largely as a necessary evil at best.
To give an anecdote on how poorly regarded the system is, my community has a population of 8000+ and the band council elections get maybe 300 voters in a good year.
Here's a question someone asked me and I couldn't answer definitively: why don't communities vote for a traditional leader to fill the elected position? Is there anything stopping them from doing that and having that elected official essentially abide by the decisions of the traditional leadership?
0
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
Band councils are a system imposed on us by Canada, historically by force, and are largely seen as incredibly corrupt.
I worked for one of, at least by my reckoning, one of the better run band councils, who made a good faith effort of trying to give a legitimate voice to the traditional leadership, and they're still seen largely as a necessary evil at best.
To give an anecdote on how poorly regarded the system is, my community has a population of 8000+ and the band council elections get maybe 300 voters in a good year.
Here's a question someone asked me and I couldn't answer definitively: why don't communities vote for a traditional leader to fill the elected position? Is there anything stopping them from doing that and having that elected official essentially abide by the decisions of the traditional leadership?
I can't speak for other communities but there's an effort to do some of this, but its still seen as taking part of an illegitimate system imposed on us.
There's another, more complicated answer that can be summed up as the traditionalist element taking a principled but naive position of holding to their side of a 400 year old agreement nobody else has an interest in honoring.
why aren't we treating these people like a sovereign nation, I wonder
edit: calling out people for false authority then implying the courts are equivalent to experts in native culture and colonial history is certainly a debate strategy
all while ignoring actual indigenous people who disagree with the point, no less
I don't want this to sound offensive but feel like it's going to come out that way.
We treat them as a sovereign nation in name only. Mainly because that's what they are....
They have very little ways of generating income and rely on Canada ( a sovereign nation) to fund them. Our whole relationship with First nations is built on a bed of sand and fundamentally comes down to we took their land and will never give it back for multiple reasons but mainly that their Land is what we call Canada.
That's not quite true. Their land (meaning the parts of Canada we explicitly recognize as First Nations territories and reserves) are very rich in natural resources, which when exploited generate massive revenue streams. It's just that those streams end up in Canada and we pay First Nations back pennies on the dollar in support. And expect them to be grateful for it. And wonder why they can't get by. And get upset at them freeloading and mooching off of us.
why aren't we treating these people like a sovereign nation, I wonder
edit: calling out people for false authority then implying the courts are equivalent to experts in native culture and colonial history is certainly a debate strategy
all while ignoring actual indigenous people who disagree with the point, no less
I don't want this to sound offensive but feel like it's going to come out that way.
We treat them as a sovereign nation in name only. Mainly because that's what they are....
They have very little ways of generating income and rely on Canada ( a sovereign nation) to fund them. Our whole relationship with First nations is built on a bed of sand and fundamentally comes down to we took their land and will never give it back for multiple reasons but mainly that their Land is what we call Canada.
That's not quite true. Their land (meaning the parts of Canada we explicitly recognize as First Nations territories and reserves) are very rich in natural resources, which when exploited generate massive revenue streams. It's just that those streams end up in Canada and we pay First Nations back pennies on the dollar in support. And expect them to be grateful for it. And wonder why they can't get by. And get upset at them freeloading and mooching off of us.
This may be a dumb question but what's stopping them from exploiting it themselves ? If Canada is giving them the short end of the stick would it not be smart to take it upon themselves to manage the process ?
why aren't we treating these people like a sovereign nation, I wonder
edit: calling out people for false authority then implying the courts are equivalent to experts in native culture and colonial history is certainly a debate strategy
all while ignoring actual indigenous people who disagree with the point, no less
I don't want this to sound offensive but feel like it's going to come out that way.
We treat them as a sovereign nation in name only. Mainly because that's what they are....
They have very little ways of generating income and rely on Canada ( a sovereign nation) to fund them. Our whole relationship with First nations is built on a bed of sand and fundamentally comes down to we took their land and will never give it back for multiple reasons but mainly that their Land is what we call Canada.
That's not quite true. Their land (meaning the parts of Canada we explicitly recognize as First Nations territories and reserves) are very rich in natural resources, which when exploited generate massive revenue streams. It's just that those streams end up in Canada and we pay First Nations back pennies on the dollar in support. And expect them to be grateful for it. And wonder why they can't get by. And get upset at them freeloading and mooching off of us.
This may be a dumb question but what's stopping them from exploiting it themselves ? If Canada is giving them the short end of the stick would it not be smart to take it upon themselves to manage the process ?
Before we speculate about barriers to the process, why don't you try describing how a remote community might "self-start" a mine or pipeline or logging operation or what have you?
On the forestry front, there is a fair bit of self start out there as well. First Nations mine services/construction services companies are also fairly common in most areas of BC. There are capital barriers of course and in some case experience barriers. There's also a mishmash of interfacing with other levels of the government required to move things forward and the government does not always make things easy. Notably, places like the Nisga'a territories have had quite a bit of development happen in them and a large part of that is because there is more clarity in what levels of government are responsible for what. Something important to remember is that for most of BC no treaties have been signed, there are overlapping claims, and the provincial governments have not been interested in good faith negotiating agreements (on top of all the other complications) for a long time.
I would be more sympathetic, honestly, if we were not supposed to pretend that unelected, heridetary, chefs are the true representatives. If the queen ever decide to contradict Trudeau, I would prefer that other countries ignore her.
It is not our moral right or responsibility to impose our systems on these nations. Colonialism is immoral.
We already do and you advocate for it, but you deny that these are "our systems" is the point. The theory and ideas you, and others, espouse does not treat colonialism as immoral; it treats the colonialism of the sort you don't like as immoral, but is perfectly fine with other ones.
Treating the First Nations as sovereign nations would necessarily entail allowing them to violate human rights, to make war upon one another, to cause violence to each other, to be corrupt and evil. But you're just pretending/imagining those will never happen, while quietly leaving yourself an escape hatch by saying, "Hey look, if it comes to that, then they can appeal to the Canadian government and we'll step in!" Except THAT'S FUCKING COLONIALISM. That's NOT self-governance, if the system established has to have an out that relies on others! It's just colonialism that you like that's for the future, so you can pretend it ain't, while screaming at the top of your lungs that colonialism is bad.
I don't agree with what everything Ena͞emaehkiw Keshena says but I do at least admire his clear-eyedness in recognizing that:
I don't think people like him will actually win, but hey, at least their goal is an actual decolonized, sovereign indigenous state, and not something that's just slightly less colonized, we'll just call it totally decolonized and sovereign, good enough, let's go home.
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited January 2019
I really want to say there is a part of first nations land rights, or at least a widely held perception among us, that according to canadian law our lands only extend about 5ft underground.
"We don't even own the ground we bury our dead in" is a thing I've heard before, let alone any resources found.
That said I can't find anything beyond that anecdote to back it up and google is being incredibly unhelpful.
I really want to say there is a part of first nations land rights, or at least a widely held perception among us, that according to canadian law our lands only extend about 5ft underground.
"We don't even own the ground we bury our dead in" is a thing I've heard before, let alone any resources found.
That said I can't find anything beyond that anecdote to back it up and google is being incredibly unhelpful.
You 100% can own the land without owning the mineral rights. Not sure on how applicable that is to treaty lands, and probably is variable depending on the treaty.
+1
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
That is true, especially considering BC specifically is a bit of a mess in that regard.
I really want to say there is a part of first nations land rights, or at least a widely held perception among us, that according to canadian law our lands only extend about 5ft underground.
"We don't even own the ground we bury our dead in" is a thing I've heard before, let alone any resources found.
That said I can't find anything beyond that anecdote to back it up and google is being incredibly unhelpful.
The saying I recall hearing was "to the depth of a plowshare", whatever that might mean today.
I really want to say there is a part of first nations land rights, or at least a widely held perception among us, that according to canadian law our lands only extend about 5ft underground.
"We don't even own the ground we bury our dead in" is a thing I've heard before, let alone any resources found.
That said I can't find anything beyond that anecdote to back it up and google is being incredibly unhelpful.
This may be related to the land title system, where if you owned the land before a certain date you also owned the mineral rights, but if you owned the land after a date then the mineral rights were not included and that allowed others to get the mineral rights and force access/etc to exploit any mineral rights. This probably interacted in fun and exciting ways with the reservation system and the total mess of First Nations land rights in the country/BC in particular. I know there were some fun examples of someone basically losing their ranch because a gravel pit operator wanted.
I was able to find this on the topic using the search "BC gravel pit on ranch lawsuit"
Bruce Essington lives in a tarp-covered bread truck on the side of Bluenose Mountain. He has been squatting on the same patch of land, not far from Vernon, for longer than any of his neighbours can remember. Sometimes he’d roam about toting a rifle and wearing night vision goggles. Recently he has begun to pay off his land in instalments.
And now Essington, who owns one faded set of clothes and an old leather miner’s hat peppered with holes, has bought rights to about 150 acres of his neighbours’ land. For $50.
He was able to do that because last year the province created an online staking system that allows anyone with internet access and $25 to acquire a miner’s license and then, at $0.17 an acre, buy mineral rights to land. It doesn’t matter whether that land belongs to a neighbour, the Crown, or the “miner” himself. Once you own the mineral rights, you are free to “explore” your claims, wander the property, “poke at a few rocks,” in the words of MP Tom Christensen. And once you decide to start drilling and digging, even the landowner’s dwelling and buildings are at risk. That’s the law under the Mineral Tenure Act as of 2002, when the section prohibiting miners from “obstruction or interference” with activities (or buildings) on private land was repealed.
Some of the stuff quoted in the article got changed in 2008 when there was new legislation brought in to deal with some of the problems.
Anyways, this was a lot of words and links to speculate at where the quote in your post may have come from.
Caedwyr on
0
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
What do you think of the tweet that Hippofant posted, @Der Waffle Mous? Do you think there's any hope for real reconciliation? What do you think it would take?
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
0
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
I am very specifically not commenting on the other parts of their post but IRT reconciliation the ball is primarily in Canada's court and they've been doing a piss poor job of following through.
Posts
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. My point was that if we treat an Indigenous nation as genuinely sovereign, they still have recourse to intervention from other nations in exceptional circumstances, as any sovereign nation does. Being sovereign does not mean being completely isolated, and being able to ask for help does not mean handing governance over to other powers.
Why do you believe can't self-govern? Colonized groups can, and have, obtained independence and sovereignty. There is no reason they can't do the same, especially with genuine support that doesn't hinge on paternalistic mechanisms of control and domination.
A sovereign nation determines its leadership through the mechanisms it has established for that purpose. In this case, it's hereditary chiefs. If they want to change that system of governance, they would do so internally through the systems they establish for that purpose. There is no reason to assume this would lead to some bizarre scenario of open civil war, any more than we assume Canadians are going to start shooting at each other when there's an election. (By which of course I mean, sometimes you might idly wonder, but not really.)
I think the whole point is that they already have a structure for governance. They've already decided who governs and how. The issue isn't figuring that out--the issue is that Canada refuses to recognize their decision, which is why they have forced Indigenous nations to install leaders who are accountable to the Canadian government.
Maybe we're seeing different reports. My impression is that there is not some internal power struggle between the elected chief and the hereditary chiefs and their factions of supporters. The nation itself wants to self-govern through its traditional system. The dispute is over external recognition by Canada. If there is evidence of real internal struggle, I'd be curious to see it. Most stats I've seen indicate overwhelming support for self-governance in almost every Indigenous nation.
This seems like a pretty offensive stance. Indigenous tribes had plenty of warfare, but they also knew how to settle disputes and peacefully transfer power through negotiation, diplomacy and institutions, and still do, because they're civilized human beings.
You seem largely concerned about this question of internal warfare being the only solution to political "deadlock." As far as I can tell, that isn't the issue. That is not something we're worried about. That's not something we should be basing our decisions on.
So uhh we all knew this already but thank god he didn't get the Conservative leadership
Violence or separation/migration has been the traditional way that all humans resolve leadership conflicts. It's the traditional human way of removing hereditary leadership. All around the world, hereditary leaders were removed through violence, or through seeing what violent things happened to the hereditary leaders next door. Violence isn't the traditional way that First Nations moved away from hereditary leadership, because they never did. Simply by eliminating these options is itself colonialist and there's no stepping back from that. The First Nations are not sovereign nations. We've long seen to that already and few people who proclaim that they're anti-colonialist actually have the stomach for what true decolonization would entail.
First Nations leaders, and others, claiming legitimacy for some and delegitimizing others causes confusion and sows discord, weakening the overall credibility, legitimacy, and authority of First Nations people.
What happened to the sane conservatives in this country? Where did they all go?
They got assimilated into the alt-right over a decade ago.
Yes. He'll also probably get a minimum of 5 percent of the popular vote in the next federal election, because the future is a nonsensical nightmare.
Huh?
folk are inventing this potential for inter-tribal violence, while there's this well-documented history of cops being used to suppress indigenous people throughout the West
there's a whole twitter thread, starting at the tweet below, giving the brief version of the RCMP's relationship to indigenous suppression
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
It is not our moral right or responsibility to impose our systems on these nations. Colonialism is immoral.
We don't have to pretend anything. we just have to recognize that communities can self-organize political structures/groups based on values and systems generally accepted in the community, and treat organized groups with clear interests and constituencies seriously. One person claiming to be a hereditary chief with no actual supporter base is a crackpot. These people are clearly not crackpots, they're community organizers with supporters and a vision.
I don't believe democratic elections are a human right? They are certainly not the only system by which communities can be run. We also can't force democracy on other nations.
Certainly I trust the courts to have considered this far more than anyone posting here, who are not experts in colonial relations or the history of this particular nation.
edit: calling out people for false authority then implying the courts are equivalent to experts in native culture and colonial history is certainly a debate strategy
all while ignoring actual indigenous people who disagree with the point, no less
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
The BC government has not done as the Supreme Court of Canada ordered them to do in 1997 and negotiate a treaty with the First Nations peoples that live in northern BC. The land in question is not covered by a treaty, and is not part of a reserve, and is the traditional territory for the Wet'suwet'en nation. The Indian Act, from what I've read, says elected council members only have authority over reserve land. This is not a reserve. Unless the information I've been reading is incorrect, the agreement as signed is invalid.
So the BC supreme court ruling is wrong, and is not taking into account the aboriginal interests, or rights, over that territory.
There is also the issue that the folks protesting don't really have the resources to fight for their case in court, not at length--something the RCMP factors into its calculations when deciding how to act against a target
I don't want this to sound offensive but feel like it's going to come out that way.
We treat them as a sovereign nation in name only. Mainly because that's what they are....
They have very little ways of generating income and rely on Canada ( a sovereign nation) to fund them. Our whole relationship with First nations is built on a bed of sand and fundamentally comes down to we took their land and will never give it back for multiple reasons but mainly that their Land is what we call Canada.
Band councils are a system imposed on us by Canada, historically by force, and are largely seen as incredibly corrupt.
I worked for one of, at least by my reckoning, one of the better run band councils, who made a good faith effort of trying to give a legitimate voice to the traditional leadership, and they're still seen largely as a necessary evil at best.
To give an anecdote on how poorly regarded the system is, my community has a population of 8000+ and the band council elections get maybe 300 voters in a good year.
Here's a question someone asked me and I couldn't answer definitively: why don't communities vote for a traditional leader to fill the elected position? Is there anything stopping them from doing that and having that elected official essentially abide by the decisions of the traditional leadership?
I can't speak for other communities but there's an effort to do some of this, but its still seen as taking part of an illegitimate system imposed on us.
There's another, more complicated answer that can be summed up as the traditionalist element taking a principled but naive position of holding to their side of a 400 year old agreement nobody else has an interest in honoring.
That's not quite true. Their land (meaning the parts of Canada we explicitly recognize as First Nations territories and reserves) are very rich in natural resources, which when exploited generate massive revenue streams. It's just that those streams end up in Canada and we pay First Nations back pennies on the dollar in support. And expect them to be grateful for it. And wonder why they can't get by. And get upset at them freeloading and mooching off of us.
This may be a dumb question but what's stopping them from exploiting it themselves ? If Canada is giving them the short end of the stick would it not be smart to take it upon themselves to manage the process ?
Before we speculate about barriers to the process, why don't you try describing how a remote community might "self-start" a mine or pipeline or logging operation or what have you?
We already do and you advocate for it, but you deny that these are "our systems" is the point. The theory and ideas you, and others, espouse does not treat colonialism as immoral; it treats the colonialism of the sort you don't like as immoral, but is perfectly fine with other ones.
Treating the First Nations as sovereign nations would necessarily entail allowing them to violate human rights, to make war upon one another, to cause violence to each other, to be corrupt and evil. But you're just pretending/imagining those will never happen, while quietly leaving yourself an escape hatch by saying, "Hey look, if it comes to that, then they can appeal to the Canadian government and we'll step in!" Except THAT'S FUCKING COLONIALISM. That's NOT self-governance, if the system established has to have an out that relies on others! It's just colonialism that you like that's for the future, so you can pretend it ain't, while screaming at the top of your lungs that colonialism is bad.
I don't agree with what everything Ena͞emaehkiw Keshena says but I do at least admire his clear-eyedness in recognizing that:
I don't think people like him will actually win, but hey, at least their goal is an actual decolonized, sovereign indigenous state, and not something that's just slightly less colonized, we'll just call it totally decolonized and sovereign, good enough, let's go home.
"We don't even own the ground we bury our dead in" is a thing I've heard before, let alone any resources found.
That said I can't find anything beyond that anecdote to back it up and google is being incredibly unhelpful.
You 100% can own the land without owning the mineral rights. Not sure on how applicable that is to treaty lands, and probably is variable depending on the treaty.
The saying I recall hearing was "to the depth of a plowshare", whatever that might mean today.
This may be related to the land title system, where if you owned the land before a certain date you also owned the mineral rights, but if you owned the land after a date then the mineral rights were not included and that allowed others to get the mineral rights and force access/etc to exploit any mineral rights. This probably interacted in fun and exciting ways with the reservation system and the total mess of First Nations land rights in the country/BC in particular. I know there were some fun examples of someone basically losing their ranch because a gravel pit operator wanted.
I was able to find this on the topic using the search "BC gravel pit on ranch lawsuit"
https://thetyee.ca/News/2006/06/14/MiningRights/
The article is from 2006
Some of the stuff quoted in the article got changed in 2008 when there was new legislation brought in to deal with some of the problems.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/mineral-exploration-mining/documents/mineral-titles/mt-faqs/faq_privateproperty.pdf
Provides a decent Q&A.
Anyways, this was a lot of words and links to speculate at where the quote in your post may have come from.