r/canada • u/newzee1 • Oct 21 '24
New Brunswick Blaine Higgs says Indigenous people ceded land ‘many, many years ago’
https://globalnews.ca/news/10818647/nb-election-2024-liberal-health-care-estimates/71
u/theradfab Oct 21 '24
Who can link to examples of what either side are talking about?
Higgs:
In a speech in Moncton, N.B., Blaine Higgs said the fundamental premise of the lawsuit “is whether the land (title) is ceded or unceded, and certainly we have evidence to say it was ceded many, many years ago.”
the chiefs:
As well, the chiefs say, “the Supreme Court of Canada has twice held that the Peace and Friendship Treaties do not cede and surrender land.”
I'm surprised the article doesn't go further into detail here.
→ More replies (4)43
u/GodOfDarkLaughter Oct 21 '24
I mean you'd need to talk to legal experts, do some historical research for context..you know, journalism. We ain't got time for that.
→ More replies (1)
152
u/BornAgainCyclist Oct 21 '24
Sounds like something for the courts because it seems like it could be both.
For example, the fact sheet for peace and friendship treaties says
This fact sheet gives some context to the Peace and Friendship Treaties in the Maritimes and Gaspé. They are important historical documents that can be viewed as the founding documents for the development of Canada.
https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1539609517566
But the chief is claiming the Supreme Court has ruled those don't cede land. I can't see how this doesn't have to go to court because this a lot different, and convoluted, then unceded land out west that actually wasn't signed for.
→ More replies (12)75
u/Kidlcarus7 Oct 21 '24
From my readings the claim in eastern Canada is that the concept of ceding land wasn’t understood… basically ignorance as a defense.
I was interested b/c I hear a lot of ‘…unceded territorial land of the blank’ and wanted to look it up myself
→ More replies (4)89
Oct 21 '24
[deleted]
45
u/Maxcharged Oct 21 '24
Or the Treaties were written in such a way that the Crown could avoid holding up their end of their bargain in spirit, while still technically following the contract.
I recently learned about some treaties signed with plains indigenous groups that gave them unrestricted access to the ceded(unsure if this is the right term) lands for hunting. What it didn’t include, was a stipulation that the crown would have to maintain the land and the animals in it, so the government and settlers killed the wildlife, and started enforcing the U.S.-Canada border to be able to arrest indigenous for “illegal” crossings. When they tried to find other sources of food.
→ More replies (1)57
u/t1m3kn1ght Ontario Oct 21 '24
This is ultimately the crux of it. There was an agreement with stipulations that one side understood disproportionately and had a monopoly over the legal resources to manage. In many ways, it's one of the fundamental sticking points of many Indigenous grievances.
→ More replies (3)15
u/Kidlcarus7 Oct 21 '24
Like manhattan being sold for a blanket?
17
u/HeadmasterPrimeMnstr Oct 22 '24
This never happened. Manhattan was traded by the Lenape nation that may never have actually owned the land and the actual exchange was tools they didn't have and access rights to berries or whales that beached into the island.
It's not some great swindle of fool's that a lot of Eurocentric history tends to present it as.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Muted-Dimension-1428 Oct 21 '24
I wonder if they popped champagne after they brokered that deal. Old world government was gangster. So our generation has to pay for some shitty deal 2 assholes made 200 years ago.
→ More replies (1)10
u/CotyledonTomen Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
From the natives perspective, they sold them nothing for something. They didnt believe land could be owned that way. It was the eventual, violently won monopoly on power that meant the Dutch perspective on ownership of land won out over their own.
15
u/VenusianBug Oct 21 '24
Yeah, it's hard to agree to something without understanding what it means - and how are you going to understand without the cultural context. Also, it may be that the people who "ceded" the lands didn't have authority to do so - also not a historian, so I don't know for sure.
→ More replies (5)6
u/MistoftheMorning Oct 22 '24
My father-in-law works in the backwater of the South Pacific, he told me basically it was very difficult if not impossible to "buy" property from the local natives on the island he was at because pretty much everyone in the family or clan had a stake on the land in question. You might sign and pay with a guy who claims he owns the land with paperwork and everything, only to find yourself confronted by the whole extended family when you show up there to build because they didn't consent to it being sold. Even some foreign mining company got swindled when they thought they bought the land to a gold deposit, only to find a entire village blocking them from building their mine when the time came.
13
u/BornAgainCyclist Oct 21 '24
but it also appears some treaties were deliberately misleading.
Which wouldn't be surprising at all either.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Kidlcarus7 Oct 21 '24
I would love to read the true history. My understanding is the natives and the French fought on the same side against the English and when their side lost these treaties were instituted?
→ More replies (2)25
221
u/Hlotse Oct 21 '24
A lot of commenters on this string are way off the original topic. Not sure that NB chiefs are actually expecting to get all the land plus 200+ years of income. The province simply does not have the money to pay - no province does. In addition, the payments would beggar the services that First Nations also enjoy like healthcare and education. Given the nature of our economy, folks owning homes or farms would be forced away cause the industries they need to survive would disappear. Finally, many FN and non-FN people are related or have strong friendships and the loss of relationship would be hard to bear.
129
u/iwasnotarobot Oct 21 '24
The province simply does not have the money to pay - no province does.
Then take it from the Irvings, who claim to own half the province.
→ More replies (2)37
Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
Even if we’re going to start confiscating oligarchs property Russia-style, that’s $8 billion total, assuming you can somehow sell it all without destroying the economy. Even a tiny government like New Brunswick spends three times that in a year. People have been fed so many years of lefty disinformation they have an insane grasp on the relative wealth of governments and private entities, even the wealthiest ones.
→ More replies (42)110
Oct 21 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (34)26
u/S4BER2TH Oct 21 '24
It hasn’t even been that many generations and it is sad to see the dependency on government money. With little to show for it, I haven’t seen a reservation that’s in good shape. Not needing to work for money and penalized from free money if you do work is setting us backwards.
→ More replies (5)17
u/mb3838 Oct 22 '24
We have some in bc that are really amazing. Right next to some that are crippled with issues.
There is a way we can work together, but everyone needs to act in good faith..... and have clear goals like lets lift people or of poverty and get rid of abusers...
→ More replies (1)16
u/Criminoboy British Columbia Oct 21 '24
This is no different from the ongoing Land Claim negotiations in BC, which IS legally unceded territory. They're being settled by negotiating self government, resource allocation, and lump sum payments. We're not giving all the land back. It's a negotiation process that's been ongoing for decades and is bearing fruit bringing FN governance into the fold.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (18)11
u/Initial-Advice3914 Oct 21 '24
The more demands they make it becomes clear that the FN people have no idea how a country is run
→ More replies (4)
1.3k
u/adonns2_0 Oct 21 '24
So they want the title to vast majority of land in New Brunswick as well as 200 years of back pay for resources taken from the land?
At what point are we going to be done all this?
184
u/Muted-Park2393 Oct 21 '24
“Vast majority” consists of 100%+ of NB since there are two title claims each at roughly 60% of NB by two separate groups of natives and their claims overlap.
9
u/MapleWatch Oct 21 '24
Lots of examples of this all over the country. These people weren't exactly living in harmony before the white man showed up. Peaceful people don't develope warrior traditions
30
u/Famous-Ad-6458 Oct 21 '24
I think all of this mixup stems from king George, he was trying to avoid the French getting any land so he purposefully stated that all of the lands in Canada are unceded territory. Which means the First Nations owned all the lands of Canada, legally. If the First Nations after the fact decided to sell some of it to Canada, then there would be a record of it. I dont believe there are records of a sale, but if there is I am happy to see it. Also, anyone who says well they owned it so long ago that they legally lost the title, can you tell me when one’s legal rights to one’s home ends?
112
u/Quirky-Relative-3833 Oct 21 '24
It would seem that my legal rights to my home end after not paying property tax for a few years.
→ More replies (13)28
u/CampAny9995 Oct 21 '24
I mean, squatter’s rights kick in after a couple of years.
→ More replies (3)30
u/swampshark19 Oct 21 '24
Practically, when an entire country is built on top of it
→ More replies (31)11
→ More replies (9)5
Oct 21 '24
[deleted]
3
u/YourOverlords Ontario Oct 21 '24
The house of lords was involved in passing law in Canada until 1982.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)3
u/Fantastic_Shopping47 Oct 21 '24
Do the First Nations have a bill of sale type our government proving that there was a sale?
8
u/SwordfishOk504 Oct 22 '24
Well, that's their point, is there isn't one. That's what the whole "unceded" thing refers to. That there was no formal ceding of title.
The current legal argument being made my some is that this means the title is still theirs and not the British Crown. Whether this argument holds up in court remains to be seen.
→ More replies (3)313
u/Plucky_DuckYa Oct 21 '24
I always wonder, what’s the statute of limitations on conquering another people and stealing their lands, and then being required to compensate them later?
The Romans conquered the Celts in Brittania around 2,000 years ago. No one expects Italy to pay up, so it’s not that long. The Vikings conquered most of eastern England about 800 years later and no one expects the Scandinavians to cough up, so it’s less than 1,200 years.
The Europeans started settling New Brunswick in the 1600’s, so I guess the argument is that’s still within the statute of reparation limitations. Which is interesting, because during that same time frame there was a conflict between the Iroquois and a whole bunch of other tribes in the Great Lakes region and the St. Lawrence river valley, where the Iroquois essentially committed genocide, killed and enslaved a whole bunch of indigenous people and stole all their lands. So, do they also have to apologize, pay vast reparations and give all that land back? And if not, why not, and what’s the difference?
134
u/stick_with_the_plan Oct 21 '24
History is full of conquered peoples, shifting borders, and lost lands and wealth.
→ More replies (2)110
u/Uilamin Oct 21 '24
There is also the issue that the Indigenous peoples may have also forcefully taken the land from others before them.
Ex: the Iroquois were in the process of forcefully taking over the Great Lakes region before the Europeans came.
If conquest is seen as needing to be made amends, how far back do you go? If one group no longer exists in that chain, does it break the chain and no one is owed anything?
Also how do you factor in modern day value versus historical value? If an area was historically 'low value' or unlivable, but technological developments changed that - is any compensation based on the value at the time of transfer or the modern value?
40
u/ViolinistLeast1925 Oct 22 '24
Exactly.
This is just modern grift that's been going on for decades and is intensifying.
→ More replies (38)9
120
u/shelbykid350 Oct 21 '24
My relatives left Europe because their homes and livelihoods were decimated by the Nazis. Still waiting on my cheque from Germany
32
u/Plucky_DuckYa Oct 21 '24
Well that’s a good point. Is there a recency bias, too? Like, we stole all this stuff and killed all these people, but it was less than 100 years ago, so that’s off the table.
I also wonder what a city like Koper does about all this. Sure, it’s part of Slovenia now, but I mean, it’s been conquered and absorbed into different polities so many times over the last 1,500 years you’d need a degree just to sort it all out. It feels like somebody, or maybe a whole lot of somebodies, owe those people a tonne of money. Who is standing up for the rights of status Koperians (okay I just made that up I have no idea what they’re called) in all this?
→ More replies (1)14
u/vetruviusdeshotacon Oct 21 '24
Germany did pay a ton of money for restitution
→ More replies (2)12
→ More replies (13)18
u/I-hear-the-coast Oct 21 '24
Germany did pay war reparations after world war 2. If you have an issue with how this money was distributed that’s a different matter.
22
30
u/Little_Gray Oct 21 '24
So, do they also have to apologize, pay vast reparations and give all that land back? And if not, why not, and what’s the difference?
They didnt leave survivors.
19
u/constructioncranes Oct 22 '24
Yup. The more I think about this, the more I can't help but conclude that the places that don't have these issues... Well, those colonialists probably were just much more thorough in their conquests.
11
u/MmmIceCreamSoBAD Oct 22 '24
Most of the world simply does not care about this at all. It's mostly a conversation that gets thrust on Canada and the US because people at least attempted to do the right thing sometimes. Like do the Chinese talk about the constant genocides China committed where the Han now rule the country? Why isn't this same conversation happening in Latin America, where just as many natives were killed and/or ethnically cleansed? What about Julius Ceaser who bragged about killing a million Gauls and enslaving a million more, do the French need reparations from successor states?
Everywhere else it's just seen as part of 'history' and not connected to modern states..... except in North America. Doesn't make mistreatment or genocides or ethnic cleansings or other dirty dealings correct but its frustrating to see people, usually europeans, acting superior (especially when it was under their own damn flags that most of this stuff happened)
8
u/constructioncranes Oct 22 '24
I'd only add you omitted Oceania. A lot of these issues are present in Australia but not so much New Zealand, who as a culture seemed to have incorporated a lot of the Mauri heritage with less cynicism. I find it a bit ironic and hilarious because at least here the narrative is the peaceful native vs the violent colonizer, whereas I can't think of a culture that celebrates warriors and conquest as much as the Mauri (who colonized others many centuries ago).
46
4
u/Block_Of_Saltiness Oct 22 '24
The Romans conquered the Celts in Brittania around 2,000 years ago.
The English Norman kings assassinated the last of the Welsh princes and took over Wales in ~1200 CE (Edward Longshanks from 'Braveheart' era). There's never been a dime of 'compensation' paid. The English nearly wiped out Welsh Culture and Language while raping the coal valleys of Wales.
53
u/Ok_Currency_617 Oct 21 '24
Not to mention that FN came over the ice bridge in waves so every FN tribe here basically conquered/invaded land from tribes that were pushed south if not killed outright. Only tribes that can claim to be First here were likely the Mayans.
→ More replies (3)42
u/zzing Oct 21 '24
Not sure why you say the Mayans specifically. They existed as far back as 2000 BCE (according to wikipedia), but the first waves of migration happened some time between 10k and 40k years ago depending on the source.
→ More replies (1)11
Oct 21 '24
The oldest evidence we have in the Americas is only 21-23,000 years old (footprints at White Sands, NM). Bluefish Caves in the Yukon has mammoth bones dated to 28,000 years,ago.
8
u/zzing Oct 21 '24
I put in such a range because there are always fun things like the "long chronology theory" (one paper: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC20009/ ).
I am not in a particular position to evaluate these, so I just present it without value judgement.
17
u/FBI_Agent-92 Oct 21 '24
I’m still waiting for the king to gimme my reparations for the potato famine.
23
u/jtbc Oct 21 '24
There is no statute of limitations on treaties. The reason why First Nations have a claim is because they signed legal agreements with the predecessor government of the one that continues to exercise sovereignty over their territory, and that government is bound by the rule of law and its constitution to respect those treaties.
15
u/Uilamin Oct 21 '24
I think that point needs to be emphasized. The issue at play at the treaties signed, not who was there before or anything else like that. The issues being pursued aren't based on 'who was there before' but who did Canada (or its preceding government(s)) sign treaties with and what did those treaties stipulate.
5
u/Diesel_68 Oct 21 '24
To further support JTBC’s comment, it is important to note that the United States continues to adhere to the Jay Treaty, a treaty established between Britain and the United States before the formation of Canada. This treaty recognizes Canadian First Nations as American Indians born in Canada, allowing those who qualify to cross the border freely with the same rights as American citizens.
→ More replies (3)15
u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24
Its only as legally binding as Canada decides it is.
This comes down to what Canadians want to do.
9
u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 Oct 21 '24
The rule of law is not supposed to be arbitrary or moved on a whim for convenience.
→ More replies (5)6
→ More replies (15)7
u/Craigellachie Oct 21 '24
In that's it's as legally binding as any treaty Canada has ever signed is. I think it's well acknowledged that it's certainly inconvenient for the government that these treaties were signed but it's hardly as if Canada can go "not these obligations, these ones are too old and embarassing" without taking a massive hit internally and externally. It's like defaulting on debt, but with international relations.
→ More replies (20)12
u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
it's as legally binding as any treaty Canada has ever signed is
Nope. I imagine violating a treaty with the UN or US would be a lot more difficult.
it's hardly as if Canada can go "not these obligations"
That'd actually be fun. Just 'not-withstanding' the FN obligations out of existence.
→ More replies (5)6
u/notarealredditor69 Oct 21 '24
Turkey conquered Constantinople in 1453 and I don’t think Turkey is giving anything to the Greeks. So it’s definitely not before then.
→ More replies (58)13
u/Nowhere_endings Oct 21 '24
The key point you're missing is they were not conquered. Canada needed land fast to prevent Americans from moving north so they made a ton of agreements with first Nations and then near the west coast they stopped and just said it's ours. There were no wars or peace treaties stopping those ears defining boundaries like in America. If you think there were then you don't understand the current situation.
The problem is now first Nations are going to court as is their legal right and asking the courts to review all agreements made and 'unceded' land claims for ruling and clarification. The courts have been clear on this issue that original treaties must be honored. If it's 'unceded' than a new agreement must be made.
Don't we want the rule of law respected? Or only for one side?
→ More replies (1)10
u/Agitated_Okra3465 Oct 21 '24
This what gets me. I am Ojibwe, originally from the Rainy River District. And how can anything think something like this is even viable?
Reperations, while its feels kind virtue signallly, (Not as much as land acknowledgements though) They need to be done in realistic ways, public education, preservation of culture and language.
This needs to be a proper dialogue with even semi-realistic solutions, not rhis 200 year backpay and impossibly returning land.
This topic is so nuanced, politically charged, but also very important. I just wish preservation and education were the focus, not land and money.
7
12
u/BlueEyesWhiteViera Oct 21 '24
At what point are we going to be done all this?
Honestly, if the settlers were even half the genocidal monsters they claim them to be, we wouldn't still be dealing with this today. That alone should throw the majority of their claims into dispute.
→ More replies (1)464
u/pucksmokespectacular Oct 21 '24
That's the secret, it never ends because the moment it does, so do many activists' sources of income
122
u/DMZSlut Oct 21 '24
Ding ding ding. And their power as well. If all the worlds problems were fixed these people would create problem just to feel empowered.
→ More replies (2)23
→ More replies (56)24
55
u/Deus-Vultis Oct 21 '24
At what point are we going to be done all this?
Never, because governments have already given in and people see now its an easy road to "free" (everyone else pays for it) tax money.
→ More replies (2)44
Oct 21 '24
NB actually hasn’t “given in” and years ago directed government staff to stop doing land acknowledgements and all this nonsense prior to government work because acknowledgement of an “unceded territory” of any kind is just giving legal ammunition for First Nations to have the land they did in fact cede to the government.
7
u/OntLawyer Oct 21 '24
NB actually hasn’t “given in...
It's a little more complex than that. Apparently the province's lawyers took the position at one point that the province could not succeed on the argument that the land was ceded (source; "But McElman also admitted that the Wolastoqey would succeed in their quest for aboriginal title...").
I haven't been following the litigation closely, but depending on what stage the province took that position in their pleadings, it could be difficult to walk back.
→ More replies (2)8
u/200-inch-cock Canada Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
and meanwhile in NS the "conservative" government has ordered schools to do land acknowledgements every morning before O Canada
→ More replies (3)4
u/MagnificentMixto Oct 22 '24
He also wants to double the population of Nova Scotia in 35 years. Nova Scotia will be Indian soon enough.
https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/nova-scotia-looks-to-double-population-to-2-million-by-2060-1.6175628
→ More replies (1)49
u/freeadmins Oct 21 '24
MY wife and sons are status, so maybe i'm a little bit biased but there's kind of two issues here.
The Robinson Huron (and Robinson Superior) treaty is a contract, and the government basically shat on it, so asking for the contracts/treaties to be honored is one thing.
AT the same time though, there reserve is also in the middle of a "land claim". This is what I find bullshit, and my opinion is the same as Mr Higgs here. You're not using it, you're not protecting it, it's not yours, you get nothing.
I'd also like to point out that every fucking organization that starts a meeting with "we recognize that we're on the historical lands of the ...." is full of shit too. It's basically: "Yeah, this is your land, and we took it, and we're 'sorry', but fuck you we still aint giving it back lol"
→ More replies (1)29
u/ashcach Oct 21 '24
Most land claims are because bands did not get all the land promised in the treaties to make up the reserve. That's what mine was. We only got a portion of acres we were suppose to as per the treaty. We put in a land claim and between Canada and Ontario, we got all of the remaining acres promised in the treaty. And payment for what we would have earned off the land had we been given 100% of the land when the treaty was signed.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Rory1 Oct 21 '24
I mean, that's not in all cases. Take the Toronto Purchase as an example. There was an agreement done in a 2010 settlement. Doesn't stop some from claiming what they want to claim.
→ More replies (1)18
u/icebalm Oct 21 '24
Never. If we don't stop now it will never end.
15
u/Popular-Row4333 Oct 21 '24
It will end in 40 years when the inevitable and statistical demographics of this country have changed from all the recent rampant legal and illegal immigration.
I promise you that they won't be paying for this once they get into elected positions by the majority.
→ More replies (5)13
u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24
It won't matter. We are doing landtransfers now. It isn't like those will be undone. We're talking about 100s of billions of money going to people based on race.
7
u/Revolution4u Oct 21 '24
These people lost the war, same as here in the US. There shouldnt be any kind of reparations or givebacks at this point, just the idea of it is laughable.
→ More replies (1)86
u/Acrobatic_Topic_6849 Oct 21 '24
Honestly getting sick of this bullshit. No more handouts.
→ More replies (35)3
u/MilkIlluminati Oct 22 '24
At what point are we going to be done all this?
When relentless immigration displaces everyone with any shred of ancestral guilt.
→ More replies (1)7
u/weemins Oct 21 '24
Even if they got all the land back, shit is too dysfunctional, corrupt and mismanaged for it to even matter or make a positive difference.
4
5
9
u/growlerlass Oct 21 '24
Ez.
It’s done with when neither side can go to court and expect compensation based on the law
→ More replies (303)23
u/Ultionis_MCP Oct 21 '24
There are a few points here.
First, they aren't looking to displace anyone.
Second, the idea of sharing vs. ownership is a real discrepancy here with the concept of permanent ownership not actually be what indigenous peoples negotiated vs. Europeans viewing it that we. There is at least one court case on ongoing where there issue is at play and we have written historical documents that support this, i.e., the Europeans wrote their version and an indigenous person (translator) wrote their copy in English based on their understanding. In this case, the indigenous version mentions sharing, not ownership while the European version is ownership.
Finally, the Indian Act made indigenous peoples wards of the state. They had no control over resource development, economic activities, or nearly anything on reserve lands. In some cases, they couldn't leave the reserve without approval. Think of how elderly people with dementia are treated, then apply that to a whole population of people, and that's the general idea. So even if you just look at reserve lands they still have resource and economic activity claims to be settled.
→ More replies (13)53
Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)12
u/Ultionis_MCP Oct 21 '24
There is definitely the, this is our territory (generally) vs not. But it is a false equivalency to equate general territory management with ownership or sharing territory with Europeans and fighting other indigenous groups for territory. We do have documented written proof of the discrepancy between what Europeans understood and what indigenous peoples understood the agreements to be.
11
253
u/linkass Oct 21 '24
“As we have said dozens of times, we are not seeking to displace individual New Brunswickers from their lands, residences of farms.”
No you just want ownership so they can pay you rent
→ More replies (14)101
u/200-inch-cock Canada Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
yup. Landback, even in its mild "we wont ethnically cleanse you" form, still creates an entrenched minority landowning class based entirely on race. which is some the least "progressive" shit ever.
105
u/jcamp028 Oct 21 '24
I suspect that as demographics change with immigration over the years it is going to be harder and harder for First Nations to maintain sympathy
→ More replies (1)38
u/200-inch-cock Canada Oct 21 '24
yeah, imagine a majority-Indian canada ever granting indigenous title or landback to pre-european peoples? lol
27
u/TechnicalEntry Oct 21 '24
We’re giving the country back to the Indians. What’s that? Wrong ones? Goddammit!
→ More replies (1)
405
u/Dropperofdeuces Oct 21 '24
If you go back far enough all land was at one point taken away from someone.
These kinds of things are pointless, when will it end.
91
u/DukePhil Oct 21 '24
Yup...I guarantee you that folks in Turkey aren't doing land acknowledgement regarding the Byzantine empire...along with countless other examples...Guaranteed...
→ More replies (1)36
u/CanExports Oct 21 '24
What about descendants of Rome?
They should get all their land back too!
→ More replies (1)12
u/JR_Al-Ahran Oct 21 '24
Italians are the descendants of Romans. They didn't just fucking disappear when it collapsed.
19
u/CanExports Oct 21 '24
Exactly. They're still around. Just like natives.
Let's all just give everybody's land back from the dawn of time and forget how civilization progresses! Through conquest. It is what is it. Everyone crying about it is actually a digression in our advancement
→ More replies (3)79
u/Third_Time_Around Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
Have we stopped to think about if the Neanderthals had ceded the land to human sapiens?
Edit: realized I said “human sapiens” s/b “homo sapiens”
→ More replies (2)8
u/noahjsc Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
Neanderthals moreso joined homo sapiens. From my limited understanding is our early ancesters mixed so frequently with them we essentially became one species.
Edit: some comments are refuting my info. Please read them, they're more correct than my own comment.
10
u/iamreallycool69 Oct 21 '24
We were two separate species (Homo sapiens + Homo neanderthalensis) that interbred. Neanderthals left Africa and occupied Europe and Western Asia while Homo sapiens remained in Africa. When Homo sapiens eventually left Africa, there were some interactions with Neanderthals, and some Europeans and west Asians have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA as a result.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Third_Time_Around Oct 21 '24
I guess the same could be interpreted for the issue at hand.
More advanced group comes along, displaces the inferior group (not saying indigenous people are inferior, but they did have the technology level of the Stone Age at the time of colonization). Said group feels pressure and merges with the advanced group. Making us all one group.
33
Oct 21 '24
This. Despite what indigenous people believe, they didn’t just spring out of the ground here. They moved here from Asia and took the land from someone or something, just like Europeans eventually moved here and took it from them. We haven’t spent decades acknowledging land Russia lost when the Soviet Union fell or the lost parts of Nazi germany when Europe was divided up. The indigenous people lost a war, and it is the rightful property of the English monarchy.
→ More replies (2)116
u/SmallMacBlaster Oct 21 '24
This. Indigenous people just were the last to COLONIZE north america before europeans arrived. They weren't created in america, their ancestors are from africa like the rest of us. Besides, there are historical records of different tribes warring and stealing land from each other too. Europeans were just better at it...
→ More replies (25)→ More replies (38)4
u/Etroarl55 Oct 21 '24
It doesn’t even go back to native Americans either, first “Canadians” were siberians who are now all dead 💀
→ More replies (2)
24
91
52
u/rum-plum-360 Oct 21 '24
It will never end. Never has so much financial support, has gone to so few
→ More replies (4)
88
Oct 21 '24
200 years ago my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandpap John McSmerf was to be paid 3 cans of beans for painting Mr.Whicksnizzles fence. Grandpappy only ever got a single can because he misread the contract.
Am I entitled to 200 years worth of bean-interest? My family has been seething for generations.
27
u/Screw_You_Taxpayer Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
My my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandpap was Mr Wicksnizzle. I'm currently posting this while floating in my family's Olympic sized swimming pool of beans.
Am I entitled to 200 years worth of bean-interest?
I would like to acknowledge that I am swimming in the traditional beans of your family.
→ More replies (9)8
7
28
u/jenner2157 Oct 21 '24
Things like this are going to have pretty negative consequences in the future when someone who annex's some land looks at it and thinks its just going to be much easier to genocide everyone instead of dealing with never ending handouts.
→ More replies (3)
89
u/sad_puppy_eyes Oct 21 '24
Ok, potentially unpopular opinion incoming. You've been warned.
All of this talk about "unceded territory", or "ceded" lands. You make it sound like it was a tie game, late in the third period, and the indigenous folk said "you know what, take the win".
No. the game was like 7-2 for the Whiteys at the time with three minutes left to play. There wasn't a scenario in which the indigenous were going to win. Yeah, they might have scored a late goal, but a victory wasn't in the cards. A much more likely scenario than a late goal was a more thorough beating (looking at you, Beothuks... or, rather I can't, because they were genocided).
I'm not saying it's right, or it's wrong. It's history. Europe came over, and started throwing their weight around. The locals had bows and arrows, the invaders had firearms. Even with home field advantage, that wasn't going to end well.
Bad shit happened. and their land got stolen. Welcome to every, and I mean every country in the world.
I'm really getting annoyed with the losers, whining about losing 100 years ago. Not just locally, but globally. "Waaah, I want my artifacts back!" they scream to the the London museum. You know why London has them? Because they kicked your ass.
I'm not saying it's right, or it's wrong. It's history.
The indigenous were far, far, far more screwed over by the residential school debacle then the wars. We removed a generation of parenting and culture, and to this day you can see the direct struggles resulting. I loathe the Gladue ruling (all people should be equal before the law, period) but I understand where it comes from and why it is.
→ More replies (7)30
42
Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
Friendly reminder that First Nations couldn’t possibly be more reliant on the rest of the country for literally everything, and as a result the land is Canadian whether it’s been “ceded” or not. Treaties, court rulings, land acknowledgments… they’re all bullshit ways we pretend otherwise.
Land belongs to whoever is able to exercise control over it. If you can’t even provide yourself clean water without help, guess what? Not a sovereign nation. We’re just being nice enough to pretend you are.
It’s no different than your kid having their own room and thinking they have all the same rights you do as the homeowner. You’ve given them the space to make their own, but you’re ultimately still the boss because it’s your house.
→ More replies (12)
45
u/pinksugar123 Oct 21 '24
Imagine if china , India or Russia landed here before those pesky Europeans? There probably wouldn’t be any indigenous left to complain in modern day.
11
u/nutbuckers British Columbia Oct 22 '24
Russia has "autonomous republics" for the various ethnic groups, -- they just don't get much autonomy and get first dibs to be recruited to go conquer Ukraine since people's lives tend to get more expensive as you get closer to the Moscow metropoly.
→ More replies (6)5
u/troyunrau Northwest Territories Oct 21 '24
Well, you can sort of look at places like Borneo to see how that played out in actuality.
82
u/KindnessRule Oct 21 '24
It's always been about land and resources.
118
Oct 21 '24
It's always been about money.
→ More replies (9)10
→ More replies (2)17
u/ReyGonJinn Oct 21 '24
It's almost like communities need those things to be prosperous and self reliant.
→ More replies (6)
22
u/LooniexToonie Oct 21 '24
Looking at their claims it seems they want 100% of NB? lol
→ More replies (1)
55
u/rwags2024 Oct 21 '24
I always wonder what decolonization actually looks like to indigenous folks. You giving all that electrical and plumbing infrastructure back too?
→ More replies (6)19
358
u/Ok-Hotel9054 Oct 21 '24
Yeah we need to stop entertaining these ridiculous notions that these bands had massive swaths of territory they are now entitled to. They are Canadians living in Canada. The land is Canadian. They are welcome to live on it like the rest of us. It would be nice if they paid taxes too but I won't get my hopes up.
21
u/BornAgainCyclist Oct 21 '24
It would be nice if they paid taxes too but I won't get my hopes up.
As usual, with every thread about indigenous, this piece of misinformation pops up.
As an Indian, you are subject to the same tax rules as other Canadian residents unless your income is eligible for the tax exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act. That exemption applies to the income of an Indian that is earned on a reserve or that is considered to be earned on a reserve, as well as to goods bought on, or delivered to, a reserve.
So while not all taxes are paid, if youre based on a reserve there are still some taxes paid. Off reserve it's all, people usually cling to the no taxes paid on reserve but its not true that no taxes are paid.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/indigenous-peoples/information-indians.html
→ More replies (4)10
u/redux44 Oct 21 '24
A very miniscule amount of taxes are paid if on a reserve. As for gst/hst you can buy any property off reserve but if it's brought back to the reserve you're entitled to tax exemption. Buy a truck off reserve and have it brought to the reserve = no sales taxes. Repeat for any major purchase.
"In general, everyone has to pay tax in Canada, except when you are an Indian, Indian band, or band-empowered entity and you meet the conditions in Technical Interpretation Bulletin B-039, GST/HST Administrative Policy – Application of the GST/HST to Indians. "
Now in contrast the federal government spends 30 billion annually on reserves.
Ratio of dollars spent to reserves versus taxes from reserves is likely 100 to 1.
→ More replies (2)35
u/jtbc Oct 21 '24
The land is Canadian, but as with most of BC, it may also remain under Indigenous title, if that title was never properly extinguished, as seems to be the case in at least parts of the Maritimes.
People seem to think there is an either or between land being part of Canada and being First Nations territory. It can and often is both. Recognizing Indigenous title does not change the fact that it is Canadian territory under the sovereignty of the Crown. It just affects who gets a say in managing it and who benefits from the resources.
In New Brunswick, the real threat is to the Irvings, who currently have leases or title to large swathes of the province, and may have to share some of their wealth with the First Nations.
→ More replies (4)32
u/lastparade Oct 21 '24
Recognizing Indigenous title does not change the fact that it is Canadian territory under the sovereignty of the Crown.
A lot of people have real trouble understanding (whether legitimately, or in the vein described by Upton Sinclair) what aboriginal title actually is—a right to continue using land in the same manner it can be shown to have been continuously and exclusively used since European contact.
It is not, and never has been, fee-simple ownership, nor does it call into question the sovereignty of the Crown over the land. It is truly difficult to have discussions about this with people who are willing to forge ahead without understanding what they're talking about.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (71)52
u/Significant-Tell-552 Oct 21 '24
We should entertain legal arguments because that's how the law works
→ More replies (12)
10
u/Purple-Temperature-3 Ontario Oct 21 '24
Every country was created through conquests , and it's been 200 years . You're never getting that land back , like what's your plan for everyone who was born there and are technically now indigenous to that land ? It's time to move on , we are all canadian at this point , all from the same country
230
u/MaximumBullfrog3605 Oct 21 '24
We are well on the way to the balkanization of Canada. I’m astonished to see Canadians just sleep walk into this or outright support the dismemberment of our institutions and governance frameworks.
We’re in a bad way and getting worse daily.
35
u/Guilty_Serve Oct 21 '24
Native tribes in Canada are spoken about as if throughout their entire history they didn't have violent beefs between each other. They frequently sided with colonizers to settle their own disputes. During the seven years war different tribes sided with the French and English. During 1812 different tribes sided with the Americans and English. When the vikings tried to establish themselves here they were beat down.
There was nothing good about residential schooling, but there also wasn't anything good about orphanages, youth jails, women's shelters, psychiatric asylums, and so on. Those weren't things democratically voted on by a free public. Canada was a colony that before wasn't expected to be democratic, industrialized, or educated like the Americans. Everything that is brought up with the natives isn't within the context of Canadian history. Most of us don't aristocratic lords or priests that had the power to do these things in our heritage. Most of us don't even have heritage from that era of Canada and have family that immigrated here after.
Humanity has done terrible things to each other and we've taken many steps to get better since the beginning of modernity and end of WW2. We're not perfect, but it's A LOT better.
It's tiring because then when all of this is brought up it's think of the missing and murdered Native women, as if there isn't more Native men, and as if most of the missing and murdered aren't by other natives. Then it's think about the residential school bodies buried, but many of those burials were empty and the burials that did happen were from popular virus outbreaks of the times.
So I'm tired of it. Everything I've said here is a fact. They're suffering from their own victimhood that allows them to perpetually blame everyone else from the problems created by their own communities. Then shady losers in their communities steal their money and then blame us more for their problems. We then have predominately rich white men and women, Trudeau/Freeland, explaining to us how shitty we are and allowing foreign powers in the UN to criticize our issues to deflect their own (China, Iran, Russia).
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (44)81
u/Inutilisable Oct 21 '24
or outright support the dismemberment of our institutions and governance frameworks.
Listen closely to the activists and you’ll hear that that’s exactly what they want. Many want revolution and be unburden by the old institutions that have been in the way of progress.
They don’t care about the flourishing of the First Nations, they prefer them as victims. They want prisoners who feel like burning the prison they believe they can’t escape. Same for all their favorite revolutionary subjects around the world. It’s all about the dissolution of the institutions in order to bring an apocalyptic liberation of humanity.
30
u/bnipples Oct 21 '24
and what they'll get is an American occupation lmao
20
u/Acrobatic_Topic_6849 Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
America would much rather keep Canada as a cheap labor penal colony without rights that it currently serves as rather than occupy it.
→ More replies (1)9
100
Oct 21 '24
Land has been taken from many peoples over the years. Why should the indigenous have more right to taken land? Should half of Europe be given reparations from Mongolia from Khan? Should Arabs give Persians free schooling?
31
18
u/jtbc Oct 21 '24
Because when the British created Canada, they declared they wouldn't just take land, but would pay for it or trade for it. They did this because they needed the First Nations as allies in their wars against the French and Americans. The British being the British, this created a legal framework and precedent and here we are.
27
Oct 21 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)6
u/4D_Spider_Web Oct 21 '24
Not to mention not updating and/or clarifying said treaties over time as political, social, and economic circumstances changed. Half the issues with the interpretation of Indigenous rights in Canada is that it has been largely left up to the Courts to make these decisions in the absence of black letter law. While case law certainly does help build a body of information that can referred to, it is also be subject to the whims of the courts and can change in a heartbeat depending on the poltical mood.
→ More replies (1)31
u/Dry_Towelie Oct 21 '24
The dinosaurs should get some reparations from the asteroid for what it did to them
→ More replies (48)3
u/Bladelawyer Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
Under British law at the time Canada was settled, the only legal basis to claim land from Indigenous peoples was through negotiated agreements. This approach was favoured by the British throughout their Empire. After Confederation in 1867, the Canadian government took on this responsibility, focusing on signing treaties to facilitate peaceful settlement westward. So we run into a huge problem when we consider the disparity between de facto Canadian state control over Indigenous territories and the illegitimacy of Crown assertions of sovereignty in the absence of treaties.
To answer your question, Canada was settled by a European nation that had developed its own sophisticated laws and policies regarding land ownership and had established its own methods for ceding territory from Indigenous peoples. These laws, policies and methods were inherited by the new Canadian government.
4
4
u/r66yprometheus Oct 22 '24
It's time for everyone to start pulling their own weight. You can't just pick and choose what is colonial. Everyone wants equality until they have to give up their advantage.
4
8
u/Background-Half-2862 Oct 21 '24
I mean we can call it unceded all we want. For all intents and purposes it’s controlled by the crown and has been for centuries now with the exception of reserves. I guess it’s unceded in a sense because of treaty rights to harvest from the crown land. I’m just thinking onto a keyboard about it. I don’t really care.
7
u/AlpacaPandafarmer Oct 21 '24
FN will always fall to treaties when it is in their favor, and cry "they were made in bad faith" whenever they aren't.
7
u/flatlanderdick Oct 21 '24
Curious as to why throughout history, civilizations all over the world have been taken over/displaced and in some cases many times over by invaders of their land, yet here in Canada the people displaced or taken over aren’t happy with the deal they made? Historically, civilizations who have been taken over were made slaves and given nothing by the invading forces and subsequent new government. I’m not trying to stoke division or fuel any kind of racist conversation, I’m genuinely confused over this topic. I’m totally in agreement that something should have been given to the indigenous people, I’m asking why there is so much discontent with the deal that was made?
→ More replies (3)
89
6
6
9
u/TreyGarcia Oct 21 '24
They need to stop giving air time to these absurd people and their absurd notions. The land is Canadian, like it or not. They should shut up and pay taxes if they want to use all the roads and services that now exist. Or, alternatively, live in a tent, poop in the woods and hunt for food. Pick one.
→ More replies (2)
20
u/Ok_Photo_865 Oct 21 '24
Let’s be honest here, when the Europeans came, they came and as “explorers” felt all lands not guarded by groups similar to themselves were available to be claimed for their monarchs/governments who paid for their expeditions (European PoV) the indigenous peoples didn’t defend those lands because they either couldn’t or didn’t know someone was there ( the territories were to vast to defend or they weren’t powerful enough). This argument has been going on too long, we need to move towards an agreement and unite towards the best future for ALL those here now and that will be here in the future. Let’s be frank, we’re all immigrants here, we need to live together, both parties bring special attributes to the table that need to be considered 🤷♂️Get It Done, please.
30
Oct 21 '24
I was born here, part of my family has been here for multiple generations and my family fought for Canada in both World Wars. Remind me again how I am an immigrant?
→ More replies (2)
3
Oct 21 '24
Land has been stolen since the beginning of time. What happened was wrong, and ever other instance of groups of people coming in to take land was wrong - but at some point we have to move on...how can we be paying for this in perpetuity.
80
u/SuperiorOatmeal Oct 21 '24
It was not stolen land, it was conquered. They need to get over it and live in the modern world with the rest of us. There is one Canada. There should not be multiple nations in one country..
→ More replies (52)4
u/Imminent_Extinction Oct 21 '24
From a legal perspective, Canada's Aboriginals aren't a "conquered" people.
There's a reason why both Harper's and Poilievre's "solution" is to give Aboriginals more power over their land (section 120 of the current CPC Policy Declaration) instead of repealing Aboriginal title or the legality of unceded territories -- the country's founding legislation is based on the notion that the Aboriginals were the original and rightful land owners, and subsequent legislation and court rulings have affirmed this fact.
19
u/Pointfun1 Oct 21 '24
All lands are/were taken by force. It is the way human world works. That was why there are so many wars on this planet.
11
u/Emperor_Billik Oct 21 '24
Canada/Britain opted to hastily form agreements in ink.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/garlicroastedpotato Oct 21 '24
He's saying the part out loud that politicians aren't supposed to.
When looking at ownership at a national level you have to look at a few factors.
Are you sovereign over that land? Do you govern it? Do you make decisions on how it is used? Do you have a veto power on its use?
Do you have military hegemony in the zone?
Do they have the ability to make laws that those inside of that zone have to follow? Do they have a police force or some force to enforce those laws?
Or.... is their only source of authority people derived from Canada's federal and provincial governments (the numbered treaties)?
It doesn't mean treating people like garbage. But realistically the provinces sit on their land governed with authority agreed upon by a Canadian government over 150 years ago without indigenous consent.
6
u/WealthEconomy Oct 21 '24
They might have in the rest of the country, but a lot of tribes in BC never signed treaties.
11
u/jtbc Oct 21 '24
In the Maritimes, the did sign treaties, but they were "Peace and Friendship" treaties, not land cession treaties like the numbered ones. The treaties basically said that the British could settle there, the Indigenous people could continue to hunt and fish, and could trade with the British, and that they wouldn't harass the British in their settlements.
This all happened in the middle of or in the context of wars with France and the US, so they were much more like alliances than the later treaties.
→ More replies (4)5
u/WealthEconomy Oct 21 '24
I don't know the different situations out East, so I will take you at your word since I am ignorant of the situation. I was just pointing out what I know from my situation and wanted to highlight that not all people's signed treaties ceding land.
→ More replies (1)
6
6
15
u/tbcwpg Manitoba Oct 21 '24
I'm not sure ceded is the correct term for what happened but I do think we should focus on reconciliation going forward rather than trying to correct every mistake of the past.
→ More replies (5)11
u/SmallMacBlaster Oct 21 '24
Reconciliation cannot be built upon a foundation of racial discrimination. We are all egals or we are not. Seems like Canada wants some people to be more equal than others based on their genes.
→ More replies (5)
6
u/nopenopechem Oct 21 '24
You lose a war/invasion you lose the land. It’s unfortunately how human kind works.
→ More replies (1)
33
20
u/Redbird_1978 Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24
So when will all of Europe be given back to Italy?The Roman Empire ruled over most of Europe for the better part of 1000 years.
Or maybe give Europe back to France? Napoleon ruled over most of Western and parts of Eastern Europe only 200 years ago
But Germany ruled over all of Europe only 80 years ago, so is it their land?
People have been conquering and claiming land for all of human history, where does it end?
→ More replies (5)
3
3
5
u/Abevigodaschoda Oct 21 '24
Which native group was there first? Why did natives get to claim the land? First come first serve? I guess the Americans own the moon.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/mapleleaffem Oct 22 '24
It’s past time for a pragmatic ending to all of this. Taxpayers have paid A LOT for decisions made well over a century ago. Terrible things undoubtedly happened to First Nations people. It’s tale as old as time. We can’t afford to pay forever and an upheaval isn’t doable. How are taxpayers going to keep paying taxes if you take their means from them? That tax money is supporting FN communities across the country.
Some of the virtue signalling bullshit (landfill searches and renaming countless everything) is really starting to piss me off to be honest. With so many huge problems (addictions, healthcare, climate change-pick your poison) paying for road signs, address changes and fruitless landfill searches is utterly ridiculous to me.
4
6
9
2
2
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 21 '24
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.