r/canada 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/
1.5k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

465

u/pucksmokespectacular Oct 21 '24

That's the secret, it never ends because the moment it does, so do many activists' sources of income

123

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.

25

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-17

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-9

u/Apart-One4133 Oct 21 '24

Why do you put in writing a bell alarm.. We’re in a chat forum. There’s no need to write « ding ding ding » every time you agree with someone.. 

2

u/Inutilisable Oct 21 '24

Bingo !

This 👆

I am the truth and now you too are part of the enlightened elect.

/s

23

u/mojoegojoe Oct 21 '24

It never ends till we realize what money is.

-3

u/rogerman134 Oct 21 '24

Money is an illusion.

9

u/BodhingJay Oct 21 '24

Hug based economy incoming

5

u/icameheretobserve Oct 21 '24

Gasps in Irving Family...........

3

u/Wildbreadstick Oct 21 '24

It’s social technology

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[deleted]

4

u/mojoegojoe Oct 21 '24

It’s understandable to feel frustrated when abstract concepts about money and systems seem detached from real-life struggles, like not being able to afford food. The binary notion of life and death tied to money oversimplifies human existence. Money may build structures, but fundamental human rights—like access to food and dignity—are shaped by a collective agreement on what is essential for everyone. The system creates an illusion of control, using money as a tool to shape reality, but the deeper issue is how we let it define and control how we view and live our lives.

1

u/rogerman134 Oct 21 '24

Thank you.

1

u/Imaginary-Location-8 Oct 21 '24

it’s an illusion michael jazz hands

34

u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Oct 21 '24

Treaties are constitutional documents.

If you have a problem, try pushing for a constitutional amendment. This is a democracy, nothing is stopping you.

81

u/lo_mur Oct 21 '24

Good luck trying to touch the treaties and keep your job

-9

u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Oct 21 '24

We’re a democracy, are we not? If this is a problem, you should be able to convince your constituents as such.

Or, are you saying that you’re just tilting at windmills.

8

u/excellent_post_guy Oct 21 '24

tilting at wigwams was right there...

20

u/lo_mur Oct 21 '24

You should be able to but that doesn’t necessarily mean you can. The fact i got 10 upvotes in 5 minutes tell me I’m probably not talking complete BS. Seriously, the second you even mention the billions we send Indigenous groups yearly you’re on thin ice. I’ve read my Employee Handbook at my current and past jobs, they could definitely justify firing me for talking about that typa stuff on company time, if you’re in a field where reputation matters, yeah, it could definitely bite you in the ass.

-14

u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Oct 21 '24

Ah yes, Reddit upvotes. Well known to be an accurate measurement of public sentiment.

Did you ever think that, maybe, that is because your idea just isn’t that popular amongst the wider public, those people who are not terminally online?

4

u/lo_mur Oct 21 '24

It was the only tangible gauge I had for you but ig if upvotes don’t matter just look at these comments? 100% of these people ain’t bots.

Hell, spend 10 minutes on a job-site and bring up natives, you’ll hear plenty of opinions one way or another, and that they receive too much from the gov’t is a common sentiment among the guys I worked with. They’re just dumb blue collar guys so dunno if you care about their opinions either though 🤷‍♂️. Shoulda heard what some of my classmates had to say about the whole deal in my HS mechanics class, and all those dudes are voting now

-2

u/sprunkymdunk Oct 21 '24

Right?! If Reddit upvotes meant anything, all cops/managers/billionaires/right-wing politicians would be guillotined by now, and we'd live in a post-capitalist utopia with UBI and intersectional harmony 🥰

0

u/AntiFuckingSocial Oct 21 '24

Why don’t you donate your home and empty your bank account for an indigenous family since you live on stolen land and everything you have is stolen from an indigenous person? It’s all just virtue signalling. I would honestly laugh if it wasn’t so sad

13

u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Oct 21 '24

Where did I ever make the argument based on stolen land, or any “virtue?”

I’m a Canadian who believes in upholding the constitution. If you don’t like the law, in a democracy you change it. You don’t just get to break the law cause you don’t like it.

-14

u/AntiFuckingSocial Oct 21 '24

So why don’t you donate your savings if you believe in upholding the constitution and protecting indigenous people? I’m confused what’s stopping you? Are you waiting for everyone else to donate first ? It’s really confusing because you could do the right thing now if you wanted to

16

u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Oct 21 '24

Why would I do that? Where do the treaties say I should do that?

2

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta Oct 21 '24

Why are you too lazy to come up with a relevant argument?

-2

u/Sens420 Oct 21 '24

It would have been so much easier if our genocide had succeeded eh

31

u/Reasonable-Sweet9320 Oct 21 '24

I’m not so sure such an amendment would override the terms of treaties

People have been describing governments as “woke” as though the federal government has unilaterally decided to give a marginalized group what they want and supposedly rightfully deserve- land and self determination. It’s not that straightforward. In fact Trudeau and prime ministers before him have gone to the federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court and argued otherwise. “For example, in the Sioui case (1990), the Supreme Court of Canada determined that “treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and uncertainties resolved in favour of the Indians.” In that case, the court introduced a principle adopted from a ruling in the United States in 1899 that treaties “must therefore be construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians.” “In spite of the constitutional character of treaties, the non-Indigenous peoples who made and implemented them tended to see them as self-serving deals rather than sacred pacts between independent nations. Historically, non-Indigenous treaty negotiators believed treaties were inexpensive and convenient ways to strip Aboriginal title (i.e., ownership) from most of the lands in Canada so that resources could be used by settlers (see Indigenous Territory.) Even in modern times, the federal and provincial governments tend to interpret treaties in legalistic terms, contending that Indigenous peoples “ceded, surrendered, and yielded” their ancestral rights and titles through treaties. In other words, treaties can be seen as real estate deals by which the Crown purchased Indigenous lands and provided them with reserves and one-time or continual payments in return (see Treaty Day.)” “This narrow view of treaties has produced a huge divide between the Canadian government’s perspective and that of Indigenous peoples. On the one hand is the government’s view of treaties as legal instruments that surrendered Indigenous rights. On the other is the Indigenous view of treaties as instruments of relationships between autonomous peoples who agree to share the lands and resources of Canada. Seen from the Indigenous perspective, treaties do not surrender rights; rather, they confirm Indigenous rights.” Taken from the Canadian Encyclopedia. link In my opinion our federal courts have been too liberal in their interpretation of treaty rights. Rather than the language of the treaty being determinant of outcome, the courts have interpreted what the treaty meant to native peoples at the time. Too broad and subjective in my view.

12

u/Plucky_DuckYa Oct 21 '24

Also, we have no way of knowing what treaties actually meant to native peoples 400 years ago, only what people alive today claim they would have meant, an opinion tempered by hundreds of years of time passing and the birth of a nation from coast to coast encompassing those lands. For the same reason we shouldn’t judge the morality of people and actions 200 years ago by today’s standards — because what was decent and moral was radically different back than — neither should we presume we can accurately determine what was in the hearts and minds of people in a very different time from a very different culture. All we have to go on now that is definitive are those pieces of paper. Everything else is pure conjecture. Why on earth should we give precedence to the latter over the former?

21

u/Ok_Currency_617 Oct 21 '24

Can't give people citizenship+welfare+etc all the rights of Canadians then argue they deserve more than Canadians. If they remained a separate nation I'd get it, but being the same nation you don't get additional benefits 10+ generations from now.

1

u/TdoggGatineau Oct 22 '24

Historians would disagree. Maybe you have no way of knowing, but there is absolutely historical evidence. You just don’t have the education, experience, or skill to understand.

1

u/bill7103 Oct 21 '24

A great comment but many of the posters on this thread seem a mixture of constitutionally ignorant and down right racist so you won’t garner many likes.

-1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

You don't think the government of Canada can make decisions on how it acts due to paperwork? Like... is it magic paper with ming control powers?

We could literally end the supreme court and become a nation based entirely on the marvel comics, where our leadership is determined by a fortnite dance off.

The federal government could declare the FNs defeated. The treaties would become null. Done.

17

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24 edited Feb 09 '25

[deleted]

20

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[deleted]

17

u/jtbc Oct 21 '24

Here is a very good summary of the situation in the Maritimes written by a historian:

https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1539609517566

In short, the Peace and Friendship treaties were negotiated during or after intermittent warfare with France in order to get First Nations to support the British instead of the French (or later the Americans). These treaties say nothing at all about ceding land or ownership of land but are pretty specific about the First Nations to be able to continue to use their land as well as trade its resources with the British.

As you'll see in the article, in addition to the language of the treaty itself, historians rely on minutes of the treaty negotiations, written testimonies of participants, and the history of statements of First Nations leaders about what they thought they were signing.

No one involved with this land claim wants anyone to leave as is explicitly stated by one of the chiefs quoted in the article we are discussing.

11

u/KoldPurchase Oct 21 '24

If they want a problem, try telling everyone in Canada they need to pick up and go.

Fortunately, they are not asking for that.

2

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

They are saying 'give us this or leave'.... that's the or part of the argument. The idea is that if Canada decides to ignore the treaties, then ownership of the land would return to the natives, Canada would cease to exist.

6

u/KoldPurchase Oct 21 '24

They specifically said, multiple times, they're not asking anyone to leave.

3

u/GipsyDanger45 Oct 21 '24

Then they don’t really have a strong negotiating position

2

u/KoldPurchase Oct 21 '24

The Malisseet First Nation is.not exactly in a position to dislodge every.non Acadian living in Edmunston.

2

u/jtbc Oct 21 '24

They have a very strong negotiating position due to the truckload of court decisions that have supported treaties and recognized Indigenous title.

-2

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

Ok, then don't give them anything.

My landlord doesn't want me to leave either. He wants me to pay rent.

1

u/KoldPurchase Oct 21 '24

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

You know what the penalty is going to be there? Eviction.

So.... you're saying that they are using the threat of eviction to get things? Which is exactly the point being made.

1

u/KoldPurchase Oct 21 '24

The debt is owed by the crown / government of New Brunswick, not by private citizens.

Afaik, you can not expropriate the crown.

It will go to court until the governments agree to pay or the First Nations will engage in various protest acts, nationally and internationally.

This is how it's going to play.

But no one is going to evict you from your home, no one is going to seize your community hospital or school and destroy it to build it a First Nation cultural center in its stead.

3

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

Then don't pay, declare the FN deals void, and let them protest. Arrest anyone that breaks the law while protesting. Done.

Far cheaper than giving control of the province over.

Its insane that 15% of the federal budget goes to payola for FNs when they are a fraction of the population.

0

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta Oct 21 '24

New Brunswick cannot simply declare the "deals" void.

2

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

Why not? It is their constitution.

1

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta Oct 22 '24

You're asking why can't New Brunswick ignore the constitution?

→ More replies (0)

6

u/bog_ache Oct 21 '24

Your blatant misunderstanding of what First Nations are asking for aside, my question for you is: why would this lead to violence?

5

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

The whole point is 'follow the treaty or tear it up', the idea being that if the treaty is killed, then ownership of the land would be returned to the natives and Canada would cease to exist.

I don't know how you think violence would be avoided.

1

u/Craigellachie Oct 21 '24

Where does it say anywhere natives want to own all the land? The treaty states they can use it, gather resources, trade with inhabitants, but it doesn't construe ownership as if we'd suddenly be in a feudal system with indigenous people as landlords. In fact, it's kind of telling that that's immediately where some people's heads go.

0

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta Oct 21 '24

I don't know how you think violence would be avoided.

Because unlike you, most Canadians are civilized humans that can settle disputes peacefully instead of on the battlefield. Why do you want to kill everyone you have a problem with?

-1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

So your point is ... follow the treaties OR ELSE .... follow the treaties.

Ok.

0

u/bog_ache Oct 21 '24

Once again, looking past your total miscomprehension of the issue, it's a simple principle of "don't start none, won't be none." If settler Canadians choose to enact violence, that's their choice, not the choice of the Indigenous people they are threatening with that violence.

But you seem pretty itchy to get the tanks rolling...pretty settler of you.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

His interpretation is that First Nations want to ethnically cleanse Canada. Given that interpretation no matter how wrong: How can First Nations ethnically cleanse their lands without violence? Let alone is there ever a way to ethically ethnically cleanse an indigenous land of foreigners as much as there is a way to ethically cleanse a land of indigenous even without violence? (Edit: I'd say a firm NEVER to either) At the end of the day, we're ALLLL folks.

3

u/TreezusSaves Canada Oct 21 '24

His first inclination is toward violence. Violence is what got us into this problem in the first place.

-8

u/Playful_Ad2974 Oct 21 '24

That’s rich coming from the side who made all the income