Canada More Isolated In Opposition To UN Declaration On Indigenous Rights

"Australia's former conservative government had argued the declaration could give unfair advantage to Aborigines and override Australian law. Canada and the U.S. voiced similar concerns."

And I think I agree. Is giving people different rights based on their skin colour not racist?

It is not based on their skin colour and we live in a racist, sexist, elitist and above all else a fascist country which is riddled with corrupt professionals at the executive levels of all our organizations. IMO.

It's a simple matter of finally coming to an agreement and settlement of claims with a people who have a prior claim to our own to this land, by right of original presence, use and continuous occupation. Attempting to skirt around this simple fact of live IS indeed racist and an attempt at self-justification for our many denials, betrayals and injustices to these people.

And yes, I know Natives were and are not themselves pure innocents, who for example, in many cases, kept slaves of their own, warred amongst themselves as Europeans and others likewise did and do. Natives currently represent the youngest and fastest growing, by self-regeneration as opposed to endless immigration, part of the population in this country-, compared to the settler population. It is a further simple matter of finally settling issues with these folks, for the continued internal peace and hopefully, eventual unity of the country in the face of outside, primarily US encroachment pressures.

To seek to side step, distort, outright lie and double speak of Native claims as in fact being racist, when they have been the historical victims here, and are still so, and but a cursory glance at their ongoing living conditions on and off reserves in this, their own land, for they are not the interlopers here, IS likewise racist obscurantism.

And I accept that all people harbour elements of racist sentiment. None are pure innocents historically or currently. It is we, however, who have been the most effective at it and gained the most, indeed an entire hemisphere by it, and thus bear the obligation to be magnanimous at the end of the day. Our genocide attempt failed. Natives are still with us and growing as a population faster than we are, and they have not nor will they forget.

A legitimate settlement of the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples NOW! Support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal People. Oppose the Racist and Fascist Harperites attempt to further obliterate the legitimate nationhood claims of our Native People.

Stop the attempt to further justify our racist policies directed against the surviving Native populations of Canada, who are still here after all the genocide attempts of the past, yes even in this country, and who are demanding justice .

Coyote

From the UN Resolution:



While I agree that everyone should be free of discrimination - does that not include you and I? Someone somewhere will decide who fits the label 'indigenous'. Does it require 10 prior generations to born there, or 100? Am I indigenous to eastern Europe because I cannot verify 100 generations in Canada, only 10? What about Africa? I can trace 100,000 generations back there, am I a native of Africa or is my skin too white?

The Clovis people were here 10,000 years before current first nations, does North America belong to the descendants of those people? What about the Vikings? Do they have more of a claim than Europeans because they were here earlier?

It is based on skin colour. And I agree, we do live in such a society.

And pride in the location you happen to be born, is both our strength and what divides us. "Redneck Albertans" "Eastern Bastards" "Arrogant Americans" "Lazy Mexicans" . . . Human.

Again, more attempts to obscure the full reality difference here. Which is, whatever "peoples" may or may not have been here before our current Natives, they did not stay and continuously occupy and create a homeland of. They were here briefly but us footnotes to the greater history, and then left, for reasons we cannot be certain of. They failed to establish a legitimate claim thereby, or in some cases, as the original inhabitants of our North, who preceded even the Inuit, were overwhelmed and absorbed by the Inuit, not infrequently through warring.

As, by the by, similarly occurred in Europe, even in the British Isles, where the Celts who came out of the Russian Steppes, as near as we know, over-ran, formed alliances with (Scots and Picts, for example, against the Romans.) and eventually absorbed the earlier peoples of Europe. They are no longer here to make their claim in our time, is the simpler fact of the matter. (In turn, over time, much of the Celts, though significant populations remain in France, Spain/the Basques, Wales, and Ireland, were over run and fragmented by the Romans)

In the case of our Natives, at least thus far, we are talking about a population who have nonetheless survived our conquest/genocide, survived the diseases of contact with Europe, remain yet continuously even, as they have for over 10,000 years, are a young and the fastest growing population group in the country, and with whom we have a chance to make a peace that will help unite the country, rather than continuing to insist on planting further resentments seeds for future conflict.

I think the choice is clear, despite all these obscurantist attempts at legitimizing intransigent racist solutions.

I'd rather cut a deal and make a peace with Native peoples, than continue to insist on the intransigent, continuing, conflict sowing, genocide solutions of the past, that still seek to impoverish, marginalize and absorb aboriginal folks. (With whom I have worked and played with very closely frankly, and come to admire for their endurance, over the years of my life. All the time aware of the lingering undertone of resentment, which I would like to see finally resolved... amicably.)

I have seen The Borg. And they are us. Only resistance is not futile.

Coyote

Gee! What would happen if we DID adopt aboriginal laws and customs............?

As alluded to in 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond. Which was the point I was alluding to.

The Natives may have overran/killed/absorbed the Clovis People who you say forfeit their rights by non-occupation. I say the same for the current first nations, by right of conquest.

I welcome them to our society and am happy if they retain their culture and traditions as that is part of my culture and traditions. We have apologized for what our ancestors did to theirs, and I would like to see them with all the advantages I have.

Their ancestors had the disadvantage to be born in a non-agrarian, non-military society which was unable to keep up with the technology and war-making ability of other societies. Their ancestors made bad deals with other people's ancestors. To my knowledge, none of my ancestors were involved in that process. They were defeated through force of arms, and then through rule of law. They too did not remain continuously on their ancestral land, and it was taken as the spoils of war. They can keep believing it belongs to them exclusively and pick at the scabs of the past, or we can work on things which are of mutual benefit.

Continuing to redefine 'aboriginal' won't help resolve this dispute, and they were born here the same I was, and I feel they are entitled to the same benefits as I am. Saying that I am not because they can trace back more grandfathers is not productive IMHO.

As I have said, I do not subscribe the the concept of 'race'. There is only 'Human'.



You are welcome to continue to apologize for your ancestors actions toward their ancestors. But I'm done apologizing for what other peoples ancestors did to their ancestors. As you demonstrate with the Normans, Basques, Celts and others; Might does make right, and for the last 3 or 4 million years always has.

Now, let's move on.

And you are right, of course. Which Natives I know and have known, understand this just as well as you do. And lest you think all Natives are just drunks, I'm here to tell you it ain't so. And while some of them, I'm damn sure are getting ready to move, if are not already in motion over certain pipeline and rail issues etc, it's not likely they're planning on "moving on" in quite the same context as yourself.

Like I said, the seeds of future "racial conflict" continue to grow in this society, in intransigent attitudes toward people perceived to be weaker and more vulnerable, by such as yourself. So what you are telling them, as their population grows faster than ours, (Indeed, without immigration we would already be in precipitous decline.)is that they need to become better armed and more violent to survive and triumph as a people. But what will you say when they maybe do?

And history ain't over 'til it's over, brother. And the first one now, over time, against a determined foe with a long view of history, frequently does later become last.

My advice is, maybe you want to think on it a little more carefully.

Which is about all I will say on the subject here, for now.

Coyote

Ain't it amazing though how 'magnanimous' the victors can be -- even though said victors deny to the nth degree that they have in fact defeated the indigenous peoples?

We maintain this dichotomous(?) attitude, to draw on whichever side of our collective mouth is most convenient at any given time. That we have offered them citizenship in our society should not be likened to the Roman model, where barbarians could (and did)become emperors. I think it will be a frosty friday in hell before we will let an aboriginal become PM. We`d sooner have a black (now that Obama has shown the way).

PS If 143 nations voted in favour of the motion, and if we are a democracy dedicated to the notion of majority rule, then we should in fact be in favour of the resolution.

After all, that is the stance taken by Harper to his `right to govern`. He (and his supporters) maintain he has the majority of votes, and therefore has the right. But he convenienlty talks out of ther other side of his mouth when it come to this UN resolution.

I think the best part of our 'conversations' is when you decide you think you know what my 'subtext' is, put me into a convenient little pigeon-hole and judge me based on others you previously filed into that pigeon hole.

If I were a Jungian psychoanalyst, I'd say that reveals far more about you than it does me. Which is also why I don't respond to most of your attempts at conversation anymore. I enjoy your writing, don't get me wrong, but constant attempts to rewrite my thoughts to suit your biases while ignoring what I am trying to debate leaves me wanting my old debating partner, Rearguard.

One day, I totally expect you to counter my post with the Wookie Defence.



Because Canadians should be led around by the nose by UN resolutions, as if we have no will of our own. If we were dedicated to Majority Rule, we should be ignoring what the First Nations minority are saying.

Did you read the resolution? The text is based on the undefined value of 'Indigenous Peoples'. For 140 of the 143 nations, it holds absolutely no meaning and like most UN resolutions it has no teeth ether.

Who are the 'Indigenous People' of China? Senegal? Peru? Most of these 143 countries are already ruled by their 'Indigenous Peoples' or they are extinct. Passing such a resoution means nothing to them.

Harper does it............. why is he the PM when most Canucks plainly don't want him, according to both popular vote and the number of seats?

And just why are we a member of the UN, if we don't abide by majority rule? Is it a membership of convenience?

Harpers party won more seats than any other party. Them's the rules.




The UN does not pass laws regarding individual countries. This is a treaty, and member countries can adopt it or not. My vote is not.

Or, were you hoping for a one world government?

Israel has only put forward 2 resolutions in it's history in the UN. You should look into why.

Evidently not all that clearcut, Dr. C. Besides, it's not the RUlE, so much as it is the CONVENTION.

So if the UN is an option, what's the point? Social snobbery?

BTW, if anything I think in terms opposite of one world government. If there are 6.5 billion of us, then there should be that many governments.