RE:RE:RE:[The Economic Engine, and Politcal Will]
123456789101112 wrote: You are disgusting. You honestly object to the term "Nations" for Canadian aboriginals? I can relate to frustration with many of the First Nations and the government's approach. But why the added insult and lack of respect over their heritage. First Nations lived with the environment not trying to change it to suit progress...which hasn't worked out so well in a few ways. Perhaps some real wisdom on their behalf?? Regardless, the First Nations people are part of our country, are part of our heritage and in spite of all the problems don't need added ignorance and bigotry added to the mix.
1,
Thank-you for sharing your frank opinion which I trust is honest. Much appreciated.
Yes, I do object to the "Nations" for Canadian aboriginals? Absolutely. 100%.
When the left wing wingnut liberals encourages such thinking in the 70s it gave the aboriginals (as you call them) an distorted sense of who/what they are. Today, there are groups of aboriginals that are arguing that the Canadian Senate should be refocused to handle aboriginal needs exclusively (an extremely racest position IMO). Others insist that aboriginal representatives should be part of all of Mr. Harper's trade delegations -- I chucle at the though of Mr. Harper having to fly around the world in a plane full of drunk aboriginals, but hey that is just me :)
But if you go read any historic treatment of what nationhood encompasses, the Canadian aboriginals fall far short of the mark. Therefore, I suggest that perhaps "First Eco Tourists" is an appropriate alternate handle. First, they have a strong arguement on being here first but some Vikings might dispute that. Second "eco" sounds reasonable since for the most part they have left the lands unchanged in their nomadic wanderings around the place.
I would also say that partnerships do have to be formed with aboriginal groups. The aboriginal groups have an interest in land but NOT the sole interest. The guiding principle might be that if the aboriginal group rejects a deal that the Federal government approves, then that group of aboriginals must give up an equal $$ value from the money the federal government sends them (a bailin tax so to speak). Stay on the land where you are today but don't expect the rest of the country to pay for your life necessaries when you refuse to participate in reasonable development programs on your lands.
I totally support self government (with taxation) of aboriginals. They do need to take responsibility and own where/what they are. Take for example the missing native women? The aboriginals are calling for Harper to launch yet another enquiry into the missing native women. Yaponski says, STOP WAITING FOR THE MAN. Take the bull by the horns aboriginals and fund/organize your own inquire. Study the problem of why these women choose to leave the reserve and face the danger of the mean streets. What was so bad for them on the reserves that caused them to take the risk of being murdered as the better choice? Make recommendataions about what needs to change on the reserve to stop the exodus! Tax your people to fund programs to fix the problem at its root. I suggest to you that the problem is not with the pyschos in the population at large (although they do kill many women, not only just aboriginal women) but rather the problem starts at the home. Something isn't working at home when the streets full of pyscho killers looks like the better choice.
Look within my friend and see what you see... Just saying...