Did you know about the Indian Act?
Yes
37.8% (14)
37.8% (14)
No
62.2% (23)
62.2% (23)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: On the subject of Racism

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Now, this was brought to mind after the latest The Big Picture that Bob did. I don't understand why everyone knows about the slavery of the Negroids, but very few people know about the single most racist statute currently in existence-in Canada of all places. How many of you know about the slavery that went on, how many of you know how the Indigenous people of Canada were treated around the same time in a constitutional document that is still in effect-not used nearly as much, but they still have the legal right. The Indian Act in it's original form meant that the government had control over every aspect of a "Status" Indian, they weren't allowed to go into higher education, they had to live on the rez, if the government wanted the land or they were deemed to close to a town with 10,000 or more people, they were simply moved somewhere else with no adequate opportunity to prepare themselves. As a native, it disturbs me that I only learned about this recently, but what disturbs me even more is no one seems to know about it-everyone knows the slavery laws and all that-but no one seems to have heard of the this, which is just as bad as the slavery was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Act

Why worry about ancient history? Worry about present day racism instead maybe? Whites aren't allowed to enter massive chunks of Canada and require special persmission to enter, while Indians always can. And that's just one of a lot of special privileges of the so-called 'first nations'.

Another good example is that it's a crime to hunt endangered/protected species and trade trophy items from them under, among others, the Wilflife Act. For instance feathers of eagles. If I as a white person trade you one, I'm in a lot of trouble and rightly so, but indians are allowed to do this. If you pay an indian for a writ that such an illegal object was a gift, you're even allowed to take it abroad.

Blablahb:
Why worry about ancient history? Worry about present day racism instead maybe? Whites aren't allowed to enter massive chunks of Canada and require special persmission to enter, while Indians always can. And that's just one of a lot of special privileges of the so-called 'first nations'.

Another good example is that it's a crime to hunt endangered/protected species and trade trophy items from them under, among others, the Wilflife Act. For instance feathers of eagles. If I as a white person trade you one, I'm in a lot of trouble and rightly so, but indians are allowed to do this. If you pay an indian for a writ that such an illegal object was a gift, you're even allowed to take it abroad.

Hallelujah for some sense. Yeah, bad shit happened in the past. Deal with it and stop pushing the rest of us for "reparations" over it. No taxes, a free ride to any school they want, I've really had enough of the crap First Nations are allowed to do.

Okay, technically there are laws in some places that are still "technically" in effect that say you can't kick a can 5 times because you're illegally transporting litter. Probably not that unless you're in Springfield, but you get my point. Technically speaking, there are still people who claim the 2nd ammendment is still relevant almost 250 years after its inception.

Look, I'm not saying the Indian act wasn't an awful piece of legislation that reinforced the cultural idea of the white man's burden even into the 20th century. I'm not saying that it clearly had the goal of eradicating the culture and identity of first nations tribes through a process of brutal assimilation techniques that sometimes even toed the genocide line. But seriously man, you have all these wonderful, contemporary examples of racism towards native peoples in Canada and you pick the Indian act? Look its cool that you're trying to raise awareness about some awful legislation that was passed I think in three different way, but you could be raising so many better points.

Here's an idea, let's talk about the Idle No More protests. Let's discuss the racism that's clearly visible from people who wish natives would just shut up and get a job. Let's discuss the obvious social and economic problems that plague reserves and how to correct the disparity in quality of living between the reserves and the rest of Canada. How bout we tackle the issue of corruption among the chiefs of the tribes or the lack of consultation in the drafting of the omnibus bill? Or, most importantly, why not start a discussion about the clear racial/cultural divide that causes First Nations to see Canadians as arrogant assholes who are to selfish to help fix these problems and Canadians to see First Nations as lazy drug addled drunks who whine and bitch and want to have their cake and eat it.

The Indian Act is a right awful bit of legislation to be sure, but it has little to no significance in modern Canada. If we're gonna have a First Nations centered discussion, let's keep it relevant.

Blablahb:
Whites aren't allowed to enter massive chunks of Canada and require special persmission to enter,

You really do have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I can only assume you are talking about Indian Reserves. In which case, "whites" is erroneous because just about no-one else except the relevant natives can get in either. Secondly, any restrictions on free entry exist under very similar reasons individuals cannot also freely enter vast chunks of the UK or Netherlands: because it is someone else's property and doing so is trespass.

As for "massive chunks", a combined total of 0.2% hardly qualifies.

You think that's bad, I'm technically allowed to murder Welsh people, provided I use a bow and arrow and its on the English/welsh border. (N.B could be a myth, I'm not sure of the actual details and I'm reluctant to google 'can I shoot welsh people'. I'd hate that shit to come up in any CRB checks.)

Wow. A whole lotta really disgusting racism being thrown about in the first few posts on this thread. Shame on you guys. But then again, you're Canadian. I imagine you grow up with a chip on your shoulder, being not a real country and everything.

In any case, am I the only one squinting at the word "negroids"? Is that a racist term? It sure looks like one and I'm scared to google it, especially at work. Help me out here.

Lol I feel like this thread got fucked by everybody here. Whether it's AFRICANS, minorities getting their free rides to Harvard, Canadian natives blocking entry to their lands, welshmen getting attacked, and Canadians and their chips.

On topic are Canadian natives A victim or THE victim make a decision because i'm pretty sure webster needs to change their definition if Canadian natives are THE victim.

itsthesheppy:
Wow. A whole lotta really disgusting racism being thrown about in the first few posts on this thread. Shame on you guys. But then again, you're Canadian. I imagine you grow up with a chip on your shoulder, being not a real country and everything.

In any case, am I the only one squinting at the word "negroids"? Is that a racist term? It sure looks like one and I'm scared to google it, especially at work. Help me out here.

It's the ye olde "scientific" term that referred to people that *look* like they're from Africa i.e Africans. It's no longer used anymore for obvious reasons, so saying negroid, negro, or anything is seen as being ignorant or outright racist...even though whites are referred openly as caucasians for the exact same reasons. It's complicated, but I don't think it came from a bad place in this case.

Racism isn't dead. Not by a long shot, but using old legislature that may or may not apply anymore (I'm not Canadian) isn't the way to do it. No one denies that First Nations got royally shafted to this day, so we should be addressing present day concerns like the alcoholism or poverty.

NemotheElvenPanda:

itsthesheppy:
Wow. A whole lotta really disgusting racism being thrown about in the first few posts on this thread. Shame on you guys. But then again, you're Canadian. I imagine you grow up with a chip on your shoulder, being not a real country and everything.

In any case, am I the only one squinting at the word "negroids"? Is that a racist term? It sure looks like one and I'm scared to google it, especially at work. Help me out here.

It's the ye olde "scientific" term that referred to people that *look* like they're from Africa i.e Africans. It's no longer used anymore for obvious reasons, so saying negroid, negro, or anything is seen as being ignorant or outright racist...even though whites are referred openly as caucasians for the exact same reasons. It's complicated, but I don't think it came from a bad place in this case.

Fair enough, that sounds like something I can accept. Just looks weird I guess.

Cheers.

Agema:
I can only assume you are talking about Indian Reserves. In which case, "whites" is erroneous because just about no-one else except the relevant natives can get in either. Secondly, any restrictions on free entry exist under very similar reasons individuals cannot also freely enter vast chunks of the UK or Netherlands: [i]because it is someone else's property and doing so is trespass.

Those areas aren't private property, that's the whole deal. It's laws that ban people from entering regular public land, and huge amounts of it, based purely on their ethnicity.

It's the same like putting a sign that says "No Jews without a Jew-permit allowed in this street". The street is a public place, just like those lands they mainly inhabit. If someone living in that street has a problem with Jews entering his street, tough shit, his problem. The government must never ever legally recognize public racism in such a form. Those Canadian laws are effectively apartheid re-invented.

And nice to see the making it personal the moment someone opposes racism is also still alive and kicking.

Blablahb:
Those areas aren't private property, that's the whole deal. It's laws that ban people from entering regular public land, and huge amounts of it, based purely on their ethnicity.

It's the same like putting a sign that says "No Jews without a Jew-permit allowed in this street". The street is a public place, just like those lands they mainly inhabit. If someone living in that street has a problem with Jews entering his street, tough shit, his problem. The government must never ever legally recognize public racism in such a form. Those Canadian laws are effectively apartheid re-invented.

And nice to see the making it personal the moment someone opposes racism is also still alive and kicking.

First of all lay off with the blatant exaggerations. "Huge amounts of it" is just an obvious attempt at sensationalism because it's fallacious.

Secondly, not all the reserves restrict entry to outsiders.

Thirdly, Canada has a habit to allow people to live in their closed communities. the natives are hardly the only ones living in closed of communities which segregate themselves from the rest.

Fourthly, in a sense it is private property. The rationale was that those reserves were "given" as compensation for all the grief caused. If it were public property (in all the senses of the word) than there wouldn't have been any "compensation" now would there?

I will agree that it isn't optimal at all. And opening up to the outside world would be less "hypocritical" and overall much more beneficial but that doesn't justify exaggerations and sensationalism.

Heres the thing about it being "ancient" history-it's still in effect today, they can't abolish it because it's an act that was created from a mess of similar statutes when Canada became its own "Country". Granted the laws surrounding the act have been modified to a certain degree, they still handicap the indigenous people because they're just that-indigenous people. As for the negroid comment, I can't call them African Americans anymore since they're predominantly American at this point, albeit the original slaves were African, but by that same token I call whites of a decent that I'm unsure of caucasian (Which the spell check tells me has to be Capitalized but negroid is fine normal case...meh) I'm just curious to know why such a big deal is made of one but the other stands in total myth, kids were being kidnapped and sold off to adoptive parents for years, the last residential school to be shut down was in 1996, where 2/3rds of the population going to said schools died. I just don't get how America centered the world can get at times.

Well, to answer the question in the OP, people tend not to read statutes for whatever reason. I do, but Criminal Law is my main area of study.

It's also why I know that it's illegal for an unmarried couple to live together and have 'relations' and all sexual acts besides missionary position are also illegal. Both are second-degree misdemeanors, which means up to $1000 of fines and/or 60 days in the county jail.

Edit: Forgot to mention; this is for Florida.

generals3:
I will agree that it isn't optimal at all. And opening up to the outside world would be less "hypocritical" and overall much more beneficial but that doesn't justify exaggerations and sensationalism.

There's nothing exagerated about it. They're large swathes of land (and you're talking about hundreds of square kilometres) that are closed off based purely on ethnity.

And not just that, it works only one way, because if you want to declare your city an indian-free zone where indians need a permit to enter, you'll never get that done. So it's simple one directional racism. There's really no other way to describe it. If the terms sound harsh, that's because it's that much of an outrageous situation.

Blablahb:

generals3:
I will agree that it isn't optimal at all. And opening up to the outside world would be less "hypocritical" and overall much more beneficial but that doesn't justify exaggerations and sensationalism.

There's nothing exagerated about it. They're large swathes of land (and you're talking about hundreds of square kilometres) that are closed off based purely on ethnity.

And not just that, it works only one way, because if you want to declare your city an indian-free zone where indians need a permit to enter, you'll never get that done. So it's simple one directional racism. There's really no other way to describe it. If the terms sound harsh, that's because it's that much of an outrageous situation.

Well based on Canada's size hundreds of square kilometers is nothing. Probably why I was thinking you were exaggerating. When someone says "huge amounts of land" in countries like Canada i usually am thinking about tens of thousands of square kilometers (if not more). After all canada's land surface is more than 9 million square kilometers.

Blablahb:
It's the same like putting a sign that says "No Jews without a Jew-permit allowed in this street".

There already is a place like that. It's called Israel.

OT: Issues of Indigenous rights always annoy me. I don't know much about Canada or America, but in my country we massacred the shit out of the indigenous population, and they still face incredible racism today. Now they make up less than 2.5% of the population of Australia, and the moment we start to make a half-assed attempt to even things out people are raging about how Aboriginal people have everything handed to them on a platter, how you can't possibly accuse Australians of racism because we give indigenous people preference when it comes to university admission and other such things. Even though they still have the highest infant mortality rate, unemployment rate, are disproportionately represented in jail and have the lowest life expectancy out of any other cultural group in Australia. But that can't possibly be our fault because we pay them lip service at the beginning of assemblies.

Blablahb:
Why worry about ancient history? Worry about present day racism instead maybe? Whites aren't allowed to enter massive chunks of Canada and require special persmission to enter, while Indians always can. And that's just one of a lot of special privileges of the so-called 'first nations'.

That's not a hard pill to swallow at all - think of it as communally owned private property, managed by the government - a protective measure that wouldn't be necessary if allowing people to travel and settle freely had worked in the first place - but it didn't, and the Europeans took all the damn land. If they have to use Western notions of private property to protect themselves, so fucking be it. After all, it's not like they forced anyone off that land to get there in the first place. Or would you prefer to abolish that, so that developers and whatnot can move in and do what they like to the damn place? It's Canada, we've got enough fucking land as it is. As for their trading rights, AGAIN, it's an attempt to codify their right to limited self-government into the legal code. You can't just say 'We're making a country which encompasses ALL of your land, so we're going to abolish ALL of your rights and traditions and you have to do pretty much everything we say', because that's a terrible thing to do. Oh, wait, actually you can if you don't care about that, and Canada pretty much did, except they stopped short - are you objecting to that?

As to the Indian Act itself, so far as I'm aware, and I'm a little rusty on my more recent Canadian history (my pre-Confederation's pretty up to scratch), the Indian Act has been amended many, many times, and for the better - I'm pretty sure that it's where a lot of the legal protections and rights come from. I'm not entirely sure where the OP is getting at with this, what in particular about the Act, as it stands now, do you have a problem with? Or is it its abominable history you have a problem with, in which case, I'm right along with you, but sadly, the vast majority of people don't give a damn about history - problem solved, in the past, over, etc.

Our country's history with native rights is pretty damn terrible - Residential Schools being the most egregious offense in recent times, and I'm pretty sure that the Indian Act is what was used to do that. But on the other hand, it's changed for the better. You mentioned how originally, Status Indians weren't allowed to get higher education, but if I remember my family history correctly, my great-great-uncle was one of the first Status Indians who actually did attend university. And that would've been in a time when Canada in general was, frankly, racist towards EVERYBODY. I mean, you look at the history of Chinese- and Japanese-Canadians in the 20th century alone, and it gets pretty messed up. Hell, I've read primary sources from the early 1900s railing against non-whites - by which they meant Italians, and Poles, and Ukrainians - THOSE were the non-whites. While the treatment of the First Nations people was particularly bad given that, you know, they were here in the first place, Everybody was mistreated when it came down to it.

And historically, I hate to say it, but it could have been worse - we could've done what the States did. I mean, I don't know about more recent history, but I know one of the contributing factors to the American Revolution was a drive to open the frontier - in other words, expand into native territory. A British treaty, maybe the Quebec Act or something, laid down a border, beyond which was native land and not settlable - but once they broke ties with Britain, America had no obligation to honour that. As for nowadays, I can't be sure, not being American and all, but I pretty much never, EVER, hear about their Native peoples - in Canada, we do, because we actually care - maybe not as much as we should, but we do.

So yeah, in short - Indian Act was bad, now... I'm not sure, but probably isn't any more. So-called 'special priveleges' for the First Nations that Blablahb is railing against are the government's way of attempting to put their right to limited self-government into terms which are compatible with our West-European conceptions and legal codes, and while imperfect, unilaterally throwing it all out the window isn't cool.

Manic_Depressive13:
OT: Issues of Indigenous rights always annoy me. I don't know much about Canada or America, but in my country we massacred the shit out of the indigenous population, and they still face incredible racism today. Now they make up less than 2.5% of the population of Australia, and the moment we start to make a half-assed attempt to even things out people are raging about how Aboriginal people have everything handed to them on a platter, how you can't possibly accuse Australians of racism because we give indigenous people preference when it comes to university admission and other such things. Even though they still have the highest infant mortality rate, unemployment rate, are disproportionately represented in jail and have the lowest life expectancy out of any other cultural group in Australia. But that can't possibly be our fault because we pay them lip service at the beginning of assemblies.

That's basically the gist of what I'm told out here when I bring it up in conversation, especially in metropolitan area's. Hell, speak to most recent immigrants and they'll spout off a crap load of racial slurs and stereotypes that they learned while becoming a part of the nation. Do you know what the extent of my knowledge of my Aborigines history is thanks to the normal school path? Non existent, no mention of Residential schooling, forced government overseeing any and all goods attempting to be sold off the Rez(By enforcement of permits) all traditional items and artifacts being burned and banned outright. But yet people still hold a high and mighty attitude, some claiming that they're ancestors landed on the shores in the mid 1800's and managed to survive for 6+ generations without ever having to resort to welfare like those lazy bums(I really want to swear to match them but feel it would denigrate my point). My friend in Aussie tells me the same thing as you, that you guys did wrong but you've been trying to fess up, despite massive public protests. I'm not trying to say Canada is racist for what they did with the Indian Act, in actuality in it's original indoctrination the people who pushed the act forward in it's written form seemed to truly believe the indigenous people of the land were akin to children, who hadn't met with the greater life style the Caucasian's had been blessed with(because I refuse to believe it was entirely the Brits or the French, I'm sure they had some mixed mercs in there as well). In my opinion they honestly wanted the best for my ancestors, just happens to be that the legislation was reworded repeatedly, has been beaten to death and worsened, granted it's been improved in later years I just don't understand why no one seems to know about it.

Blablahb:
Why worry about ancient history? Worry about present day racism instead maybe? Whites aren't allowed to enter massive chunks of Canada and require special persmission to enter, while Indians always can. And that's just one of a lot of special privileges of the so-called 'first nations'.

Actually, they can set foot on the land, but they can be forcibly removed with no penalty towards the Rez. Think that's unfair? Try being forced to live on a Reserve, it's worse than living on welfare, very few prospects because of a corrupt system in which the "Chief" gets voted in and kept in position by the rez who all look at him and say "Hey, I voted for you, give me 20 bucks or I'll vote you off". Granted-there are other rez's who've turned it around and made it spectacular places to live-but for many, it's a shit hole, I doubt you'd want to visit it, let alone try living there.

Smiley Face:

That's not a hard pill to swallow at all - think of it as communally owned private property, managed by the government - a protective measure that wouldn't be necessary if allowing people to travel and settle freely had worked in the first place - but it didn't, and the Europeans took all the damn land. If they have to use Western notions of private property to protect themselves, so fucking be it. After all, it's not like they forced anyone off that land to get there in the first place. Or would you prefer to abolish that, so that developers and whatnot can move in and do what they like to the damn place? It's Canada, we've got enough fucking land as it is. As for their trading rights, AGAIN, it's an attempt to codify their right to limited self-government into the legal code. You can't just say 'We're making a country which encompasses ALL of your land, so we're going to abolish ALL of your rights and traditions and you have to do pretty much everything we say', because that's a terrible thing to do. Oh, wait, actually you can if you don't care about that, and Canada pretty much did, except they stopped short - are you objecting to that?

They stopped short...in some ways, but as I pointed out, they destroyed a lot of the culture surrounding the indigenous peoples.

Smiley Face:
As to the Indian Act itself, so far as I'm aware, and I'm a little rusty on my more recent Canadian history (my pre-Confederation's pretty up to scratch), the Indian Act has been amended many, many times, and for the better - I'm pretty sure that it's where a lot of the legal protections and rights come from. I'm not entirely sure where the OP is getting at with this, what in particular about the Act, as it stands now, do you have a problem with? Or is it its abominable history you have a problem with, in which case, I'm right along with you, but sadly, the vast majority of people don't give a damn about history - problem solved, in the past, over, etc.

I have issue with it's very existence-Granted it's lost a lot of its bite over the years, but the fact that the last residential school(Which for the uninformed, kidnapped children from indigenous people, forced them into this secluded schooling with dangerously harsh rules(Which as a side note-if any of you have Native Descent that seems fairly predominant in your physical make up and you find yourself having difficulties in school room rules, you don't have ADHD, you're a natural born hunter/predator, the freedom of the outdoors is stifled by the school system) that led to 2/3rds of any graduating classes students dying before graduation. On paper that means 20 out of every 30 students would die throughout the 10-ish years of schooling.) I mean, I understand how sensationalism works and how no one can accept that Canada did anything wrong, we're Canada, we're the laid back American Cousin who brings weed to the party and is the gentleman with the 7.5/10 who puts out like mad due to her feelings of inadequacy at being pretty but not the prettiest and gets passed out shit faced drunk, drives her home, apologizes to her parents and drives back home for a quick wank before bed.

Smiley Face:
Our country's history with native rights is pretty damn terrible - Residential Schools being the most egregious offense in recent times, and I'm pretty sure that the Indian Act is what was used to do that. But on the other hand, it's changed for the better. You mentioned how originally, Status Indians weren't allowed to get higher education, but if I remember my family history correctly, my great-great-uncle was one of the first Status Indians who actually did attend university. And that would've been in a time when Canada in general was, frankly, racist towards EVERYBODY. I mean, you look at the history of Chinese- and Japanese-Canadians in the 20th century alone, and it gets pretty messed up. Hell, I've read primary sources from the early 1900s railing against non-whites - by which they meant Italians, and Poles, and Ukrainians - THOSE were the non-whites. While the treatment of the First Nations people was particularly bad given that, you know, they were here in the first place, Everybody was mistreated when it came down to it.

I fully agree that everyone was mistreated at one time or another in our history, I don't believe they deserve any less mention for the grievances they suffered through. What bothers me is they had statutes in place that made it seem like a really good idea to simply lose the indigenous title, become a full fledged "Canadian" we'll give you a free farm house and (if my memory works, I last did my heavy research in August) 5 acres of land, on top of this, any woman you marry/children you breed also lose their status forever. Like I said earlier, the earliest form of the Indian act, while racist and rather evil, was reasonable-For the time period, by today's standards it's hellish and archaic.(I really wish I had saved that bookmark to a flash key or a cloud or something, I had the original unedited Indian act of 1867 put into effect when Canada became Canada.(It's 2:25 am, I'm running out of my ability to use the proper terms.)

Smiley Face:
And historically, I hate to say it, but it could have been worse - we could've done what the States did. I mean, I don't know about more recent history, but I know one of the contributing factors to the American Revolution was a drive to open the frontier - in other words, expand into native territory. A British treaty, maybe the Quebec Act or something, laid down a border, beyond which was native land and not settlable - but once they broke ties with Britain, America had no obligation to honour that. As for nowadays, I can't be sure, not being American and all, but I pretty much never, EVER, hear about their Native peoples - in Canada, we do, because we actually care - maybe not as much as we should, but we do.

I honestly wish I had grown up in your environment, I just turned 23 years old and only learned about the Indian Act earlier this year, well, last year. Prior to that, I had no idea about my indigenous past, other than a few "heroic" bits and pieces thrown into the history text books(Which all conveniently ignore anything not done by white folks...I really get a bad taste in my mouth when I generalize like that. ick). Such as the amount of volunteer military from the Natives far exceeded any other combination in both world wars(despite them not being allowed to be forcibly conscripted, they still wanted to defend the land and freedoms they believed in). Honestly, it's only been recently that I've noticed a spike in Native issues being in the public eye-when it isn't being mired by the American world wide sensationalism/knee jerk reactions.

Smiley Face:
So yeah, in short - Indian Act was bad, now... I'm not sure, but probably isn't any more. So-called 'special priveleges' for the First Nations that Blablahb is railing against are the government's way of attempting to put their right to limited self-government into terms which are compatible with our West-European conceptions and legal codes, and while imperfect, unilaterally throwing it all out the window isn't cool.

Sorry to be a bubble burster, but it's still pretty toxic. As I've said repeatedly up until now-not nearly as caustic as it was originally, but still, quite toxic. I was actually writing up a school report on it for my Socio/Anthro/Psycho final-was only meant to be 1,000 words, ended up having over 10,000 I had to take a new topic, I've since put that report on hold, I plan on re-writing it with as current/up to date information as I can regarding the Indian Act and it's current widespread effects, I'll give it a re-read tomorrow and post the effects that are still in effect for comparison. I know I keep saying it's still toxic and haven't shown any direct quotes yet-but bear with me(haha, bear meat), I promise I'll fix that up right quick.

Edit:

MoNKeyYy:
Okay, technically there are laws in some places that are still "technically" in effect that say you can't kick a can 5 times because you're illegally transporting litter. Probably not that unless you're in Springfield, but you get my point. Technically speaking, there are still people who claim the 2nd ammendment is still relevant almost 250 years after its inception.

Look, I'm not saying the Indian act wasn't an awful piece of legislation that reinforced the cultural idea of the white man's burden even into the 20th century. I'm not saying that it clearly had the goal of eradicating the culture and identity of first nations tribes through a process of brutal assimilation techniques that sometimes even toed the genocide line. But seriously man, you have all these wonderful, contemporary examples of racism towards native peoples in Canada and you pick the Indian act? Look its cool that you're trying to raise awareness about some awful legislation that was passed I think in three different way, but you could be raising so many better points.

Here's an idea, let's talk about the Idle No More protests. Let's discuss the racism that's clearly visible from people who wish natives would just shut up and get a job. Let's discuss the obvious social and economic problems that plague reserves and how to correct the disparity in quality of living between the reserves and the rest of Canada. How bout we tackle the issue of corruption among the chiefs of the tribes or the lack of consultation in the drafting of the omnibus bill? Or, most importantly, why not start a discussion about the clear racial/cultural divide that causes First Nations to see Canadians as arrogant assholes who are to selfish to help fix these problems and Canadians to see First Nations as lazy drug addled drunks who whine and bitch and want to have their cake and eat it.

The Indian Act is a right awful bit of legislation to be sure, but it has little to no significance in modern Canada. If we're gonna have a First Nations centered discussion, let's keep it relevant.

The Indian Act is the cornerstone for nearly all of modern day First Nation issues, you've either never done due diligence on the subject or you'd rather look at more modern variants of the issues that the Indian Act created.

Edit #2 because sods like this irk me

Ravinoff:
Hallelujah for some sense. Yeah, bad shit happened in the past. Deal with it and stop pushing the rest of us for "reparations" over it. No taxes, a free ride to any school they want, I've really had enough of the crap First Nations are allowed to do.

You really are an ignorant dullard. We don't have any specific tax exemptions, with the changes in sales taxes we at best save 2 cents on the dollar, wooptie doo. Free ride to any school we want? Ha, that's a laugh. To get into those "any schools" we have to meet a fairly high academic standard, we get one shot-Fail any course, even a minor one that's needed-you're done son. Also, where in my post did I say anything-ANYTHING-about "reparations". Stop projecting so hard. Also, what "crap" are we allowed to do exactly? Please, oh mighty projector of blind ignorance fed by mass propagation of said ignorance, what do we get to do that's so great that you can't?

dmase:
On topic are Canadian natives A victim or THE victim make a decision because i'm pretty sure webster needs to change their definition if Canadian natives are THE victim.

Please explain to me how they need to change the definition if Natives are the Victims of that act. I'd love to hear it.(Completely serious here-as I'm assuming you are as well.)

generals3:
Well based on Canada's size hundreds of square kilometers is nothing. Probably why I was thinking you were exaggerating. When someone says "huge amounts of land" in countries like Canada i usually am thinking about tens of thousands of square kilometers (if not more). After all canada's land surface is more than 9 million square kilometers.

Just to chime in quickly, I think the exact area of land we're talking about is academic here, it's more of a symbolic point. It could be a square foot of land we're talking about, but if that square foot of land had a sign on it saying "no niggers allowed" or "piss off, whitey" or some other variation of the sentiment, it'd be objectionable. We live in a society where we're taught at our mothers' knee that all people are equal and to discriminate by race is a bad thing - so why is this basic principle of equality openly defied with governmental backing in some instances?

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that native Canadians have it far worse than white Canadians in most respects. But purely on a philosophical level, fighting inequality by introducing more inequality just seems wrong.

manic_depressive13:
OT: Issues of Indigenous rights always annoy me. I don't know much about Canada or America, but in my country we massacred the shit out of the indigenous population, and they still face incredible racism today. Now they make up less than 2.5% of the population of Australia, and the moment we start to make a half-assed attempt to even things out people are raging about how Aboriginal people have everything handed to them on a platter, how you can't possibly accuse Australians of racism because we give indigenous people preference when it comes to university admission and other such things. Even though they still have the highest infant mortality rate, unemployment rate, are disproportionately represented in jail and have the lowest life expectancy out of any other cultural group in Australia. But that can't possibly be our fault because we pay them lip service at the beginning of assemblies.

Argh, yes. So many times I've heard people say that Aboriginal peoples are freeloading because the government gives them things to try to balance out how fucked they are. Or any marginalised group, for that matter.

Yes, I am fully aware of the "indian act" and regretfully aware of the majority of the populations ignorance on the current situations of the tribes, and how these things shaped the present. I do feel that if the situation were reversed, they would have a different perspective on how theey feel about these things. If they could imagine for a second, if a Tribe invaded their homeland, slaughtered the majority of their people, forced their religion upon them, forcefully raped and mutilated them, worked them to death in enslavement, rounded them up and forcefully encaged them and treat them as sub human, placing religious fanatics and mafia to rule over them even in present day, kidnapping their children, beating the " indian out of them", tieing them up and telling them they are evil, raping them to show how the " evil are treated in hell", poisoning and contaminating their land and water supply and then have the invaders teach their own children, sheltered from this brutality, that this was somehow ancient history because they have kept their people sheltered and ignorant from these actions, even the current actions taken in these times, so they somehow believe that these people who have atrocities carried out against them are somehow "more privileged than they are" so they should be entitled then to continue taking more from them than has already been taken.

People assume that this is " ancient history", though we have been making progress, this is far from ancient history, luckily though there are still only 9500 natives here still in these religious boarding schools as of 2007, that is a a huge decline from the 60,000 from in 1970. My school where we were tied up and beaten and raped, regretfully is still in operation, and others are still regretfully being forced to go there.The BIA has been abusing the tribes for many years, admitting to their own corruption by even those responsible for carrying out these things, not only allowing this abuse to take place, but are the ones forcing it to take place.

Yea.. this is really ancient history...
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/fb896aef8b1792a08525779d005f00f8!OpenDocument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_boarding_schools
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19890210&id=z1NTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ToQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4225,3140089
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1332949137290/1332949312397
http://www.nativetimes.com/news/environment/4274-epa-to-spend-25m-cleaning-uranium-on-navajo-hopi-reservations

Batou667:

generals3:
Well based on Canada's size hundreds of square kilometers is nothing. Probably why I was thinking you were exaggerating. When someone says "huge amounts of land" in countries like Canada i usually am thinking about tens of thousands of square kilometers (if not more). After all canada's land surface is more than 9 million square kilometers.

Just to chime in quickly, I think the exact area of land we're talking about is academic here, it's more of a symbolic point. It could be a square foot of land we're talking about, but if that square foot of land had a sign on it saying "no niggers allowed" or "piss off, whitey" or some other variation of the sentiment, it'd be objectionable. We live in a society where we're taught at our mothers' knee that all people are equal and to discriminate by race is a bad thing - so why is this basic principle of equality openly defied with governmental backing in some instances?

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that native Canadians have it far worse than white Canadians in most respects. But purely on a philosophical level, fighting inequality by introducing more inequality just seems wrong.

Blahblahb is being sensationalist and taking the "This is private property, no tresspassers" thing to mean "f*ck off whitey" its no more exclusionist than your own house, it's just that the 'reservation' that the natives so generously get allocated to live on are generally not too keen on allowing random people to walk in (again, much like I imagine you would be with your own house). From a native perspective, they're being told they HAVE to live in this one spot and then when a bunch of different people start wandering through and they get asked to leave look offended and shout "What!? How could you be so racist!"

Though this is just my view, Ninmecu may be the best one to ask since they actually ARE a native.

Batou667:

generals3:
Well based on Canada's size hundreds of square kilometers is nothing. Probably why I was thinking you were exaggerating. When someone says "huge amounts of land" in countries like Canada i usually am thinking about tens of thousands of square kilometers (if not more). After all canada's land surface is more than 9 million square kilometers.

Just to chime in quickly, I think the exact area of land we're talking about is academic here, it's more of a symbolic point. It could be a square foot of land we're talking about, but if that square foot of land had a sign on it saying "no niggers allowed" or "piss off, whitey" or some other variation of the sentiment, it'd be objectionable. We live in a society where we're taught at our mothers' knee that all people are equal and to discriminate by race is a bad thing - so why is this basic principle of equality openly defied with governmental backing in some instances?

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that native Canadians have it far worse than white Canadians in most respects. But purely on a philosophical level, fighting inequality by introducing more inequality just seems wrong.

There are more issues to be considered here than just " race" when it comes to allowing access to tribal lands. Crime, for example, is a huge issue, and has been a difficult one to combat. I am not sure how easy it is for the first nations in Canada to prosecute non tribal members, but in the US, tribes cannot directly prosecute nontribal members, thus leaving a situation where Native women can be raped without the risks of raping non native women. It is a bad situation for those on the reservations when they are not even provided the same legal protections as outsiders in their own homes. Those familiar with the area and the law know this, so it has been " open season" for criminals to carry out crimes on native lands without penalty. The stances taken by the government and the people against the natives have led to the situation we have now where the natives do what they can to prevent outsiders from gaining access, because it has been more harmful than helpful in the past and currently to allow that access.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/02/01/crime_gangs_get_free_roam_on_canada_indian_reserves/?page=full
"The NPR investigation also revealed a system underfunded and often broken: a tribal health center inadequately staffed and without rape kits to collect DNA from victims; tribal leaders and Native police unable to prosecute non-native perpetrators; and a patchwork of confusing jurisdictions in which federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement intersect and clash with each other.

Underlying the issue is a terrible fact that makes justice all but impossible: 80% of rapes involve non-native perpetrators, and tribal authorities are powerless in these situations because only federal prosecutors can prosecute crimes on tribal lands."
http://womensissues.about.com/b/2010/06/01/native-american-women-and-rape-an-escalating-crisis-on-tribal-lands.htm

Here, tribes have been pushing for authority to be given to tribal courts to prosecute nontribal members, but thus far that has been rejected by the US government as "extending too much authority to tribal courts". They wish to only remove power from the tribes, not give them authority over their own lands.

Smiley Face:
That's not a hard pill to swallow at all

Living in an apartheid state with legally recognized racism kind of is a hard pill to swallow. You know, I'm one of those silly people who believe in rights, freedom and democracy.

Smiley Face:
It's Canada, we've got enough fucking land as it is.

So shall we ban niggers from entering Montreal? After all, there's plenty of other land in Canada they can go to...

Or are you wrong, and can racism not be justified by such things?

Smiley Face:
and while imperfect, unilaterally throwing it all out the window isn't cool.

Unilaterally? That's not correct use of the word. Unilateraly means several countries are informed and one is acting by themselves. There's only one country involved in this issue so no such terms apply.

And please explain exactly what would be wrong if the legally enshrined racism in Canada would be abolished overnight? What exactly would worsen or go wrong, outside of a few smugglers getting the punishment all other smugglers get already.

Ninmecu:
Actually, they can set foot on the land, but they can be forcibly removed with no penalty towards the Rez. Think that's unfair?

Yes, I think that's unfair. And your position is not consistent. You open a topic because forcibly removing indians for being indians is unfair, but now you're okay with removing others from not being indians.

That's a contradictory position. Either people had a right to mistreat indians in whatever way they see fit, and indians can keep racist land policies as well, or mistreating indians was wrong and indians also have to abide by the normal anti-discrimination laws. Any position other than that would be hypocritical.

CaptainMarvelous:

Blahblahb is being sensationalist and taking the "This is private property, no tresspassers" thing to mean "f*ck off whitey" its no more exclusionist than your own house, it's just that the 'reservation' that the natives so generously get allocated to live on are generally not too keen on allowing random people to walk in (again, much like I imagine you would be with your own house). From a native perspective, they're being told they HAVE to live in this one spot and then when a bunch of different people start wandering through and they get asked to leave look offended and shout "What!? How could you be so racist!"

Though this is just my view, Ninmecu may be the best one to ask since they actually ARE a native.

Being a Hybrid of sorts(Native on my mother, a whole pantheon of Caucasian on my Fathers) I have a unique psychological mix that I've dubbed Native half, White half. Having been raised to have traditional native values-True friends are a part of your family,(my first in many ways is deeply connected to me through my family, in non sexual ways. I'm still close to her despite not being a couple for 8ish years.) the whole "Do unto others as you would want done unto you" bit, respect peoples differences for what they are, if you can't come to an agreement, simply walk away from each other, the ensuing battle isn't worth the cost, etc.

From my PoV, if the politics surrounding Reservations, Natives and the whole sordid affair between the Provincial and Federal Gov, I believe the tribes would be happy to have people come and see they're little "towns" bring some prospects into the Rez, bring people who've seen the world at large, who've had a chance to explore the world and it's various options. In many instances I believe they would benefit greatly from a more open ended possibility, the drawback is that it's so mired up in muck that it's a near impossibility to reach an agreeable settling. Many treaties have been outright ignored or "abused" to a degree.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin as well, which comes from the white side of my psyche. He points out the myriad of ways that people could abuse this new found freedom and with a number of extremists on either side, could create issues in the long run(Since the vocal minority has proven that anti-intellectualism is in, and intelligent debating is a thing of the past, why bother working through things of the sort.) I've seen several instances of outright abuse of Native lands trying to be taken by force, with people getting nose to nose with them in a stare down clearly slated to get them to make the first blow so they have an excuse to unload on them. That's one of many possible negatives that could come from it.

But just to nitpick your post a smidgen.

it's just that the 'reservation' that the natives so generously get allocated to live on

Is coming off as a bit biased towards it being something not owed to them, but that's not my issue with it. Native people were, and I believe still are, predominantly nomadic people, corralling them all in one location and saying "There you go, that's yours, now leave us alone" is going against an instinct formed over a few thousand years. Translation, it's not going to just disappear overnight.

In an attempt to balance out my nomadic instincts and my well, white instincts to settle down. My final end game "goal" in life is something that blends both halves of my psyche. I want an Assassins Creed Esque Outdoor Adult Sized Jungle Gym, with a similar Indoor facility for the winter months(Canada eh?) and a home with a rather large forest area nearby, if need be I'd buy all the land around my home to ensure the survival of those tree's because they feel more like home to me than cement roads and sky high buildings. As for the structure, it would give me the ability to use my body for what generations of evolution have created it for, a fast agile strong hunting body capable of traversing forest terrain without missing a beat running at high speeds.(Plus, it would be ($*$ing awesome says my inner nerd.)

Blablahb:

Ninmecu:
Actually, they can set foot on the land, but they can be forcibly removed with no penalty towards the Rez. Think that's unfair?

Yes, I think that's unfair. And your position is not consistent. You open a topic because forcibly removing indians for being indians is unfair, but now you're okay with removing others from not being indians.

That's a contradictory position. Either people had a right to mistreat indians in whatever way they see fit, and indians can keep racist land policies as well, or mistreating indians was wrong and indians also have to abide by the normal anti-discrimination laws. Any position other than that would be hypocritical.

For one, it isn't our land policies, it's a combination of INAC and Ottawa. For two, considering what whites did to the various tribes throughout the years, I can't blame them for not trusting every white skinned man woman or child they meet-as I'm sure you've been brought up the same way. Unless you come from a place where everyone is completely 100% trustworthy all of the time. They've learned from history-why? Because most of them lived it-or are still currently doing so. You really want to argue about not being able to set foot on communal land? Go complain to gated communities, same basic principle. Also, stop being such a self centered little halfwit, it's not as though only whites aren't allowed on without permission from the band council-EVERYONE WHO ISN'T A BAND MEMBER HAS THE SAME RULE.

Blablahb:

Smiley Face:
That's not a hard pill to swallow at all

Living in an apartheid state with legally recognized racism kind of is a hard pill to swallow. You know, I'm one of those silly people who believe in rights, freedom and democracy.

Smiley Face:
It's Canada, we've got enough fucking land as it is.

So shall we ban niggers from entering Montreal? After all, there's plenty of other land in Canada they can go to...

Or are you wrong, and can racism not be justified by such things?

Smiley Face:
and while imperfect, unilaterally throwing it all out the window isn't cool.

Unilaterally? That's not correct use of the word. Unilateraly means several countries are informed and one is acting by themselves. There's only one country involved in this issue so no such terms apply.

And please explain exactly what would be wrong if the legally enshrined racism in Canada would be abolished overnight? What exactly would worsen or go wrong, outside of a few smugglers getting the punishment all other smugglers get already.

Ninmecu:
Actually, they can set foot on the land, but they can be forcibly removed with no penalty towards the Rez. Think that's unfair?

Yes, I think that's unfair. And your position is not consistent. You open a topic because forcibly removing indians for being indians is unfair, but now you're okay with removing others from not being indians.

That's a contradictory position. Either people had a right to mistreat indians in whatever way they see fit, and indians can keep racist land policies as well, or mistreating indians was wrong and indians also have to abide by the normal anti-discrimination laws. Any position other than that would be hypocritical.

Blah, you do understand that the reservations are their HOME. What you suggest is that anyone should be allowed to go into their home without their consent. So anyone that chose to come into your home should be allowed, and you should not be able to make them leave? Yes, the people who live in that home should be allowed to have a say in who can and cannot be in their home. Their home is all they have left now that everything else has been taken from them. Tribal courts here, as it is, cannot even prosecute nontribal members, so they already have the advantage if they make is as far as their property as it is. They can try to have them removed, but tribal courts here cannot even prosecute nontribal members for the crimes they commit while they are on the reservation due to the policies made for them, by outside governments beyond their control. The tribes do not even have authority over their own lands as it is Blah, how can they prevent their own people from being harmed when they cannot even prosecute crimes committed by outsiders? When 80% of rapes on Native women here are carried out by non native men unable to be prosecuted due to laws beyond their control, why would they want to allow even more access than is currently allowed?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103717296

Lil devils x:
Blah, you do understand that the reservations are their HOME.

No, they are the place their home is located in. Home is a building, possibly with a garden. Everything around that is public space. And that public space being the location of one's home doesn't justify having racist laws around that bar people's access based on ethnicity.

I don't get what the rest was about. Obviously it's part of the national territory of the country the place is located in, subject to it's laws and the enforcement of those. Local 'courts' a.k.a. glorified lynchmobs should always be stopped, banned or at least made as inefficient as possible, because they are a direct threat to the justice state, just like all other forms of vigilantism.

It's something that may have been around in medieval times too; break no laws, but the inquisition is going to hang you anyway, but we no longer live in medieval ages.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
Blah, you do understand that the reservations are their HOME.

No, they are the place their home is located in. Home is a building, possibly with a garden. Everything around that is public space. And that public space being the location of one's home doesn't justify having racist laws around that bar people's access based on ethnicity.

I was initially going to outrightly ignore you, but then I figured it wouldn't sit well with me in the long run. So, I'll play it your way. Yes, under normal circumstances a building is built on public space, in metropolitan area's and in lower population towns that is most certainly the case. But I don't see you bitching at farmers now allowing you on their land. I don't see you bitching at the forest industry not letting you walk into their woods that are designated for cutting/growing. I don't see you complaining about the Gated Communities as I pointed out earlier. But, y'know what, for the sake of lowering myself to your level I'll break it down nice and simple. The lands that the Rez's are placed on are deemed a seperate part of the country governed by their own laws put into place by INAC and Ottawa. They aren't seen as "Land owned by the Country" they're seen as "Land Segregated from the rest of the country" and are treated as such, much lower financing, much lower healthcare, much lower everything, not by the choosing of the tribes, many would rather have a free and open market, especially my Generation-we want this shit to end, we don't want reparations for past wrongs, stop trying to say we do, we want peaceful resolution and to find a better middle ground than what we have to live through now.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
Blah, you do understand that the reservations are their HOME.

No, they are the place their home is located in. Home is a building, possibly with a garden. Everything around that is public space. And that public space being the location of one's home doesn't justify having racist laws around that bar people's access based on ethnicity.

I don't get what the rest was about. Obviously it's part of the national territory of the country the place is located in, subject to it's laws and the enforcement of those. Local 'courts' a.k.a. glorified lynchmobs should always be stopped, banned or at least made as inefficient as possible, because they are a direct threat to the justice state, just like all other forms of vigilantism.

It's something that may have been around in medieval times too; break no laws, but the inquisition is going to hang you anyway, but we no longer live in medieval ages.

You assume that everyone has the same definition of " home" as you do. You fail to understand the cultural diferences between your beilefs and others. Their " homes" are not buildings or structures, as you define them. Their home is the land of their ancestors that they live on. Many being nomadic, they do not live in one " home", as your culture does. Instead you wish to impose your culture upon everyone else and have them abide by your rules. Because they do not share your beliefs, you wish to prevent them from theirs.

I think you fail to understand the legal situation as well. The tribal courts are appointed by the US government as well, not " glorified lynch mobs". The glorified lynch mobs currently present on tribal lands are those that are being implmented by the US government, not the tribes. The US government allowed for the Corrupt BIA to call the shots, the same BIA that has been overran by organized crime mafia and Christian extremist to make the decisons for the tribes. The lands on the reservation are NOT policed by the US government, and the US government has imposed restrictions upon the tribal courts they implmented to not be able to prosecute as well. You are misinformed, as they are not subject to the laws and enforcement. The tribe must refer those cases to the federal courts, which then do not act upon them and most never even go to court. That is the reality of the current situation. The " vigilantes" would be the people who oppose the Christian extremist and mafia enforcement here endorsed by the US government, not the the US government supported tribal courts, and the " tribal police'.

manic_depressive13:
Stuff about Australia

Australia is surely one of the most racist countries in the world. It seems to be pretty much accepted to hate on asians, "boat people", "abos", "lebs" and I'm sure there's another race we all seem to hate but I can't for the life of me remember it. Probably because they're insignificant, the dirty minorities that they are.

OT: Some affirmative action I'll agree with, other forms I won't.

This phrasing is probably going to be pretty offensive and sound pretty racist, but I'm not sure what terms I'm meant to use.

I get most (lol all) of my knowledge about tribes from games and books, and in said games and books it seems like they consider the land their home or something like that. If the Government has given them this piece of "public property" as their home to make reparations for the damage that's been done, I think that's okay.

While the sentiment of "let's forget past grievances and fix the problems at hand!" is so very admirable coming from the people who weren't and aren't the ones receiving the constant effect of extreme racism, I don't think it really flies considering the scope of what's been done.

I think if you take peoples homes away from them, you give them a new one, not offer ten out of a hundred children a scholarship to university and call it a victory for equality.

On the issue of keeping people out of said home/community. I'm going to say I hesitantly agree with it. If they view the land as their home then anyone of any race just wandering into said home uninvited seems pretty fucked.

I really don't know enough about tribe culture or what was done in Canada to say this is anything other than opinion though.

P.S. If someone quotes me just to bang on about the actual number of people given scholarships for Affirmative Action I'll cut you. So not the point.

Gold:

manic_depressive13:
Stuff about Australia

Australia is surely one of the most racist countries in the world. It seems to be pretty much accepted to hate on asians, "boat people", "abos", "lebs" and I'm sure there's another race we all seem to hate but I can't for the life of me remember it. Probably because they're insignificant, the dirty minorities that they are.

Indians, perhaps? Or maybe arabs or persians (if people bother to make a distinction).

I wouldn't say that makes Australia one of the most racist countries, though, and I don't mean that as a defense. Australia does treat aboriginal people particularly horribly, much worse than most minorities, it seems.

Well the thing is then inform people when they make ignorant comments. Things that happened to Natives in the Americas tend to go unnoticed because well...most people don't have contact with Native Americans(in the continental context) and in both Canada and the US,as I understand it, there's always been this kind of seclusion forced or others. That and numbers. The descendants of black slaves outweigh the descendants of Natives who acknowledge or have proof of the fact. In the US a lot of...natives outside of certain areas were kind of bred out, as horrible as it sounds, their heritage hidden/lost/unacknowledged, and their culture suppressed. For those reasons and more Native Americans are over looked.

The most you can do is inform people of it. I do that when people are ignorant about black people...I also inform people that some Native Americans were captured and taken as slaves because no one cared (My great grandmother was descended from enslaved native americans though we think its possible her one or both of her parents were half black or bi-racial)).

Ninmecu:
But I don't see you bitching at farmers now allowing you on their land.

That's is because they purchased that land, and tend to use it. Many farmers don't fence most fields other than pastures, and entering generally isn't a problem unless you're damaging something. Heck, most drinking back in the day was done in shacks put in a field for two to three weekends, after which you often moved it to avoid police finding out. But hey, beers costing € 0,70-1,00 as opposed to € € 2,00 - 2,50 in a bar where only old people go make that worthwhile.

In any case I'd frown upon farmers placing signs that said 'no Jews allowed' next to their fields, like those indian groups are doing.

Ninmecu:
I don't see you bitching at the forest industry not letting you walk into their woods that are designated for cutting/growing.

Actually, that's fully legal, and all production forest is open to the public. They place signs when logging works are underway and place one or two people to warn the odd passerby.

Ninmecu:
I don't see you complaining about the Gated Communities as I pointed out earlier.

And if you thought before you judged, you'd have known I am a critic of those, and can support that with decent scientific arguments too, because I spent three years studying topics related to that.

Ninmecu:
But, y'know what, for the sake of lowering myself to your level

Your second post and you're already out of ammo and resorting to insults? Winning this argument should be easy if your situation is already that desperate.

Ninmecu:
They aren't seen as "Land owned by the Country" they're seen as "Land Segregated from the rest of the country" and are treated as such, much lower financing, much lower healthcare, much lower everything, not by the choosing of the tribes, many would rather have a free and open market, especially my Generation

Then make it so and stop insulting others who in the meantime take offense to the apartheid and racist policies the indian tribes demanded.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked