"They're back so let's kill them"

[inpayne]

Where do you draw the line as to immigration? 1800? 2000 years ago? 10, 20, or 30,000 years ago?

I have already rebutted such a view. Thank you Ken B for pointing out the true and diverse composition of Canada.

To add to what Dan said above, if we are to attempt to "turn back the clock" or in some other way compensate those who feel that in their history they have been hard done by, the question remains "how far back do you turn that clock?" Why stop at 100 years, 500 years, 1,000 years? Perhaps we should be seeking out a neanderthal and paying him out for the way "modern hominids" took over his ancestor's territory and wiped out his "culture". (a bit extreme but I'm sure you get my point)

That is quite demeaning to aboriginal nations and people as of not having entitlement to their land and culture. Plus such an "extreme" summarisation is very ignorant to the origin of treaty settlements. Tootsal, your point is understood and it is misplaced.

The status of the First Nations and other aboriginal communities in Canada explicitly derive from political treaties between the EXISTING individual, distinct, and organised aboriginal nations that were present and party to negotiations with incoming British, then Canadian, and finally Provincial governance. Such treaties were mutually negotiated and settled upon with terms for one party ceding to higher governance of the other. The organised descendants of such nations demonstrate a legal continuity of such political entities. Do not like that? Selfish and tyrannical desires do not nullify such civil and legal reality.

Please, Islandboy and others, it is truly a simple political issue between what were truly independent and sovereign states. Please but an end to the error and conflate the issue with silly off-tangents in the realm that 'all are immigrants and therefore to be treated as equals.'

The derived status of aboriginal nations is NOT that of whites being guilted into making amends for past ill treatment of aboriginals. The status obtained from the incoming higher governments of the Provinces and Canada is a direct manifestation of most often negotiated and finalised agreements to cede control of past greater aboriginal territory plus its people and to maintain at least partial nations' control over their politically settled territory and societal sovereignty.

I'm going to be blunt -- those arguing for one single state law for all are not living in the real world. What you desire is what past and long dated (well, most today are mature and civilised) states obtained via violent warfare and complete subjugation of the conquered. That is not the status of the federation of Canada nor will it ever be without the absolute trashing of many components of the constitution and the certain open insurgencies that follow. As provinces within confederation have certain aspects of control over their territory and inhabitants, so do the aboriginal nations as legislated into treaties. Do not tolerate such state separation and societal reality? Then to appease absolutist black or white ideologies it is an advocation of one dominant and ruling side to nullifying its word, ethics, and legislated agreements. That is not the autocratic and tyrannical society that we inhabit nor one that I will sit idly by and permit to exist.

We wish to remain paddling and have cordial relationships in and around West Coast First Nations reserves? For a diverse state and society to succeed mutual trust plus civil tolerance and respect must be practiced. Thankfully, many of the rather angry and absolutist unsound views here against aboriginal nations do not reflect the laws and state conduct of contemporary Canada and its Provinces.

 

[rider]

The only way I can see that people should be entitled to this sort of 'living in traditional ways' is if they ACTUALLY go back to the traditional ways, ie: give up their powerboats, gas powered chainsaws, electricity, modern medicine. Thinking they deserve both the benefits of todays technology, and killing animals as 'in the old ways' is hippocricy of the highest order.

Hippocracy, are you kidding me? Doesn't your family have traditions, and yet still enjoy modern technology? Jewish people have their own holidays, and ancient traditions, yet nobody is calling them hippocrates for not following the Torah in the same way as their ancestors did.

First Nations traditions and sacred practices are intimately involved with animals and the land, and that is no more or less valid than, lets say, my family putting up a tree at Christmas time. Rider, would you say that my family should not be entitled to this very ancient ceremony, because we use electric lights, instead of the more traditional candles?

And Dan, 'a new costume'? You make it sound like they are going trick or treating or something...C'mon guys, Yeesh.

You know, Lance. As a person who is Jewish by nationality, and having lived in Israel for 3 years, I got to wonder what do you really know about Jews. And what do you know about my family? And what part of the Jewish traditional practices involves killing endangered species for ritual purposes, which is what this is debate is all about?!
Christmas...Don't even think about going there. The holiday's history is questionable at best and gives little reason to follow any sort of dogma. Santa as we know him is a product of a Coca Cola campaign.
The point is that the world has changed, and once near-extinct population of sea otters is far from their historical numbers. So this is when common sense and accountability over rules sentimentality for the old days.
If a powerboat is a substitute for a dugout canoe, modern house a substitute for a yurt, machine gun a substitute for bow and arrow and a truck is substitute for a horse...WHY can't gore-tex(or whatever reasonable material) be substitute for sea otter fur?!

 

[rider]

Hypothetically speaking, if Canadian natives historically had human sacrifice as part of traditional ceremonies, and wanted to bring that part of their tradition back to life, would that really fly because it's 'traditional'? Or would that be instantly deemed illegal and barbaric? My guess it'll be the second. Humans are found in billions, sea otters in thousands.
BC Natives don't have a history of human sacrifice, but I believe Maya and Aztecs did, so it's not exactly a far out concept.

 

[skiffrace]

The year is 2020. Aliens rule the earth. No humans have jobs ... there aren't any. Humans no longer own the trees, the water, the minerals, the earth, the animals. All humans are poor ... human money has been outlawed. The aliens have their own medium of exchange ... but you don't have any and you'll never get any. As far as the aliens are concerned, humans are too primitive to have any use in alien society. Your religion has been outlawed ... religion is illogical. All humans live in apartment complexes ... ugly, tiny, cold ones. The aliens give you your daily food in pill form. The food provides you with nutrients and calories, but it does not satisfy your hunger. You are hungry almost every day. If you want solid food, you have to grow your own in a tiny plot of land outside your complex. Food growing is complicated by the rabbits that eat your plants before you can harvest. You are not allowed to capture, hurt, or kill the rabbits. If you are caught harming the rabbits, you will be isolated from your family and friends.

AD 1726. A ship full of Humans arrives to yet-undiscovered territory. The Humans have just escaped poverty and oppression of their homeland. They are poor and have almost nothing but they are extremely resourceful, bright, creative and willing to work very, very hard.
The place they arrive into is called Houyhnhnms Land.
It is populated by Houyhnhnms, creatures biologically identical to Humans. Houyhnhnms were like Humans once: bright, adventurous and hard working. Through hard work they turned their island into the land of milk and honey. A lot of Houyhnhnms remain like Humans, although some of them gradually lost their drive and became sedate and apathetic. Still, the Humans and the Houyhnhnms have much in common and many Houyhnhnms see Humans as the injection of new blood into their country.
Humans prove that it is possible to start with nothing and achieve much - ability still much admired by Houyhnhnms.
At the same time, the Houyhnhnms is also populated by small bands of Yahoos. Yahoos share same genes as Houyhnhnms and Humans. They too have unlimited potential to be creative and entrepreneurial. Every one of Yahoos has the ability to discover, to create science and art with sky being the limit.
Tragically, in Houyhnhnms Land there exists "Dark Energy". Dark Energy causes Yahoos not to live up to their ability. Instead, they spend their days brooding over injustices inflicted upon them by Houyhnhnms. Some of those injustices are real, some are imagined but it does not matter. Yahoos elect not to follow the example of Houyhnhnms and Humans, even though they could.

Yahoos claim the land they live on and everything on in as "their own" even though did not create the land, the sea, the trees or the creatures. They simply took possession of it a little sooner than Houyhnhnms and Humans.

Yahoos prefer to shield themselves from Houyhnhnms and Humans through convoluted logical puzzles (known as 'laws' ) and to live on subsistence handed over to them by Houyhnhnms.
Yahoos can see how other groups can preserve their identity and be prosperous at the same time, but Yahoos are backwards, not forward looking.
A few of the most entrepreneurial Yahoos discovered a way of making nice income through exploitation of some of the Houyhnhnms and Humans destructive habits in places called "Kazeenoos".
Still, the Kazeenoos are not sufficient to support all of the Yahoos with the income they would like. And so the tragic Yahoo saga continues. They cannot go back to their old lifestyle before Houyhnhnms and Humans arrived. Most of them cannot move forward either.
They claim they will not alter "their traditional way of life" even though every atom in Earth and Universe has changed trillion times ever since.
What will become of Yahoos, nobody knows. Perhaps they will perpetuate their unfulfilled existence until the End.

 

[inpayne]

Humans prove that it is possible to start with nothing and achieve much - ability still much admired by Houyhnhnms.
...
Houyhnhnms were like Humans once: bright, adventurous and hard working. Through hard work they turned their island into the land of milk and honey. A lot of Houyhnhnms remain like Humans, although some of them gradually lost their drive and became sedate and apathetic.
...
What will become of Yahoos, nobody knows. Perhaps they will perpetuate their unfulfilled existence until the End.

skiffrace, your little story appears to be quite insulting with its core being that of classic bigotry of preconceived racial hierarchy. Such are sentiments are expressed to demean a population of people who are wholesale categorised as being lazy, "sedate," and "apathetic'. Such propogandic minimalisation of worth upon a people is right upon par that lead to past racial injustice as practiced by Germans upon Jews, multiple states upon blacks, and onto numerous other visible populations by -- more often than not -- invading imperialist ventures.

Such unruly and bigoted sentiments warrant highlighted recognition, spoken against, and condemned.

 

[Redcedar]

Just a point of interest -
I've read that here in coastal BC the odd live slave was cast down into a totem pole hole just before it crushed them ... for good luck and/or status. When the Resolution called in at Nootka Sound in 1778 there was clear evidence of cannabalism. http://www.abcbookworld.com/view_author.php?id=3309

I'm sure my ancient ancestors weren't any different.

 

[inpayne]

BC Natives don't have a history of human sacrifice, but I believe Maya and Aztecs did, so it's not exactly a far out concept.

Rider, that certainly is far out. You are displaying the fallacy of a 'slippery slope' style of argument, and one of extreme hyperbole.

The topic is not of poaching crimes or certainly not murder. The issue is of a band council suitably applying for permission to kill a specific number of animals. It is doubtful that such a kill will be allowed by higher levels of government if the Mission Group population of sea otters is deemed incapable of sustaining such a loss.

 

[andreas]

opcorn:

 

[Islandboy]

opcorn:

Agreed!

 

[rider]

As shown by "action" of our government on the issue of wild salmon and other species, I doubt that they have that much foresight,or guts when it comes to ensuring sustainability and species survival when it puts those values against local politics and money.
I don't think my example was far out what so ever, different belief system,maybe, but hardly far out. I believe, we,humans are just another species on this planet and don't own the place to do with as we see fit, merely share it with others.
So Robin, would you approve reintroduction of human sacrifice had it been a part of the culture? Yes or No.

 

[ken_vandeburgt]

The status of the First Nations and other aboriginal communities in Canada explicitly derive from political treaties between the EXISTING individual, distinct, and organised aboriginal nations that were present and party to negotiations w :arrow: ith incoming British, then Canadian, and finally Provincial governance. Such treaties were mutually negotiated and settled upon with terms for one party ceding to higher governance of the other. The organised descendants of such nations demonstrate a legal continuity of such political entities. Do not like that? Selfish and tyrannical desires do not nullify such civil and legal reality.

Well, that is interesting. Spain, Russia, Britain all claimed suzerainship over these lands without entering into treaties. Could it be they did not find anything remotely considered as a cohesive nation based on their world wide experience with encounters of new cultures and peoples? This despite the royal proclamation of 7 October 1763. Currently there are no treaties in BC except the Nisgah, Maa Nulth, Tsawassen and the so called Douglas treaties, all negotiated since BC became a legal entity.

I'd put up the link to the Maa Nulth treaty, which actually covers the Kyuquot/Checleset bands involved in the proposed hunt, but it is no longer good. I'm pretty sure that I read nothing in the final agreement about special priveleges that included hunting sea otters.

I'm going to be blunt -- those arguing for one single state law for all are not living in the real world.

I'm going to be blunt too; there is no hope for Canada to succeed as a nation so long as there are groups residing inside of Canada who do not regard themselves as Canadians first. There is no hope for Canada if there is not one law that applies equally to everyone. The real world is that united we stand, divided we fall. Witness the fractuous history of Europe. Witness the recent breakup of Yugoslavia. Witness the Middle East today.

What you desire is what past and long dated (well, most today are mature and civilised) states obtained via violent warfare and complete subjugation of the conquered.

Balkanization doesn't work either. I'll put it to you that war was not fought here in the past because it would have resulted in unnessecary slaughter between two rivals who were not technologically or numerically equal. History is full of similar confrontations where the technologically inferior people have been wiped out. The result would not be any different today. Canada has room for everyone who is willing to be Canadian; there is no need for the violence. Hopefully it will never come to that. But instances such as this ill thought out sea otter cull will raise the likelihood of such an occurence.

I don't much care for the Thomas Moore (or was it Jonathan Swift) parallel that was drawn by skiffrace. However there is a valid point to be drawn from it. Canada is made up of people who have migrated here from around the globe. In the main, these migrant people have thrived here simply by trying. Why are they experiencing greater success than people from First Nations?

 

[rider]

ken_v, While I agree with some of your points, a bit word of caution on forced unity of nations. I've seen it,lived it, and it can turn ugly.

 

[Jurfie]

I'm curious...(and not sure if I want to wade into this conversation!)...but I wonder:

1. What percentage of other animals (grizzlies, caribou, buffalo, moose, etc.) are hunted each year (I honestly have no idea)?

2. The Vancouver Aquarium reports there were approximately 3000 sea otters in B.C. in 2003; are there other animals with similar populations hunted at 1% per year?

3. Why is it illegal to hunt bald eagles (B.C. population est. 20,000 - 30,000 in 1993 according to Google), but not sea otters? Both are considered "threatened" species.

Personally, I don't care WHO is hunting them, I would prefer the sea otters would be left alone for a while longer until they are off the threatened species list.

 

[Islandboy]

I will, within my understanding , attempt answers. I'll defer to those who can present more accurate information.

1. What percentage of other animals (grizzlies, caribou, buffalo, moose, etc.) are hunted each year?

The animals that are legally hunted (by anyone who is willing to put in the time, money, and effort; then pass the required examinations regarding technique and ethics) are monitored closely for sustainability. There is a history of conservation funded by hunters (who have a vested interest in maintaining healthy populations of game).

2. The Vancouver Aquarium reports there were approximately 3000 sea otters in B.C. in 2003; are there other animals with similar populations hunted at 1% per year?

Most likely. As our exploitation of the forests, for urban expansion, farming, ranching, logging, etc., creates an imbalance in the predator/prey relationship and Natures own cycles use mass starvation as a culling method wild game animals are hunted at percentages that prevent crop damage, urban intrusion, wild swings in population numbers, etc. The Pennsylvania experiment comes to mind.

3. Why is it illegal to hunt bald eagles (B.C. population est. 20,000 - 30,000 in 1993 according to Google), but not sea otters? Both are considered "threatened" species.

IMHO Politics and Optics. Where they are plentiful they are a nuisance to farmers. However like Grizzlies they do not bother the voting majority in the lower mainland and Victoria so P & O rules over science.

Personally, I don't care WHO is hunting them, I would prefer the sea otters would be left alone for a while longer until they are off the threatened species list.

I agree. I think the true discussion here is based on preferential treatment. IMHO if the science recommends harvest for conservation balance I am all for it, done equitably.

 

[Tootsall]

"Done equitably".

Nicely put, Islandboy.

 

[Andy_Ferguson]

I'm all for allowing the First Nation's People the right to harvest the otters for "ceremonial" purposes. I'm not sure how many of you can possibly begin to understand what it feels like to not know your past; who your parents were, who your grandparents were, what they did, how they did it, how they lived, etc, etc, etc. It's a big, dark hole. Remember being in grade school and being asked to draw a family tree? Imagine only being able to draw back to your parents - if even that far.

We ripped several entire generations out of the history of the First Nation's People with our Residential Schools. Abuses were done to their children that would, no should, make your skin crawl. They deserve the right to attempt to reconnect with their history and if harvesting a minute number of sea otters will help even one of them to do so, I am all for it.

This is Canada, not some back water nation slowly emerging from the dark ages. What we did in the name of "civilization" was wrong; plain and simple. I for one sleep much better knowing that we are attempting to make amends for past wrongs.

I'll go back to lurking in the non-political forums now...

 

[Dan_Millsip]

I can only trace my family tree back two generations to my grandparents. Beyond that, I know the country they emmigrated from but little else.

As far as ammending past wrongs -- I wasn't even there, never mind having done something wrong. You don't answer for crimes commited by your ancestors or for crimes that you didn't personally commit, do you? Neither do I. I always find the argument of answering for my "people's" past wrong doings a bit puzzling.

And using the collective "we" also bothers me -- there was no "we" because I wasn't there in the first place. I personally had nothing to do with the decisions made a hundred years ago therefore I don't feel any responsibility for the actions of those who came before me.

Do I like it that predecesors stripped the First Nations of their culture, forced their children into "white" schools, or worse? No, I don't. I don't think it was fair, and I don't think it was right. But I wasn't there, heck, I wasn't even born then and I don't feel that I should personably be held responsible for the wrong doings of others.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some compensation for the wrong doings (yes, I accept that there was much unfair treatment), but don't use the collective "we" when rationalizing or pointing out actions of other people in the past.

*****

 

[Andy_Ferguson]

The last Residential School was closed in 1996. You and I were both "there"; we're not talking about 100 year old history here, this stuff is yesterday.

I believe that "we the people" must bear responsibility for the actions of our governments. That's why we have elections, that's why we have the right to assemble and peacefully protest, that's what makes this country so great. We take great offense when our freedoms are trampled upon yet we stood idly by and allowed the freedoms of the first nations to be stripped.

I am extremely happy to see amends being made. You are free to disagree.

 

[Ken B]

You know...it's not that I disagree with the 'One Country One People One Law for All' belief.
I'm all for 'Moving Forward in Unity, everyone being Equal'.
The fact is, First Nation's feel they have been wronged in our country's history and can't/won't move forward.
So what are you/we to do?

Do we go back and try to right the wrong?...or ignore the past and push forward?
In my opinion, you definitely won't have Peace and Unity doing the later...
I suppose we (as a country) could push/pull them kicking a screaming...oh wait, our forefathers did that once already!

Lastly, having spent a fair amount of time (through most of my life) around First Nation's culture, I do believe they are grasping to hold on to their culture, and in some cases, re-introducing old lost culture/traditions (before their elders pass on)...culture and traditions that are rooted in this land from before our ancestors.
First Nation's appear to be trying to 'Connect' their youth to their past...to incorporate they're values and some pride...is there something wrong with that?

 

[Ken B]

As far as ammending past wrongs -- I wasn't even there, never mind having done something wrong. You don't answer for crimes commited by your ancestors or for crimes that you didn't personally commit, do you? Neither do I. I always find the argument of answering for my "people's" past wrong doings a bit puzzling.

You know Dan...as an example, in today's environmental law...you would be wrong.
Let's say your great grandfather owned and operated a small shipyard then ceased operations and sold the land...two generations later the property is found to be polluted with Lead (from lead-based marine paint).
In today's law, the Polluter pays...if the contamination can be traced back to your Great Grandfather...his living heirs can be held responsible and be made to pay for the clean up.
Back in those days, very few businesses were incorporated.

I have an evironmental consultant who is based in Victoria...he can sight many cases where this very scenario is actually happening.