h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I saw that you didn't know where to begin to confront ignorance and half truths on that Native People's thread.

I'd like to learn more about it. (I'm not touching that thread), but could you maybe post some stuff here about it if you have time?

Apologies for my misuse of apostrophes. I don't know what is wrong with me.

I'm just about to sleep, but I'll try to give it some thought tomorrow.

You have to realize (as they don't, i'm sure on that thread) that there is several centuries of jurisprudence in two European languages and a number of Inuit and First Nations languages as well as in Mischif, the language of the Meridian to deal with when discussing "giving them back the land". The very question is a perpetuation of colonialism.

And I have my own library of volumes discussing the issues. But I'll try to put some thoughts down tomorrow.

Good morning.


Where to start?


In 1763, partly in response to the British victories at Louisbourg and Quebec, a Royal Proclamation was issued in part stating the British legal position concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of North America. That legal position is still in force in Canada, having devolved to Canada with the passage of the British North America Act in 1867 and the Constitution Act of 1982 -- The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is Canadian Constitutional law binding on all Governments.

The Proclamation recognizes -- not grants -- recognizes the status of the aboriginal peoples of North America as Nations to be dealt with in exactly the way the Nations of Europe are to be dealt with -- through negotiation and treaty. Before Confederation, the Crown proceeded on the basis of that recognition, signing early treaties with the Nations in Upper Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. After Confederation, Canada's Parliament continued to recognize the fact of the First Nations through continued treaty making and through the explicit recognition of the aboriginal rights of the First Nations in the Constitution of 1982. The fundamental legal relationship between Canada and the First Nations is very well established and recognized in law.

The details, however, are a mess.

For many of the "numbered treaties" the First Nations negotiators were offered questionable translators and no "official" versions of the treaties were written and ratified in languages other than English. This fact has now been recognized by the Supreme Court and it has directed that First Nations oral history surrounding the treaty making process *must* be given the same weight as the written text during land claims negotiations or court actions.

Even though Government treaty obligations were written in plain English, Governments very regularly ignored what was written and made up new policy concerning what to do with the "Indians". In short, many of the treaties have been seriously and repeatedly breached by the Canadian Government and one could argue that the treaties are void and negotiations must begin again from initial positions.

And, within the numbered treaty areas there are groups who were missed by the treaty negotiators or lumped in as part of Nations to which they did not belong. And, most of British Columbia never had any treaties until very recently and the same for the North. And the Metis are their own unique case, founders of Manitoba, but with a land-base only in Alberta.

And, of course, there are the Residential Schools.



In the U.S., on the other hand, the Royal Proclamation was rejected outright, both for its recognition of the First Nations and for its recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. In response, the thirteen southern colonies wrote their Declaration of Independence and declared war on the Crown and on the First Nations. The War on the First Nations was explicitly a war of extermination.


I could go on about the Iroquois and the Huron and the French and the Northwest Rebellion and the constant `patience and loyalty to the treaties of leaders like Crowfoot, about the intentional extermination of the Bison as a tool of genocide, about the saving military roll of British allies such as Tecumseh and Thayendanegea . . . .

That should be enough to start with: The Government and People of Canada have very clear and strong legal obligations to the First Nations and their people. As well, they have very strong moral obligations due to the advantages accrued through the willing and the forced sacrifices of First Nations people of the Past and present.




And, those who suggest, like someone on that other thread, that "becoming a doctor is hard work" implying that a multi-generational history of imposed social disadvantage should be or can be ignored (never mind the legal issues involved) is nothing other than an ignorant, self-centred, coddled child of advantage, no matter how tough they like to pretend they've had it.

Yes. Thank you for taking the trouble to write this anhaga and explain.

I just looked back at that thread for a moment and it made me remember that I wanted to mention here the Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation commission, which I think is a good and necessary but not all sufficient step forward. Such steps can form a part of what the Royal Commission on aboriginal affairs recommended: a massive public education campaign concerning aboriginal history, culture an issues. I wish such a concerted effort had been forthcoming.

While the issue of compensation for disadvantaged individuals is important and interesting, what is being missed in the discussion over there is that there are legitimate treaties between nations (both in Canada and the US) which have been abrogated by one party to those treaties. The treaties are generally what would be termed "unequal treaties" and in all cases the advantage is with the "White" party to the treaty and in all cases it is the advantaged party that has abrogated the treaty. It's as though Britain, rather than Germany, abrogated the Treaty of Versailles by attacking Germany in 1939. The legalities would be quite clear cut (as would the moralities).

On the other thread, the discussion is bogged down in the moral question while ignoring the relatively clear cut legal issue. I expect that's largely because most really have no knowledge of the situation and are just riffing on dimly remembered passages in old books of Enlightenment political philosophy.

I'd be (only just vaguely) interested in learning how many of the people on that other thread have ever even met any of these non-European indigenous people they prattle on so expertly about.

I haven't gone back even to read because of the *style* of discussion

And I'm not prattling on about my admittedly limited interaction with Australian aboriginals, a Maori guy and the Bonni in French Guiana...admittedly they aren't indigenous, but they continue a large extent with their west African hunter/gatherer life to an extent...except now beside rivers in the equitorial forest of French Guiana.

I just know I'll get jumped on in that atmosphere.

Made the mistake of expecting something different on the gay footballers' thread.

Another one bites the dust...hey ho.

Usual suspects are welcome to it...

And the amount of brutalising style of interaction here sickens me.

I had to grow up in a brutalising macho atmosphere...it poisoned me as a woman.

They always want to take a 'sledgehammer to a walnut' Why can't there be more dancing?

I know you understand anhaga.

People are killing themselves over homosexuality still in this country...and it's getting so macho again. People refuse to *face* things. And WAGS is a horrible term. Like women are objects.

People like me can't survive unless we put our caddis cases on again.

My nastiness at times here comes from brutalising use of language that I grew up with...apart from all the physical beatings.

I want to change. But how when we are getting oh so much more brutal and macho again in the UK.

Please stay here anhaga.

Sorry for the ramble. I took a chance with that thread. What a waste of time it was about something *so serious*....where people are obviously going to feel *vulnerable*.

I *hate* my father now for all the football matches he took me to as a young girl.

(Sorry to pour my heart out a bit...but you've said in the past you didn't mind. God only knows what native peoples suffered psychologically with an encounter with Britishness..)

It's unbearable on that thread (and so many others) whether one is a woman or a man.j


Specifically concerning that thread:


I get the impression that all the guys there are big fans of the works of German novelist Karl May, who made a career out of writing ripping stories of the American West, of Cowboys and Indians, without ever having actually left Germany or even met anything approaching a cowboy or an Indian. Apparently this guy had such an influence that there are now huge German pow-wow clubs who dress up as "Indians" and conduct "traditional ceremonies". I've heard actual First Nations individuals describe their feelings when they've been invited to these get-togethers and the Germans have actually corrected the real "Indians" on their understanding of their own traditions and have informed them that the ceremonies the Germans have lifted from May's novels are the real Indian ceremonies.

"Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutor'd mind
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way;
Yet simple Nature to his hope has giv'n,
Behind the cloud-topp'd hill, a humbler heav'n . . .

wrote Pope, never have known an "Indian", poor or otherwise.


They go on and on about the Easter Islanders and the Mongols and the Indians, blah, blah, blah, and it's all a tissue of speculation and opinion based on fiction and half-understood freshman skim-reading.

What you offered, Effers, is your honest experience of meeting the people, which has infinite validity compared to the groundless and relentless pissing the rest of them are doing.

As tempted as I am to go and call them on things, there's no point. So many are so rooted and happy in their sophomoric ignorance.

What do you think about 'Hiawatha'?

to be honest, I've never read it.

We did it at school...it's very musical in writing style and Romantic. I have to admit to liking it in that context...but that's the thing, to be aware of the colonial tendancy to romanticise...and be honest..And the woman is the hero.

I know what you are saying in your context...hopefully you know what I'm saying.

But I have limits. At first year at primary school, (in the countryside)...we were read 'little black **bo (I don't know if I'm allowed to write that word..) You can see how deep this stuff goes though as a colonial attitude.

Romanticicing, infantilising or abusing...

Instead of rehashing the old colonial theorizing, people should be looking at stuff Luke this: http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/8thfire/mobile/touch/video.html

Listen to what the people themselves are saying about the future.

That was the mobile link. This one is better: http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/8thfire/index.html?1328220829831


Es`pecially the e`pisode called "who's land is it anyway?"

Yeah I couldn't access post 17 links.

I'll have a good watch. Looks excellent stuff. Thank you.

It's really quite a marvellous documentary series, IMO.

I'm watching the first part now, about urban aboriginals. It starts off talking about stereotypes many (most) not-aboriginals have. I realized with relief that when I think of aboriginal people, I think of the actor Lorne Cardinal, whose wedding I attended, of his activist/politician brother Lewis, of local businessman Herb Belcourt (sadly, deceased), of architect Douglas Cardinal, of artists Alex Janvier and Norval Morisseau, of musicians like Lucy Idlout . . .


I know the stereotypes, but I haven't fallen for them, thank goodness.