Thomas:
This is great stuff Ed and I thank you for taking the time to share it, I'm
learning.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
--
----------
>From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Canadian Indian Claims
>Date: Fri, Jul 30, 1999, 3:54 PM
>
> Brad:
>
>>Another popular idea I find dubious is
>>providing reparations to the living for the
>>harms done to the dead. Should a [black, indian,
>>etc.] M.D., lawyer, university professor,
>>etc. be paid reparations for the harm
>>done to his or her ancestors, who, being
>>dead, are presumably beyond the ability of
>>earthly things to affect them any more?
>>
>
>
> In the case of the settlement of aboriginal claims in Canada, it is not a
> case of reparations to the living for what was done to the dead. It is a
> matter of recognizing longstanding rights which aboriginal people have held
> since time immemorial and which are now entrenched in the Canadian
> Constitution. The dead held these rights, unique to aboriginal people, and
> passed them on to the living. The living are now able to enter into a
> negotiating process in which the rights can be defined and distinguished
> from more general rights held by the Canadian population as a whole. In
> this process, certain things to which the special rights apply, such as land
> and resources, may be relinquished or become part of the public domain, and
> it is for this that monetary compensation is paid.
>
> Canadian treaties and claims settlements, which have acknowledged aboriginal
> rights, have a rather mixed origin. The earliest treaties in which England
> was the main colonial power, those in the Maritimes, did not deal with
> rights but were essentially treaties of peace and friendship. In colonial
> French Quebec, the process was similar. Initially, the French saw Canada as
> fully occupied, and apart from establishing centers for trade with the
> inhabitants, did not expect to settle extensively themselves. In both
> regions, Indian people were viewed as self-governing nations, and there was
> no question of having them relinquish their rights to land and self-
> government. However, both regions were in fact settled. While rights were
> not extinguished, aboriginal people were pushed to the margins of society.
> Subsequently, reserves in Quebec and the Maritimes were created in a variety
> of ways, including lands set aside by the Catholic Church or lands
> purchased by the Government of Canada.
>
> For much of the rest of Canada, more clearly defined constitutional and
> legal bases for settling aboriginal claims exist. Following the conquest of
> Quebec, what is known as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King
> George III to establish a boundary between the colonies (including Canada)
> and Indian lands. The latter generally lay west of Quebec (excluding
> Rupert's Land) and the Appalachian Mountains (in what soon after became the
> United States). Whites who had settled in Indian lands were asked to leave
> (whether they did so or not is another question). On their lands, as defined
> in the Royal Proclamation, Indians should not be "molested or disturbed".
> Purchase of the lands could only be made by the Crown. If Indians wanted to
> sell their lands, they could only do so if via an assembly for the purpose.
> Only specially licenced whites could carry on trade with the Indians.
> Rupert's Land was excluded from the Royal Proclamation because it was
> already under Royal Charter held by the Hudson's Bay Company.
>
> The Royal Proclamation was reinforced in western and northern Canadian lands
> by negotiation by the 1870 Order in Council by which the Northwest
> Territories (originally the North-Western Territory, which then included the
> prairies) and Rupert's Land were admitted into Confederation. It again
> recognized aboriginal title and provided that such title could not be
> extinguished except by negotiation with the Crown. However, the precise
> legal meaning of this OIC, and what requirements and limitations it imposes
> on government in settling aboriginal claims, is a matter of some ambiguity.
>
> More recently, Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act (1982) recognizes
> two sources of Native rights. One is treaty rights, which consist of land
> ownership, harvesting, and limited environmental and wildlife management
> rights. It should be noted that Metis and non-status Indians are included as
> native people in the Constitution Act along with Indians and Inuit.
>
> While recognition of aboriginal rights has a long history in Canada, it is
> only recently that government dealings with these rights has been a process
> which might be termed "reasonable" or "fair and equitable". Initial rounds
> of treaty making in Ontario in the 1820s were essentially land grabs.
> Reserves granted to Indians at the time were small because they were viewed
> as being places of transition into assimilation. The "numbered treaties"
> which were signed with Indian people in western Canada beginning in
> approximately 1870 were negotiated with a people who had no options but
> acceptance of the government's terms. Their numbers had declined, the
> buffalo herds were vanishing, and their way of life had effectively ended.
> Again, assimilation was felt to be but a matter of time.
>
> The event which turned matters around and led to a more just process was the
> Calder Case, 1973, in which the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with a case
> involving the Nishga of northern British Columbia, officially recognized
> "aboriginal title" to lands. This was further affirmed by a series of legal
> judgements: a restraining order granted to the Northwest Territories Indian
> Brotherhood which temporarily froze the development of lands in the
> Mackenzie Valley; an injunction granted to Native people in Quebec which
> briefly halted the construction of the James Bay hydro project; and a
> judgement on aboriginal land rights in a case dealing with uranium mining in
> the vicinity of Baker Lake. It was underscored by the report of the
> Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, which not only emphasised the validity of
> native title but insisted that no major development take place in the
> western Arctic until native land claims had been settled.
>
> So, as you can see from this brief review, it is not a question of feeling
> an obligation to souls long departed, but of having a continuing and binding
> obligation to their descendants who are still among us, and who have
> produced shrewd politicians, negotiators and lawyers, and are willing to
> drive us to the wall in the hope of getting what they know is theirs.
>
> Ed Weick
>
>
>
