‘Land Back’ is more than a slogan for a resurgent Indigenous movement

[IronNoggin]

Dangerous Developments...

Instead of negotiating land surrenders in exchange for one-off payments and promises, this movement aims to put unceded land back under Indigenous control

Land Back.

Those two words lay out with stark clarity the goal of centuries of Indigenous struggle. The Land Back movement comes up from the most grassroots land defenders across the country, who now see their local battles as part of a larger mobilization to reassert Indigenous control over their traditional territories.

These conflicts, difficult as they are, are actually signs of progress toward Mr. Manuel’s vision of true reconciliation, grounded in the return of land. The new Land Back and Shut Down Canada militancy is not only shaping the Canadian government’s responses to specific conflicts, it is putting increased pressure on the entire Indian Act paradigm.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...nous-movement/

[IronNoggin]

Their call to arms for actions beginning next week:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1329158269848477697

[Nayr]

Originally Posted by IronNoggin

Their call for action beginning next week:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1329158269848477697

Fixed it for you, there’s no mention of call to arms, not sure where you got that.

[IronNoggin]

Originally Posted by Nayr

Fixed it for you, there’s no mention of call to arms, not sure where you got that.

When they refer to any non-FN's as "Invaders", when (in the Globe article) they intentionally show photos of blockades and bonfires with the underlying message that is their way "forward" I don't see it as anything else.

Nog

[Nayr]

Protest and blockades are a lot different than a call to arms, they are wrong about invaders though, wasn’t an invasion, more like exploring and living together on the same land. FN people didn’t ask them to leave when they showed up as far as I know, wasn’t there.

[IronNoggin]

Originally Posted by Nayr

Protest and blockades are a lot different than a call to arms.

Given the fairly recent behavior patterns of this same group, I beg to differ.

Nog

[walking buffalo]

The Colonist "Invaders" are planning on bringing in 1.2 Million new people to these Traditional Lands over the next three years.

And yet FN Leaders won't say a thing publicly regarding Canada's Immigration plans....

If FNs want to play hardball negotiations, demand answers to hard questions.

Where do FNs stand on new Immigration to Canada?

[EZM]

Here's a philosophical question ......... and I want to make it clear this is not meant to incite racist, ignorant or insensitive comments ( I do not support bigotry and racism) .... BUT .......

What would the world look like is every single "conquered nation" all of a sudden decided, despite losing it's land/territory, that the "right thing to do" is return it to them?

At some point, and without prejudice, you have to be thankful, that you, as a conquered nation, were not exterminated, as many conquerors have done in other "invasions" where territory and governance changed hands.

And to be clear this was an invasion and they were conquered - and that comes in all forms from swords and arrows, to bullets, to treaties and peace accords ..... ultimately - the distinction is small. The outcome to the "conquered people" is what ends up differently.

And, once again, this is simply a philosophy statement that can be applied to cultures, nations, black, white, native alike.

[Wolftrapper]

Originally Posted by IronNoggin

Given the fairly recent behavior patterns of this same group, I beg to differ.

Nog

I agree. The younger generation especially, from what I hear and see, is getting very tired of it. I don't think they will put up with it forever.

[KinAlberta]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The Colonist "Invaders" are planning on bringing in 1.2 Million new people to these Traditional Lands over the next three years.

And yet FN Leaders won't say a thing publicly regarding Canada's Immigration plans....

If FNs want to play hardball negotiations, demand answers to hard questions.

Where do FNs stand on new Immigration to Canada?

I think this is a fascinating issue. If we wanted to right some old wrongs, it wouldn't be by further diminishing the relative numbers of FN peoples. Also adding further population, environmental and resource pressures just sets the stage for more conflict over un-ceded lands. Not really sure what benefits more “colonizers” will bring for FN. I suppose its another balancing act.



A book that should be required reading:

Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Aboriginal Life by James Daschuk

Johnny D

I was infuriated by this book.

Infuriated that I managed to make my way all the way through an honours history degree in Canada and still only have a tentative idea of the extent of ...”

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...ing-the-plains

[sk270]

Originally Posted by EZM

Here's a philosophical question.

What would the world look like is every single "conquered nation" all of a sudden decided, despite losing it's land/territory, that the "right thing to do" is return it to them?

And, once again, this is simply a philosophy statement that can be applied to cultures, nations, black, white, native alike.

I've thought about this very question. I have different answers depending on which of the stories about my ancestry is most believable or desirable. If we go back to the 10th Century, or so, I think I deserve, on the basis of the area per person at that time, a large piece of land in the north of England.

There were not very many of us living there at that time. Since then we have been invaded (check out 1066) and suffered from a lot of immigration. Get those other settlers and come-latelies out of there so I can reclaim my ancestral territory. I'll decide which of the late-comers can stay to maintain the livability of my estate.

Tongue-in-cheek of course but in Canada we need to work through the rule of law without provocative comments about stolen land and so on.

[KinAlberta]

Originally Posted by sk270

I've thought about this very question. I have different answers depending on which of the stories about my ancestry is most believable or desirable. If we go back to the 10th Century, or so, I think I deserve, on the basis of the area per person at that time, a large piece of land in the north of England.

There were not very many of us living there at that time. Since then we have been invaded (check out 1066) and suffered from a lot of immigration. Get those other settlers and come-latelies out of there so I can reclaim my ancestral territory. I'll decide which of the late-comers can stay to maintain the livability of my estate.

Tongue-in-cheek of course but in Canada we need to work through the rule of law without provocative comments about stolen land and so on.

A whole lot of Canadians’ ancestors were essentially refugees - before they were called refugees. Scots, Irish, Ukrainians...

The crown pretty much asked FN chiefs to relocate to reserves while still sharing the land. Then the crown sold it off. (Some parallels with the states where cattle ranchers were ruined by farmers fencing off the land.)

[ESOXangler]

Canadian society needs to do alot better when it comes to recognizing and helping repair the damages the church and government inflicted with residential schools and the reservation system. Cultural genocide is no joke and its our social responsibility to help slowly repair this. This i firmly believe.

As for returning the land. I have to call BS. For one thing land ownership is a European concept so they would accepting European culture under a guise of sovereignty. Also how can most first nations truly declare their territory pre-columbus? We know for a fact that both horses and the fur trade fundamentally changed the landscape before settlers arrived. Technically NA was covered by many nations, not one but without a land ownership system.

We as Canadians regardless of race or creed need to help the first nations but we cannot just go and flip society over. We need to work together to make something better. Because whether either party likes it or not we are stuck together!

This is atleast how I understand it.

[Sundancefisher]

Canada is unique in that FN for the most part in canada were not conquered or beaten but rather agreed to live together via treaties as some smart leaders realized it would be a war should a peaceful way to co-exist

So then the relationship between Canada and FN is contractual.

One could ask both sides is the contractual agreement working? Most of us can’t truly speak to the FN viewpoint.

Then you look at the FN to Canadian government relationships.

They tried starving reserves
They tried introducing disease
They banned members from traveling off reserve without permission
They prevented trade by FN
They put FN on reserves with the worst land for agriculture
They confiscated some lands when they wished
They took children away at a young age
Arguably we can say today that crime against FN women such as serial murders were ignored
Some FN still have no treaty signed.

Poverty is harsh
Remoteness is troubling
Peer pressure to not become “white” is crippling
Substance abuse is rampant
Crime is rampant
Respect for reserve property appears negligible because it can be taken away as fast as the chief can get replaced
The chief and council often operates with high pay and little oversight
Many places have poor water and some have poor access
There are very few jobs in some areas.
Now the confusion between hereditary and elected leaders.

There have been some successes. Some FN / business partnerships is Oil and gas. Saskatchewan settling many reserve claims and allowing land Selection in cities and towns including businesses.
Cooperation on issues such as Covid.

Yes there are opportunities however none of us know the various hurdles.

If I could I would offer my services as a professional negotiator for free to Canada’s FN circle.

I would ask...what specifically do you want to move into the next successful phase of relationship between nations. Then work with them to rank in priority.

Then approach Canada for a new reconciliation deal that is a win/win for FN and Canada.

There is an answer

I just don’t think the communication is there.

What remains fact is I can’t walk in their shoes as I live in a different world. That would take a big learning step. Also to understand the issues in itself remains a continual learning journey.

[Mb-MBR]

I like this approach, just look for some "Sugar Settlers"......LOL


https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/c...back-1.5810779

[hilt134]

The article is quite naturally biased to the extreme. My big issue is this idea that land given back is somehow healed. I know a fair few first nations being not far from the Morley reserve. They are pretty well the exact same as the rest of us. Some of them are environmental nutcases. Some of them throw litter out of their cars and there's all cases in between. I find it wild that a news outlet can with good conscience tell me that they all pretty well think as one unit.

I would be extremely interested to hear what the reaction is from diffrent immigrant groups. They are a group of people you would have a hard time pinning as land takers. But they would also suffer from blockades and other nuisance acts.

[sjr]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The Colonist "Invaders" are planning on bringing in 1.2 Million new people to these Traditional Lands over the next three years.

And yet FN Leaders won't say a thing publicly regarding Canada's Immigration plans....

If FNs want to play hardball negotiations, demand answers to hard questions.

Where do FNs stand on new Immigration to Canada?

Bingo

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by hilt134

The article is quite naturally biased to the extreme. My big issue is this idea that land given back is somehow healed. I know a fair few first nations being not far from the Morley reserve. They are pretty well the exact same as the rest of us. Some of them are environmental nutcases. Some of them throw litter out of their cars and there's all cases in between. I find it wild that a news outlet can with good conscience tell me that they all pretty well think as one unit.

I would be extremely interested to hear what the reaction is from diffrent immigrant groups. They are a group of people you would have a hard time pinning as land takers. But they would also suffer from blockades and other nuisance acts.

look who wrote it and itll tell you all you need to know about why its biased.

[amosfella]

There's a concept I found in law called 'innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration'. As I understand it, it means that if you have bought something and had done reasonable due diligence to make sure that the person who is selling it has the right to sell said something, you are not liable if you later find out that that someone didn't have the authority of title to sell that something. (an interesting example recently on the forum is SNS's daughter buying a car that didn't have a correct title)

The person who had the correct title cannot sue you for the property back, damages, etc. The person that had the correct title has to sue the person the sold or transferred that something who didn't have the right to the property for damages, replacement, breech of trust, etc.

So, an entity masquerading as a government of a 'country' called 'Canada' told people far and wide that said government had title to gift land to them if they came and settled the land, worked it, improved it, built a house on it, etc. In exchange for doing that, and ten dollars, said 'settler' would be gifted an absolute title for a half square mile piece of land. So, the people came, and fulfilled the requirements to receive that gift in good faith thinking that the 'government' had all the rights to do what they promised.

The natives that were here previously were conquered on paper without a shot really being fired. But, they cannot go after the 'settlers' for the land. They can only go after the 'government' or the estates of the agents thereof that negotiated the land treaties for the damages.

However, those that did the natives dirty came up with a clever solution. Get the individuals who had nothing to do with taking the land, and thought they were getting land with good title to say that they stole the land in a public notice, and to make it trendy. Then those that did the wrong would get off scott free with the fortunes they made from the 'stolen' land intact, and those who really did no wrong, and in good faith came to live there, get to pay due to them waiving their right to being protected as an innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration.

Public notice is a very powerful legal tool. But it can be a double edged sword as well. It can protect you, or you can use it badly for your cause, and stab yourself in the nuts with it.

However, other than the current owners refusing to sell, there's nothing preventing the natives from buying the land back. If you watch the TV show 'Yellowstone', there's a whole thread going through that show about this issue.

This is how I understand the events going on around me anyways.

[liar]

Originally Posted by EZM

Here's a philosophical question ......... and I want to make it clear this is not meant to incite racist, ignorant or insensitive comments ( I do not support bigotry and racism) .... BUT .......

What would the world look like is every single "conquered nation" all of a sudden decided, despite losing it's land/territory, that the "right thing to do" is return it to them?

At some point, and without prejudice, you have to be thankful, that you, as a conquered nation, were not exterminated, as many conquerors have done in other "invasions" where territory and governance changed hands.

And to be clear this was an invasion and they were conquered - and that comes in all forms from swords and arrows, to bullets, to treaties and peace accords ..... ultimately - the distinction is small. The outcome to the "conquered people" is what ends up differently.

And, once again, this is simply a philosophy statement that can be applied to cultures, nations, black, white, native alike.

The question becomes " how far back do we go ?" 100 years ? 500 years ? 1000 years ?

[sk270]

Am I correct that any further discussion of this topic must go into the "Politics" super thread?

Thank you.

[Big Grey Wolf]

"It is their fault for being on our land before we got here"

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The Colonist "Invaders" are planning on bringing in 1.2 Million new people to these Traditional Lands over the next three years.

And yet FN Leaders won't say a thing publicly regarding Canada's Immigration plans....

If FNs want to play hardball negotiations, demand answers to hard questions.

Where do FNs stand on new Immigration to Canada?

Good point - years ago I started saying that, with the rate of immigration in this country, there will soon come a point where a huge segment of the population in Canada will not feel any burden of responsibility towards our First Nations.

[Jims83cj5]

Originally Posted by EZM

Here's a philosophical question ......... and I want to make it clear this is not meant to incite racist, ignorant or insensitive comments ( I do not support bigotry and racism) .... BUT .......

What would the world look like is every single "conquered nation" all of a sudden decided, despite losing it's land/territory, that the "right thing to do" is return it to them?

At some point, and without prejudice, you have to be thankful, that you, as a conquered nation, were not exterminated, as many conquerors have done in other "invasions" where territory and governance changed hands.

And to be clear this was an invasion and they were conquered - and that comes in all forms from swords and arrows, to bullets, to treaties and peace accords ..... ultimately - the distinction is small. The outcome to the "conquered people" is what ends up differently.

And, once again, this is simply a philosophy statement that can be applied to cultures, nations, black, white, native alike.

To be clear, every time you use the word “but” it erases everything that was said before it

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

Good point - years ago I started saying that, with the rate of immigration in this country, there will soon come a point where a huge segment of the population in Canada will not feel any burden of responsibility towards our First Nations.

While your point is real.

What I'm getting at is the hypocrisy that would be revealed in relation to self serving interests.

FNs efforts to renew "the deal" currently enjoy significant support from the NDP and Liberals, the UN, and Many global organizations and social justice warriors.


How will it look if FNs leadership openly admit that they desire to stop immigration, that people of a different race are not welcome and will not be treated equally?

British Columbia is currently in upheaval with new FN land agreements, all excluding non Indigenous Canadians from the Land and Mother Nature's bounty.

Facts are most Canadian FNs land disputes have a core element where FNs are claiming special racial rights and ultimate control over all others use of the land. There is no denying it, so Mum is the word.

How would the Liberals and NDP handle a declaration by FNs to oppose their immigration policy?

I can hear the snowflakes shrieking in confliction.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Yes, that would be quite the conundrum.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Jims83cj5

To be clear, every time you use the word “but” it erases everything that was said before it

Disagree - it sounds like you believe my perspective to be disingenuous. Is that what you are saying?

If the transitional word "BUT" is too difficult to accept and contextually comprehend, as I intended, and without some implication, perhaps replace it with "on the other hand" ….. "however" ……….."considering" or something else - maybe that can allow you to be at peace with my perspective.

I can assure you these is no underhanded intention, implication or motivation in what I said. None whatsoever.

Not sure I understand why you would have posted that to be honest with you.

[Jims83cj5]

Originally Posted by EZM

Disagree - it sounds like you believe my perspective to be disingenuous. Is that what you are saying?

If the transitional word "BUT" is too difficult to accept and contextually comprehend, as I intended, and without some implication, perhaps replace it with "on the other hand" ….. "however" ……….."considering" or something else - maybe that can allow you to be at peace with my perspective.

I can assure you these is no underhanded intention, implication or motivation in what I said. None whatsoever.

Not sure I understand why you would have posted that to be honest with you.

My wife doesn’t believe my views on that word either

[elkhunter11]

The bottom line, is that this will never end, no matter how much the government gives, they will spend what they are given, and then will come back asking for more. And if they are given actual land, they will sell it and spend the money, and then come back for more. It's a never ending cycle.

And perhaps historians should research every piece of land in the world, and look at how much has been conquered, or sold, or that changed hands as the result of a treaty. The UN countries should start by compensating everyone that their people took land from throughout history, before concerning themselves with Canada.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Jims83cj5

My wife doesn’t believe my views on that word either

Maybe you should listen to your wife