1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

First Nations Politics

Discussion in 'News' started by RumPuncher, Jul 29, 2005.

  1. RumPuncher

    RumPuncher 12oz Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,500

    First Nations Politics

    Discussion started by RumPuncher - Jul 29, 2005

    Recently there's been a few Native issues that have been in the news:

    currently in Canada
    • In two unanimous decisions, Canada's highest court ruled that commercial
      logging is not the logical evolution of a traditional Mi'kmaq trading activity.

      Two native men from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had argued that
      treaties their ancestors signed with Britain in 1760 and 1761 gave them
      the right to commercially log trees on Crown land without permission.

      But the judges said the two natives did not prove aboriginal title to the lands they logged. source
    and currently in the USA
    • The Shinnecock Indian Tribe of eastern Long Island, which
      historically has lived in poverty next to the summer mansions of New
      York's super-rich and famous, recently filed suit for 3,500 acres allegedly
      stolen in what it calls the Great Dispossession of 1859. Although the fate
      of the suit is uncertain, it draws attention to a roster of serious
      grievances and one of the most dramatic juxtapositions in the
      country of mainstream wealth and Indian exploitation.

      The suit names New York state, Suffolk County, the town of
      Southampton, Long Island University, the Long Island Railroad,
      and several local developers and businesses, including two
      championship-level golf courses. It does not go after any
      individual landowners, although the tribe left open that possibility
      in a later suit. Tribal Board of Trustees Chairman Randy King told
      Indian Country Today that the tribe's lawyers were researching an
      aboriginal rights claim that could cover the entire town of Southampton. source

    Now I'm having a tough time with these issues.
    I do believe that Native peoples should have a right to live like they believe is the 'traditional way of life', but when does that time line end? With the logging example, some lumberjacks are chopping down trees on 'Crown Land' because it used to belong to their ancestors. I'm fine with that if they were doing the same volume as their ancestors. I'm sure when the treaty was signed, chainsaws and flatbed trucks were not part of the picture. If someone discovered diamonds on crown (public) land, could a native tribe make a claim that the diamonds belong to them even though their ancestors had no way to get diamonds out of the ground? At what point does a land treaty become negated by history?

    Take the second news article as a point of reference. A Native tribe is claiming that the entire town of Southampton was built on land belonging to them. Well now some of the houses there can sell for $200million, so should those houses, built in the past 100 years be transfered to the original owners of the land? The thing that actually gets me kind of mad about this issue is that there's talk about building a casino if the case is decided in favor of the first nations. Do we really need another casino? Is there no concern for gambling addiction and cycle of poverty that casinos cause? Was the term 'casino' ever listed in the treaties or does that fall under the header of 'self-rule'?

    So what's the crossfire take on the issue?
     
    RumPuncher - Rank: 12oz Elite Member - Messages:
    4,500
    - Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
  2. !@#$%

    !@#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    18,516

    !@#$% - Replied Jul 29, 2005

    this is a tough one
    i listen to people bitching about immigration
    and i can't help but remember that a few hundred years ago, none of this was america

    destroy all nations
     
    !@#$% - Rank: Moderator Crew - Messages:
    18,516
    - Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
  3. RumPuncher

    RumPuncher 12oz Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,500

    RumPuncher - Replied Jul 29, 2005

    I'm in a bind because I dont know what side to take.
    I agree that the First Nations were totally abused by the invaders
    but at the same time, find me a country in the world that hasn't
    at some point been invaded. In Canada the native people get
    their college education paid for, plus they dont pay sales tax on
    a lot of things. Care to ask the Hutus what the Tutsis are doing
    for them now? As much as I wish the 'fuck all nations' thing could
    work, we're not going back in time, so we need a real solution.
     
    RumPuncher - Rank: 12oz Elite Member - Messages:
    4,500
    - Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
  4. !@#$%

    !@#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    18,516

    !@#$% - Replied Jul 29, 2005

    yeah, saying fuck em all doesn't really work
    but a girl can dream
     
    !@#$% - Rank: Moderator Crew - Messages:
    18,516
    - Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
  5. RumPuncher

    RumPuncher 12oz Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,500

    RumPuncher - Replied Jul 29, 2005

    when a guy says 'fuck em all' it's a very different kind of dream.
     
    RumPuncher - Rank: 12oz Elite Member - Messages:
    4,500
    - Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
  6. SF1

    SF1 12oz Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,866

    SF1 - Replied Jul 29, 2005

    "Shinnecock"??? LOL! Is that pronounced "shiny-cock"? :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
     
    SF1 - Rank: 12oz Elite Member - Messages:
    4,866
    - Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
  7. villain

    villain 12oz Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    5,190

    villain - Replied Jul 29, 2005


    Ahhahahaa! Fun fun fun....
     
    villain - Rank: 12oz Veteran Member - Messages:
    5,190
    - Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
  8. KaBar2

    KaBar2 12oz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,118

    KaBar2 - Replied Jul 30, 2005

    I think the solution is for Native Americans to stay in school, avoid drinking alcohol to excess and taking drugs, go to college and become educated people and get to work like the rest of the citizens of the nations where they reside. If they want to live on the reservation in a bark lodge or a tepee, be my guest. Society doesn't guarantee them the right to live a modern, middle-class existance at the expense of the rest of society.

    Native Americans are just as capable of becoming educated and living a normal American life as anybody else. We do not owe them a living. So, their ancestors lived here before the Europeans came, big deal. That was then. This is now. "Get to work, or be hungry." And no, they cannot cut down the public forests for their own personal gain. Why should anyone have to tell them this?

    The attitude of "entitlement" and "the world owes me a living" is just very difficult to understand.

    Once in Arizona, I was driving with some friends through a National Forest in December, and we saw a big fire. We zoomed to a Ranger Station up ahead (it was like a big fire station, with trucks, etc.) to report it. The Rangers said, "Oh, don't worry about it, that's just the Indians, burning the forest to keep warm." We were like "WHAT?"
    "Yeah, they get drunk, and it's cold, so they set the woods on fire to get warm. They do it all the time. Don't worry about it, we'll go down there and get them, put the fire out, and bring them back up here to sleep in the firetruck garage."

    My stunned reaction was "WHAT THE FUCK? They do it all the time? Why aren't they in prison? If I did that, I'd go to prison!"

    "Ah, you know--they're Indians, they do shit like this all the time. What do you expect?"
     
    KaBar2 - Rank: 12oz Senior Member - Messages:
    2,118
    - Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
  9. CACashRefund

    CACashRefund 12oz Loyalist

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Messages:
    14,171

    CACashRefund - Replied Jul 30, 2005

    Well its that mentality that natives have that you guys fucked us over a while ago you owe us. I feel that for some it genuinely is for the principal of the matter, but for alot of indians its purely for material gain.
     
    CACashRefund - Rank: 12oz Loyalist - Messages:
    14,171
    - Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
  10. villain

    villain 12oz Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    5,190

    villain - Replied Jul 30, 2005


    It's hard to imagine anyone saying anything worse than talking about genocide like this.

    Well if the natives didn't live in abject poverty and weren't driven out to barren wastelands they probably wouldn't have to resort to such extreme measures to get warm.

    This has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard you say.
     
    villain - Rank: 12oz Veteran Member - Messages:
    5,190
    - Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
  11. Krakatau

    Krakatau 12oz Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    549

    Krakatau - Replied Jul 30, 2005

    You're honestly going to make that arguement on the behalf of those guys? They were starting random forest fires. Kabar's reaction is pretty fucking understandable. Judging from the 'they get drunk and it's cold' comment, I would assume this isn't some shit where the tribe gathers and ceremonially burns the woods. This sounds more like some guys getting shit faced and getting ignorant. Oh, and they happen to be natives.
     
    Krakatau - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    549
    - Joined:
    May 5, 2005
  12. effyoo

    effyoo 12oz Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    4,703

    effyoo - Replied Jul 30, 2005

    I come from Alberta. Oil lands and oil sands have been the subject of discussion for as long as i can remember.

    There is a reserve less than 20 minutes drive from where i grew up where there happened to be a huge deposit of oil.
    So the agreement that the reserve signed with the oil company is that every kid that grows up on the reserve gets a lump sum of $100 000 when they turn 18 with ongoing payments for life. plus they get the free college and no sales tax bonus too.

    is this fair over a hundred years after the fact? contracts are contracts, right? i can get with that. but how are you going to just be like, "Yo, my ancestors, who I may or may not have any connection to, are making a claim to this land!" and try to take over things?
     
    effyoo - Rank: 12oz Elite Member - Messages:
    4,703
    - Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
  13. villain

    villain 12oz Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    5,190

    villain - Replied Jul 30, 2005


    Obviously you aren't aware that alcoholism is a disease the white man gave them. Go live on a reservation in Arizona then see if you can complain about how they are.
     
    villain - Rank: 12oz Veteran Member - Messages:
    5,190
    - Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
  14. SF1

    SF1 12oz Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,866

    SF1 - Replied Jul 31, 2005


    Jeolous?

    You're like the nerdy kid that narked out the party kids cause subconsciously you were just mad that they were getting away with being free and you weren't. :haha: :haha:
     
    SF1 - Rank: 12oz Elite Member - Messages:
    4,866
    - Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
  15. Dick Quickwood

    Dick Quickwood 12oz Loyalist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    14,783

    Dick Quickwood - Replied Jul 31, 2005

    the europeans were able to wipe out the native americans because they had superior weapons. the main thing they used to justify it was christianity.
     
    Dick Quickwood - Rank: 12oz Loyalist - Messages:
    14,783
    - Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002