Toxic Multiculturalism

[Barrister]

I agree.  People consider themselves Native or not depending on how they feel, not on what a gov't issued ID card says.  But there are benefits to status, so people try to get it if entitled.

And up here it can be quite tricky to try and guess someone's ancestry.  I know some very light-skinned people with status...

[grumbler]

And up here it can be quite tricky to try and guess someone's ancestry.  I know some very light-skinned people with status...

That's always been the case when one talks about "races" or "tribes."  Nothing is as pure as the law or tradition says it should be.

One solution, of course, is to just make everyone eligible.  The problem with that, of course, is that it causes the very people arguing for inclusiveness to start arguing against it, and we couldn't have that! 

[Barrister]

There's an interesting debate going on in Ontario.  One Mohawk reserve is taking steps to kick out any non-status person living on the reserve, whether they are married to someone with status or not.  They are also drawing a line at 1/8th Mohawk blood (might be 1/4 or 1/16th).  These are not rules from the Indian Act, but they argue they need to do so to preserve their culture.

[Grallon]

There's an interesting debate going on in Ontario.  One Mohawk reserve is taking steps to kick out any non-status person living on the reserve, whether they are married to someone with status or not.  They are also drawing a line at 1/8th Mohawk blood (might be 1/4 or 1/16th).  These are not rules from the Indian Act, but they argue they need to do so to preserve their culture.

The same thing is happening here in Kanawage.  Imagine discrimination based on racial requirements at our doorstep and you hypocrits cry foul only when Quebec is trying to impose some order among immigrants - in fact you call that 'racist - xenophobic - blah blah blah'.

But let not this distract you all from your satisfied posturing and your smug back patting. 

-----

As for the so called 'natives' or 'first nations' - as if the tribes who existed here before our arrival were nations in the sense we usually define that word - and as if their descendants had anything left of their culture - forever infantilized that they are by the federal state's policies - the best thing that could be done to them/for them is to dissolve the reservations and treat them like normal citizens.  No more dole money - no more tax exemptions either.




G.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I'll ask a vaguely related to the bulk of the thread question though... Beeb & CC what's the legal angle( as in: do people want to get status to be more in touch with their ancestry and culture, or is it a tax loophole on this expansion?) of who gets first nations status? The news bits I've seen have just confused me. I thought the people they are now including had already been able to get status. It seems pretty harsh that they didn't.

I think that poeple want to become a status "Indian" so that they can obtain the financial benefits under the Act.  Most first nations people I know would never suggest that their culture flows from recognition under the Act.

The expansion of status Indians comes from the fact that the definition in the Act excludes the children of status Women who marry non status men - but not the reverse.  The problem is being fixed.  On its face a laudable thing to do but may well trap future generations in welfare dependancy if you accept that the Act is one of the core problems facing First Nations.

No one knows what the cost of this expansion will be since no one actually knows how many people will gain status because of this move.

Defining status turns out to be a very tricky thing since a lot of people you would probably consider to be "
caucasion" can trace some native blood in their family tree.

thanks cc, that's kinda what I suspected from my quick gleaning of the issue from the newspaper.

[Barrister]

and as if their descendants had anything left of their culture

They certainly do.   

Many speak their traditional language, get a significant portion of their sustenance as 'country food', continue various native traditions such as carving, dancing, and other activities.  If there wasn't a small % of local FNs that hate me because I've put away family I'd love to attend a stick gambling festival.  I once, briefly, visited Treaty Days at a reserve in Manitoba where there was a hell of a lot of FN culture going on.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

There's an interesting debate going on in Ontario.  One Mohawk reserve is taking steps to kick out any non-status person living on the reserve, whether they are married to someone with status or not.  They are also drawing a line at 1/8th Mohawk blood (might be 1/4 or 1/16th).  These are not rules from the Indian Act, but they argue they need to do so to preserve their culture.

The same thing is happening here in Kanawage.  Imagine discrimination based on racial requirements at our doorstep and you hypocrits cry foul only when Quebec is trying to impose some order among immigrants - in fact you call that 'racist - xenophobic - blah blah blah'.

But let not this distract you all from your satisfied posturing and your smug back patting. 

-----

As for the so called 'natives' or 'first nations' - as if the tribes who existed here before our arrival were nations in the sense we usually define that word - and as if their descendants had anything left of their culture - forever infantilized that they are by the federal state's policies - the best thing that could be done to them/for them is to dissolve the reservations and treat them like normal citizens.  No more dole money - no more tax exemptions either.




G.

are all your men of the straw variety? doesn't it get caught in your teeth? :p

By the logic you are using here G. the same argument you are making for the Natives could be made for Quebec. Assimilate to the majority of Canada, stop getting more money in Fed. handouts from Ottawa than the rest of Canada... blah blah.. pisses you off doesn't it. Now you know how natives feel when you speak about them out of your ass.

I think the fact that we all have the freedom to seriously, or unseriously debate about these issues in Canada is a very positive thing. We could be in China where minority cultures still get put down for being uppity.

[MadImmortalMan]

There's a Mohawk reserve in Canada? Huh. I thought they were from the Albany area.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

There's a Mohawk reserve in Canada? Huh. I thought they were from the Albany area.

It was a big Nation back in tha day. 49th parallel be damned.

[Neil]

The question is:  Is FN culture worth enough that we shouldn't annihilate it, as our forefathers intended?

[Jacob]

I think that poeple want to become a status "Indian" so that they can obtain the financial benefits under the Act.  Most first nations people I know would never suggest that their culture flows from recognition under the Act.

Not always, I don't think.  I have a friend who got his status a few years back, and as far as I could tell it was all about identity and host of family and community issues.

[Sophie Scholl]

There's a Mohawk reserve in Canada? Huh. I thought they were from the Albany area.

Being the Easternmost tribe of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) people, they were the most entangled with Europeans/colonists and displaced even prior to the Revolution.  There were already fairly large settlements of Mohawks in modern Canada and Northern New York when war broke out.  The vast, vast majority of Mohawks backed the British under such leaders as Joseph Brant, and as such evacuated the rebel controlled lands they still had left near Albany (i.e. Canadaigua, Johnstown, etc.).  They fled to Fort Niagara near modern Buffalo, NY and straight north to join their already removed relations.  Following the war the vast majority continued to live in or near Canada, settling such communities as Wayne Gretzky's hometown of Brantford (Brant's Ford) in what was known as the Halimand Tract.

[Malthus]

I'll ask a vaguely related to the bulk of the thread question though... Beeb & CC what's the legal angle( as in: do people want to get status to be more in touch with their ancestry and culture, or is it a tax loophole on this expansion?) of who gets first nations status? The news bits I've seen have just confused me. I thought the people they are now including had already been able to get status. It seems pretty harsh that they didn't.

I think that poeple want to become a status "Indian" so that they can obtain the financial benefits under the Act.  Most first nations people I know would never suggest that their culture flows from recognition under the Act.

The expansion of status Indians comes from the fact that the definition in the Act excludes the children of status Women who marry non status men - but not the reverse.  The problem is being fixed.  On its face a laudable thing to do but may well trap future generations in welfare dependancy if you accept that the Act is one of the core problems facing First Nations.

No one knows what the cost of this expansion will be since no one actually knows how many people will gain status because of this move.

Defining status turns out to be a very tricky thing since a lot of people you would probably consider to be "
caucasion" can trace some native blood in their family tree.

The problem of benefits in a nutshell: no-one (or very few) will ever say no to free federal cash, if they can get it; but unless that entitlement is carefully targeted as a security system only, it tends to act as a dependance trap - no-one would willingly choose to live off benefits if they had other choices, and the provision of benefits can incentivise choices which are clearly long-term bad for individuals.

Linking financial benefits to specific, government-approved behaviour, and linking that to "racial" status, is (simply put) a bad idea. A practical example (again, no doubt done with the best of intentions) is the treatment of taxation. Status Indians pay no taxes if they live on a Reserve.

MUST REGISTERED INDIANS PAY TAXES?

It depends. There are some situations in which Registered Indians do not pay taxes. Under sections 87 and 90 of the Indian Act, Registered Indians do not pay federal or provincial taxes on their personal and real property that is on a reserve. Personal property includes goods, services and income consistent with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) policies.

* In this document, when the term "First Nation" is used in the context of the Indian Act, it refers to an Indian Act band.

Since income is personal property, as a Registered (or entitled-to-be-registered) Indian, you may also be exempt from paying income tax on income earned on a reserve. For example, Registered Indians who work on a reserve do not pay federal or provincial taxes on their employment income. See the CCRA's June 1994 guidelines of "Indian Exemption on Employment Income."

Registered Indians do not pay federal or provincial sales taxes on personal and real property on a reserve. The federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) does not apply to on-reserve goods or to those goods acquired by a Registered Indian off-reserve, if the goods are delivered to a reserve by the vendor or the vendor's agent. Most provincial sales taxes are applied in a similar fashion. Special provincial rules may apply to items such as automobiles and alcohol. For example, in some provinces, an automobile must be registered to a reserve address to be tax exempt. For more information, contact the relevant provincial tax authorities.

A pamphlet outlining how federal GST affects sales and purchases by Registered Indians is available from all CCRA offices.

Source: http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=1714#werb

Note that tax benefits are not the only benefits that are only available if you stay put on your reserve.

Now obviously those who are already status Indians living on a reserve are not going to want to lose their tax-exempt status and other benefits. Who in their right minds *wants* to pay taxes and who will say no to free money? Not me!

But equally obviously, this policy is likely to "incentivise" those Indians to remain in what amounts to ghettos, often filled with poverty, crime, substance abuse, etc.

In short, counter-intuitive as it may seem, they would have been better off without the tax and other breaks, as they act as a force tying them to a particular spot - regardless of economic and other advantages which may be available elsewhere. Move to better yourself, and you lose the benefits. Naturally, some of the most ambitious will say to themselves "the hell with the benefits" and move anyway; these are however the very folks whom you would want to stay, to fix their communities.

It is as if you told American Blacks that, if they could in a way satifactory to the government, "prove" that they were really "Black", they were exempt from tax and got all sorts of governmet perks - but only as long as they lived in Detroit. Is it any great surprise the system isn't working well?

[crazy canuck]

I think that poeple want to become a status "Indian" so that they can obtain the financial benefits under the Act.  Most first nations people I know would never suggest that their culture flows from recognition under the Act.

Not always, I don't think.  I have a friend who got his status a few years back, and as far as I could tell it was all about identity and host of family and community issues.

What identity did becoming status under that Act give him?

[Siege]

You'd think there might be some sort of middle ground that could be reached on these kinds of issues. But that's not how things are done on the internets.

The burkha issue is a complex one and not entirely straightforward to resolve.  It involves questions about coercion and true consent and about the balancing different values within the public sphere.

However when one side advances the "moon god death cult slave collar bitch" argument, it kind of pushes one to the opposite side of the discussion.

Really? I guess it doesn't work on me.