UN official: US must return control of sacred lands to Native Americans

[Barrister]

Look again:

(2) Subject to section 7, a person is entitled to be registered if that person is a person one of whose parents is or, if no longer living, was at the time of death entitled to be registered under subsection (1).

You have status if one of your parents have status.

[Jacob]

I'm happy to concede that there are all sorts of problems - theoretical, potential and real - related to the system of having "status" and "non-status" Natives and how such status is determined.

I don't see how that relates to the assertion that Native culture is "broken" and the best way to fix it is to assimilate them.

Nor do I see how the problems arising from status vs non-status is anywhere near the top of the list of priorities facing the various First Nations.

I do, however, see that one solution to those offended by distinction between "status" and "non-status" is the removal of status and assimilation, but I'm not sure how that's necessarily in the interest of the First Nations, nor of how you'd implement such a change except as a unilateral imposition contravening previous agreements.

[Malthus]

Look again:

(2) Subject to section 7, a person is entitled to be registered if that person is a person one of whose parents is or, if no longer living, was at the time of death entitled to be registered under subsection (1).

You have status if one of your parents have status.

*Sigh*

You have status if you meet either the 6(1) criteria or the 6(2) criteria.

However, if a person who meets the 6(2) criteria themselves has a child with a non-status person, they (thaty is, the child) do not have status.

A person who meets the 6(2) criteria (that is, has one parent who meets the 6(1) criteria) cannot, by themselves, pass that status on to their child.

In order to have 6(1) status, you have to either have two parents who are status indians, or otherwise meet the 6(1) criteria. Hence paragraph 6(1)(f) states as follows:

(f) that person is a person both of whose parents are or, if no longer living, were at the time of death entitled to be registered under this section.

[emphasis added]

Contrast with 6(2), which states as follows:

(2) Subject to section 7, a person is entitled to be registered if that person is a person one of whose parents is or, if no longer living, was at the time of death entitled to be registered under subsection (1).

[Emphasis added]

Hence the article I posted above, which I assume you didn't read, which said as follows:

Bill C-31 was passed in response to a formal censure by the United Nations, which decried the old law's practice of discriminating against Indian women: Women lost their status when they married a non-status person. Men did not.

But instead of opening the doors to the non-status partners of aboriginal women – a move that would have hugely increased Ottawa's financial obligations – the amendments ensured that men and women suffered equal losses.

The new law extended Indian status and its accompanying rights, benefits and services – such as tax immunity, health benefits and reserve housing – to just one more generation by creating two classes of "status Indians": the 6(1) Indian who has two status parents, and the 6(2), who was born in a union of a status person with a non-status person. If a 6(2) marries a non-status spouse, their children are deemed to be non-status.

[Emphasis added]

It's a matter of reading the statute, which admittedly isn't exactly clear to the untrained eye. No doubt many natives are as confused as you are. 

[Malthus]

No, I object to your analysis. Primarily, I don't think you have enough exposure to the facts to conclude that Native culture is broken. I'm not claiming that I have better exposure to the facts, which is why I limit myself to acknowledging specific individual problems with the caveat that I don't have a thorough understanding.

I have enough "exposure to the facts", which after all are not really in dispute - the suicides, the crime, the drug and alcohol dependency. None of these are exactly secrets, are they?

I don't see how that's "artificial".

To use some of your patented passive-aggressive condesention, 'based on what I know of you, you're decent and intelligent fellow - I'm surprised that, not only are you not offended by a racist system of discrimination which has had the effect of keeping a whole government-defined caste in poverty and misery, but you don't even think it is "artificial" - evidently to you, racist discrimination is natural. '. 

But more seriously - this is a perfect example of good intentions gone horribly wrong. Nobody today wants to see the Indian Act as "racist discrimination" (although it is, quite literally) because the "discrimination" is intended to confer benefits on "status" indians.  Surely confirring benefits on people can't be bad for them, right? Particularly where they want those benefits, and those benefits were granted to them (well, to their ancestors) by treaty?

Well, in fact it can and it is. The reason is that it is retarding change. 

I'm not surprised that you believe that imposing outside solutions will not work based on what I know of you, you're decent and intelligent fellow. What I am surprised about is that given that you don't believe imposing outside solutions will work, you revert to proposing solutions which, in your own words, are based on an insulting and patronizing premise and which are imposed from the outside.

The "insulting and patronizing" part comes from the dialoge. It has nothing to do with an objective look at the reality.

The Indian Act is already an "imposition from the outside".

This is the first time you've mentioned any two-tiered system. Previously your assertion was that Native culture is broken and assimilation was the solution.

You are mistaking 'removing our current policies which artificially prevent assimilation by handing out benefits for those who marry and live as the government dictates' for 'I think assimilation is the solution'.

I think treating Indians legally like everyone else (perhaps whith a huge insertion of cash to prime the pump, given the sorry state many are reduced to through benign paternalism) would be at least a start to the solution. Then, they can decide on their own whether to "assimilate" or not.

You seem to have some nightmare, residency school, imposed from outside "assimilation" in mind.

[Berkut]

You seem to have some nightmare, residency school, imposed from outside "assimilation" in mind.

I think maybe this is the basic disconnect in this discussion.

Perhaps the historical baggage of "assimilation" is causing Beebs and such to assume that any use of the term now is intended to imply at some level a return to this idea of the state forcing assimilation via some ham handed means of coercion.

But that is not at all what I am talking about - indeed, I do not in any way condone the idea that the state should try to force much of anything.

[Oexmelin]

I thought even then that whatever system encouraged an authority power to engage in that kind of "incentives" was broken. Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.

This is the problem: if we treat Natives as sovereign, as deserving a sovereign government, or should we consider seriously the idea that we should build together a quasi-sovereign status, we need to come up with a different level of analogies to put them in perspective. For instance, few people would regard the kind of protection the United States affords its citizen, the legal or fiscal system it puts in place as "bribery" for inviting its citizens to remain within its borders. (i could remark that, since corporations are now people, there are now tons of bribes to allow for corporations to remain with the US border...) For better or for worse, the type of political leverage reservations have succeeded in building, basically investing what little they could, are now overwhelmingly financial in nature. Denigrating this use is good and well, but the result is removing yet another form of self-government in favour of what? Soft power? Natives should forego all means of power except for the might and appeal of their entertainment industry?

[Malthus]

You seem to have some nightmare, residency school, imposed from outside "assimilation" in mind.

I think maybe this is the basic disconnect in this discussion.

Perhaps the historical baggage of "assimilation" is causing Beebs and such to assume that any use of the term now is intended to imply at some level a return to this idea of the state forcing assimilation via some ham handed means of coercion.

But that is not at all what I am talking about - indeed, I do not in any way condone the idea that the state should try to force much of anything.

Indeed.

In point of fact, my position is that the state should do less "outside intervention", not more - the whole Indian Act setup in Canada (and I assume the US is similar) is, of course, "outside intervention".

Not that we, as a nation, don't have a responsibility to fix what we broke. It is just that I have serious doubts that it can be done by tweaking the current system of incentives, as in my opinion, the current system is part of the reason why the problem exists in the first place.

[Oexmelin]

Perhaps the historical baggage of "assimilation" is causing Beebs and such to assume that any use of the term now is intended to imply at some level a return to this idea of the state forcing assimilation via some ham handed means of coercion.

But that is not at all what I am talking about - indeed, I do not in any way condone the idea that the state should try to force much of anything.

First, it isn't like this kind of assimilationist policy is so far removed in the past that we can safely bracket it away as irrelevant.
Second, I refer you to my post above. For better or for worse, there is a multitude of Native identity, under the umbrella of generic "Native" identity, and sometimes intersecting with Canadian / US identity. For better or for worse, Native identity has been made, recognized, and maintained both by Natives themselves and by their interlocutors, as existing - for the Natives, as a matter of positive identity, for the others, as a default identity which we really should try to erase if we could (there were doubts - hence the desire to "whiten" oneself on the East coast for non-recognized groups). And, lastly, for better or for worse, Native groups were recognized as different from any other groups which might  have self-identified within the US. There were no treaties with the Amish.

Thus, any policy are bound, rightly, to be read against this backdrop. Renouncing treaties; abolishing reservations; stopping payments are all examples of the State doing something: the "free market of identity" is  therefore an aggressive  position as it would a) involve either a de facto coup de force in abolishing the institutions of native self-government, or b) start from a de facto position of widely unequal power.

[Malthus]

I thought even then that whatever system encouraged an authority power to engage in that kind of "incentives" was broken. Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.

This is the problem: if we treat Natives as sovereign, as deserving a sovereign government, or should we consider seriously the idea that we should build together a quasi-sovereign status, we need to come up with a different level of analogies to put them in perspective. For instance, few people would regard the kind of protection the United States affords its citizen, the legal or fiscal system it puts in place as "bribery" for inviting its citizens to remain within its borders. (i could remark that, since corporations are now people, there are now tons of bribes to allow for corporations to remain with the US border...) For better or for worse, the type of political leverage reservations have succeeded in building, basically investing what little they could, are now overwhelmingly financial in nature. Denigrating this use is good and well, but the result is removing yet another form of self-government in favour of what? Soft power? Natives should forego all means of power except for the might and appeal of their entertainment industry?

The current system doesn't give "power" to natives per se, but to those able to work the system - chiefs, government bureaucrats, and lawyers.

Now have nothing against the Aboriginal Bar - a nice bunch, generally very earnest (and of course impeccably middle class  ), but I have my doubts whether keeping them in gainful employment is really worth maintaining the majority of natives who live on reservations in miserable, third-world-like conditions, and keeping unchanged (in Canada at least) a system of of racial discrimination which has proven a failure on every level in terms of actually improving their condition.

[Oexmelin]

The current system doesn't give "power" to natives per se, but to those able to work the system - chiefs, government bureaucrats, and lawyers.

Perhaps (and by that I mean there are definately some problem with governance of the natives).

But by that token, this is the same for people in our society: it gives power to those capable to work the system: government bureaucrats, lawyers, politicians, business man. We do not have power per se, and I certainly do not consider the current government to represent me, or to really empower me in any way.

In other words, we are back where we started. Reservations have tons of problems, but, rightly or wrongly, it is theirs. People can already leave if they want to, yet obviously people are not always as mercenary as to cut off all ties and simply "follow the money", as PDH aleady reminded us. Some elect to live on the reservations, sometimes despite horrible conditions. I do not think the solution to governance problem is "us" telling Native people how corrupt they are and that, for their sake, we should rather dismantle whatever power they have and disperse them. Or, rather let whatever we imagine "market forces" disperse them without having to dirty our hands.

[viper37]

Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership.  There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.

Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.

http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/125335/dispatch-from-a-lost-tribe-quebec-mohawks-expel-i/

I do not know if/how that affects "indian" status though.

[viper37]

and I certainly do not consider the current government to represent me,

Really?  I always figured your for a Stephen Harper fan.  Must have mixed you with someone else.... 

[viper37]

I do not think the solution to governance problem is "us" telling Native people how corrupt they are and that, for their sake, we should rather dismantle whatever power they have and disperse them. Or, rather let whatever we imagine "market forces" disperse them without having to dirty our hands.

I agree with that.  The Native's problem is simple.  It's the solution wich is complex, and they must be involved in whatever solution we find.


On the other hand though, we will have to make the first move somehow and discuss it with them.  I'm pretty sure there are lots of Natives who are happy with the current system and don't want it changed, but there has to be some who have their own ideas that haven't reached us.  It's not like what people outside of the big cities think get reported everyday in the national media.  Wathever Claude Dubois says is far more important to the media :roll:

But I've seen a couple of op-ed piece from natives wich were interesting, as a basis to begin to understand them, if nothing else.

[Oexmelin]

On the other hand though, we will have to make the first move somehow and discuss it with them.  I'm pretty sure there are lots of Natives who are happy with the current system and don't want it changed, but there has to be some who have their own ideas that haven't reached us. 

I can assure you that many Natives are proposing all kinds of things; in some places, it goes relatively smoothly (Odanak, for instance). In some places, mired by factionalism, it is a more bumpy ride.

As to making the first move, lots of people are not patiently waiting, but proposing all sorts of very exciting things and trying them (Odanak's new Native Cegep) - but ultimately, big structural reform have to return to the Federal government, and it hasn't been a priority for many years now...

[Malthus]

The current system doesn't give "power" to natives per se, but to those able to work the system - chiefs, government bureaucrats, and lawyers.

Perhaps (and by that I mean there are definately some problem with governance of the natives).

But by that token, this is the same for people in our society: it gives power to those capable to work the system: government bureaucrats, lawyers, politicians, business man. We do not have power per se, and I certainly do not consider the current government to represent me, or to really empower me in any way.

In other words, we are back where we started. Reservations have tons of problems, but, rightly or wrongly, it is theirs. People can already leave if they want to, yet obviously people are not always as mercenary as to cut off all ties and simply "follow the money", as PDH aleady reminded us. Some elect to live on the reservations, sometimes despite horrible conditions. I do not think the solution to governance problem is "us" telling Native people how corrupt they are and that, for their sake, we should rather dismantle whatever power they have and disperse them. Or, rather let whatever we imagine "market forces" disperse them without having to dirty our hands.

The difference of course is that natives live subject to a system of legislation that does not apply to the rest of us and that in effect hands power over them to said chiefs, bureaucrats and lawyers in a way that does not apply to the rest of society.

That legislation isn't the fault of the natives, but of the non-natives who created it. Naturally it creates winners and losers among the natives, and the "winners" are going to resist any change or reform - aided by those non-natives who feel as you do.

A good example of this, as related above, is the fight over women losing their status by marrying non-natives (while men did not). Changing that obvious injustice ran into lots of opposition from natives - or rather, the entrenched authorities among them - how dare anyone question native culture? (Never mind that in many cases native cultures were originally matrilineal ...).

So no, the problems are not just "theirs". They are "ours" - native and non-native alike - because they are sustained by "our" government under "our" legislation that "we" drafted. The whole attempt to divide the population into "us" and "them" is suspect, and I rather think the root of the problem. Rarely is institutional racism a really good idea, even when enacted with the best will in the world. It is simply rife with unintended consequences - male chiefs telling women that they should not legally be indians based on a notion of traditional culture that was in fact created by non-native government bureaucrats is just a minor example of that sort of irony.