Come close and sit down, bring a calculator. I'm going to throw an extra few logs on so you can sit down and work this out for yourselves as well and realize how just incredibly convoluted the GST is.
So one of my bosses at work worked for a long long time in the federal government in the tax department. One day he explained to me the implementation of the GST and why even the department people were incredibly opposed to this new tax. So I thought I'd share what he had to say.
Back in the old days before the GST, the Federal government placed a 13.5% tax on the end product for sale. It was 'hidden' in that it was supposed to be worked into the price without being added. I remember when it was introduced. A friend of mine who now works for RIM (You know who you are Mr. There's Gotta Be Some Indian In Here Somewhere), his dad was one of the folks down at the Chamber of Commerce here in the city. He explained that the _base_ cost, according to what the Feds were telling us, should go down. It actually went up. WAY up. Because you see, what the Feds didn't tell us was the extent of the implementation.
Do you know that the GST is applied to every single product and service there is (With minor exceptions)? Do you understand the ramifications of that? Alright let me explain.
The example that my boss gave me was of a product produced here in Canada by Canadian Tire, a rather useful little air compressor. Under the old system the critter cost the average person, at the time, about $600.00, with about 60 bucks of that being taxes. Well, under the new system it goes like this. All the materials that are bought now have GST on them. And so the plant assembles them and sells them to a distributor. They gotta charge the GST there. The distributor now sells them to regional wholesalers, whoops, another level of GST. Now the wholesalers, they sell them to the stores, there's another level off GST. And finally you the consumer gets to buy it and pay the GST again.
And he said this was one of the rare ones that only ran through 4 levels. Most products averaged SEVEN! Think about it, manufacturers generally don't package, or ship, or distribute. From resources to your hands is actually a lot of steps.
The NEW price under the new GST was close now to $760.00!! With $180.00 plus of it being just taxes! As well it created a system that was infinitely more complex than the old one.
He went on to describe that the Feds then wanted him to reduce departments to deal with a more complex system.
Here are a few quick talking points for you all to think about:
1) This tax was proposed by a conservative government. If reducing government and creating business friendly environments is a part of your general platform, why the fuck would you introduce a tax like this?
2) A reduction in the GST is not beneficial to the average consumer. There's two ways you as the consumer gets fucked. First off, that much of a reduction should lower the overall general cost of the creation of products to buy, yet companies DON'T lower their costs. So really, they save money (Less cost to do business) and you pay the same anyways (Garnering them more profits).
3) The only reason to reduce the GST is to help business, and the loss of revenue for each percentage point works out to be about 6 billion dollars annually. BTW folks, we're gonna run a 12 billion dollar deficit next year.
4) Unrelated personal opinion: Harper is a fuckwit who is out of touch with the general needs of the people he 'rules'. His overall inability to follow his own stated agenda, incredibly stupid comments (The average Canadian doesn't care about the Arts. HAH!), and his failure to produce any discernible results in the area of the environment add up to one big fuckwit. Perhaps even fucktard. Of course, I've stated this before, I really shouldn't blame Stephen. It is the folks pulling the strings that are the real danger.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
More points of clarification
I love the night, I feel comfortable in it. While the fire may keep some of the shadows at bay, it also helps to create shadows. Iskote (Pronounced ish-go-tay) is the Saulteax word for fire. It is an inanimate noun. In almost every single First Nations language, it isn't broken down in male and female, instead animate and inanimate. Understanding this difference in language helps to understand the difference in priorities, because language is not a component of thought, it is instead the basis for thought.
So let's discuss Indian Title. This is a funny little term. It can be described as a usafractory right. In simple terms this means that if you have a usafractory right to a piece of land, you can do whatever you want with it, but you never actually own it. An example might be roads, both urban and highway. Our taxes pay for them, and we are allowed to use them for our travel purposes, but their ultimate ownership is held by the government. By making this distinction, it's easy to see that this relationship is somewhat limiting, as the true owner can lay out any rules they wish when it comes to the use of that land.
All Indian lands, so reserve lands, are placed under this form of ownership. By the way, the word in Saulteax for reserve is iskonikan (pronounced ish-go-nee-gan) and it means left overs. See, even back then the First Nations knew they were getting shafted. However, if you read the letters, journals, and official statements from the leaders who signed the treaties, you'll see that they all saw this as the only way for First Nations to adapt and survive. And that could be the one linking aspect of all First Nations, they know how to survive.
So let's make this a little more personal. Most of you out there own a home, and we're gonna say you only have a usafractory right to it. I'm also going to put in the restriction that you may only use this land for survival through traditional practices. Oh yeah, this is the restrictions all reserves live under. So everyone of you who makes the statement 'If I had a bunch of tax free lands available to me I'd be starting businesses left and right' can now see how this fails.
So first off, let's take my friend Viper Pilot. He owns his house and I know a bit about his ethnic background. I also know he currently works as tech support for IT services at a university. Well he's French. And IT work is NOT a traditional practice for the French so I'm sorry, you can't do that anymore VP. Looking at the history of the French in Canada, you're allowed to use your property to trap for furs, and possibly set up a trading post. Oh and maybe a Church. Those are your options. Now since I realize you've got a family to feed, I'll put you on a stipend while you adjust to this new lifestyle.
Now here's where we get wonky. Let's say VP does all three of these things, and is HUGELY successful. Here a problem arises. You see I said he could only use the land for SURVIVAL, and I gave him money to live on while he was adjusting. Therefore any money he makes over the amount I was giving him, I get to take away. Also, since his businesses are taking away from surrounding businesses that are owned by the people I actually care about I'm going to place huge restrictions now on how many furs he can trap, which products he can trade at his post, and state that only people living on his land can use the church he's set up. Oh and every single thing he does requires a permit from me, which I may give him late, because well, he's just got the best furs around, so I'd rather the animals he is going to trap have a chance to leave his land so someone else can trap them.
Is everyone starting to understand why First Nations are not having much success at starting their own businesses? Yeah I thought so.
These are the restrictions that are constantly placed on First Nations, but I hear you say 'Wait there are tons of First Nations businesses! You're right, here's how it's done. First off, a site that is not on the reserve has to be purchased to start the business. Next, since it's nearly impossible to get any funding Federally or through financial institutions to start a business (Remember that horrible survival rule) partnerships are generally achieved with other businesses so that they can get started. And then the money is kept separate so that it doesn't interfere with the Federal funding. The government knows this is going on, but they're getting taxes off the profits so they're ok with it. See First Nations DO pay taxes.
But the survival restriction is still here, it still hampers any real creation of either personal or community wealth. And I'm not talking getting money, I'm talking the ability to use the money you have to continue to make money.
I also have not gone into the myriad of ways that various governments have used to discourage any kind of financial independence.
So there you have it, that's Indian Title. It's pretty horrible and it is the current rules. Of course, for folks like the previously mentioned Tom Flannagan, it's far too expensive to try to change these rules, so better not to try.
So let's discuss Indian Title. This is a funny little term. It can be described as a usafractory right. In simple terms this means that if you have a usafractory right to a piece of land, you can do whatever you want with it, but you never actually own it. An example might be roads, both urban and highway. Our taxes pay for them, and we are allowed to use them for our travel purposes, but their ultimate ownership is held by the government. By making this distinction, it's easy to see that this relationship is somewhat limiting, as the true owner can lay out any rules they wish when it comes to the use of that land.
All Indian lands, so reserve lands, are placed under this form of ownership. By the way, the word in Saulteax for reserve is iskonikan (pronounced ish-go-nee-gan) and it means left overs. See, even back then the First Nations knew they were getting shafted. However, if you read the letters, journals, and official statements from the leaders who signed the treaties, you'll see that they all saw this as the only way for First Nations to adapt and survive. And that could be the one linking aspect of all First Nations, they know how to survive.
So let's make this a little more personal. Most of you out there own a home, and we're gonna say you only have a usafractory right to it. I'm also going to put in the restriction that you may only use this land for survival through traditional practices. Oh yeah, this is the restrictions all reserves live under. So everyone of you who makes the statement 'If I had a bunch of tax free lands available to me I'd be starting businesses left and right' can now see how this fails.
So first off, let's take my friend Viper Pilot. He owns his house and I know a bit about his ethnic background. I also know he currently works as tech support for IT services at a university. Well he's French. And IT work is NOT a traditional practice for the French so I'm sorry, you can't do that anymore VP. Looking at the history of the French in Canada, you're allowed to use your property to trap for furs, and possibly set up a trading post. Oh and maybe a Church. Those are your options. Now since I realize you've got a family to feed, I'll put you on a stipend while you adjust to this new lifestyle.
Now here's where we get wonky. Let's say VP does all three of these things, and is HUGELY successful. Here a problem arises. You see I said he could only use the land for SURVIVAL, and I gave him money to live on while he was adjusting. Therefore any money he makes over the amount I was giving him, I get to take away. Also, since his businesses are taking away from surrounding businesses that are owned by the people I actually care about I'm going to place huge restrictions now on how many furs he can trap, which products he can trade at his post, and state that only people living on his land can use the church he's set up. Oh and every single thing he does requires a permit from me, which I may give him late, because well, he's just got the best furs around, so I'd rather the animals he is going to trap have a chance to leave his land so someone else can trap them.
Is everyone starting to understand why First Nations are not having much success at starting their own businesses? Yeah I thought so.
These are the restrictions that are constantly placed on First Nations, but I hear you say 'Wait there are tons of First Nations businesses! You're right, here's how it's done. First off, a site that is not on the reserve has to be purchased to start the business. Next, since it's nearly impossible to get any funding Federally or through financial institutions to start a business (Remember that horrible survival rule) partnerships are generally achieved with other businesses so that they can get started. And then the money is kept separate so that it doesn't interfere with the Federal funding. The government knows this is going on, but they're getting taxes off the profits so they're ok with it. See First Nations DO pay taxes.
But the survival restriction is still here, it still hampers any real creation of either personal or community wealth. And I'm not talking getting money, I'm talking the ability to use the money you have to continue to make money.
I also have not gone into the myriad of ways that various governments have used to discourage any kind of financial independence.
So there you have it, that's Indian Title. It's pretty horrible and it is the current rules. Of course, for folks like the previously mentioned Tom Flannagan, it's far too expensive to try to change these rules, so better not to try.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Misunderstanding Abounds!
It is cold, so the fire is low and spread out, so the coals can give off the most reflective heat. Enjoy it, and take your clothes over to the hot rocks there. Let them dry on that, and come back, while I pour some water over the rocks I have here in a pit next to the coals. Look up, watch this unfold in the steam.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/11/20/nr.sanchez.preacher.sign.cnn?iref=videosearch
So this video is just phenominal. It shows a massive amount of misunderstandings. Let's start with the first. Here's the biblical verse that this Pastor has used:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
What does this have to do with Barack Obama, even if he WERE a Muslim? This is A) Jewish Law, and B) pertaining to those that would follow Christianity. The USA might be a Christian Majority, it is NOT a Theocracy (But God Bless him, George W. Bush certainly tried didn't he?).
So there you have just the sign, let's get into the video now. There is a lot more I could rant about regarding the two first misunderstanding, but I find this seperation of church and state thing fabulous.
So here we have Pastor Mark telling us that the Constitution of the United States of America does not contain any part that says the Church cannot interfer in politics. And I suppose he is somewhat right. Except that the reason for that part of the constitution has to do with why people were leaving England. That the head of England was both the head of state and of church disallowed any freedom of religion, so they made this part for two reasons. One was of course to satisify the various different religious movements with the US at the time, but the bigger reason was so that the church was not the source, or basis for the powers and decisions of the government.
The letters quoted by Rich Sanchez (That's the interviewer) definitively give the intent of the founding fathers within the context of what they wrote. Of course, certain individuals don't like that interpretation anymore so they'd prefer to just ignore the intent.
And lastly, we have his quote about God being the Judge, Lawgiver, and King. I don't even know where to begin in dismantling this little bit of out and out idiocy. first again JEWISH LAW!!! JEWISH!!! Not Christian. Admittedly this is the basis for Christianity, but it is entirely out of context to quote this in regards to the current government or even current Christianity. So big zero on the scoreboard there.
Next, the fact that something current could resemble the set up of a past system is absolutely rediculous. The formation and set up of a senate and congress is based on the Greek and Roman models. Does this mean that all the senators should be fucking each other? Shall we paint giant flying phalluses all over the state and capitol buildings? So this form of logic is so incredibly... oh I can't even BEGIN to describe how failed it is, anyone with half a brain can figure it out.
And lastly. He misquoted the scripture. The biblical verse he gives is about clothing, not what he quotes.
Now I agree with what Mr. Sanchez said the next day about this nipplehead, he's not evil, he's not a bad guy. He just sees things differently. And that's fine, but the way he sees them has a profound effect on other people, AND he's misinformed and misinterpreting a hell of a lot of important things. And then telling other people this is RIGHT!
Now my wonderful friend Ceno over there has pointed out a lovely misinterpretation as well concering gay rights. The reason these kind of misinterpretations happen is because someone gets a hair across their ass about something they have decided they don't like, so they go and find something, ANYTHING, they can twist to be the reason why whatever it is they hate is wrong, and a 'sin' or will 'destroy society' or any other list of things that will cause the end of the world. Well, here's a lovely chart I found in regards to gay marriage, and we'll leave you all with that.
http://graphjam.com/2008/11/19/song-chart-memes-consequences-of-gay-marriage/
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/11/20/nr.sanchez.preacher.sign.cnn?iref=videosearch
So this video is just phenominal. It shows a massive amount of misunderstandings. Let's start with the first. Here's the biblical verse that this Pastor has used:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
What does this have to do with Barack Obama, even if he WERE a Muslim? This is A) Jewish Law, and B) pertaining to those that would follow Christianity. The USA might be a Christian Majority, it is NOT a Theocracy (But God Bless him, George W. Bush certainly tried didn't he?).
So there you have just the sign, let's get into the video now. There is a lot more I could rant about regarding the two first misunderstanding, but I find this seperation of church and state thing fabulous.
So here we have Pastor Mark telling us that the Constitution of the United States of America does not contain any part that says the Church cannot interfer in politics. And I suppose he is somewhat right. Except that the reason for that part of the constitution has to do with why people were leaving England. That the head of England was both the head of state and of church disallowed any freedom of religion, so they made this part for two reasons. One was of course to satisify the various different religious movements with the US at the time, but the bigger reason was so that the church was not the source, or basis for the powers and decisions of the government.
The letters quoted by Rich Sanchez (That's the interviewer) definitively give the intent of the founding fathers within the context of what they wrote. Of course, certain individuals don't like that interpretation anymore so they'd prefer to just ignore the intent.
And lastly, we have his quote about God being the Judge, Lawgiver, and King. I don't even know where to begin in dismantling this little bit of out and out idiocy. first again JEWISH LAW!!! JEWISH!!! Not Christian. Admittedly this is the basis for Christianity, but it is entirely out of context to quote this in regards to the current government or even current Christianity. So big zero on the scoreboard there.
Next, the fact that something current could resemble the set up of a past system is absolutely rediculous. The formation and set up of a senate and congress is based on the Greek and Roman models. Does this mean that all the senators should be fucking each other? Shall we paint giant flying phalluses all over the state and capitol buildings? So this form of logic is so incredibly... oh I can't even BEGIN to describe how failed it is, anyone with half a brain can figure it out.
And lastly. He misquoted the scripture. The biblical verse he gives is about clothing, not what he quotes.
Now I agree with what Mr. Sanchez said the next day about this nipplehead, he's not evil, he's not a bad guy. He just sees things differently. And that's fine, but the way he sees them has a profound effect on other people, AND he's misinformed and misinterpreting a hell of a lot of important things. And then telling other people this is RIGHT!
Now my wonderful friend Ceno over there has pointed out a lovely misinterpretation as well concering gay rights. The reason these kind of misinterpretations happen is because someone gets a hair across their ass about something they have decided they don't like, so they go and find something, ANYTHING, they can twist to be the reason why whatever it is they hate is wrong, and a 'sin' or will 'destroy society' or any other list of things that will cause the end of the world. Well, here's a lovely chart I found in regards to gay marriage, and we'll leave you all with that.
http://graphjam.com/2008/11/19/song-chart-memes-consequences-of-gay-marriage/
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Grandpa Didn't Cry
Come, sit, quiet is needed. The fire is very low because the shadows demand it. They want to come in too. The shadows, in case I haven't explained, are the thoughts and spirits of those that have passed. I feel close to them right now, and they seem real to me. They won't hurt you, trust me, they're mine and I wish no ill to anyone, but they will talk to you, and perhaps that might be scary. Right now they're talking to me about a promise I made and I'd like to share with you how it was made. It's ok, shhh, sit down I'll tell them.
When Desert Storm (Operation Friction to us Canadians) started, I was 15. There was a certain level of uncertainty in the air as to how the actual invasion may fare. Iraq was very much ready for a fight, and the US hadn't shown their hand. As we know it went quickly, but for some who had gone through previous wars felt it could have gone much differently.
I've told you of my Grandfather, a burly man who lived through World War Two minus a lower leg and his twin. He occasionally told me about the boat ride he saw his twin killed on. Rambling details when he was a little in his cups. I couldn't share with you the exact details, but to say I saw the pain and heard the terror he must have felt as a young man would be true. He was profoundly affected by that experience and I doubt he felt it was in a good way.
When the war was finally underway, my grandparents came to visit. It was on all the news and we all had an intense front row view of modern warfare. My grandfather asked for a cup of coffee, and sat down in the dining room. Grandma told me I should go sit with him so I did. He seemed shaken, and pale. He face, usually a hard stern mask, held a look of apprehension. His cheeks were wet.
We sat in silence for a number of minutes, he held his coffee cup and stared at it, perhaps hoping it would tell him how to start. I'm not sure. I was frightened, because my grandfather didn't cry.
"I'm not cryin'." He could see it, my own confusion. "Shrapnel in my eye. Pains me sometimes." He gripped that cup again and I swear it disappeared within those huge hand. Massive and powerful, they symbolized something scary but sometimes something safe. "Like my leg. Stupid wooden one hurts most times." He coughed, and pulled out his cigarettes, and I passed the ashtray closer. Why were his cheeks still wet?
"You know I don't talk about the war at all." He inhaled a long drag, and let it move from his nose. The smoke came out in shaky jumbles; twisted, twirling, tumbling clouds that didn't seem right. I watched and stayed silent. "I don't like it, no one should have to do that. I know I had to, but no one should."
I was stunned to hear this. I was young, I thought anyone who fought in a war thought it was the right thing to do. His cheeks were still wet, why were they still wet?!
"You're pretty young, don't get me wrong, you won't go, or shouldn't. Maybe not yet." His voice shook, I didn't know what to do, his cheeks were still wet. He brushed at them, "Ain't tears, just the shrapnel."
One of those massive hands reached slowly, oh so slowly, and gripped my wrist. The grip was iron and I could feel how strong he was, how strong he felt. My body stopped twitching, moving, perhaps even stopped breathing. I stared into his eyes. "You won't go. You promise me." His cheeks were still wet.
As if on cue from his eyes, I answered, "I promise granpa, I won't go." He nodded, and let go. The cup of coffee disappeared again inside those hands, but I was still held.
"You don't want to ever see that. Going to war ..." his words trailed, and he shook his head, and I saw something splash to the table out of the corner of my eye. He wiped again, muttered something about shrapnel and moved to stand. I sat there, and watched as he seemed to move upward like a monolith, perhaps a living cenotaph. "You promise me you won't go." I just nodded. "Good." He left the coffee, his smoke, and the room.
I sat for a bit, I was stunned, and then I went downstairs, watched the war, but it was just sliding past.
My grandfather never cried, he couldn't. Those things were stolen from him due to his own sacrifice. He gave them up and so for you granpa, I'll cry. I cry for all those from the first times of war who gave what they could so others didn't have to. And I promised to him I wouldn't, so I won't. But I'll cry.
I'll cry for you grandpa, shhh, it's ok, I love you and I miss you. Thank you, for everything.
When Desert Storm (Operation Friction to us Canadians) started, I was 15. There was a certain level of uncertainty in the air as to how the actual invasion may fare. Iraq was very much ready for a fight, and the US hadn't shown their hand. As we know it went quickly, but for some who had gone through previous wars felt it could have gone much differently.
I've told you of my Grandfather, a burly man who lived through World War Two minus a lower leg and his twin. He occasionally told me about the boat ride he saw his twin killed on. Rambling details when he was a little in his cups. I couldn't share with you the exact details, but to say I saw the pain and heard the terror he must have felt as a young man would be true. He was profoundly affected by that experience and I doubt he felt it was in a good way.
When the war was finally underway, my grandparents came to visit. It was on all the news and we all had an intense front row view of modern warfare. My grandfather asked for a cup of coffee, and sat down in the dining room. Grandma told me I should go sit with him so I did. He seemed shaken, and pale. He face, usually a hard stern mask, held a look of apprehension. His cheeks were wet.
We sat in silence for a number of minutes, he held his coffee cup and stared at it, perhaps hoping it would tell him how to start. I'm not sure. I was frightened, because my grandfather didn't cry.
"I'm not cryin'." He could see it, my own confusion. "Shrapnel in my eye. Pains me sometimes." He gripped that cup again and I swear it disappeared within those huge hand. Massive and powerful, they symbolized something scary but sometimes something safe. "Like my leg. Stupid wooden one hurts most times." He coughed, and pulled out his cigarettes, and I passed the ashtray closer. Why were his cheeks still wet?
"You know I don't talk about the war at all." He inhaled a long drag, and let it move from his nose. The smoke came out in shaky jumbles; twisted, twirling, tumbling clouds that didn't seem right. I watched and stayed silent. "I don't like it, no one should have to do that. I know I had to, but no one should."
I was stunned to hear this. I was young, I thought anyone who fought in a war thought it was the right thing to do. His cheeks were still wet, why were they still wet?!
"You're pretty young, don't get me wrong, you won't go, or shouldn't. Maybe not yet." His voice shook, I didn't know what to do, his cheeks were still wet. He brushed at them, "Ain't tears, just the shrapnel."
One of those massive hands reached slowly, oh so slowly, and gripped my wrist. The grip was iron and I could feel how strong he was, how strong he felt. My body stopped twitching, moving, perhaps even stopped breathing. I stared into his eyes. "You won't go. You promise me." His cheeks were still wet.
As if on cue from his eyes, I answered, "I promise granpa, I won't go." He nodded, and let go. The cup of coffee disappeared again inside those hands, but I was still held.
"You don't want to ever see that. Going to war ..." his words trailed, and he shook his head, and I saw something splash to the table out of the corner of my eye. He wiped again, muttered something about shrapnel and moved to stand. I sat there, and watched as he seemed to move upward like a monolith, perhaps a living cenotaph. "You promise me you won't go." I just nodded. "Good." He left the coffee, his smoke, and the room.
I sat for a bit, I was stunned, and then I went downstairs, watched the war, but it was just sliding past.
My grandfather never cried, he couldn't. Those things were stolen from him due to his own sacrifice. He gave them up and so for you granpa, I'll cry. I cry for all those from the first times of war who gave what they could so others didn't have to. And I promised to him I wouldn't, so I won't. But I'll cry.
I'll cry for you grandpa, shhh, it's ok, I love you and I miss you. Thank you, for everything.
Clearing up some points
Come sit down and enjoy the fire, I have some baby carrots and beef jerky to share. It's a special day today and a lot that needs to be remembered actually needs to be learned. This post is not to diminish the incredible sacrifice of our armed forces. Its purpose is instead for that recognition to be elevated so that we might all enjoy the freedoms that were fought for.
I'm going to have to go way way way back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. By the way, for those that don't know, this is the basis and beginning of our constitution within Canada, and is in fact the first instance of the word reserve was used. Part of the purpose of the Royal Proclamation was to appease the First Nations people who's land was being infringed upon by con men and settlers. It also sets up the frame work for the creation and negotiation of treaties. You see it said that all the land that was 'reserved' for Indians was owned by the Crown, and no one may buy, sell, or use it without the Crown's permission. In fact all land deals that involved 'Indian reserved land' must go through the Crown. There is also a statement that the Crown promised to defend the traditional lifestyle of the First Nations.
To do this slightly bizarre set up the Crown, in the Royal Proclamation created a new term, called 'Indian Title.' What this meant was, that all lands reserved for the Indians, was actually owned by the Crown, but that the Indians could use it and continue to use it for any traditional purposes. It's funny how a statement that was made then to protect First Nations people, actually is used to hamper them now.
Oh yes, and this proclamation also made all Indians subjects of the British Crown but exempted them from being duty bound to serve in any military campaign. Of course, anyone who has studied North American history know that First Nations have served in every single war that has ever occurred on our own soil, as well as every single one we've contributed to outside of our borders.
All of these points are in effect in today's treaties and are relevant to any discussion of changing, modifying, renegotiation, or abolishing the treaties, because each and every point here has been used to degrade, diminish, and destroy the First Nations.
First off, by setting themselves up as the only agent through which economic trade with First Nations could be done, either through sale of land or other arrangements, the British Crown, and subsequently the Canadian Government, set itself up in a relationship of Fiduciary Responsibility. In simple terms, the government is now held accountable for the financial well being of the First Nations.
The example I always use is one of parent and child. Let's say my Little Bear becomes a huge pop star tomorrow. She makes sixty million dollars throughout her career as a minor. According to an agreement we have made as her agent and father I am allowed to access 10% as my fee (Which is actually pretty low for an agent) and then spend any money on agreed expenses for Little Bear's lifestyle and business expenses. The rest is put in trust for her when she turns 18. Now as a good parent I've attempted to keep things reasonable and hey, when she turns 18, there should be say ... half that left in trust for her, so 30 million dollars. If she turns 18 and that money is not there for her, then guess what?! I'm on the hook for that money, and can legally be sued to pay it.
Ok so this brings up a number of issues. First off, the Canadian government has not fulfilled its obligations in regards to the well being of First Nations. You go to the reserves and tell me if these people are enjoying the prosperity that the government has promised them. In fact we have documented cases (Kahkewistahaw is a good one) that prove they not only did not fulfill this obligation but acted against it. There are thousands of other examples of this same thing happening over and over again.
The second is this interesting thought: the relationship of First Nations and the Canadian government could be, and legally is, seen as something similar to the child/parent relationship. It is seen frequently in the way INAC takes control of First Nations organizations when they feel they are not being handled correctly. This relationship is damaging because it creates a case of unfounded superiority and control that degrades the lesser party in the relationship. It is unhealthy and will continue to create problems that resonate throughout the negotiation of new ways to do things, and ultimately will prevent any real change. It also leads to ridiculous statements like those of Tom Flanagan who state that small governments on reserves create familial factionalism and economic abuse that create a rich and poor class. These statements are ridiculous because our own government and political system creates these exact same things! By making these statements it reinforces the 'other' or 'lesser' idea that is inherent in the child/parent relationship of the current situation and do not allow for any real growth. Simply put, it is ok for white people to practice nepotism and horde wealth, but First Nations cannot. It would be 'bad' for them. (Personal note: Ok I know this is being presented as an intellectual exercise but is anyone else feeling incredibly offended and ready to kick someone in the junk?)
The last issue involved in this relationship is that final accounting. If the government ever wants to abolish this relationship then the bill will be due. Just as in my previous example, if the Canadian government ever abolishes the child/parent relationship then every single First Nation has ever legal right to sue for everything they have no gotten, every dollar earned from their land without proper recompense, and for every broken promise the Canadian government put down on paper.
I'm going to stop here for now, but there is a number of points still uncleared. Next we'll look at the restrictions used within Indian Title, the lie that was military service exemption, and the failure of the Human Rights Code.
I'm going to have to go way way way back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. By the way, for those that don't know, this is the basis and beginning of our constitution within Canada, and is in fact the first instance of the word reserve was used. Part of the purpose of the Royal Proclamation was to appease the First Nations people who's land was being infringed upon by con men and settlers. It also sets up the frame work for the creation and negotiation of treaties. You see it said that all the land that was 'reserved' for Indians was owned by the Crown, and no one may buy, sell, or use it without the Crown's permission. In fact all land deals that involved 'Indian reserved land' must go through the Crown. There is also a statement that the Crown promised to defend the traditional lifestyle of the First Nations.
To do this slightly bizarre set up the Crown, in the Royal Proclamation created a new term, called 'Indian Title.' What this meant was, that all lands reserved for the Indians, was actually owned by the Crown, but that the Indians could use it and continue to use it for any traditional purposes. It's funny how a statement that was made then to protect First Nations people, actually is used to hamper them now.
Oh yes, and this proclamation also made all Indians subjects of the British Crown but exempted them from being duty bound to serve in any military campaign. Of course, anyone who has studied North American history know that First Nations have served in every single war that has ever occurred on our own soil, as well as every single one we've contributed to outside of our borders.
All of these points are in effect in today's treaties and are relevant to any discussion of changing, modifying, renegotiation, or abolishing the treaties, because each and every point here has been used to degrade, diminish, and destroy the First Nations.
First off, by setting themselves up as the only agent through which economic trade with First Nations could be done, either through sale of land or other arrangements, the British Crown, and subsequently the Canadian Government, set itself up in a relationship of Fiduciary Responsibility. In simple terms, the government is now held accountable for the financial well being of the First Nations.
The example I always use is one of parent and child. Let's say my Little Bear becomes a huge pop star tomorrow. She makes sixty million dollars throughout her career as a minor. According to an agreement we have made as her agent and father I am allowed to access 10% as my fee (Which is actually pretty low for an agent) and then spend any money on agreed expenses for Little Bear's lifestyle and business expenses. The rest is put in trust for her when she turns 18. Now as a good parent I've attempted to keep things reasonable and hey, when she turns 18, there should be say ... half that left in trust for her, so 30 million dollars. If she turns 18 and that money is not there for her, then guess what?! I'm on the hook for that money, and can legally be sued to pay it.
Ok so this brings up a number of issues. First off, the Canadian government has not fulfilled its obligations in regards to the well being of First Nations. You go to the reserves and tell me if these people are enjoying the prosperity that the government has promised them. In fact we have documented cases (Kahkewistahaw is a good one) that prove they not only did not fulfill this obligation but acted against it. There are thousands of other examples of this same thing happening over and over again.
The second is this interesting thought: the relationship of First Nations and the Canadian government could be, and legally is, seen as something similar to the child/parent relationship. It is seen frequently in the way INAC takes control of First Nations organizations when they feel they are not being handled correctly. This relationship is damaging because it creates a case of unfounded superiority and control that degrades the lesser party in the relationship. It is unhealthy and will continue to create problems that resonate throughout the negotiation of new ways to do things, and ultimately will prevent any real change. It also leads to ridiculous statements like those of Tom Flanagan who state that small governments on reserves create familial factionalism and economic abuse that create a rich and poor class. These statements are ridiculous because our own government and political system creates these exact same things! By making these statements it reinforces the 'other' or 'lesser' idea that is inherent in the child/parent relationship of the current situation and do not allow for any real growth. Simply put, it is ok for white people to practice nepotism and horde wealth, but First Nations cannot. It would be 'bad' for them. (Personal note: Ok I know this is being presented as an intellectual exercise but is anyone else feeling incredibly offended and ready to kick someone in the junk?)
The last issue involved in this relationship is that final accounting. If the government ever wants to abolish this relationship then the bill will be due. Just as in my previous example, if the Canadian government ever abolishes the child/parent relationship then every single First Nation has ever legal right to sue for everything they have no gotten, every dollar earned from their land without proper recompense, and for every broken promise the Canadian government put down on paper.
I'm going to stop here for now, but there is a number of points still uncleared. Next we'll look at the restrictions used within Indian Title, the lie that was military service exemption, and the failure of the Human Rights Code.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
*sigh*
I'm participating only because if I don't I'll seem weak, and then the predators will eat me. So come in and enjoy the night fire and listen to this amusing bit of ... stuff.
So Cenobyte tagged me. Here are the rules:
1. Link to the person who tagged you.
2. Post the rules on your blog.
3. Write six random things about yourself.
4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them.
5. Let each person know they've been tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up.
So here are the six things, and you may all enjoy them for what they are worth.
1) I have several criminal charges, most of which would cause people to hate me. I'm not going to share them, but I am a reformed individual, who committed the crimes I did because I was a fucked up kid. Everyone, no matter the crime deserves a full hearted chance at rehabilitation, because even the worst of them can change when given the right resources. Like myself.
2) I have, and do occasionally still suffer from depression, have used many different ways to cope with it including medication. Due to my depression I have considered suicide quite often. No, not recently, well maybe, within the last three years or so. These are things I am not ashamed of, and no one else should ever be ashamed of this. A lot more people than you think suffer from mental illness and maybe if I am willing to tell everyone about my own others might start changing their perceptions of fellow sufferers.
3) I am an extroverted introvert. I would rather sit at home and let the rest of you (in my more bitter and less forgiving times) kill each other while I enjoy time with a nice book. While I operate quite well in front of people, am not shy, and in fact take a certain joy in being the center of attention, I also hate it at the same time. Go fig?
4) The things I truly enjoy about people are those idosyncracies and annoying habits that others actually dislike. It is our weakness and failings that make us what we are because those are what we must overcome to better ourselves and the people around us. I love you all for the ways you make me suffer. Even more twisted. :)
5) I like the Canadian made show 6teen. It's freakin' hilarious! Especially the episode when the three main girls all have their periods together. I've never laughed so hard in my life.
6) I lost my virginity at the age of 13. I was drunk, stoned, and could barely get it up. I think the girl I had sex with was five or six years older than me. I barely remember most of it, the parts I do were very uncomfortable and the entire experience was bad. I don't remember her name and I didn't have sex again until I was 18. (I stole the inspiration for this from Cenobyte. Heh)
Now we're s'pose to tag six others, but I'm only gonna tag one. My bestest best buddy in the whole wide world (Literally!), Viper Pilot! Mostly cuz the others are already tagged, and I don't know many others that blog. Rules were made to be broken right?
Now I also broke the rules because the things I shared are not random, they are in fact calculated to let you all know more of who I am and why I see things the way they are. Or why I want to change the world. It'll happen, slowly, but it will happen.
So Cenobyte tagged me. Here are the rules:
1. Link to the person who tagged you.
2. Post the rules on your blog.
3. Write six random things about yourself.
4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them.
5. Let each person know they've been tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up.
So here are the six things, and you may all enjoy them for what they are worth.
1) I have several criminal charges, most of which would cause people to hate me. I'm not going to share them, but I am a reformed individual, who committed the crimes I did because I was a fucked up kid. Everyone, no matter the crime deserves a full hearted chance at rehabilitation, because even the worst of them can change when given the right resources. Like myself.
2) I have, and do occasionally still suffer from depression, have used many different ways to cope with it including medication. Due to my depression I have considered suicide quite often. No, not recently, well maybe, within the last three years or so. These are things I am not ashamed of, and no one else should ever be ashamed of this. A lot more people than you think suffer from mental illness and maybe if I am willing to tell everyone about my own others might start changing their perceptions of fellow sufferers.
3) I am an extroverted introvert. I would rather sit at home and let the rest of you (in my more bitter and less forgiving times) kill each other while I enjoy time with a nice book. While I operate quite well in front of people, am not shy, and in fact take a certain joy in being the center of attention, I also hate it at the same time. Go fig?
4) The things I truly enjoy about people are those idosyncracies and annoying habits that others actually dislike. It is our weakness and failings that make us what we are because those are what we must overcome to better ourselves and the people around us. I love you all for the ways you make me suffer. Even more twisted. :)
5) I like the Canadian made show 6teen. It's freakin' hilarious! Especially the episode when the three main girls all have their periods together. I've never laughed so hard in my life.
6) I lost my virginity at the age of 13. I was drunk, stoned, and could barely get it up. I think the girl I had sex with was five or six years older than me. I barely remember most of it, the parts I do were very uncomfortable and the entire experience was bad. I don't remember her name and I didn't have sex again until I was 18. (I stole the inspiration for this from Cenobyte. Heh)
Now we're s'pose to tag six others, but I'm only gonna tag one. My bestest best buddy in the whole wide world (Literally!), Viper Pilot! Mostly cuz the others are already tagged, and I don't know many others that blog. Rules were made to be broken right?
Now I also broke the rules because the things I shared are not random, they are in fact calculated to let you all know more of who I am and why I see things the way they are. Or why I want to change the world. It'll happen, slowly, but it will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)