This article surprises me, I think that it will be hard to get feedback on it because people are affraid of being called racist, that said, I think I'd like to add some of my thoughts.
1. I think "the proof is in the pudding" and in both Canada and the United States, the poverty level, education level and quality of life of Indian people is very low. I'm not sure you would see the improvement you are seeking. The US had residential schools and also has reserves. The exception, I think in the United States, is Oklahoma, where they didn't do reserves were each native person was given a piece of land that they individually owned and in fact, they have one of the highest standards of living for native people – one could make a good argument that it is because generational wealth can be accumulated, that this ownership is the basis of their sovereignty, it limits the relationship with the government(s). A final possible note might be that it lessens the strain on the relationship between native peoples and the greater population. I also believe this private ownership of the land is the root causes of the success in the court case you stated above, it resides in the territory of Oklahoma.
2. It is important for me that people realize that the first treaties before the numbered treaties were made with the British government and its crown and some were evern with France, and that even the number treaties were made in conjunction with the British crown. This is an important point because it also seems to me that they've gotten off the hook for a lot of the resource capture that happened historically. It is also the basis for the reserve systems, not being owned by native people in Canada, but being "crown" land, this is a very important point towards sovereignty, the reflection of the greater population on native peoples, and the building of generational wealth. I also think philosophically and spiritually it does something to a person who knows. nothing of what they do on that land will be for the generations to come and that is the pardox of the reserve system.
3. Lastly, I am shocked that you would even make a connection to UNDRIP and the United Nations, considering the content of your shows. One of the reasons that indigenous rights is now such a hot topic is because it serves the global consortiums that are now running all of our governments that are unelected. I will remind you that the United Nations are the purveyors agenda21 now agenda2030, Global vaccination programs, the new DEI paradigm, and the unelected takeover of many of our countries, federal governments, all the way down to our municipal governments. Lastly, and I think the biggest one is the biggest native issues with the United Nations is "The Global COmpact fro Migration", which has been largely the platform and scaffolding for which this unchecked migration, which could be called a second wave of colonization to Canada for the Native peoples and all Canadians not to mention various other countries.
These are just some of my thoughts around this issue in this article.
I would like to ask 3 questions:
1. What would the USA get out of taking on the reserve system in Canada and its population?
2. Do you think that it is possible that any and all agreements that are ongoing and not finite in their measure will just be another yolk around native people necks?
3. If no other agreements have been upheld- why would you want another one?
you want to share your resources with the US? It seems a point of contention within Canada that some nations do NOT want the resources extracted. So it would be a soveirgnty for resources trade? UMMMM like in Iraq when US/UN was going to help them out for oil? 2. I guess my point was that treaties and agreements aren’t really working out in the states either ; people may have the perception of more rights but it hasn’t translated into and increase in the quality of life. 3. I think you missed my point which is; why not step entirely out of the treaty system, have the “crown” deed the land and mineral rights in a one shot deal and that’s it. 4. The UN ….. a deal with the devil is still a deal with the devil and don’t be surprised when they act like a devil. Lastly, I think what you are thinking is still fully inside said “camps” its nothing new…. swaping around a few players doesnt make it new and I doubt you’ll find what you are looking for.
they are working out a lot better than they are here these days. It is not even close. The Canadian state is still stealing children, the American state is not. median household income for American indians is almost double (176%) the median household income for canadian indians. I don’t want to share anything with the US, I want to sell our resources directly to market, like American indians can. My argument is that canadian indains would be MUCH better off than they are now. Iraq has nothing to do with it. If you have some data that negates that, please share.
Okay so then I'll ask again from the first comment
1. What would the US gain from taking on Canadian Indians to their confederation?
2. If you had dealings with the United Nations how would morally right that with what you know about the unelected international consortiums and their current subjugation of all people?
One could make a strong arguement that this isn't even an "Indian" problem that all of Canada lacks in property, individual and minerals rights. That legislation is biased to favour the government and the monarchy still.
I used Iraq as an example of a simple pact between a people, the US and the UN, if you can't see the example I'm not sure what to do.
These issues are complex and simply throwing our data points that are singular and finite don't often lead to solutions. For example, income is more complex then who has more or less. Some of what might contribute to a robust look at income and/or quality of life are what government programs might be contribute to a household financially but not be included in an income statistic, work income what get taken off for tax, does it include mineral rights, can you own property, can you pass generational wealthm, are tax credits included, could the reservation system be contributing to low income, how many want to be employed? Is it worth being employed? What if none of you income has to go to health care because it is included with citizenship does that lessen that amount of income need to increase quality of life? are people incentivitized to be unemployed?
Not all agreements with "Indians" are the same across the nations again Oklahoma seems to have one of the higher standards and seems to be unique in the historical agreements.
Have you looked at New Zealand?
What about Russia?
Again complex issues but really I was just looking for an answer to the 2 above questions?
This article surprises me, I think that it will be hard to get feedback on it because people are affraid of being called racist, that said, I think I'd like to add some of my thoughts.
1. I think "the proof is in the pudding" and in both Canada and the United States, the poverty level, education level and quality of life of Indian people is very low. I'm not sure you would see the improvement you are seeking. The US had residential schools and also has reserves. The exception, I think in the United States, is Oklahoma, where they didn't do reserves were each native person was given a piece of land that they individually owned and in fact, they have one of the highest standards of living for native people – one could make a good argument that it is because generational wealth can be accumulated, that this ownership is the basis of their sovereignty, it limits the relationship with the government(s). A final possible note might be that it lessens the strain on the relationship between native peoples and the greater population. I also believe this private ownership of the land is the root causes of the success in the court case you stated above, it resides in the territory of Oklahoma.
2. It is important for me that people realize that the first treaties before the numbered treaties were made with the British government and its crown and some were evern with France, and that even the number treaties were made in conjunction with the British crown. This is an important point because it also seems to me that they've gotten off the hook for a lot of the resource capture that happened historically. It is also the basis for the reserve systems, not being owned by native people in Canada, but being "crown" land, this is a very important point towards sovereignty, the reflection of the greater population on native peoples, and the building of generational wealth. I also think philosophically and spiritually it does something to a person who knows. nothing of what they do on that land will be for the generations to come and that is the pardox of the reserve system.
3. Lastly, I am shocked that you would even make a connection to UNDRIP and the United Nations, considering the content of your shows. One of the reasons that indigenous rights is now such a hot topic is because it serves the global consortiums that are now running all of our governments that are unelected. I will remind you that the United Nations are the purveyors agenda21 now agenda2030, Global vaccination programs, the new DEI paradigm, and the unelected takeover of many of our countries, federal governments, all the way down to our municipal governments. Lastly, and I think the biggest one is the biggest native issues with the United Nations is "The Global COmpact fro Migration", which has been largely the platform and scaffolding for which this unchecked migration, which could be called a second wave of colonization to Canada for the Native peoples and all Canadians not to mention various other countries.
These are just some of my thoughts around this issue in this article.
I would like to ask 3 questions:
1. What would the USA get out of taking on the reserve system in Canada and its population?
2. Do you think that it is possible that any and all agreements that are ongoing and not finite in their measure will just be another yolk around native people necks?
3. If no other agreements have been upheld- why would you want another one?
1. resources, lots of resources, between 40-54% of all natural resources are on treaty land.
2. we have existing examples of US tribal sovereignty to observe right now. They have more than us, lots more, and own their lands
3. USA tribal agreements are the best we've got to look to, unless you can point me in the direction of others?
I tend to shock people every day by not fitting into preconceived "camps" properly\
you want to share your resources with the US? It seems a point of contention within Canada that some nations do NOT want the resources extracted. So it would be a soveirgnty for resources trade? UMMMM like in Iraq when US/UN was going to help them out for oil? 2. I guess my point was that treaties and agreements aren’t really working out in the states either ; people may have the perception of more rights but it hasn’t translated into and increase in the quality of life. 3. I think you missed my point which is; why not step entirely out of the treaty system, have the “crown” deed the land and mineral rights in a one shot deal and that’s it. 4. The UN ….. a deal with the devil is still a deal with the devil and don’t be surprised when they act like a devil. Lastly, I think what you are thinking is still fully inside said “camps” its nothing new…. swaping around a few players doesnt make it new and I doubt you’ll find what you are looking for.
they are working out a lot better than they are here these days. It is not even close. The Canadian state is still stealing children, the American state is not. median household income for American indians is almost double (176%) the median household income for canadian indians. I don’t want to share anything with the US, I want to sell our resources directly to market, like American indians can. My argument is that canadian indains would be MUCH better off than they are now. Iraq has nothing to do with it. If you have some data that negates that, please share.
Okay so then I'll ask again from the first comment
1. What would the US gain from taking on Canadian Indians to their confederation?
2. If you had dealings with the United Nations how would morally right that with what you know about the unelected international consortiums and their current subjugation of all people?
One could make a strong arguement that this isn't even an "Indian" problem that all of Canada lacks in property, individual and minerals rights. That legislation is biased to favour the government and the monarchy still.
I used Iraq as an example of a simple pact between a people, the US and the UN, if you can't see the example I'm not sure what to do.
These issues are complex and simply throwing our data points that are singular and finite don't often lead to solutions. For example, income is more complex then who has more or less. Some of what might contribute to a robust look at income and/or quality of life are what government programs might be contribute to a household financially but not be included in an income statistic, work income what get taken off for tax, does it include mineral rights, can you own property, can you pass generational wealthm, are tax credits included, could the reservation system be contributing to low income, how many want to be employed? Is it worth being employed? What if none of you income has to go to health care because it is included with citizenship does that lessen that amount of income need to increase quality of life? are people incentivitized to be unemployed?
Not all agreements with "Indians" are the same across the nations again Oklahoma seems to have one of the higher standards and seems to be unique in the historical agreements.
Have you looked at New Zealand?
What about Russia?
Again complex issues but really I was just looking for an answer to the 2 above questions?