[stratos]

$1:

You believe there are subspecies of humans? The science says no.

When did I say that?

$1:

There's all sorts of colours of people.

You have just classified people as subspecies.

$1:

Ooooh look, I'm in the brown hair race. My wife has brown hair, and blue eyes. Does she go with the blue people or the brown people?

Yep you are right you are an idiot for even saying such a thing.

[Curtman]

stratos stratos:

Curtman Curtman:

You believe there are subspecies of humans? The science says no.

When did I say that?

You seemed surprised when I said there isn't. A few of the trolls did too.

stratos stratos:

Well seeing as how there is no "white race" then there is no reason to have talks with the First Nations people.

stratos stratos:

Curtman Curtman:

There's all sorts of colours of people.

You have just classified people as subspecies.

Did not. There is only one species of Humans, and they are very diverse.

[Unsound]

So, how are the natives with whom we have the treaties defined? is it by race? Or just by whoever wants to be native? Or what?

Race might be a meaningless concept as far as science goes, but as a social construct it is still very meaningful. That might not be the way we want our society to be, but it is a fact of life and calling people idiots for acknowledging it doesn't help much.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

It's a stupid, obsolete concept.

Race is a reality, not a 'concept'.

[fifeboy]

Unsound Unsound:

So, how are the natives with whom we have the treaties defined? is it by race? Or just by whoever wants to be native? Or what?
.

I believe it's by Nation. They signed treaties as 1st. Nations.

[Jabberwalker]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Unsound Unsound:

So, how are the natives with whom we have the treaties defined? is it by race? Or just by whoever wants to be native? Or what?
.

I believe it's by Nation. They signed treaties as 1st. Nations.

Some of them did. A lot of those treaties were signed by, essentially, kids who had no idea what they were signing. The process was seriously flawed, which suited the Crown rather well.

[Unsound]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Unsound Unsound:

So, how are the natives with whom we have the treaties defined? is it by race? Or just by whoever wants to be native? Or what?
.

I believe it's by Nation. They signed treaties as 1st. Nations.

And how do they define who's a member of the Nation? Goes by race afaik

[ShepherdsDog]

can't see how it could.....most of them have just as much or more European ancestry as they do native. What defines native culture? Most natives, except those who live in remote fly in can't speak any native tongues, nor do they follow a traditional lifestyle.

[fifeboy]

Unsound Unsound:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Unsound Unsound:

So, how are the natives with whom we have the treaties defined? is it by race? Or just by whoever wants to be native? Or what?
.

I believe it's by Nation. They signed treaties as 1st. Nations.

And how do they define who's a member of the Nation? Goes by race afaik

No, It goes by who is descended from the members of the first nation group who signed the treaty. So if your mom and dad are members of the first nation, you are too. Gets more complicated if only one parent is. As, in the case of Attawapiskat, the people are Cree speakers (probably woodland dialect) most of the people there are of that group. Unless you are a follower of Carlton Coon, they are not a race, but speakers of a language that is part of a language group.

[ShepherdsDog]

I think as it stands, if one of your parents is treaty but the other is non native you can claim, but if you marry non native, your kids are the last generation to be able to claim treaty status, unless they marry someone who is treaty status. That's how a friend who got his status, at age 20, explained it. Mind you, his grandfather was only part native and his grandmother was a full blood. His dad was white and so is his wife.

[Jabberwalker]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think as it stands, if one of your parents is treaty but the other is non native you can claim, but if you marry non native, your kids are the last generation to be able to claim treaty status, unless they marry someone who is treaty status. That's how a friend who got his status, at age 20, explained it. Mind you, his grandfather was only part native and his grandmother was a full blood. His dad was white and so is his wife.

What an utterly racist system, eh?

... and I mean that is the most literal sense ...

[fifeboy]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think as it stands, if one of your parents is treaty but the other is non native you can claim, but if you marry non native, your kids are the last generation to be able to claim treaty status, unless they marry someone who is treaty status. That's how a friend who got his status, at age 20, explained it. Mind you, his grandfather was only part native and his grandmother was a full blood. His dad was white and so is his wife.

What an utterly racist system, eh?

... and I mean that is the most literal sense ...

Status is a really messed up system. Not racist, but stupid and sexist.

[Jabberwalker]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I think as it stands, if one of your parents is treaty but the other is non native you can claim, but if you marry non native, your kids are the last generation to be able to claim treaty status, unless they marry someone who is treaty status. That's how a friend who got his status, at age 20, explained it. Mind you, his grandfather was only part native and his grandmother was a full blood. His dad was white and so is his wife.

What an utterly racist system, eh?

... and I mean that is the most literal sense ...

Status is a really messed up system. Not racist, but stupid and sexist.

... and, of course, it is based solely on one's "race". The 18th/19th century Indian Act has no business continuing onward into the 21st century.

[fifeboy]

It is however, what we have! Just because it's 19th C. however, is not the problem. Americans work with an 18th C Constitution all the time. The treaties need to be adjusted to reflect today's reality but imposition of new laws from higher up will just cause problems.

[Jabberwalker]

fifeboy fifeboy:

It is however, what we have! Just because it's 19th C. however, is not the problem. Americans work with an 18th C Constitution all the time. The treaties need to be adjusted to reflect today's reality but imposition of new laws from higher up will just cause problems.

Surely, there is a better way than that.