Well I sure hope it all works out. Yes, the problems in BC have never been resolved. It is a big big problem.
As for here up North in Saskatchewan many of my students live on Reserves in what would be totally unacceptable housing to us and overcrowding conditions. That is problematic in itself. A lot of welfare, a lot of drugs, a lot of crime. Those not on the Reserves are far better off, have all the toys and necessities needed to lead healthy lives.
We are scrambling to switch over to distance learning. Only one student out of all my students has a laptop. We dropped the requirement when we built our computer lab. We used to give them a laptop to keep as theirs but theft and breakage became rampant and one turned into 3 or 4, then we stopped and built the Lab. They also have a bank of computers in the student lounge. None of that does us any good if they cannot access it which is the current situation.
Also, many do not even have an internet connection. All have a cell phone, most with prepaid usage cards, good really only for texting.
So you see it isn't easy but we will figure it out. Field schools will have to booted to next year.
Still very much winter here, won't end until May.
The continuing decrepid living conditions on many reserves are criminal in my mind. They are a great national shame that successive governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, have failed to fix. And they do not get anywhere near the amount of media attention they should.
You will probably remember Jean Chretien's white paper on abolishing the Indian Act and reserve system decades ago. Implementing that proposal would have created a huge amount of heartache and controversy at the time, but all these decades later I think we would be able to collectively look back and say it was worth it.
I hope you are able to figure something out and continue educating during the pandemic. It will end eventually, and everyone needs to stay engaged until then, or they likely won't return.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Euclid... if public officials make decisions in secret from their constituency, people will jump to conclusions. That is their right.
In a fair society, it is their right, and I'd be among the last people to actually forbid them to do so ... along the general lines of Evelyn Hall evoking Voltaire.
But I'm talking about something a bit different: the self-discipline not to 'jump to conclusions' when there is inadequate evidence or rational analysis to justify conclusions rather than opinions. Making the conclusions 'rubber' only makes the methodology more dangerous -- not bacause people may razz you on forums like this one, but because it may lead to various forms of prejudice, some of which can be highly difficult to overcome later even if overwhelming evidence begins to accrue.
EuclidI suspect that at least half the people in Canada agree with my ideas on this. There have been news articles in Canada concluding exactly what I have said here, and they go much further. They even predict that the protests will soon return once the Wet’suwet’en have digested the offer from Trudeau and raised their demand.
That may well be no exaggeration; we certainly have at least two people 'with active standing' who wholeheartedly agree with the details as you laid them out. The principal thing I continue to wonder about, though, is precisely what in a 'secret action' convinced all the implacable blockade protesters to stand down nearly simultaneously, after having been vociferously mistrustful of anything the Government might do only hours before, seemingly in concert, when the Government supposedly holds all the evidence in secret. That appears to me to be 'irrational' by the blockading cohort's own standards (wack as I may consider them to be in absolute terms) of 'rationality'. So why did we observe them doing it?
Blockades are cheap. They can go up as easily as they come down.
I suspect that if they were tried again 'in this time of emergency' some much more expedient solution, possibly involving nominal emergency medical supplies and equipment, would be found to remove them. And any incitement-to-riot protesters, too. But Euclid is probably right in thinking that would not stop 'them' from using such a proven strategy again -- there are few things that aggravate a sense of arrogant privilege more than a fight against perceived 'someone-elses' arrogant privilege.
I say that if politicians don’t want people jumping to conclusions, they should level with their constituency rather than planning action in secret as though they have a superior intellect that their people will not grasp.
It would be hard to argue with this; as my own opinion on the subject is in complete accord I won't even consider doing so. It is possible, though, that there are reasons for the 'secrecy' other than neopaternalism or oligarchic arrogance, and we should probably wait for a little more independent confirmation before we brand them absolutely as such.
I wonder if there is a sustainable base for a new political party in Canada founded on just this principle of plain, fair dealing for all once some ancient abuses have been corrected for those going forward.
There are some from Canada on here and perhaps many more in Canada who seem to abhor addressing those not-so-ancient grievances.
charlie hebdoThere are some from Canada on here and perhaps many more in Canada who seem to abhor addressing those not-so-ancient grievances.
Europeans coming to the Americas, North, Central and South, have treated all the native inhabitants with disdain and oppression. This has been ongoing from the 16th Century to the present day 21st Century.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD charlie hebdo There are some from Canada on here and perhaps many more in Canada who seem to abhor addressing those not-so-ancient grievances. Europeans coming to the Americas, North, Central and South, have treated all the native inhabitants with disdain and oppression. This has been ongoing from the 16th Century to the present day 21st Century.
charlie hebdo There are some from Canada on here and perhaps many more in Canada who seem to abhor addressing those not-so-ancient grievances.
We can add dishonesty, broken treaties and genocide to the list of shame.
One thing I cannot conclude is whether this deal with the Wet’suwet’en people has been agreed to. I don’t recall any reports saying that it has been accepted, but only that it has been offered by the government and the Wet’suwet’en people are reviewing and considering the offer. If that is still the case, it is possible that they will reject the offer or they might counteroffer.
It has been reported that the pipeline project has resumed and that the Wet’suwet’en people are opposed to that. So it seems that they are a long ways apart on that key issue. It also seems unlikely that an offer for a deal could have sidestepped that issue. It is also possible that the Wet’suwet’en people have formally rejected the government offer, and the government is also keeping that point secret.
EuclidOne thing I cannot conclude is whether this deal with the Wet’suwet’en people has been agreed to ... it is possible that they will reject the offer or they might counteroffer. It has been reported that the pipeline project has resumed and that the Wet’suwet’en people are opposed to that.
Ah, how secrecy does impair coming to cozy conclusions!
See how there is no answer on which you could base a conclusion on either point? This leaves most of your actual conclusions on the range and nature of secret arrangements in general, which do (to an extent) speak for themselves, show bad faith toward 'the public' in general, and might, even as we speak, be resulting in rejection, counteroffers, opposition... or many other things we equally can't know, or not knowing, comment or conclude meaningfully on.
It also seems unlikely that an offer for a deal could have sidestepped that issue.
It is also possible that the Wet’suwet’en people have formally rejected the government offer, and the government is also keeping that point secret.
I also confess it would be fun to watch from south of the border at what happens if the Government tries to keep failure a secret and the whistle gets blown or the leaks get publicized. You can bet there are plenty of potential blowers and leakers, and it would only take one...
I'm not sure if it was said or not, but the approval of the "deal" negotiated by chiefs by the members of the tribe is roughly analogous to our process of ratifying treaties. The executive branch diplomats negotiate and that document is ratified by the President only after the consent by two thirds of the Senate is obtained.
Overmod Euclid One thing I cannot conclude is whether this deal with the Wet’suwet’en people has been agreed to ... it is possible that they will reject the offer or they might counteroffer. It has been reported that the pipeline project has resumed and that the Wet’suwet’en people are opposed to that. Ah, how secrecy does impair coming to cozy conclusions! See how there is no answer on which you could base a conclusion on either point?
Euclid One thing I cannot conclude is whether this deal with the Wet’suwet’en people has been agreed to ... it is possible that they will reject the offer or they might counteroffer. It has been reported that the pipeline project has resumed and that the Wet’suwet’en people are opposed to that.
See how there is no answer on which you could base a conclusion on either point?
No I don’t see that at all. My conclusions are solidly based on what is known. They are not intended to offer a full factual explanation in order to fulfill some sort of intellectual exercise. If the offer has not been accepted, it is possible that it will be rejected or that a counteroffer will be made. I said those two things are possible. That was my conclusion. Are you saying that they are not possible? All I am saying is that if B depends on A, and if A has not happened, then B has not happened.
All I said was that it appears that the deal has not yet been accepted by the party that the government is negotiating with. It appears that way because I have looked for articles announcing the settlement, and find none. Maybe there are some, but I have not found them. It is still true that I have looked and found none.
What makes this a little murky, however, is that it appears that the government earlier promoted the idea that the government offer to the Wet’suwet’en, and their willingness to consider it-- that combination was a deal in and of itself. And that “deal” was indeed accepted by the Wet’suwet’en people.
At the same time, the blockades were taken down, and this too was coupled with the announcement of the “deal” being accepted. So I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute.
Yet this all occurred prior to any acceptance of the real deal, which has not yet been accepted. So it seems to me that there is no deal yet, but there was an attempt to spin the news to Non-indigenous Canadians that a deal had been made, the barricades have been taken down, and this was to convey the message that it is back to business as usual. All is settled. Nothing to see here.
Curiously, one detail that apparently has escaped the secrecy is the claim that the Hereditary Chiefs remain firmly opposed to the pipeline, and that its construction has resumed.
EuclidSo I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute.
And here we go again. You're so hyperfocused on gaming the semantics of excuse that will let you be 'right' in making your 'conclusions' that you completely miss important points.
The First Nations groups nominally responsible for most of the barricades were not Wet'suwet'en, only acting in nominal solidarity with them. To ignore this point basically invalidates any 'conclusion' based on it that claims to be 'solidly based on what is known'.
Overmod : At last, long last you realize that Euclidean logic always is circular to "prove" that he is right, even when he only argues with his alter ego Bucky.
Overmod Euclid So I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute. And here we go again. You're so hyperfocused on gaming the semantics of excuse that will let you be 'right' in making your 'conclusions' that you completely miss important points. The First Nations groups nominally responsible for most of the barricades were not Wet'suwet'en, only acting in nominal solidarity with them. To ignore this point basically invalidates any 'conclusion' based on it that claims to be 'solidly based on what is known'.
Euclid So I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute.
Overmod,
I think you are exaggerating the effect of a minor quibble with my text.
News article:
Wet’suwet’en leaders reject Trudeau’s demand to remove the barricades, setting the stage for clashes
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/02/21/wetsuweten-barricades-must-now-come-down-justin-trudeau-says.html
An article over one month old?
Euclid Overmod Euclid So I must conclude that the Wet’suwet’en people agreed to take down the barricades as a good faith measure in exchange for the government offering the actual real deal at the heart of the dispute. And here we go again. You're so hyperfocused on gaming the semantics of excuse that will let you be 'right' in making your 'conclusions' that you completely miss important points. The First Nations groups nominally responsible for most of the barricades were not Wet'suwet'en, only acting in nominal solidarity with them. To ignore this point basically invalidates any 'conclusion' based on it that claims to be 'solidly based on what is known'. Overmod, I think you are exaggerating the effect of a minor quibble with my text. News article: Wet’suwet’en leaders reject Trudeau’s demand to remove the barricades, setting the stage for clashes https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/02/21/wetsuweten-barricades-must-now-come-down-justin-trudeau-says.html
.
Hardly. When an ongoing, recent issue is being examined, the timeline up to the present is essential.
I did and you missed the substance OM's comment, of course, because you are always right.
Maybe they abandoned the barricades because they were afraid of catching the corona virus???
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
The Wetsuweten people have said that they are not working on review of government offer now due to COVID-19. They are also calling for the pipeline work to be stopped due to the danger of the coronavirus.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qjdaex/theres-still-no-deal-in-wetsuweten-but-pipeline-construction-is-ongoing
From the article:
A natural gas company with a $6.6 billion plan to build a pipeline through northern British Columbia is continuing to clear forest and deliver pipe despite an Indigenous community’s calls to shut down in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The threat of COVID-19 spread has suspended all Wet’suwet’en meetings, including talks on a proposed deal between hereditary chiefs, B.C., and Canada.
“We are not doing any public meetings currently and do not have a date set when we will continue with our clan meetings,” Wet’suwet’en Chief Na’moks, who also goes by John Risdale, said in an email Monday. “We have to consider the safety of our people and all who reside on our territory.”
Finally a wee trickle of information.
The Wet'suwet'en now say the "Process by which the proposed memorandum of understanding was achieved is unacceptable" .
So they haven't even gone beyond a memorandum of understanding as far as the Elected Chiefs are concerned . They want the process to start all over again, this time including the Elected Chiefs.
The existing memoradum as signed has nothing to do with the pipeline and everything to do with addressing land rights and title more broadly.
Well now! Of course it does ! I would think "more broadly defined land titles and rights" mean a good sized chunk of British Columbia and it will set a precedent for all the other 100 or so bands in BC to lay claim to the entire province and then some!
I was mocked for saying this but the future for property owners in BC is going to be very grim. You might own your house or your business but you ain't gonna own da land! The implications are beyond huge and is exactly the kind of thing the Trudeau government seeks to see, upend it all, show the world how progressive and perfect things will be.
https://nationalpost.com/news/wetsuweten-elected-chiefs-call-on-crown-indigenous-relations-minister-to-resign#comments-area
Miningman Finally a wee trickle of information. The Wet'suwet'en now say the "Process by which the proposed memorandum of understanding was achieved is unacceptable" . So they haven't even gone beyond a memorandum of understanding as far as the Elected Chiefs are concerned . They want the process to start all over again, this time including the Elected Chiefs. The existing memoradum as signed has nothing to do with the pipeline and everything to do with addressing land rights and title more broadly. Well now! Of course it does ! I would think "more broadly defined land titles and rights" mean a good sized chunk of British Columbia and it will set a precedent for all the other 100 or so bands in BC to lay claim to the entire province and then some! I was mocked for saying this but the future for property owners in BC is going to be very grim. You might own your house or your business but you ain't gonna own da land! The implications are beyond huge and is exactly the kind of thing the Trudeau government seeks to see, upend it all, show the world how progressive and perfect things will be. https://nationalpost.com/news/wetsuweten-elected-chiefs-call-on-crown-indigenous-relations-minister-to-resign#comments-area
So, as I understand, the process for the discussions was not correctly executed, so now it has to be done over.
This post-blockade phase began with an offer by the government, but the offer has never been made public.
The offer apparently is more about a larger issue of land rights rather than the pipeline.
How long will it take the Trudeau government correct the process for discussion that was not correctly executed, and once that is done, how long will it take for the indigenous government to decide whether to accept the new process for discussion?
If land title is taken away from existing holders, will they be compensated by the Trudeau government?
More info : released last night
The agreement--
http://www.wetsuweten.com/files/DRAFT_MOU_AGREEMENT.pdf
Further from the Wet'suwet'an
http://www.wetsuweten.com/media-centre/news/memorandum-of-understanding-wetsuweten-hereditary-chiefs-bc-and-canada-re-wetsuweten-title
Latest writeup National Post
https://nationalpost.com/news/wetsuweten-deal-recognizes-rights-and-title-sets-stage-for-ongong-talks
So all these rail blockades across the entire country because of five people. It's like a Star Trek episode or something!
Get off my lawn!
My lawn is vast, as far as the eye can see and beyond.
Miningman So all these rail blockades across the entire country because of five people. It's like a Star Trek episode or something!
Kirk would give up on talking after a few minutes, and run them over.
Picard would deftly manipulate them into signing a favourable agreement, which they would end up thinking was their idea in the first place.
The Vulcans would mull over how logical the Native land claim is, but also how illogical the protesters are acting.
The Klingons or Romulans wouldn't have even tried talking.
The Borg would assimilate them, there would be no more Natives or European-Canadians, only Borg.
I wonder how any new protests will look in this time of the pandemic. Kind of hard to form a human chain while staying 6 feet apart.
SD70DudeKirk would give up on talking after a few minutes, and run them over. Picard would deftly manipulate them into signing a favourable agreement, which they would end up thinking was their idea in the first place.
Riker would have just dated them.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann SD70Dude Kirk would give up on talking after a few minutes, and run them over. Picard would deftly manipulate them into signing a favourable agreement, which they would end up thinking was their idea in the first place. Riker would have just dated them.
SD70Dude Kirk would give up on talking after a few minutes, and run them over. Picard would deftly manipulate them into signing a favourable agreement, which they would end up thinking was their idea in the first place.
Kirk would probably have tried that too. But Shatner is Canadian, so they may have recognized him as being up to no good.
There are a couple of highly interesting sections in that MoU.
(And some highly Klingonish names, now that you bring it up... no, I take that back, TV SF writers are seldom that imaginative.)
Note how carefully they dance around the issue of what happens after the First Nations group decides on its 'government structure' to administer the lands. Or what 'fair compensation' might mean in that context...
The picture is of Chief Woos.
Saw a Picard/Riker campaign bumper sticker the other day.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.