How US Government Aid Prevents American Indians From Prospering

[RW]

Land ownership is not a requirement to freedom of mobility.

On a reserve it sure as hell is. You don't get to live where you want. The band council decides that for you. If you give a good hummer, the chief will see to it you have a cozy home. If not, you're SOL.



There are some good reserves like the one in Saskatoon, but for the most part they are corrupt as hell. And the corrupt ones have chiefs who don't want those they rule owning their own land.

And my grandma didn't get to live in the corner suite at her old age home because Delores Middleton got assigned it instead.



The point is that they don't have to live on the reserve ergo they have the same freedoms the rest of us do.

A ridiculous apples and oranges comparison.



What do you have against Aboriginals being emancipated from the paternalism of the Indian Act? Throughout their history indigenous peoples have had a diverse set of individual property rights. Many of these rights, however, were taken away by the Crown without their consent. We're talking about restoring those rights and allowing them to share in the Canadian dream in their own communities.

I have no issue with them owning their own land.  My question is what rights are they denied.  They are not denied land ownership.  An aboriginal can buy property all over Canada.  They just can't buy land on reservations.  Neither can you or I for what it's worth.

[RW]

Land ownership is not a requirement to freedom of mobility.

On a reserve it sure as hell is. You don't get to live where you want. The band council decides that for you. If you give a good hummer, the chief will see to it you have a cozy home. If not, you're SOL.



There are some good reserves like the one in Saskatoon, but for the most part they are corrupt as hell. And the corrupt ones have chiefs who don't want those they rule owning their own land.

And my grandma didn't get to live in the corner suite at her old age home because Delores Middleton got assigned it instead.



The point is that they don't have to live on the reserve ergo they have the same freedoms the rest of us do.

A ridiculous apples and oranges comparison.



What do you have against Aboriginals being emancipated from the paternalism of the Indian Act? Throughout their history indigenous peoples have had a diverse set of individual property rights. Many of these rights, however, were taken away by the Crown without their consent. We're talking about restoring those rights and allowing them to share in the Canadian dream in their own communities.

Seems very reasonable to me..



A lot of us non Aboriginal Canadians are unaware that private ownership is not permitted on Aboriginal lands.

That's because technically the Crown owns (aka has legislative jurisdiction over) those lands.  Just like all Crown land, you can't privately own it.

[Bricktop]

It was calculated by some boffin in Australia, that if we had given every single person of aboriginal blood $1,000,000 in compensation, on the proviso that they become self sufficient, we would have spent around 10% of what was actually paid through welfare in the last 10 years, with no tangible improvement in Aboriginal standard of living, life expectancy or participation in employment.

[IRISH KAM]

The Native american just wants Whiteys Fire Water and Welfare .



Theres Not many natives per Head that are NOT on welfare .

[Anonymous]

This article was written by West Coast Aboriginal entrepeneur Calvin Hellin. He explains how the archaic Indian Act and the lack of private property not only holds back Aboriginal potential for economic mobility it is culturally foreign to his people.



Kudos to some BC tribes for trying to break the antiquated North Korea system.

A great deal of confusion and rancour arises over the question of whether aboriginal Canadians should have individual property rights on reserve lands. Is this a goal to aspire to, or an attempt, as claimed by some indigenous leaders, at further assimilation? On one hand, non-aboriginals tend to see aboriginals as one homogeneous cultural group; on the other, some aboriginals project a universal view of collective property ownership on all groups that's simply not accurate.



When Europeans first came to B.C., for example, they found 32 diverse language groups. These groups operated independently as organized societies, possessing complex social institutions, arts and cultures, and well-developed barter economies. And most had strongly developed notions of property ownership.



The coastal people I'm from, the Tsimshian, had very defined ideas about private and collective property ownership. Tribes had well-delineated territorial boundaries for the lands they owned. Any non-tribal entity wishing to use the resources from such a territory were expected to seek permission and, if allowed, to pay what amounted to a tax on any wealth taken from the territory.





Individuals and families possessed further rights to harvest and hunt in certain areas. Individuals owned their personal chattels and what might be considered intellectual property rights to sing specific songs or dance particular dances. As a result, a rich and powerful culture of trade and entrepreneurship flourished. Early European traders recognized the commercial skills of the Tsimshian by referring to them as the Phoenicians of the northwest coast.



Without such a system of property ownership, coastal indigenous people might have found results similar to the early American colonists. The people in the original 13 colonies initially owned the lands collectively, and starved as a result. It wasn't until a form of private property ownership was introduced that people began to work their lands harder and smarter. As Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto has pointed out, where there isn't clear private property ownership, the productive potential of such lands are greatly underused, and those lands essentially amount to what he calls "dead capital."



What people forget is that owning property individually rather than collectively changes your mindset toward it - the care you take of property is much greater when you own it. You didn't have to go too far into a typical communist country (or reserve) to realize the woeful neglect that collective property ownership often results in. On the other hand, China, with its brand of "socialism with Chinese characteristics," clearly recognized the value of creating forms of private property ownership. The role this has had on lifting its massive population to a higher standard of living can't be denied.



In a similar manner, aboriginal Canadians need to embrace forms of private property ownership if they're to escape the poverty of economic dependency - a system foisted on them by the archaic Indian Act, under which reserve property isn't even collectively owned directly but by the federal Crown in trust for their use and benefit.



Many aboriginal groups see the Indian Act system of land ownership as an antiquated barrier to progress. As a result, they're developing forms of private property ownership more akin to their traditional systems. New treaties in B.C. are resulting in the Nisga'a, Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth First Nations adopting forms of a Torrens system of property ownership. Their leaders clearly understand that private property ownership is a prerequisite to lifting their people from the economic morass created by the Indian Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/private-property-is-a-native-right/article597429/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ ... cle597429/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/private-property-is-a-native-right/article597429/

[RW]

This article was written by West Coast Aboriginal entrepeneur Calvin Hellin. He explains how the archaic Indian Act and the lack of private property not only holds back Aboriginal potential for economic mobility it is culturally foreign to his people.



Kudos to some BC tribes for trying to break the antiquated North Korea system.

A great deal of confusion and rancour arises over the question of whether aboriginal Canadians should have individual property rights on reserve lands. Is this a goal to aspire to, or an attempt, as claimed by some indigenous leaders, at further assimilation? On one hand, non-aboriginals tend to see aboriginals as one homogeneous cultural group; on the other, some aboriginals project a universal view of collective property ownership on all groups that's simply not accurate.



When Europeans first came to B.C., for example, they found 32 diverse language groups. These groups operated independently as organized societies, possessing complex social institutions, arts and cultures, and well-developed barter economies. And most had strongly developed notions of property ownership.



The coastal people I'm from, the Tsimshian, had very defined ideas about private and collective property ownership. Tribes had well-delineated territorial boundaries for the lands they owned. Any non-tribal entity wishing to use the resources from such a territory were expected to seek permission and, if allowed, to pay what amounted to a tax on any wealth taken from the territory.





Individuals and families possessed further rights to harvest and hunt in certain areas. Individuals owned their personal chattels and what might be considered intellectual property rights to sing specific songs or dance particular dances. As a result, a rich and powerful culture of trade and entrepreneurship flourished. Early European traders recognized the commercial skills of the Tsimshian by referring to them as the Phoenicians of the northwest coast.



Without such a system of property ownership, coastal indigenous people might have found results similar to the early American colonists. The people in the original 13 colonies initially owned the lands collectively, and starved as a result. It wasn't until a form of private property ownership was introduced that people began to work their lands harder and smarter. As Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto has pointed out, where there isn't clear private property ownership, the productive potential of such lands are greatly underused, and those lands essentially amount to what he calls "dead capital."



What people forget is that owning property individually rather than collectively changes your mindset toward it - the care you take of property is much greater when you own it. You didn't have to go too far into a typical communist country (or reserve) to realize the woeful neglect that collective property ownership often results in. On the other hand, China, with its brand of "socialism with Chinese characteristics," clearly recognized the value of creating forms of private property ownership. The role this has had on lifting its massive population to a higher standard of living can't be denied.



In a similar manner, aboriginal Canadians need to embrace forms of private property ownership if they're to escape the poverty of economic dependency - a system foisted on them by the archaic Indian Act, under which reserve property isn't even collectively owned directly but by the federal Crown in trust for their use and benefit.



Many aboriginal groups see the Indian Act system of land ownership as an antiquated barrier to progress. As a result, they're developing forms of private property ownership more akin to their traditional systems. New treaties in B.C. are resulting in the Nisga'a, Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth First Nations adopting forms of a Torrens system of property ownership. Their leaders clearly understand that private property ownership is a prerequisite to lifting their people from the economic morass created by the Indian Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/private-property-is-a-native-right/article597429/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ ... cle597429/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/private-property-is-a-native-right/article597429/

Just this last year I tutored a kid in First Nations studies.  The Indian Act, specifically property rights, is an issue that we are long overdue for rectifying.  The trouble remains that the crown owns reservation lands and because of the location of some of it, I doubt the government is going to be quick to return it to aboriginal ownership.



There is no doubt the Indian Act is a barrier to progress but the need to control these lands in the future is the impediment and I don't see that going away any time soon.

[Anonymous]

This article was written by West Coast Aboriginal entrepeneur Calvin Hellin. He explains how the archaic Indian Act and the lack of private property not only holds back Aboriginal potential for economic mobility it is culturally foreign to his people.



Kudos to some BC tribes for trying to break the antiquated North Korea system.

A great deal of confusion and rancour arises over the question of whether aboriginal Canadians should have individual property rights on reserve lands. Is this a goal to aspire to, or an attempt, as claimed by some indigenous leaders, at further assimilation? On one hand, non-aboriginals tend to see aboriginals as one homogeneous cultural group; on the other, some aboriginals project a universal view of collective property ownership on all groups that's simply not accurate.



When Europeans first came to B.C., for example, they found 32 diverse language groups. These groups operated independently as organized societies, possessing complex social institutions, arts and cultures, and well-developed barter economies. And most had strongly developed notions of property ownership.



The coastal people I'm from, the Tsimshian, had very defined ideas about private and collective property ownership. Tribes had well-delineated territorial boundaries for the lands they owned. Any non-tribal entity wishing to use the resources from such a territory were expected to seek permission and, if allowed, to pay what amounted to a tax on any wealth taken from the territory.





Individuals and families possessed further rights to harvest and hunt in certain areas. Individuals owned their personal chattels and what might be considered intellectual property rights to sing specific songs or dance particular dances. As a result, a rich and powerful culture of trade and entrepreneurship flourished. Early European traders recognized the commercial skills of the Tsimshian by referring to them as the Phoenicians of the northwest coast.



Without such a system of property ownership, coastal indigenous people might have found results similar to the early American colonists. The people in the original 13 colonies initially owned the lands collectively, and starved as a result. It wasn't until a form of private property ownership was introduced that people began to work their lands harder and smarter. As Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto has pointed out, where there isn't clear private property ownership, the productive potential of such lands are greatly underused, and those lands essentially amount to what he calls "dead capital."



What people forget is that owning property individually rather than collectively changes your mindset toward it - the care you take of property is much greater when you own it. You didn't have to go too far into a typical communist country (or reserve) to realize the woeful neglect that collective property ownership often results in. On the other hand, China, with its brand of "socialism with Chinese characteristics," clearly recognized the value of creating forms of private property ownership. The role this has had on lifting its massive population to a higher standard of living can't be denied.



In a similar manner, aboriginal Canadians need to embrace forms of private property ownership if they're to escape the poverty of economic dependency - a system foisted on them by the archaic Indian Act, under which reserve property isn't even collectively owned directly but by the federal Crown in trust for their use and benefit.



Many aboriginal groups see the Indian Act system of land ownership as an antiquated barrier to progress. As a result, they're developing forms of private property ownership more akin to their traditional systems. New treaties in B.C. are resulting in the Nisga'a, Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth First Nations adopting forms of a Torrens system of property ownership. Their leaders clearly understand that private property ownership is a prerequisite to lifting their people from the economic morass created by the Indian Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/private-property-is-a-native-right/article597429/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ ... cle597429/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/private-property-is-a-native-right/article597429/

Just this last year I tutored a kid in First Nations studies.  The Indian Act, specifically property rights, is an issue that we are long overdue for rectifying.  The trouble remains that the crown owns reservation lands and because of the location of some of it, I doubt the government is going to be quick to return it to aboriginal ownership.



There is no doubt the Indian Act is a barrier to progress but the need to control these lands in the future is the impediment and I don't see that going away any time soon.

It can be done as has happened with the Tsawassen  and Nisga. It's also a savings for the taxpayer too. However, there is widespread opposition to it, by some corrupt Aboriginal leaders who are worried their power and funding would be curtailed and make them no more than a city council. I believe at some point in the future, newer Canadians will demand reforms.

[RW]

It can be done as has happened with the Tsawassen  and Nisga. It's also a savings for the taxpayer too. However, there is widespread opposition to it, by some corrupt Aboriginal leaders who are worried their power and funding would be curtailed and make them no more than a city council. I believe at some point in the future, newer Canadians will demand reforms.

Yeah, the old 99 year lease shit.  It won't be enough, nor should it be IMHO.



Who are these "newer Canadians" you are referring to?

[Anonymous]

Gotta love John Stossel. How about it Scouse? Don't ya luv this Jew.

[RW]

Gotta love John Stossel. How about it Scouse? Don't ya luv this Jew.

[Anonymous]

Gotta love John Stossel. How about it Scouse? Don't ya luv this Jew.

[Anonymous]

It was calculated by some boffin in Australia, that if we had given every single person of aboriginal blood $1,000,000 in compensation, on the proviso that they become self sufficient, we would have spent around 10% of what was actually paid through welfare in the last 10 years, with no tangible improvement in Aboriginal standard of living, life expectancy or participation in employment.

I have heard the situation in Aus with the with the wasteful handouts to Aborigines is even more insane than it is here.

[Anonymous]

Manitoba AFN chiefs are greedy, corupt slimeballs who want to keep the welfare and the accompanying cycle of poverty going for purely selfish reasons.

[Anonymous]

The key is to not only allow, but encourage private ownership on Aboriginal territories.

[Anonymous]

I like the idea of giving all status Indians a one time payment and that is it. No more future payments just for being Indians, no government departments just for Natives and no more special status for being Native. A one time payment and the same citizenship for all races.