Total posts: 
I've probably mentioned this a few times but I felt that I should compile the ideas into one thread and post it. http://politicallyuntenable.blogspot.com/2012/07/aboriginal-provinces.html Canada's aboriginal communities have been suffering high rates of poverty for a long time now. They've also been abused for a long time with the residential school systems (basically a giant re-education program to conduct cultural genocide) ended in the 90s. So I'm proposing a way to get Aboriginal communities up to the average Canadian standard of living. Basically:
edited 20th Jul '12 7:04:39 PM by breadloaf
betaalphaThat's an interesting idea. How does it compare with equalization policies for indigenous people in other countries like Australia and New Zealand? Is it similar to what the aboriginal people themselves are asking for?
I'm not that familiar with the equalisation formula of Australia and New Zealand, do you have a link to descriptions or perhaps got a summary of it?
watAs an Australian, I may be able to shed some light on the Aboriginal situation here. While I know this thread is mainly talking about land rights. It's good to know the basic history of Aboriginal rights and policies. We've had around five different policies regarding our indigenous people. Protection (Which was meant to be a "Pillow Smother-er policy), Assimilation (Basically cultural genocide. It was with this policy that the abominable Child Protection/Removal policy came about), Integration (The last paternal policy), Self-Determination and currently the Reconciliation policy. It was under this policy that the Mabo Decisions of 1991 happened. The Mabo decision overruled the previous legal statement of Terra Nullius (Uninhabited Land) that prevented Aboriginals from claiming land rights (in most cases, there were exceptions before this policy such as the Handover of Uluru and Kata-Juta in 1980) The Mabo decision allowed for Aboriginals to claim land that they had cultural links too. Once the tribes had proved a minimum of 10 cultural links to the land (which could be anything from rock art to the practice of customary law), the land was theirs and it was to be used by them and them only. Any farmer or miner who wants to use the land can be refused by the tribe or, on the rare occasion that they're allowed to use the land for commercial uses, pay a high compensation fee to the tribe. It was due to this that the Mabo decisions came under heavy fire by the agricultural and mining industries, the rich, the political right of Australia and the Media Watchdogs who thrive on promoting baseless hysteria (Which basically amounted to "THE NATIVES ARE GONNA CLAIM YOUR HOUSE, THE LOCAL PARK, THE SWIMMING POOL, THOSE DAMN
edited 22nd Jul '12 8:21:32 PM by PippingFool
To the skies. Steam Profile
While this is a more fair proposal over the old "Kill the Natives and Take Their Stuff!" policy, I can't help but worry for the Abo. On one hand, having no say in your governance is bad. Yet having no ability to formally govern yourself with a system that is historically/culturally alien to you means its going to be a disaster too. As said above, the Abo have a rather infamous alcohol problem (which may or may not have been worsened by the welfare money handouts...), poverty and poor education. (Self-governance is a big problem if your people don't have enough lawyers to write the rules, and not enough litteracy in the population to read it.)
edited 21st Jul '12 8:50:04 AM by Natasel
Is this comparable with what happened with Nunavut?
Don't just tell us the facts; tell us the memes, tell us the archetypes, tell us the catchy ideas and symbolic roles that get planted in pe
Yeah, it's the same idea as Nunavut. They're doing "fine", but they have increased problems of poverty mostly due to the high cost of living. The general intent is to have First Nations have it as good as at least the Inuit groups, and then from there get all Canadians on equal footing. As far as I know, Australian aboriginals have it way worse than Canadian ones and the Maori are doing okay but not that great. The alcoholism and drug abuse rates in Canada, within reserves, is said to be comparable with non-Aboriginal communities that are in poverty. That is what I gathered from Stat Can. Also, giving them provincial status means they get to form their government as they choose fit. It does also mean that all residents (status Indian or not) would be allowed to vote but I don't think that's a big problem. If they were allowed to live there, then they're there.
Strawberry Feels ForeverI think the formation of native provinces is an interesting approach that could be highly effective. It'll be fought tooth and nail, though, because no existing province will want to give up that territory, especially since many First Nations are located on prime logging and oil real estate. I'm kind of ambivalent because I don't like the power of the provincial level of government in Canada. The federal government has its hands tied in many cases, and the municipalities are frequently exploited as cash cows (yes, I live in Toronto, could you tell). I like the thought of making provinces of the First Nations for the same reason I like the thought of Toronto seceding from Ontario, but at the same time that seems to be just compensating for flaws in the organizational division of power no one seems to be willing to address in this country. Then I remember not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Aggh, indecision.
The two main issues I'm tackling with the province idea are:
Strawberry Feels ForeverUmmm, do you mean which powers of the provinces do I think are too overreaching?
Uh, either one I guess. Just however you think the power system doesn't work.
Strawberry Feels ForeverLarge municipalities don't get a fair share of the funding for the tax burden they carry. Toronto, for instance, gets a lot less in funding than it gives to Ontario in taxes, and I'm sure it's not the only city that does either. Small municipalities don't have the negotiating power to fight off interests like resource extraction companies, land developers, pipeline construction and so on - especially when those countries can pay more than enough to fool the residents of small municipalities with good PR campaigns. Finally, a number of issues (the organization and distribution of health care and gun crime, to name two examples) are highly dependent on population density, and urban areas and rural areas should have the autonomy to construct their own legislation regarding them to a degree.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 12
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.