Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Scrip, "road allowance people", land theft

  1. #1

    Default Scrip, "road allowance people", land theft

    This was very interesting


    Forced to live on roadsides: the dark history of Métis road allowances | CBC Radio

    “It's why few specifically Métis settlements remain today, save for a few areas in Alberta.
    It's a history, Thistle said, that is hardly taught because there isn't much visible history remaining.

    "It has to do with the way that we were dispossessed and our land was extinguished," he said. "There was no Department of Indigenous Affairs set up to create documents, to track history."

    ...”

    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/unreserved/...nces-1.5100660

    What's Métis scrip? North America's 'largest land swindle,' says Indigenous lawyer
    CBC Radio · Posted: Apr 25, 2019

    Listen 11:20

    Métis people have very little land to call their own — and that's because the scrip system stripped them of most of their land, says an Indigenous rights lawyer.

    "It's essentially the largest land swindle in North America," said Jason Madden, a descendant of the Halfbreeds of Rainy Lake and Rainy River in Ontario.”




    “"It was a system that was designed for the speculator, not for the Métis," Madden said.

    After buying the coupons, speculators would go down to the Dominion Lands Act offices, have someone impersonate the Métis person they bought the scrip from, and claim the land as theirs.

    Most Métis were English-illiterate, couldn't write and would often sign papers with an "X." The people acting as a Métis person would sign documents as if they were literate.

    Many Métis people decided this was grounds to sue — and were in the process of doing so.

    'Sorry chapter'

    However, in 1921, Senator James Lougheed amended the Canadian Criminal Code to create a three-year statute of limitations on Métis land claims, which meant Métis people couldn't sue after three years of a land claim being finalized.

    The Supreme Court of Canada, in 2003, referred to scrip as "a sorry chapter in our nation's history," and in 2013, Canada's highest court found the federal government failed to follow through on a promise it made to the Métis people over 140 years ago. ...”


    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/unreserved/...wyer-1.5100507


    Last edited by KC; 08-05-2019 at 10:13 AM.

  2. #2
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Trust CBC to dredge this up. What is the end game here ? Taxpayers doling out even more money to indigenous groups. When does all this apologizing and handing out money ( which by the sounds of it has not really helped anyways) stop ?

    For thousands of years people have been slaughtered, displaced, raped, pillaged, evicted, re-settled , force settled, exiled and the like. Not the brightest hours for humankind without a doubt. However, that was in the past.

    How far back do we go to right the wrongs of history ? How much do we pay ? Will that be enough ? Will there be more claims ?

    Enough is enough.

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,873

    Default

    Amen

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,945

    Default

    ^^While you don't have to like it, the Metis have land rights set out in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

    The good news is that Alberta - unlike other Canadian provinces - settled land claims with the Metis thirty years ago.

    More information and a map of the 8 settlements here:
    The eight Alberta Métis settlements are today home to nearly 5,000 people, and cover 5,112 square kilometres of land — equivalent to nine-tenths of Prince Edward Island spread across the northern half of Alberta.

    https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/ar...is-settlements

  5. #5

    Default

    It’s a fascinating problem.

    Say your grandparents started some long lived highly successful company like Coca Cola, Pepsi, IBM, PG, etc. and ended up with a partner. They were old school and thought they were sharing in the development of the business each bringing something to the table. Then that partner saw the inherent value to him and his family and did some deals with your aging sometimes sick grandparents but also took advantage of their illness, frailty etc and fraudulently ended up taking full control and near full possession of the company.

    So a couple generations later your parents were impoverished and you are impoverished, receiving a pittance of dividends and a small slice of the shares, but the partner’s descendants are receiving tens of billions in dividends and retaining almost all the shares - which are worth hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars.

    You also have evidence of how your grandparents were cheated out of their company. You may also have evidence that your parents thought they were signing off on sharing some of the company not assigning away full ownership.

    You also have a big chunk of the original shares that your grandparents never signed any sale on but the partner/company has long said that you have no rights of control associated with those shares.
    Last edited by KC; 09-05-2019 at 06:47 PM.

  6. #6
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    439

    Default

    ^, yep, an interesting way to look at it. But why stop at grandparents, what happened if great grand pa Joe talked about it, but never did anything about it, then Grand pa Bob started the company, do we go back to Great Grand Pa ?
    If there are claims to be made, why don't the Metis go after the British and French, they were the ones that settled North America, perhaps Canadians should get our claim in too against the Brits and French for not having this ironed out.
    It's a very dangerous precedent to keep going back in history. Do we just give them some money and have ALL Natives sign an iron clad agreement that forever absolves us ( Brits and French included ), and forever extinguishes future claims ?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^While you don't have to like it, the Metis have land rights set out in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

    The good news is that Alberta - unlike other Canadian provinces - settled land claims with the Metis thirty years ago.

    More information and a map of the 8 settlements here:
    The eight Alberta Métis settlements are today home to nearly 5,000 people, and cover 5,112 square kilometres of land — equivalent to nine-tenths of Prince Edward Island spread across the northern half of Alberta.

    https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/ar...is-settlements
    Any other outstanding land claims are because govts chose to ignore the problem or deemed them not worthy. There are lots of claims in bc and now out east happening.

    It's unfortunate govts continued to ignore the problems as it's only created bigger issues moving forward.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rupikhalon001 View Post
    ^, yep, an interesting way to look at it. But why stop at grandparents, what happened if great grand pa Joe talked about it, but never did anything about it, then Grand pa Bob started the company, do we go back to Great Grand Pa ?
    If there are claims to be made, why don't the Metis go after the British and French, they were the ones that settled North America, perhaps Canadians should get our claim in too against the Brits and French for not having this ironed out.
    It's a very dangerous precedent to keep going back in history. Do we just give them some money and have ALL Natives sign an iron clad agreement that forever absolves us ( Brits and French included ), and forever extinguishes future claims ?
    It’s a real mess. Agreements were made and reneged on.

    However, maybe someday the US will just say to Canada, sign here. We’ve decided that we own you and all your assets. Tomorrow you can let all your urban homeowners, etc know that they are now renters. Renters that is, until we decide which cities and homes we plan to occupy. Oh, and let your farmers and ranchers know that we’ll be taking over all the farms plus farmland tomorrow. ...
    Last edited by KC; 09-05-2019 at 09:09 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^While you don't have to like it, the Metis have land rights set out in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

    The good news is that Alberta - unlike other Canadian provinces - settled land claims with the Metis thirty years ago.

    More information and a map of the 8 settlements here:
    The eight Alberta Métis settlements are today home to nearly 5,000 people, and cover 5,112 square kilometres of land — equivalent to nine-tenths of Prince Edward Island spread across the northern half of Alberta.

    https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/ar...is-settlements
    Any other outstanding land claims are because govts chose to ignore the problem or deemed them not worthy. There are lots of claims in bc and now out east happening.

    It's unfortunate govts continued to ignore the problems as it's only created bigger issues moving forward.
    It’s really interesting because the Europeans imposed their system property rights ownership and individual inheritance. So it’s then rather hard to say to descendants of people that never ceded their land that they should ignore the inheritance rights that we ourselves would demand of ownership and control over the lands they have or should have inherited. Would say a 5th generation farmer just key anyone say he/she should have no claim to the farmland his ancestors settled (settled that is, after it was cleared of indigenous users).

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rupikhalon001 View Post
    ^, yep, an interesting way to look at it. But why stop at grandparents, what happened if great grand pa Joe talked about it, but never did anything about it, then Grand pa Bob started the company, do we go back to Great Grand Pa ?
    If there are claims to be made, why don't the Metis go after the British and French, they were the ones that settled North America, perhaps Canadians should get our claim in too against the Brits and French for not having this ironed out.
    It's a very dangerous precedent to keep going back in history. Do we just give them some money and have ALL Natives sign an iron clad agreement that forever absolves us ( Brits and French included ), and forever extinguishes future claims ?
    Or we could just have Canada hand all the land back to descendents of the original inhabitants. I'm sure you'd be just finw with accepting their ruling as to who owns your house and the land it sits on. Right?

  11. #11
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    439

    Default

    ^ the descendants of the original inhabitants came across the land bridge to North America from Asia(forget the exact region), where we all originated from. It's a bit like handing it back to ourselves ?

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rupikhalon001 View Post
    ^ the descendants of the original inhabitants came across the land bridge to North America from Asia(forget the exact region), where we all originated from. It's a bit like handing it back to ourselves ?
    All those involved are long dead.

    However despite our platitudes regarding level playing fields, meritocracy, equality and the focus on the individual as a clean slate, we still have a big love of defining and perceiving and even granting privilege to those alive today based on their blood lines, inherited property, inherited religious beliefs, inherited culture, their country or region of ancestral origin, our fuzzy ideas about culture, ethnicity, language, etc.

    So communal sharing societies (in reality it was probably a real mix of indigenous societies), encountered expansionary imperialistic societies rules by monarchs. (Most of Europe was controlled by kingdoms of one sort of another.)

    So what we see as property of the citizens, and effectively is, is often in the name of the ruling family that was taking ownership long before most of our ancestors immigrated to this land. So while most of us would say we own the oil sands etc, most of us have never even been to walk in the lands where the oil sands are. We feel we inherited the right to those resources. However, the monarchy may never have visited some of the lands held in their name, as the head of Canada but every document shows who the owner is.



    If you own a home, assets, land you like to think that it is yours and that you have the right to pass it on to your kids, etc. Or do with it what you want. That thinking is based on documents, property rights etc. Someone takes your property, say something handed down to you like a family heirloom or a farm or whatever, and you would almost certainly call it stealing and if you had documents to prove your ownership you’d be demanding that they be honoured because that was the deal between those that originally did the deal.



    Crown land (sometimes spelled crownland), also known as royal domain or demesne, is a territorial area belonging to the monarch, who personifies the Crown. It is the equivalent of an entailed estate and passes with the monarchy, being inseparable from it. Today, in Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia, crown land is considered public land and is apart from the monarch's private estate.


    “Within Canada, Crown Land is a designated territorial area belonging to the Canadian Crown.[7][8] Though the monarch owns all Crown Land in the country, it is divided in parallel with the "division" of the Crown among the federal and provincial jurisdictions, so that some lands within the provinces are administered by the relevant provincial Crown, whereas others are under the federal Crown. About 89% of Canada's land area (8,886,356 km²) is Crown Land: 41% is federal crown land and 48% is provincial crown land. The remaining 11% is privately owned.[9] Most federal Crown Land is in the territories (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon) and is administered by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. Only 4% of land in the provinces is federally controlled, largely in the form of National Parks, Indian reserves, or Canadian Forces bases. In contrast, provinces hold much of their territory as provincial Crown Land, which may be held as Provincial Parks or wilderness.
    Crown Land is the equivalent of an entailedestate that passes with the monarchy and cannot be alienated from it; thus,...”



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land
    Last edited by KC; 10-05-2019 at 11:05 AM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rupikhalon001 View Post
    ^ the descendants of the original inhabitants came across the land bridge to North America from Asia(forget the exact region), where we all originated from. It's a bit like handing it back to ourselves ?
    Except they didn't displace anyone else when they got here.

  14. #14
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    439

    Default

    ^True. but lots of people who never displaced anybody over the world were again slaughtered, displaced, raped, pillaged, evicted, re-settled , force settled, exiled and conquered for hundreds of years. Sometimes it is the way it is. We cannot turn back the clock, wars are won and lost all the time
    Again, how would this be resolved in say Europe, where there has been countless battles, wars, and even entire countries replaced, re-drawn and erased for hundreds of generations.
    Should the Brits go back as far as Roman times and sue the descendants of Romans ? Should North and South America make claims against the French, Brits and Spanish ?
    I don't believe for one minute that the natives all lived in harmony with each other. I'm sure there were battles between tribes and groups to take each others land and food. Do you think that some bands would be handing out cash to the other bands/ tribes that were wronged by their ancestors ?
    What the 'settlers' did was no different.

  15. #15

    Default

    It’s been endless. Still, does that mean if someone steals your car you’ll do nothing because over the millennia, nearly everyone has suffered from thefts?

    On the North America indigenous peoples there was all kinds of hostilities. There was slavery too. In our society there was also slavery.

    So when do you right past wrongs and when do you just ignore them?


    So say one day after your car is stolen do you say, well what’s done is done?



    In the Middle East they are fighting thousand and two thousand year old injustices and likely perceived injustices. Of course it’s a certainty that everyone picks and chooses among injustices for the ones that they can use.


    There’s probably even Christian, Muslims, Jews, Hindu descendants of Jews, Muslims... etc, that were forced to convert hundreds or thousands of years ago, that are now fighting against the people of those former religions that their ancestors belonged to. Holding inherited grudges.
    Last edited by KC; 10-05-2019 at 02:06 PM.

  16. #16

    Default

    “I have reason to believe that the agents as a whole … are doing all they can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense,” Sir John A. Macdonald, 1882.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    “I have reason to believe that the agents as a whole … are doing all they can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense,” Sir John A. Macdonald, 1882.
    Pick up a copy of a book called: “Clearing the Plains”.

    More on the issue here:



    Here is what Sir John A. Macdonald did to Indigenous people – National Post
    BY TRISTIN HOPPER, AUG 28, 2018



    “In government archives, Daschuk found ample primary evidence showing that Macdonald’s Indian agents explicitly withheld food in order to drive bands onto reserve and out of the way of the railroad. A Liberal MP at the time even called it “a policy of submission shaped by a policy of starvation.”

    But the hunger did not stop under government care. In some cases, it got worse. ...”


    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...igenous-people
    Last edited by KC; 10-05-2019 at 10:26 PM.

  18. #18

    Default

    Mills, a Liberal, was Canadian born and as stated in the other article, criticized MacDonald for saying that the indigenous people should have the right to vote.


    To vilify Sir John A. Macdonald is to wrongly seek a single scapegoat for Canada’s mistreatment of Indigenous people

    BOB PLAMONDON
    CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
    FEBRUARY 19, 2018



    “Mr. Daschuk's case against Macdonald's government is disturbing. But it is also incomplete. When Macdonald made his infamous remark in the House of Commons in 1872, during a debate on government spending, it was in response to a question by Liberal MP David Mills (who later served as Justice minister in the Laurier government and then on the Supreme Court of Canada). While protesting the cost of food rations, Mills warned, "… a barbarous population like the Indians may very easily be made wholly dependent upon the government … to the extent … that it will be very difficult to induce the Indians to devote themselves to industrial pursuits."

    What Mr. Daschuk omitted in his book was Macdonald's admonition of Mills: "In the case of apprehended famine the matter is to be dealt with on the spot … When the Indians have been starving they have been helped."

    While Macdonald can certainly be criticized, he was nonetheless enlightened by the standards of his time. He was in rare company in expressing sympathy for the Indigenous people: "We must remember that they are the original owners of the soil, of which they have been dispossessed by the covetousness or ambition of our ancestors … the Indians have been the great sufferers by the discovery of America and the transfer to it of a large white population."

    While an overt policy of assimilation is offensive, Macdonald looks saintly compared with U.S. leadership. Indeed,...”



    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle38017335/



Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •