Natives do not pay taxes?
- Thread starter truedat
- Start date
Bet these guys that you mentioned have no other source of income? Hunting and fishing for SELF SUSTINANCE is what you make of it. I'd bet they feed their families with the money they make selling the fish!
I'd bet these companies that you're referring to ARE NOT native owned!? The bottom line is that WE HAVE NO BORDERS! Why should it matter what we bring anything back for? Would you consider yourself a smuggler if you bought something in TO and than took it home to Mississauga? Probably not and it's the exact same for us!
I am who I am and no government will ever take that away from me, no matter how hard they try. AND to INFORM YOU of a few things in order to live in this country as a "full status treaty" native AND be able to participate in all the rights guaranteed us in the treaties, the government mandates that we have to live on the rez. So, if we leave the rez. we loose our rights. I should be able to live anywhere I want in this country as a "full status treaty" native and not just on some piece of scrub land that the government has no other use for.
Actually, NO I don't
Thanks Cookie..... It's refreshing to find someone who can see through the smoke and mirror show the governement has hid behind for generations..... And to your son..... Sego.... It`s always good to meet up with family.
Our First Nations people make excellent soldiers and have served Canada honourably in two world wars. For those who are interested, look up the WW I exploits of Ojibwa Indian Francis Pagamagabow from Ontario, Canada.
I've noted citations of various wrongs which have been perpetrated against certain individuals, but for which other individuals are claiming certain "rights".
That's not how justice works. Those individuals responsible should be held to account to the very best ability of the system in place. But if those responsible cannot be held to account, that does not make it the responsibility of others to pay the price.
Nobody is suggesting that it is up to all Native Americans to pay for innocent settlers who were murdered. Nor should anyone expect today's citizens (of any racial descent) to pay for crimes committed by their ancestors, no matter how heinous.
That's not how justice works. Those individuals responsible should be held to account to the very best ability of the system in place. But if those responsible cannot be held to account, that does not make it the responsibility of others to pay the price.
Nobody is suggesting that it is up to all Native Americans to pay for innocent settlers who were murdered. Nor should anyone expect today's citizens (of any racial descent) to pay for crimes committed by their ancestors, no matter how heinous.
There has been some very good discussion in this thread that will help some people understand the issues. Others will never understand the issues as they are too focused on what others appear to have which they cannot possess. Thanks to sweetcookie, Bif, oldjones, ironhead and others for taking the time to explain and shed light on some very complex issues. It is through dialogue that people learn. Most in our society have not had the opportunity to learn the other side of this story.
natives pay federal taxes unless they work on the reserve. natives pay no land tax if they live on the reserve because it's owned by the local band counsel. They pay no gst/pst so they collect
none ( by your smokes on the reserves for $15.00 a bag) = 200 cigs. Anyone can shop on the reserve and they won't charge you tax. natives get 14 cents of per litre of gasoline.
I live near a reserve and shop on it all the time.
none ( by your smokes on the reserves for $15.00 a bag) = 200 cigs. Anyone can shop on the reserve and they won't charge you tax. natives get 14 cents of per litre of gasoline.
I live near a reserve and shop on it all the time.
Concerning "natives"
(edited for brevity/relevance and spelling/capitalizations)
Not sure what "YOUR = non-native" refers to.
Going by what has been written in this thread it appears as though Aboriginals refer to themselves as natives and do not recognize that people from other backgrounds who are born on this land are also natives.
(edited for brevity/relevance and spelling/capitalizations)
Makes sense.
Native Indian seems pretty clear, until you consider all the people born in India.
I'm sorry but ... our world?
So what do your treaties say regarding the use of land by native Canadians?
I'm sure there are many Canadians who have faced discrimination and abuse throughout their lives. Just saying.
Not sure what "YOUR = non-native" refers to.
This seems to apply to all people born here, although I'm not sure how often non-indian natives are allowed to live on a reserve. I suppose through marriage they could.
Going by what has been written in this thread it appears as though Aboriginals refer to themselves as natives and do not recognize that people from other backgrounds who are born on this land are also natives.
Frankly it's no more my business what anyone else refers to themselves as than it is theires what I call myself. Until we come together to try to get something done in common. Then if we're gonna get anywhere, we sorta have to use the same words for the same things. But we needn't parse any of the terms as precisely as if we were handing out big prizes or punishments based on membership. When a guy says he's Mohawk and later calls himself 'native', I not only know what he means, but would take a bet he also gets to call himself 'native' by virtue of being born in Canada. As you said. Of course Mohawk land straddles our borders, and he might be a native of the US, where 'native' is much more commonly used, to replace 'Indian', to describe the folks we call First Nations.
When you realize we also have to allow for historical changes. 'Red Indian' was once preferred for our original inhabitants, back when Victoria was Empress of India. And in those days we newly landed Scots-Irish woulda called ourselves the White Race, and Great Briatain the First Nation. We've since made it sound more 'technical' by switching to Caucasian (which is an insupportable misnomer) back when we called African-originated folks Negroes. We then went to Blacks and Whites for them and us, but somehow everyonefelt uncomfortable about calling anyone Reds or Yellows, or Browns. And when I worked with guys from the local reserve they said they called each other Indians and wouldn't take offence if I did. Like getting permission to use the N-word? It's all a real muddle what we should call anyone. Best bet is let them tell you. So Aboriginal and First Nations win here in Canuckistan.
It's a different matter to take a useful, meaningful word like 'native', give it a new meaning and use it to distinguish a racial group, when the real meaning admits no such distinction at all. Smacks way too much of colonialist supremacy: the mighty White Hunter by the fire telling his dusky companion, "The drums have gone silent. The Natives are restless tonight".
But the OP who used first mis-used the term in this thread certainly wrote as if he too was native, and quite unaware of it.
When you realize we also have to allow for historical changes. 'Red Indian' was once preferred for our original inhabitants, back when Victoria was Empress of India. And in those days we newly landed Scots-Irish woulda called ourselves the White Race, and Great Briatain the First Nation. We've since made it sound more 'technical' by switching to Caucasian (which is an insupportable misnomer) back when we called African-originated folks Negroes. We then went to Blacks and Whites for them and us, but somehow everyonefelt uncomfortable about calling anyone Reds or Yellows, or Browns. And when I worked with guys from the local reserve they said they called each other Indians and wouldn't take offence if I did. Like getting permission to use the N-word? It's all a real muddle what we should call anyone. Best bet is let them tell you. So Aboriginal and First Nations win here in Canuckistan.
It's a different matter to take a useful, meaningful word like 'native', give it a new meaning and use it to distinguish a racial group, when the real meaning admits no such distinction at all. Smacks way too much of colonialist supremacy: the mighty White Hunter by the fire telling his dusky companion, "The drums have gone silent. The Natives are restless tonight".
But the OP who used first mis-used the term in this thread certainly wrote as if he too was native, and quite unaware of it.
The point of the treaties was for the 1st nations to give up their claims to some of the land in return for guarantees of food, shelter, and education (simplified version). These are still legal treaties. Living in teepees and hunting with bows and arrows had nothing to do with it. In fact, guns may have had something to do with motivation for coming to treaty agreements, as Canada (or the British in some cases) signed the treaties in order to prevent war.
Uhhh..... what???? Must be a new form of english the kids are taking in school!?
How else would you explain the systemic abuse and murder of thousands of our children in the Residential School System? Burried in unmarked mass graves that are just coming to light now!
He's correct. For a long time prior to the arrival of Europeans, and continuing for a long time afterwards, there was an almost perpetual state of war between shifting alliances of tribes. It was not some paradise, it was a bloody hell. They would routinely brutally murder one another. That is not something that the Europeans caused. That is something the Europeans got roped into.
This is one of the things that the British failed to understand, but the French learned perfectly well. It is why the French kicked the shit out of the British for a very long time. The British assumed that the natives wanted cash like everybody else and could be controlled through rising and lowering prices. The French understood that what the tribes REALLY wanted stability, security, and an ally in their war against the next tribe: What was on their minds was not profit, but how not to get butchered by the next guy.
- - -
On the topic of this thread, the reason why there are no taxes paid on certain goods, and why first nation peoples in Canada have the status and rights they do, is that it's the law: We signed treaties, and we still honour them. What legal basis would we have to rip up the treaties which essentially founded this country?
Ok... Lets set a few things straight here..... First of all, Natives are only income tax exempt IF they live and work on the rez AND they have to employed by a native owned company. (the original treaty says nothing about all these "guidelines" that are being imposed on us now)
Not all reservation land is owned by band councils. This depends entirely on the mandates that each individual council / nation has adopted. For example..... The reservation known as Moose Deer Point (near Parrysound). Their territory is entirely owned by their band council where as Rama (casino Rama) has individual land owners and is not entirely owned by their council.
Every native shopping off the rez. is subject to paying the GST and not the PST. UNLESS, whatever is being purchased is shipped onto the rez. by the seller which then can be sold to them both PST and GST tax free. Reservations in themselves are sales tax free zones meaning that ANYONE can come here and buy merchandise sales tax free. The government is in the process of trying to stop our tax free status and MAKE us collect their taxes for them at time of purchase.
I may not be the most politically correct person here on Terb. So I don't care if you choose to call me NATIVE, ABORIGINAL, INDIAN or any other expletive I'm sure you can come up with.... I am who I am and no monicre will ever take that away, they all pretty much mean the same thing just a generation apart.
BTW.... My status card says Certificate of INDIAN status.........
Mineshaft.... I'm not going to quote your entire post here......... When I mentioned the term YOUR world or YOUR government.... I meant the non - native world, government, etc.
Yes, I'm sure there are very many people in Canada who have faced descrimination to one extent or another..... BUT, you show me one race of people who have faced open systemic descrimination on THEIR OWN LAND from the outside world from day one up until this exact moment. Bet you can't!?
Yes, I'm sure there are very many people in Canada who have faced descrimination to one extent or another..... BUT, you show me one race of people who have faced open systemic descrimination on THEIR OWN LAND from the outside world from day one up until this exact moment. Bet you can't!?
Last edited:
I used to make this argument too. Until I got schooled on it. So now I'll school you...
The difference between your examples and the aboriginals in Canada is that the Canadian aboriginals have treaties with the British whereby the aboriginals were given things in return for their land. The British needed the assistance of the aboriginals in their fights with the French and Americans so they didn't just seize the territory like the Americans did. And in many cases the aboriginals are claiming that the British (and now Canadian government) have not lived up to their end of the bargain. That, combined with British common law, means that the Canadian aboriginals have much stronger land claims than other conquered people have (e.g., people in Quebec).
If you do some research into the credibility of many aboriginal land claims, you won't like what you find out... There's a reason the Canadian governments have continually been stalling on the resolution of aboriginal land claims...
Sorry Fuji, but you've been reading too many of the government published textbooks again..... OK, Aboriginals in Kanata 101.... Prior to the Europeans arriving on our land, pretty much everyone got along well as there was enough land to support all the nations that lived on it. Sure there probably were some scirmishes amongst my people over whatever, some nation's traditional territory overlapped each other. BUT when the Europeans started to arrive on this land and encroached on native territory, thereby causing the natives who lived there to venture further into their neighbours territory looking to a) secure food sources since their original sources were being over run by the new commers and b) a lot of my people wanted to keep their distance from the new comers because of their strange ways that my people may have been uncomfortable with, etc, etc, etc. This encroachment caused an endless increase in tension amongst the different nations and ended up generations of conflict amongst my people.
Perfect example is, say you're living in a house with your wife and possibly a child or 2 and then your wife announces that her mom and her mom's family are going to move into your house whose size was just perfect for your family alone..... How would this make you feel? Tripping over everyone all day, no hot water left by the time you hit the shower in the morning, your fridge always being empty even though you just bought groceries the day before. You'd be PISSED and rightly so. This is how my people felt, finding it more and more difficult to support their people, finding that all the food resources were being taken up by the ever increasing number of new comers, and unfortunately we turned that inevitable aggression on each other instead of focusing it on something more productive to help resolve the problems at hand.
I would suggest that the Indian Wars were a direct result of the Europeans encroaching on our land.
As far as honoring the treaties..... The government hasn't honored 1 treaty in it's entirety since they started writing them. Their position is that the treaty(s) as written was never ratified..... Our position is that the government gave their people power to come in and negotiate an agreement with my people and then sign it on the government's behalf and that ratification was never a requirement to the agreement. AND if ratification to this agreement was a requirement then what the H*LL are they doing here in the first place IF the agreement to use our land has not yet been ratified?
Like KEEB said.... There's a good reason the Canadian government is taking hundreds of years to resolve legitimate land claims. They're hoping that the people and their decendants who brought the land claim forth would die off and eventually everyone would forget about it. That way the Canadian government can sweep it under the rug like nothing ever happened instead of dealing with it legitimately now. The Canadian government does not want it's collective face rubbed in a cow patti on the world stage. This would shoot to h*ll whatever credibility they think they have on human rights and other issues.
This is probably true. The indigenous Indians in South America and the Black Africans in Africa were at war with each other long before the White man arrived.
This is revisionist history. That is simply not what happened. Indian tribes formed into alliances, such as, Huron vs. Iroqouis, and they fought one bloody butcherous murdeorus battle after another with one another. They were doing that since long before anybody heard of white people.
The problem was not a lack of land. The problem was that native societies did not have a viable justice system. Instead they practices tit-for-tat retaliation for wrongs done which routinely escalated into open warfare.
It would happen like this: I insult you, so you punch me. I can't let that pass, so I break your leg. Your brother must have revenge for the wrong against his family, so he kills me. My family can't let that pass they get together and murder your entire family in their sleep. Your tribe must protects its honour so it launches an all out attack against my village. My village's allies are bound by honour to stand up agains that--net result is a massive open warfare between the two sides.
At some point everyone gets sick of the bloodshed and a big meeting is called--the famous peace pipe and all that crap. Grand speeches are made about how we are all now friends forever, for as long as the sun rises and sets we we will all live in peace and harmony, and protect one another, and help one another out. It lasts for a year or two, and then there's another incident, and more butchery.
You can believe all the bullshit you like but the reality was a cruel and brutal society in which everybody's primary concern was how to ensure their security against being butchered by their neighbour.
