Reserves and what should be done

Ok. I really don’t want a scrap to start out of this discussion.
I was in a meeting last week with a guy who has a native background. The conversation turned to economics on Reservations. His point and the point of another well know senior liberal reporter was that the Indian nations should be allowed to sell their land. This kind of came as shock to me.(especially considering there respective backgrounds) But after thinking about for a bit I can see some great advantages to it. In fact the reporter called the present situation a "Velvet coffin".

Does any one here have any insights? I especially would like to hear from those that have lived with this situation. Like I said I really don’t want to have this turn into any sort of bashing thread

Thanks
Jamie

okay jamie i'll bite. this isn't gonna come close to covering everything i want to say about this but here it goes. first i'll go on selling reserve land. would they sell back to the government or to private ownership? would the people get a chance to buy individual plots before it went up for sale generally? some reserves up north secluded and way out there would be worth peanuts but others would be a fortune. can you imagine how much the stoney/morley rez area would go for??? it's unfathomable. secondly who would get the money and how would it be divided? would a portion go back to the government? or would every band member get a equal share? so many questions including who would insure all band members would get their cut?

politics are very complicated on reserves and settlements, old feuds and old family ties dictate what happens. "velvet coffin" is a good way to describe the present situation. i'm assuming these two people you spoke too were in favour of this for A. sink or swim, get rid of the land and then the people have to learn to swim on thier own. or B. the money gained from the sales would give them the economic hand up needed to succeed and invest well in a modern world. both of those are unrealistic situations, most of the people on a rez are already in sink or swim mode, the swimmers are already swimming and the sinkers are the stereotypical "welfare bum", sorry but no amount of money is gonna change that, the people who are doing okay are just gonna do better, and well the people who aren't doing so well are just gonna end up worse in end. okay how about investing the new found riches, well in the end that doesn't benefit everyone. once again it goes back to the people who want to be sucessful, are and will be. now matter how much the band tries to help the have nots they will continue to be so until they decide for themselves to change.

there are many sucessful people from reserves both on res and off res. the biggest problem is the people themselves. anyone who is sucessful is branded a cheat, a sellout, a apple, or how about this one no matter how you got a job with a "white/outside" company people say you are just a qouta or a number to prove they are hiring natives. a good qoute from a friend of mine i play hockey and ball with is this "the problem with reserves and settlements is we are like a bucket of crabs, anytime one gets to the top of the bucket there are a bunch tryin to pull him back in". more later i'm tired

The thing is that the reserves are only part of the problem. We now have "poor, derpriviledged, dicriminated, lacking opportunity etc." people living on reserves. Without reserves, we would just spread them out in society. There has to be lot of changes in attitude on both sides in this eqation, to solve Native problems and I don't see that happening.
Grizz

The prospect of the sale of Reserve land is one that many Native people are afraid of. Currently, the underlying title to lands set aside for reserves are not held by the First Nations themselves. The Federal government holds underlying title and have the ultimate power to make decisions. Mind you that ultimate power is nowwhere near what had been done to Native people in the past. No longer can the gov't take land easily away from the band to build roads, bridges or to set up military artillery ranges, etc. as they've done in the past.

Having said that, even in modern treaties/land claims such as the N'ishga agreement, the government still holds the ultimate power to direct what can be done on reserves and how the land can be used.

To give underlying title to bands or to individual people would spell the beginning of the end for reserves as a land base to maintain culture and traditions in the minds of many Native people.

If an individual was poor and destitute what would be the quickest way to make money? Sale of assests. The sale of land could in effect create a checkerboard effect of Native and Non-native ownership in what was once a reserve.

I am not Native but worked in a Native community for a number of years. From my dealings with the people that lived on that particular reserve, land and identity are intertwined. The prosperity that would come from the sale of land would be shortlived in my opinion.

I personally don't think they should be able to. Then again, why shouldn't the Tsu Tsina not be able to cash in on Calgary's growth.

BB. I really didn’t put this out there as bait. I am just looking for some thoughts
The 2 people I was speaking with were thinking along the lines that the reason you see hardly any development on Reserves was that there was no land ownership. Who in their right mind would build on land they didn’t own. The basic line of the conversation was that once development started then knowledge could be gained. But no one will develop anything if they don’t own the land.
I would assume that any and all land disbursements will give the natives first access. I don’t care if the gov has the title or not. As far as I am concerned it is Tribal land. Any and all funds gained from the original sale should go back to the bands.
Keep the good comments coming.
See, you learn something new here every day

Thanks
Jamie

Jamie, its not surprising you think this board will provide you open, neutral and informative feedback on your curiosity, but not start bashing....lol. If you really desire knowledge of the what natives think ask them in a non-confrontational venue. Any native on here is forever having to defend themself. I would suggest you clean your backyard before you try to solve anyone's problems. Arrogance.

I can't believe these people would ever seriously consider selling their land.:eek

The reserves were part of the orriginal treaties as I understand it. If there is thought on the part of the Indians to get "ownership" of the reserve lands so they can sell some, the whole treaty should then be up for "renegotiation". If they are willing to give up having the reserves "for as long as the rivers flow and the wind blows etc." then they may have to give up hunting and fishing "rights" too.

Robin in Rocky

Moonyow,

This can be a very knowlegeable thread. For myself, I would love to hear what Brownbomber and others have to say. Brownbomber's posts on this board have educated many in a positive way regarding native issues. I for one have come to respect what he says.

Further responses such as yours will be removed from this thread. And that goes for everybody.

Rob. Thanks for trying to keep this thread headed in the proper direction.

I dont think for one second we can solve any issues here in regards to this sittuation. But at a bare minimum next time this conversation comes up I can speak with a bit more knowledge.

Thanks
Jamie

hey thanks rob, i'm blushing.

but here goes second try at my views. the economic view jamie presents is a good one. as long as individual land ownership isn't present people aren't gonna push to develop. heck you can't even get your own house if the band isn't willing to give you one. you can finance on your own but can't put it on a permament base. only rez/settlement financed homes can have a basement. so there you go why lending institutions are wary of lending for individuals to start business on reserves and settlements. it can't be permament because like that it can still be seized but if it were permament it would be tough sh.. for the bank.

see the system has a way of biting the people who try in the left cheek and hard. that would be another big reason why so many of the have nots stay on reserve and the people who can leave. that limits the potential of the res/settlement greatly. if all the ambition goes, where are the people to get the economic ball rolling. yes many many sucessful people stay on the res/settlement but are often a. employed off location b. employed by the band and have no need to stimulate economic growth. c. have thought about it looked at the challenges presented by this and said hey i'm in it for me and my family.

next thing would be everyone goes to town for their basic needs. it's one stop shopping you do your banking, pick your groceries, go to the doctor, go for lunch at a restraunt, get your gas, etc. often the same challenges faced by small town business next to a bigger town. sure the rez/settlement might have a gas bar/convenience store, the doctor might visit the health centre once a week, etc. but it's like this people are only gonna get enough gas to get them to town, or buy enough groceries to get them through, you know milk or a loaf of bread. unless you can sell the volume that sobeys does or 7/11 sells gas it's basic economics that you can't sell as cheap as them. they would need it all for people to stop going to town for everything they need, and yeah you bet some of the bigger more affluent reserves will probably one day have that down, a place like saddle lake with 5,000 people can do it but what about a small place with only a few hundred residents???? they just can't do it. but you think the town business are gonna sit by and let their customers stay away?? come on, they are gonna fight tooth and nail to get those dollars back in their store.

it's a tough situation and i wish i had the answers, hey i'm always open to questions and will answer the best i can. i'm not an expert on reserves just grew up beside one and have lots of friends from there, my fiancee is from one, lived on a settlement most of my life and listen to a lot of people. i hope i can dispell some of the myths and educated people on the reality of the world not what joe blow from work told them he heard.

Great posts BB. I don't think I have ever thought about those issues in that way before.

BH

I'd agree reserves could be sold if EVERY SINGLE MEMBER voted for it. Otherwise someone is going to lose their heritage and home, and part of their treat right, without agreeing to it.

By a fluke of happenstance I was born on a reserve ( not native ) I often wondered if the biggest problem is self government. BB, I hear tales from some native aquaintences of the vast corruption, infighting, political rivalries and old scores/fueds being settled by using the power of the band office, wouldn't a type of governmental overseer be of use or is this "check and balance" already in place....anyone that could enlighten me here..........PS corruption in politics is not just a res thing by any stretch just curious is all

I would bet that a government "over seer" is something that few Natives would want. It would be too close to what First Nations people had to deal with all those years. The Indian Agent was a non-native government bureaucrat that acted as the liasion person. In the past, even if the chief and council had made a decision the Indian Agent could over ride it.

In terms of political power, few people remember that Native people did not have the right to vote in federal elections until the 1950's. In fact immigrants who became naturalized citizens were able to vote before Natives were.

Don't be fooled into thinking that there aren't potential future leaders among the young people in Native communities. Unfortunately, I've seen many move away from their home communities because of the difficulties associated with living there.

Their young people leave for many of the same reasons that other people migrate. The want better jobs, opportunites for education, better living conditions, and social/recreational opportunities for their kids. They too want to get away from crime, rumours, family/clan disputes, etc, etc.

(BB, I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here as I'm not Native but I sometimes feel compelled to speak out about these issues based on my own experiences. It really burns me when I hear comments by Joe Blow who has neither personal experience nor education related to Native communities and resorts to racist ignorant comments. Keep up the comments. I'm learning here.)

I have great respect for the first nation's ppl and was born and raised with Reservation's all around.What would concern me would be a situation like British Colombia in the Queen Charlot Island's where the natives sold land with clauses that now ppl are losing thier family's heritage's home's as 100yr Deals come due.If they sell should be an out and out sale,no back door government aid after.Now if they thought about selling some plot's,enough to attract some economic developement,and population increase along with a fair tax base,they could do very well and retain thier land's for the most part.The Chip natives in Carrot lake in NE Alberta now have been fighting for year's just to get a reserve status,i know a few families there who hate the fact there's now a all season road in,fear that traditional way's they've been working hard with another band in the NWT educating each other's children in natural bush living will be destroyed yet again.It was once down to 3 families left in the early to mid 80's,and now in 95 i believe there were back up to 34 year around family's.I can really see no good further down the line if they were to sell thier land,but it's been taken,and given once or twice in some situation's if anything the Fed;s need to stay out of what ever they decide.

Crave, perhaps the best point yet.
They need the power to decide there own future.
As far as leadership goes, the one gentleman who I was talking with could inspire me. he is definatly a prime example of what can be done. Not only from a native side, but from all sides. This guy has it working!

Jamie

The deals that were struck were not "sales" but 99 year land leases and it is being done here in Alberta already. Redwood meadows is just one example just outside of Bragg Creek. Those people (buyers) entered into leases knowing that there was an end date. Too bad, so sad, tough luck.

On the other hand giving natives title to their land is a great idea. Give them title and in turn they no longer get special treatment due to their race.They executed this in Montana....Surprise it came with problems.

1. Land prices wildly vary between reserves and the market value for a piece of dirt on the tsuu tina is not the same as Hobbema or Blood. How do you create equality.

2. Once the land is given and sale made. Individuals feel like they have been taken by the big bad government and come back to the trough for more.

These people suddenly have no home and no place to go. A one time sale of land for $50,000, $200,000 or whatever will not get you far in this world for very long.

I am all for getting all races onto equal footing but that door swings both ways.

I tried to go to my band council to give me a house and....oh thats right nobody in this world is going to give me a house, I had to earn it, end of story.

Shotgun

I am all for getting all races onto equal footing but that door swings both ways.

What does this mean?

Thanks
Jamie

I am just trying to figure out what he is saying. Like I said, final word on this should go back to the different nations. There are no sides in this thread. I just want hear from those that this affects directly.
Does it effect you?

Shotgun. Have you ever lived or been involved with a reserve?

Thanks
Jamie

Long term leases were also signed between non-natives and the Musqueam band on the lower mainland. I agree with the too bad so sad part, Shotgun. If you built million dollar homes on leased land that's your fault.

Jamie, your comment about agreeing that First Nations should have final say isn't necessarily the answer. Treaty texts (at least for the numbered treaties) of the past had provisions for government oversight and they will continue to have that power. As Duffy said earlier that may cause other problems if they aren't honoured.

What if plans to develop the land run counter to what the Canadian government has legislated? If someone has an answer to the manner in which a nation within a nation should be run, I'd like to hear it.

Current land claims across Canada follow the guiding principles set out in Delgamuukw (1997). The government has many outstanding claims in the treaty negotiation process now and they have set out guidelines as to how both specific and comprehensive claims must be investigated.


If a First Nation makes a comprehensive claim for land to solidify boundaries or to claim more land, they have to prove ancestral occupation, occupation at the time of Confederation and continued relationship to the land. Incidentally, much of the land that might be considered for a theoretical sale might be contentious land.

There are disputes between First Nations themselves as to who should have claim to the land. Any land claimed under the premise of traditional land also has to abide by "traditional activity" provisions as well. (I'm not sure if I agree with this because Eco-tourism is being questioned as a proper activity.)

Ironically, Native bands do buy and sell land yet the practice of buying and selling land was not a traditional activity. (Muddies the water even more doesn't it?!

Sorry about the long winded comments. I guess I've put in more than my two bits.

That is what I am saying. Those people who bought homes on Redwood Meadows or anyplace else on the lease should have know what they got themselves into. Buyer beware.

No Jamie I have not lived on a reserve they will not let me live there, being a whitey and all. Family dealings and friends have had me in fairly close contact with a couple reserves in the past. My parent are good friends with the Chief and his family from Glechien (sp).

I am no expert just a taxpayer who watches with disgust is all.

Thanks Shotgun.
Redwood meadows is a mistake from a real estate point of view. Good for the band perhaps but bad for those that bought into it. Much better returns were available. All in all a bad investment.

Jamie

thanks for all positive feedback and for once it seems we are having a enlightened thread about reserves. i think m70 and kannon both had really great valid points.

i'll go with kanon first. yeah you are right old scores, band office infuluence, feuds, family ties really hold back reserves. the government overseer....i can't really see helping too much, it would create a lot more bitterness. if your band gets bad enough say for example terrible budgeting, very obvious corruption, brink of bankruptcy, then the government steps in and manages the band. the day to day decisions are still in the hands of the band but anything major is done through a government official. by the way this a major point of shame for most bands and not overly discussed. lots of people involved in native politics are in it for the wrong reasons, not saying all are corrupt far from it in fact but it is a major issue. say for example the person in charge of post secondary funding may not exactly want to dish out the money to someone looking to get trained in h.r and office admin because look out uh oh someone might be qualified to do their job. it's often not motivated by malice but often by self preservation.

okay now for m70. yes lots of people moving away in droves, just like lots of small towns, a steady stream of young people. a lot leave for their family, many for work, better living enviroment, etc. that doesn't mean you lose your cultural identity though, just cause you're living in town doesn't mean you can't keep it real (joke). but the migration casues another problem which is that most of the ambitious go getters are bettering a community other than the one they grew up in. see the sale of land is really a coin flip question, is that gonna bring the good people back and push the not so hot ones into the city? or is it gonna keep the rig boys and college grads in town shaking their heads and stay where they are and be glad they got out when they had the chance.

this is a great topic and i'm learing lots as well. it once again illustrates how we can all learn and benefit from different points of view and not get into mud slinging contests and act like grown ups it's refreshing that people want to learn something not assume they now everything and have the answers.

Ok, this is how I see it after reading through the great posts put up by all.

I read the stories here and cant help but think the present situation is keeping natives down.
So the great question is "How do we fix it"
I really think that Land ownership will allow some of that to be fixed. Sure there will be people left behind, but isn’t that always the case? Some people excel, some people just get along, and some people are hurt. I think that sounds like everyday stuff we all deal with. But this is just one example. The Big one is being self directed
I also think that the Gov should live up to whatever deals they cut back in the day. We gave our word and we should stick by it. What these nations really need is to allow for self government and let the chips lie where they may. Perhaps a few temporary safety nets should be put in place, but at the end of the day every community should be able to dictate their own future and not have to be lead by the hand. (Unless they want to be). What would be the harm in letting Natives decide their own futures while at the same time still delivering on the promises the Gov has already made. Or does keeping those promises hurt them even more?

This is a tough topic to discuss as I haven’t lived on a reserve nor have I had any involvement with them.

Thanks
Jamie