| |
Discussion: Indians suing government for more money!
Banned
Member Since: 3/19/2012
Posts: 7,835
|
Indians suing government for more money!
More money, really?  This just after the head of the 85-member Coquitlam Indian Band was revealed to have a $914,000 a year tax-free salary paid by the government just for being chief. Not good timing.
Quote:
TORONTO - The annual payment of $4 to members of First Nations under a treaty signed in 1850 has not been increased in 140 years and that is unfair, a group of chiefs is arguing as it takes the federal and Ontario governments to court.
The chiefs from the Robinson-Huron Treaty territory say the Anishnabek agreed under the treaty to share their lands and resources with newcomers and in return the Crown would pay annuities [...] but, they say, the last increase was in 1874 and they still receive just $4 per year.
There are 30,000 beneficiaries to the Robinson-Huron Treaty in 21 First Nations communities and their territory has generated "vast amounts of revenues" from forestry, mining and other resource development, the chiefs said in a statement.
|
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09...n_5791860.html
Yikes... 30,000 people at $4 a year is $120,000 per year... with that kinda dough you could buy a Porsche 911 annually! And since this has been going on for 140 years this means we've paid several million dollars of taxpayer money. No wonder they never increased it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/30/2012
Posts: 24,762
|
Discussion: Indians suing government for more money!
You know they're called Native American's right?
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 3/19/2012
Posts: 7,835
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LoveLiveMusic
You know they're called Native American's right?
|
Not where I live, and they all have their own preferences, many prefer Indian, others First Nations, others Native, others Aboriginal. Officially, it's still called the Indian Act and people are registered as Indians. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/28/2010
Posts: 7,399
|
There are one billion Indians in the world... I don't think they'd appreciate you paying them dust like this.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 3/19/2012
Posts: 7,835
|
Quote:
Originally posted by brndksk
There are one billion Indians in the world... I don't think they'd appreciate you paying them dust like this. |
Those are East Indians.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 8,023
|
Indians are people born in India.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/19/2010
Posts: 3,941
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Goosey
Not where I live, and they all have their own preferences, many prefer Indian, others First Nations, others Native, others Aboriginal. Officially, it's still called the Indian Act and people are registered as Indians. |
You're an incredibly ignorant person. "Indians" is no longer a term that applies to Aboriginal peoples. I've worked within the Indigenous community for YEARS and no one has ever been OK with being called "indian" as it's a term imparted on them by colonialist (who believed they had discovered India). I seriously doubt your claim they're "fine with it" where you reside.
It's horribly offensive, and you should consider reading up on Aboriginal history before citing "The Indian Act" as a resource for your ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/7/2012
Posts: 41,067
|
Native Americans continue to be the most ignored and neglected group of people in the US (ironic) so I don't have an issue with this, honestly. The reservations that they're given to live on aren't good for farming and growing food so they really suffer, plus a lack of jobs on reservations leads to them needing to build casinos just to sustain themselves. They really need a lot of help that they just aren't receiving. People need to be made more aware of the Native's struggles.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/18/2011
Posts: 17,136
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 3/19/2012
Posts: 7,835
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monceau
Indians are people born in India.
|
A. The word correctly refers to both.
B. Here, we refer to those as "East Indians".
Indian, adj.
1. Relating to India or to the subcontinent comprising India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
2. Relating to the indigenous peoples of America.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/19/2010
Posts: 3,941
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Goosey
A. The word correctly refers to both.
B. Here, we refer to those as "East Indians".
Indian, adj.
1. Relating to India or to the subcontinent comprising India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
2. Relating to the indigenous peoples of America.
|
Well, I don't know where you live but in Canada, it's considered widely offensive to use the term "Indian" to refer to an Aboriginal person.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 8,023
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Goosey
A. The word correctly refers to both.
B. Here, we refer to those as "East Indians".
Indian, adj.
1. Relating to India or to the subcontinent comprising India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
2. Relating to the indigenous peoples of America.
|
Even if the word is used correctly dosen't mean it isn't ignorant, someone born in Bangladesh isn't equal to someone born in Canada, besides they like to be called Native Americans.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 3/19/2012
Posts: 7,835
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ammer
You're an incredibly ignorant person. "Indians" is no longer a term that applies to Aboriginal peoples. I've worked within the Indigenous community for YEARS and no one has ever been OK with being called "indian" as it's a term imparted on them by colonialist (who believed they had discovered India). I seriously doubt your claim they're "fine with it" where you reside.
It's horribly offensive, and you should consider reading up on Aboriginal history before citing "The Indian Act" as a resource for your ignorance.
|
It depends on the tribe and the individual, they are not all the same, it varies, I doubt you've worked with "Native Americans" here.
You're over 2,000 miles away so your experience there is not the same as the preferences here.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ammer
Well, I don't know where you live but in Canada, it's considered widely offensive to use the term "Indian" to refer to an Aboriginal person.
|
Here, it's not really offensive. Younger people generally use "Native American" though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/19/2010
Posts: 3,941
|
Also, claiming it's OK to use an ignorant term because that's the common language of the place you live in (which sounds horribly racist). Saying "everyone does it" doesn't make the term any less inappropriate. There are many areas which refer to different minority groups with vulgar names, but it certainly doesn't make those terms appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
