- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,557
- Reaction score
- 19,323
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Don't talk such nonsense. I contribute far more than I receive, and I agree with reparations. For Canada's First Nations people, and for blacks and First Nations people in the USA.
I also agree with helping my neighbours, whether they've got their hands out or not. It makes my country a better place to live for everyone. Maybe that's why my country has better education, better healthcare, less violence, less hatred, less racism, less incarceration, more environmental protection, more freedom, more freedom of the press, and on and on it goes.
Honestly, compared to Canada, the USA is currently a.....how did Trump describe it again...something that started with an "S" I believe ... country. And I believe that has a lot to do with the unabashed greed and gluttony of so many Americans.
My preference would be to resolve the situation in accordance with the actual system of "land tenure" that existed at the time.
The original inhabitants of North America did NOT "own land" in the same sense as the Europeans did. Rather they (at least the non-migratory groups) had a system of REVOCABLE "land USE right". That "land USE right" could be terminated at any time by someone higher up the social ladder (in particular the "band chief').
Under European law, "land ownership right" differed from "land use right" in that a revocation of "land use right" was accompanied by a payment for the "loss of income". (Under the system of the original inhabitants of North America there was no need for any such payments.)
That means that, rather than continuing to pay "the band" for the loss of use of the land, which "the band" didn't actually exercise, the compensation would flow to the parties whose actual use of the land had been taken away.
That means that the payments should go to the individuals.
I previously did a rough calculation and that payment would come out to approximately $18,000 per year per "full blood" person who traces their ancestry back to the "original inhabitants of North America". Surprisingly enough, for Canada that worked out to approximately the same amount as the Department of Indian and Native Affairs (or whatever it's being called these days) was paying out to "the tribes".
If you hold 50% of the payments for minor children in trust, to be paid out when the child reaches the age of majority, that would mean that a "original inhabitant" family of four would receive around $54,000 p.a. TAX FREE. That should remove 100% of the "original inhabitant" families from the poverty roles AND would provide every child of an "original inhabitant" family with around $162,000 TAX FREE as "seed money" when they reached the age of 18.
If the "Band Council" wants to be paid $200,000 (each) per year, then the "Band Council" can simply go to the "band members" to get them to kick in towards it out of their own pockets. (My suspicion is that that would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the percentage of the money allocated to "original inhabitants" that would be going to "local administration".)