[andyt]

I don't agree with self-governance base on race, sorry, who was here first. To vote in Vancouver/BC/Canada, you need to be a resident and citizen, that's it. Do we really want areas of Canada that exclude most races, sorry, people who's ancestors weren't here first?

Yes, there would have to be a transition program. One based on need, not race. That kind of program should be available to all Canadians who need it. If descendants of the people who were here first happen to qualify on a greater per capita basis than other Canadians, I have no problem with that.

[Psudo]

BeaverFever wrote:

its not really "race based".

Technically true, but misleading. Most people say "race" when they mean "ethnicity," and this definitely is ethnicity-based. The difference is that race is hereditary and ethnicity is cultural; nature vs. nurture.

BeaverFever wrote:

I think everyone's in agreement that there would be some form of self-governance (which simply means their communities would administer their own affairs, just like any other community does)

Many (I think most) believe that First Nations deserve greater self-governance than "any other community." After all, they used to be independent nations and you still call them "Nations" today.

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

BeaverFever wrote:

I think everyone's in agreement that there would be some form of self-governance (which simply means their communities would administer their own affairs, just like any other community does)

Many (I think most) believe that First Nations deserve greater self-governance than "any other community." After all, they used to be independent nations and you still call them "Nations" today.

I don't. That's still a race based system. Bound to always lead to them vs us. Look at your country and the abolition of separate but equal.

[Psudo]

You don't. Find. Fine. "Most" is still possible.

It is not truly race based because it is not based on genetics. It is based on history and culture, with history being somewhat codified in legal precedent.

The abolition of "separate but equal" did not make territories or reservations legally identical to states. We do have separate governments for Indian Reservations who are in diplomatic contact with state and federal governments. Our example does not reflect your principle of jurisdictional assimilation.

[andyt]

I was talking about black emancipation - separate but equal didn't fly. Nor will it in this case. To create two different classes of citizenship is just nuts.

[Psudo]

People in the same places were treated differently by the same laws in the segregation-era South. Reservations are never the same cities or the same laws. If that is racial segregation, so is the border between Germany and France. Also, American Indians and First Nations' are not required to stay on the reservation -- they can opt to join mainstream society in a way that segregation-era blacks never could.

The difference between life on and off the reservation is better demonstrated by a comparison like Maine vs. Puerto Rico or Greenland vs. Denmark -- a comparison that reflects differences of law, government, and geography as well as race. Those comparisons are still not perfect, but if two different people of the same race do not necessarily face the same institutional problems (like when First Nations or American Indians opt to join mainstream society) then it is not racial segregation.