 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / July 2005how the INUIT *really* eat
http://www.inuitdiabetes.ca/mamaqtut_cookbook_final.pdf > http://www.inuitdiabetes.ca/mamaqtut_cookbook_final.pdf More aptly titled: "How The Canadian Diabetes Assn. is Promoting Diabetes and CVD in the Previously Healthy Inuit." Note the quotes about all the fat the Inuit ate when they stayed healthy. Susan >>More aptly titled: "How The Canadian Diabetes Assn. is Promoting Diabetes and CVD in the Previously Healthy Inuit." Note the quotes about all the fat the Inuit ate when they stayed healthy. << COMMENT: Not quite fair. There are three historical periods here, and the Inuit experience one neatly parallels the experience of the Pima indians of Arizona. The periods are: 1) Natives on Native hunter gatherer diet = health. Few saturated fats and no alcohol. Calories are hard to come by. 2) Natives lose local hunter gather diet, get put on reservations, buy Crisco and potato chips and alcohol, and start getting obese, getting diabetes, and dying like flies. 3) Government is horrified, tries to convert natives to pasta food pyramid and Mediterranean diet with tropical fruit and light salads. LOL. 4) Period 4 is failure. But I'm not sure this is the government's fault in either Canada or the US. Afterall, it hasn't worked on the non-aboriginal populations, either. European transplants to N. America are simply *slightly* more reistant to the bad effects of lots of calories, saturated fats and alcohol than the Indians, having been out of the neolithic age for a little longer. But we're dying like flies of obesity/diabetes and heart disease also. Just not *quite* so dramatically in contrast to our recent past. SBH > >>More aptly titled: "How The Canadian Diabetes Assn. is Promoting > Diabetes and CVD in the Previously Healthy Inuit." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 1) Natives on Native hunter gatherer diet = health. Few saturated fats > and no alcohol. Calories are hard to come by. Lots of movement. These people were born to move. And I don't mean just moving to follow the caribou, or the seal. In Canada there are three distinct different Inuit; western Arctic, inland (living more like the Dene) and eastern Arctic peoples. > 2) Natives lose local hunter gather diet, get put on reservations, buy > Crisco and potato chips and alcohol, and start getting obese, getting > diabetes, and dying like flies. There are no Inuit reservatons in Canada. The primarly problem is hunting and fishing restrictions driven by corporate lobby. Oil and gas. And outsiders who think seal hunting is bad, and "wildlife management" types who didn't allow them to folow the caribou for a couple or three generations. More oil and gas interests there. > 3) Government is horrified, tries to convert natives to pasta food > pyramid and Mediterranean diet with tropical fruit and light salads. > LOL. LOL indeed. But the Inuit mostly live in small settlements (not reservations), now have television and prior to that radio and quelle horreurs movie theatres and video rentals, dress like Ice Cube and Beyonce, talk like Coolio and .... They're not in Kansas anymore. They want what they see. This phenomena has been true since the '60s. It's the same in Greenland. 4) Period 4 is failure. But I'm not sure this is the government's fault > in either Canada or the US. Afterall, it hasn't worked on the > non-aboriginal populations, either. European transplants to N. America [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of obesity/diabetes and heart disease also. Just not *quite* so > dramatically in contrast to our recent past. Who's we white guy? > SBH 4) Period 4 is failure. But I'm not sure this is the government's fault > in either Canada or the US. Afterall, it hasn't worked on the > non-aboriginal populations, either. European transplants to N. America [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of obesity/diabetes and heart disease also. Just not *quite* so > dramatically in contrast to our recent past. >>Who's we white guy? We European transplants to N. America. Is that not clear from the above? The shorter the time between the time your ancestors had access to "cheap dense calorie civilization" and now, the worse your problems are likely to be. Those of African ancestory in the Northern hemisphere have worse problems with obesity and diabetes than the European stock, and their health profile looks a lot like the "natives" because of it. >>There are no Inuit reservatons in Canada. << The Inuit, who aren't indians in Cannuckspeak, have Nunavut--- what you call it immaterial. Reservations in the US only wish they had as much self-determination as Nunavut. But all tribes in Canada of course do not. Canada does have "indian reserve lands" for indians (a technical word which means something different in Canada than it used to in the US). In the US we say "off reservation" and in Canada you say "off reserve." SBH > 4) Period 4 is failure. But I'm not sure this is the government's > fault [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The Inuit, who aren't indians in Cannuckspeak, have Nunavut--- what you > call it immaterial. To you. And there aren't any indians (sic) in Canada. Or Nunuvut. Reservations in the US only wish they had as much > self-determination as Nunavut. Nunavut is not a reservation and isn't Inuit land. But all tribes in Canada of course do > not. None do in fact. There aren't any tribes in Canada. Canada does have "indian reserve lands" for indians (a technical > word which means something different in Canada than it used to in the > US). There are no "indian reserve lands" (sic). In the US we say "off reservation" and in Canada you say "off > reserve." No we don't. Zee > SBH COMMENT: I didn't say there were any Nunuvut. It's a place, of course. >>Nunavut is not a reservation and isn't Inuit land. << Reservation is as reservation does. I didn't say it was Inuit land. In the US tribal lands are owned by the tribes. They are held by the US government "in trust" for them. Nanuvut is owned by the crown, like everything else in Canada. >>There aren't any tribes in Canada. << Really? The following webpage about indian tribes of Canada must come from some alternate universe Canada where you don't live. http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/canada/canadiantribes.htm <<And there aren't any indians (sic) in Canada. There are no "indian reserve lands" (sic). << COMMENT: No indians? No indian reserve lands? Why then the "alternate universe Canada" where you don't live must also be the source of the 1989 revision of the: Indian Lands Act CHAPTER 219 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 An Act Respecting an Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia for the Settlement of Questions Respecting Indian Reserve Lands http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/legc/statutes/indian.htm COMMENT: For the settlement of questions respecting WHAT? The Twilight Zone, no doubt. You're losing it, Zee. SBH >>In the US tribal lands are owned by the tribes. They are held by the US government "in trust" for them.>> Obviously that shoul read "In the US tribal lands are NOT owned by the tribes". Rather held in trust for them. Which means owned by somebody else. > COMMENT: > I didn't say there were any Nunuvut. It's a place, of course. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > SBH When I was a little girl my Kookum taught me to set bait for muskrat. You gotta have patience she said. You gotta wait... But pretty soon, he's gonna swim right in. Some white people call us indians (sic). But we don't call ourselves that. The webpages you found, both of them, are made by your people not mine. The words are not the words my people use. Nemehe Keepakow aka Zee "outrider" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message > When I was a little girl my Kookum taught me to set bait for muskrat. > You gotta have patience she said. You gotta wait... But pretty soon, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that. The webpages you found, both of them, are made by your people not > mine. The words are not the words my people use. If you have some history to debate, post it. The worth of a historical claim is not dependant on the person making it. How's it working out for you so far? Are you expecting results by complaining here as well? > Nemehe Keepakow > > aka Zee aka anonymous twit. moo >>Some white people call us indians (sic). But we don't call ourselves that. The webpages you found, both of them, are made by your people not mine. The words are not the words my people use. << COMMENT: Navajos don't call themselves Navahos. Japanese don't call themselves Japanese. Hell, Germans don't even call themselves Germans. So WHAT? You said "Canadians" with the snooty inference that I didn't even know what words Canadians typically used. So I quoted you an official Canadian government law document and a Canadian legal opinion, both showing that you're full of it. Canadians use the word "indian" all the time, both informally and officially and legally. YOU may not, but that's your problem. You may wish to live in some bubble of self-defined political correctness where the world doesn't touch you. But when you're out here on the nets, don't start correcting people. It's YOU that have the communications problem, not your fellow countrymen in Canada, and not me. SBH You are speaking of something you know nothing about. ie: you are full of sh.t. Canadian call the Natives of this country "Indians", usually not to their faces, not officially and not legally. Have the niggers of your country got to you? > >>Some white people call us indians (sic). But we don't call ourselves > that. The webpages you found, both of them, are made by your people not [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > SBH You are speaking of something you know nothing about. ie: you are full of sh.t. Canadian call the Natives of this country "Indians", usually not to their faces, not officially and not legally. Have the niggers of your country got to you? COMMENT: We don't use the word "nigger" in any of our 1989 law enactments. So it must not be a very good parallel. SBH Pizza Girl: >>You are speaking of something you know nothing about. ie: you are full of sh.t. Canadian call the Natives of this country "Indians", usually not to their faces, not officially and not legally. << COMMENT: Here is the INAC (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) website: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/index_e.html I take it that since you say I'm full of sh.t and speaking of something I know nothing about, that INAC is also? That is, I am to assume this is a racist organization and is using a term comparable to "nigger"? Er, would you please tell me what INAC **is,** oh knowledgable Canadian? It's very confusing to us people down South. SBH Most of the "Indians" I know find this term to be demeaning and would spit in your face for calling them "Indians" Or "Niggers" Notice how all the government documents from the archives refer to Indians and how all the posted information refers the to them as "First Nation"? Do you think your black population would like to receive rights they feel they are entitled to, only by declaring themselves as "niggers" to fit the government's out of date legislation? It is offensive and they do not declare themselves as "Indians" and haven't for many years. > Pizza Girl: > >>You are speaking of something you know nothing about. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/index_e.html And I heard that the Eskimos don't call themselves Eskimos. They call themselves Indians, mentioning the tribe. Of course that has probably changed since I heard that. Ora >Most of the "Indians" I know find this term to be demeaning and would spit >in your face for calling them "Indians" Or "Niggers" [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/index_e.html >>Notice how all the government documents from the archives refer to Indians and how all the posted information refers the to them as "First Nation"? << COMMENT: I noticed. So? This argument started when you wrote: "Canadian call the Natives of this country "Indians", usually not to their faces, not officially and not legally." My answer was to post a mass of government documents which call them indians officially and legally. End of argument. You lost. But it doesn't matter because you're not using your real name. Tomorrow you can come back here as Doofus Bill and nobody will be the wiser. Yes, no doubt, some indians don't want to be called indians, but something else which implies they're the real owners of the land. Again, so what? >>It is offensive and they do not declare themselves as "Indians" and haven't for many years. << They do indeed declare themselves "indians" legally if they want any special rights as a Canadian "registered indian" (such as special hunting or fishing rights). Then after registering, they can go back to calling themselves whatever they like. SBH Well true enough and I will admit defeat on most of this point. You were mostly correct. This doesn't make it desirable or acceptable to call people names they don't want to be called. > >>Notice how all the government documents from the archives refer to Indians and how all the posted information refers the to them as "First Nation"? << > COMMENT: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > SBH "You lost." Jesus wept. This is what turns the crank on a nearly 50 year old man. zee "outrider" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message > "You lost." > > Jesus wept. > > This is what turns the crank on a nearly 50 year old man. Who dat? Jesus? I thought you hind-tit-sucking wasters of stolen tax dollars didn't (officially) like that guy. You're a champion of everyone who thinks that the world owes them a living. (Your posting history is rich evidence of this.) You're old, fat and marginalized. I dare you to prove me wrong. You won't; anonymous cow. The rub is that there's always someone stupider, uglier or otherwise more pathetic and undeserving lining up in front of you with one hand outstretched and the other pleasing their advocate. As much as socially, financially and physically superior beings upset you, you must admit that they contribute mightily to the coffers you covet. The real competitors for the things you neither worked for nor deserve are just as busy whining more loudly with greater pathos. You will grow to hate them for taking the dole that you lovingly profess a right to. lm Still getting the rudder mixed up with the joystick Wes? You just went into a spin. > "outrider" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message > > "You lost." [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > lm "outrider" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message > Still getting the rudder mixed up with the joystick Wes? I know what you're referring to. You don't. And, *nobody* calls it a "joystick". And, it's "Wesley". "I think a people must be allowed to name themselves" - anonymous coward > You just went into a spin. You don't know what that is. But, fine by me in any case. With a few lessons I could teach even you how to recover. There must be some government program that will pay for that. If there isn't, start whining now. Idiot. moo >> "outrider" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message >> > "You lost." [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> lm No one but...hmmm...lessee...I can raise my chin and he's smilin' at me. Your medical coming up soon? Mental stability would be part of that right? Yeh. He nodded. zee > Most of the "Indians" I know find this term to be demeaning and would spit > in your face for calling them "Indians" Or "Niggers" Bullshit. You obviously do not know any Indians. I live in the province with the most Indians in Canada. There are at least four reserves within easy driving distance from the city I live in. One within easy walking distance. The city has a sizable population of Indians residing in it. I have two neighbors who are Indians. They are just as apt to call themsleves Indians as they are apt to call themselves First Nations Peoples, Aboriginals, or Anishinabes. It is all the same. > Notice how all the government documents from the archives refer to Indians > and how all the posted information refers the to them as "First Nation"? Semantics. The chiefs use the term First Nations to push their political goals of self-government and to make the point that they want to be treated as if they have the sovereign rights of a separate state. Imagine reserves where the chiefs and councils can rule like a third world tin-pot dictator. The chiefs would love that. Every Indian on the reserves are fighting the whole concept of sovereign self-rule for indian bands. > Do you think your black population would like to receive rights they feel > they are entitled to, only by declaring themselves as "niggers" to fit the > government's out of date legislation? It is not the same thing. "Nigger" is a term that was used in the quoloquial sense to de-humanize a race. "Indian" is an accepted term. > It is offensive and they do not declare themselves as "Indians" and haven't > for many years. Those Indians who are offended are those who are ashamed of who they are. And remember, any term can be used in many ways depending on the imflection and the tone used by the speaker. One can easily use the term in an endearing manner, or in a respectful manner or in a negative manner. TC I beg to differ TC. It is not the accepted term among Natives, not in most other jurisdictions, and certainly not when white people aren't around. But yes, it is a term used to carry the meaning "shame". You wouldn't dare use that word here, on the drag among the urban natives, or on any of the reserves in my provicne. You wouldn't leave alive. Unfortunately, the natives in Manitoba are among the most oppressed. They are beaten down, live in devastating poverty, filled with self-hatred. Most. There are always exceptions. Like any other people, they *are* individuals. So some may call themselves Indian, especially around white people. There is a lot of activity around getting the government to change their official use of the term "Indian". It will require an act of Parliament to do so, because that's what created it I believe, in 1864. Until then, even the most uninformed can see that within the site, wherever papers, articles and events are spoken of, the people are Aboriginal, Native, Inuit, Metis etc. I think a people must be allowed to name themselves, and use that as part of building self pride, before they can stand tall. The old name carries only shame. Salut Terry. Zee > I beg to differ TC. It is not the accepted term among Natives, not in > most other jurisdictions, and certainly not when white people aren't [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Zee I have never had any problem using the term around them and with them. It must be in how you use it. A co-worker related to us a halloween story. Several young Anishinabe youth arrived at his door and gave the local customary "Halloween Apples" call to announce their presence at his door. He looked out to see what Halloween costumes they were wearing only to find them dressed in normal street clothing. He said "Why aren't you guys wearing costumes?". One responded "We are wearing costumes". He said "Then what are you supposed to be?". They replied "We're Indians". He gave them extra treats and he's still chuckling about it. My experience is that most Indians know who they are and when they are treated with basic one-on-one respect, as we should to all people, they are the same as the rest of us. It doesn't matter what you call them, it matters what your attitude is when you call them. Your comment about Manitoba Indians being the most oppressed, etc. is strictly your opinion. Much of the dire straits are as much caused by their own individual decisions, or, as is often the case, their parents decisions or their band leadership decisions, as they are caused by being oppressed by whitey. That is not to say that their lot in life is easy. It most certainly is not. But education is free in Canada up to high school. Unlike our (us white folk) post secondary education, theirs' is funded and paid for by DIANA. A native with education and marketable skills can get employment. In many ways they have more financial help available to them in terms of education than us non-Indians. Have you ever heard the term "Apple". That is what Indians call other Indians if they strive to attain marketable skills or education or just try to work and earn a living to attain a comfortable (ie non-welfare, non-band-funded) lifestyle. It has become a way of life for them to simply get govt handouts, and anyone who tries to get ahead by working is taking away from the bands ability to get govt handouts. Their most basic cultural beliefs have evolved to be pursuant and almost completely dependent on tax money for their livelihoods and lifestyles. Their reliance on the band leadership for housing and food has lead to an omnipotent leadership structure. And obviously, the band wants to maintain their control of the funds. The band continually makes a public spectacle of their poorest housing to justify more govt funding. Yet, the poor housing is there because the band failed to manage their previous funding and allowed the poor housing situation to exist. The problem is not what words we use to describe them. Nor is it in what the white leadership says or does. The problem and the solution to it is in changing their situation so they can get out from under the thumbs of their own leadership. TC > > I beg to differ TC. It is not the accepted term among Natives, not in > > most other jurisdictions, and certainly not when white people aren't [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > TC You have a fine day Terry. Really. Zee >> It has become a way of life for them to simply get govt handouts, and anyone who tries to get ahead by working is taking away from the bands ability to get govt handouts. Their most basic cultural beliefs have evolved to be pursuant and almost completely dependent on tax money for their livelihoods and lifestyles.<< COMMENT: What, in Canada? Perish the thought. Back to bashing Canada. Tell me Stevie, how come you're so good at dishing it out but take it so hard? > >> It has become a way of life for them to > simply get govt handouts, and anyone who tries to get ahead by working [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What, in Canada? Perish the thought. >>Canadian call the Natives of this country "Indians", usually not to their faces, not officially and not legally. Have the niggers of your country got to you? << COMMENT: Since you have really pissed me off, Pizza Girl, I'm going to rub your face in this some more. And the more you piss me off, the more I'm going to post on the topic. This is from the INAC faq. It's mainly about ways you can become a REGISTERED INDIAN under Canadian law. I suppose this is like becoming a "registered nigger"? Anyway, it's all about money. Read and educate yourself. There will be a test later. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada official government FAQ WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE BENEFITS? The answer is in the federal Indian Act. It defines an Indian as "a person who, pursuant to this Act, is registered as an Indian or is entitled to be registered as an Indian." To be eligible to receive benefits under the Indian Act, individuals must be registered in the Indian Register, which is maintained by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND). The recognition by the federal government of persons registered under the Indian Act is referred to as Registered Indian Status. Please note that most of the benefits mentioned in this booklet do not apply to Non-Status Indians Ñ individuals of First Nation ancestry who are not registered under the Indian Act. Knowing which programs and policies apply to you may be difficult. Social legislation varies across the ten provinces and three territories and so do the services available to Canadians in general and to Aboriginal people in particular. What you are eligible for depends largely on where you live. You can, however, find out about specific benefits provided by the federal government by contacting regional and district offices of DIAND, Health Canada (contact information is listed at the end of this document) or First Nation offices and tribal councils. WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION? Over the years, there have been many rules for deciding who is eligible for registration as an Indian under the Indian Act. Important changes were made to the Act in June 1985, when Parliament passed Bill C-31, An Act to Amend the Indian Act, to bring it into line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The amendments: repeal discriminatory provisions of the Act, such as those related to gender, marriage and enfranchisement restore status and membership to persons who lost their status under previous legislation give First Nations the option of assuming control of their membership If you are in one of the following categories, you may be able to restore your status as a Registered Indian: women who lost their status by marrying a man who was not a Status Indian children who lost their status because of their mother's marriage most people who were enfranchised (agreed to give up their status) children who lost their status at age 21 because their mother and their father's mother did not have status under the Indian Act before marriage children of unmarried women with status under the Act whose registration was successfully protested because their father did not have status under the Act You may also be eligible to be registered as an Indian if one or both of your parents are eligible for registration. To find out more about eligibility for registration under the Indian Act, contact your First Nation office or the nearest DIAND regional or district office. HOW DO I APPLY FOR REGISTRATION? Registration does not happen automatically. For persons born on or after April 17, 1985: 1) Obtain a certified copy of the child's birth registration that shows the names of the child's parents. This document can be obtained from the Division of Vital Statistics for the province or territory where the child was born. 2) Write a letter that states that you wish to register the child as an Indian. Give the name of the parent with whom the child should be registered (children are registered with only one parent). Both parents must sign this letter. 3) Send the copy of the birth registration and the letter to your First Nation office or to your nearest DIAND office. For persons born before April 17, 1985: 1) Obtain and fill out one of the following forms: For a person who is 18 or older: the "Application for Registration of an Adult under the Indian Act." For a person who is under 18 or for a person who is intellectually impaired: the "Application for Registration of Children under the Indian Act." Note: Both forms can be obtained from offices of DIAND, First Nations or Aboriginal associations and Aboriginal friendship centres. 2) Include as much information as you can about the applicant's Aboriginal background and the name or location of the First Nation or First Nations to which the applicant's ancestors belonged. If you know the names of relatives who have been registered, you should include these also. 3) Send the completed form to: Registrar Indian Registration and Band Lists Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0H4 If DIAND staff require more information, they will contact you by mail or telephone. WHAT ARE TREATY RIGHTS? First Nations signed treaties with British and, later, Canadian governments before and after Confederation in 1867. Although these treaties differed, they usually provided for certain rights and payments. Some of the older treaties, for example, included payments for ammunition, annuities, triennial clothing allowances (for Chiefs and Councillors), hunting, fishing and other benefits. Your rights as an individual treaty Indian depend on the precise terms and conditions of your First Nation's treaty. Your First Nation council or DIAND office is the best place to learn more about the rights and benefits to which you may be entitled. You should know, however, that if you live in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, your right to hunt, trap and fish, except for commercial purposes, is guaranteed by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, 1930. Other rights are guaranteed by the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as by treaties. Registered Indians who live in the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are free to fish and hunt in all seasons throughout the territories. For further information, contact the Yukon Regional Manager of Lands and Trust Services, DIAND or the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) - Department of Renewable Resources. WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR TREATY PAYMENTS? Your rights as an individual treaty Indian depend on the precise terms and conditions of your First Nation's treaty. A person is entitled to annual treaty payments if he/ she is: a Registered Status Indian; and a member of, or affiliated with, a treaty band. WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR FIRST NATION FUNDS? You may have the right to a share of any money distributed to First Nation members from the capital and revenue moneys belonging to the First Nation. This money usually comes from oil and gas royalties or from the proceeds from land claims settlements. Please contact your regional DIAND office or your First Nation council for more specific details. WHO CAN CALL THE RESERVE THEIR HOME? Land has been set aside for the use and benefit of the First Nation as a whole; individual First Nation members do not have a right of individual possession except by application of the Indian Act.* First Nation councils may enact residency by-laws that regulate on-reserve residency, but these by-laws cannot infringe on individual residency rights arising from the Indian Act. While the majority of Registered Indians are members of a First Nation, it is important to note that not all Registered Indians are members of a First Nation. If your First Nation is one of the 250 First Nations that controls its own membership, you will have to apply directly to your First Nation for membership. To learn more about your reserve rights and responsibilities, contact your First Nation council or the Regional Director of Lands and Trust Services (LTS), DIAND. For information on the nearest DIAND regional office, please refer to the end of this document and phone for more details. MUST REGISTERED INDIANS PAY TAXES? It depends. There are some situations in which Registered Indians do not pay taxes. Under sections 87 and 90 of the Indian Act, Registered Indians do not pay federal or provincial taxes on their personal and real property that is on a reserve. Personal property includes goods, services and income consistent with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) policies. * In this document, when the term "First Nation" is used in the context of the Indian Act, it refers to an Indian Act band. Since income is personal property, as a Registered (or entitled-to-be-registered) Indian, you may also be exempt from paying income tax on income earned on a reserve. For example, Registered Indians who work on a reserve do not pay federal or provincial taxes on their employment income. See the CCRA's June 1994 guidelines of "Indian Exemption on Employment Income." Registered Indians do not pay federal or provincial sales taxes on personal and real property on a reserve. The federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) does not apply to on-reserve goods or to those goods acquired by a Registered Indian off-reserve, if the goods are delivered to a reserve by the vendor or the vendor's agent. Most provincial sales taxes are applied in a similar fashion. Special provincial rules may apply to items such as automobiles and alcohol. For example, in some provinces, an automobile must be registered to a reserve address to be tax exempt. For more information, contact the relevant provincial tax authorities. A pamphlet outlining how federal GST affects sales and purchases by Registered Indians is available from all CCRA offices. WHAT ABOUT SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND WELFARE SERVICES? Like all Canadian citizens, Registered Indians who meet the eligibility requirements may receive social assistance and social services. These programs are provided by federal, provincial, territorial, municipal or First Nation governments, depending on where recipients live. Registered Indians are also eligible for the universal social security benefits provided by the federal government to all Canadians, such as the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and Child Tax Benefit. Your First Nation council or DIAND office can give you more details. In the Northwest Territories, contact the nearest office of the GNWT Department of Social Services. WHAT SORT OF HOUSING HELP EXISTS? Registered Indians have several options for housing assistance from DIAND and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). DIAND provides funding to support on-reserve housing-related activities, including the construction of new houses and renovation of existing units. The program is administered by First Nation councils or their designated housing authorities who establish comprehensive, community-based housing plans to meet the needs of their members. These plans include the allocation of available funding, the establishment of programs, policies and procedures and the planning and implementation of housing projects. Based on your income and assets, you may get financial help from a financial institution following established lending criteria to obtain, purchase or renovate on-reserve housing. Because on-reserve property cannot be mortgaged by a private lender, security may be provided through Ministerial loan guarantees with the consent of your First Nation council. CMHC provides operating subsidies to First Nation councils for non-profit rental housing through its On-Reserve Rental Housing Program (Section 95). CMHC's Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) is available to on-and off-reserve residents renovating existing housing. The program is administered on reserves by the First Nation councils or their designated housing authorities. Off reserves, the program is operated by CMHC and/ or the provincial or territorial government in co-operation with CMHC. You can learn more about these programs by contacting your First Nation council, the Regional Director of Funding Services, DIAND, or the nearest CMHC office. Information is also available on our Web site at: http://www.ainc.gc.ca/ps/hsg/cih/index_e.html Please note that, in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, housing assistance is the responsibility of the territorial governments. For further information, contact the territorial government or the CMHC office in Yellowknife. IS EDUCATION PROVIDED? Elementary and secondary educational services are available to Registered Indian children living on reserves through three education systems: First Nation-operated schools on reserves provincially-administered schools off reserves federal schools operated by DIAND on reserves DIAND provides financial assistance, through administering authorities such as First Nation councils, to eligible Registered Indian students enrolled in, or accepted to, eligible post-secondary education programs. DIAND also funds some programs designed for First Nation students at First Nation and post-secondary institutions. Educational services for Registered Indians in the Yukon and Registered Indians and Inuit in the Northwest Territories are provided by the respective territorial governments. Registered Indians and Inuit in northern Quebec receive educational services from the province of Quebec under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Details are available at your First Nation council office or from the Regional Director of Education, DIAND. >>In the US we say "off reservation" and in Canada you say "off reserve."<< >No we don't. COMMENT: Yes, some of you provably do. http://www.gaminglawmasters.com/jurisdictions/canada/First_Nations_Gaming.htm Legal Prospects for Off-Reserve Casinos in Canada by Michael D. Lipton, Q.C. Elkind, Lipton & Jacobs LLP One Queen St. East, Suite 1900 Toronto, Canada M5C 2W6 June 2004 Commercial gaming managed and operated by the First Nations is in its infancy. Currently, the various First Nations operate a number of types of gaming activities on-reserve, both for charitable benefit and for commercial ends. The most prominent "off-reserve" gaming operators among the First Nations are the Mohawks of Kahnawake in the Province of Quebec, who service gaming operators and players world-wide by offering Internet gaming facilities from servers located on its reserve, through the auspices of their self-proclaimed Gaming Commission." COMMENT: That ought to be enough, but here's a nice quote from the interior, just to go up your politically correct nose. "As it stands, First Nations require provincial approval before they can conduct gaming, on- or off-reserve. This is contrary to the commonly-accepted view of First Nations as sovereign within their territory and not subject to provincial jurisdiction. By contrast, the large casino developments on some U.S. reservations are made possible by the U.S. concept of tribal sovereignty, which immunizes gaming operations from state legislation, although they are subject to a generally permissive act of Congress." Now, are you going to say "no, we don't again"? I can rub your nose in this as much as you like. SBH "outrider" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message >> >>Who's we white guy? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> have worse problems with obesity and diabetes than the European stock, >> and their health profile looks a lot like the "natives" because of it. < chirp > > Reservations in the US only wish they had as much >> self-determination as Nunavut. And the result? > But all tribes in Canada of course do >> not. > > None do in fact. There aren't any tribes in Canada. The aboriginal people I know consider themselves part of some tribe. Where do I send them to be educated? moo >>The aboriginal people I know consider themselves part of some tribe. Where do I send them to be educated? << COMMENT: Well, it wouldn't be anywhere on any tribal lands, because it would be a neat trick to have tribal lands without a tribe, no? I have no doubt that many indians don't call themselves indians even when speaking English, any more than I call myself a gabacho (or gringo!), or a gaijin, or a houli, or keto or goy or whatever term it is, derogatory or not, that members of non-English-speaking cultures call my folk in their own language. That's their business. Navajos don't call themselves Navajos, they call themselves Dineh, which means "the people." As in THE people. Just as Hispanics are prone to refer to themselves as La Raza (Lit. "The Race") which means essentially the same thing and is supposed to be non-racist. LOL. It turns out that most people's early origin-myths describe themselves as the primary or REAL people made by god almighty, and everybody else as some kind of odd waste product. Caucasians didn't invent this outlook, or even Hebrews--- it's basic human provincial thinking that you find everywhere. And yes, we know that indians weren't from India as Columbus thought. So what? We know that nickel isn't a devil's ore (Nick= devil) like the Germans thought, and cobalt isn't cursed by goblins (Kobold) as they also thought. But they remain perfectly good names. Helium isn't a metal as now know, but we keep the -ium ending anyway. Some leptons (Gk. =lightweight) are heavy but we're stuck with the category. India ink is really from China, and French fries aren't from France. Big deal. If we went back through our language and fixed every word which embodied a bad preconception or which had changed meaning since it was coined, we wouldn't have a recognizable language left. Nor would anybody else. Aboriginal is not too bad a word (even though technically incorrect in most cases), but I'm particularly opposed to "native," when it comes to North America because it somehow implies that the aboriginals are more "native" to the place than I am. They aren't. We are all of us immigrants. You're recognize the bigotted attitude if I tried to imply that I was more of an American because my ancestors had come over on the Mayflower (say), than yours if they arrived in 1950. But that kind of one-upmanship is no different than what the indians are trying to pull. They are merely pre-historic settlers here. That's nice, but so what? Human beings didn't evolve from apes in North America, and we weren't created here by the Great Spirit de novo, no matter what doofus creation/origin some primitive people believe. The scientific evidence is that humans as we know them came from what is now Ethiopia (or thereabouts) and we all started out black-skinned and about 4 feet tall. That appears to be the truth, and whatever is true is fine with me. We're all of us settlers in this land in the Western hemisphere, and the first of that didn't happen until a few tens of thousands of years go. And we'll all get along here much better when all of us try to keep from putting over the idea that our own people somehow have some specialness which entitles them to stuff everybody else here in the Americas don't have. That's bigotry. It's bigotry even if an aboriginal thinks that way. Sorry, but it's not going to fly, and historically it hasn't. SBH The world according to Steve. ALCOR's Head Head Hacker. Guffaw. Zee >>There aren't any tribes in Canada. << By golly, in the government documents and laws, it appears this is correct. In Canada they are called Indian *bands.* "* In this document, when the term "First Nation" is used in the context of the Indian Act, it refers to an Indian Act band." SBH Remember native Europeans have a tradition of brewing and wine making that goes back 1000s of years. I had some heather ale the other week which said on the bottle "brewed for 4000 years", and quite delicious it was too. (http://www.heatherale.co.uk) Hundreds of years ago the only safe drink was beer, so native Europeans must have evolved some tolerance. Gee. I have a coin in my possession that is dated 1500 BC. > Remember native Europeans have a tradition of brewing and wine making > that goes back 1000s of years. I had some heather ale the other week [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hundreds of years ago the only safe drink was beer, so native Europeans > must have evolved some tolerance. >>Gee. I have a coin in my possession that is dated 1500 BC. << LOL. I suppose it says "1500 BC" on it? Yup but many cannot do the logic to understand that one. LOL > >>Gee. I have a coin in my possession that is dated 1500 BC. << > > LOL. I suppose it says "1500 BC" on it? Another of the major factors changing native lifestyle is pollution, not only from oil and gas industry in the north, but proven to be coming from Texas and Michigan and New Jersey doncha know.. ...which is killing their traditional diet, and has caused the Nunavut government (primarly Inuit and Dene with a few whites thrown in for the blend) to restrict hunting what's left. The communities, where everyone lives Inuit, Dene or white (remember it's pitch black and 40 below zero most of the year) are replete with every mind bending, time wasting, distraction the oil field workers want, and the industry needs to get them there. Although there's lots of work, the share that falls to natives is hard won, and when the heat is off, the natives are let go. The oil companies don't like hiring natives. After all, they have staff, on call. All the educational facilities to move the Inuit into the 21st century (which is where they want to be) are in the communities. So ... it's double cheese and hold the anchovies, and Molson's all round. Kinda like a Sudbury Saturday Night. In fact, just like it... Zee On 25 Jun 2005 11:10:57 -0700, outrider@despammed.com wrote in <news:1119723057.367956.79260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on sci.med.nutrition,sci.med : > http://www.inuitdiabetes.ca/mamaqtut_cookbook_final.pdf ===================================== In the past, they used a lot of animal fats. hey used fish oil, which is good for the body. They dipped their meat into caribou and seal fat. Cutting fat out of the diet is recommended today, but Inuit did use to eat a lot of fat and never had problems with their health. ====================================== I don't get that. If Inuit "did use to eat a lot of fat and never had problems with their health.", why is "cutting fat out of the diet" recommended today? Shouldn't they just reduce calories, avoid junk foods and be more active? ===================================== Junk Food You can not eliminate junk food from a child's diet, [...] ====================================== Why can't you eliminate junk food from a child's diet? (or at least try...) ===================================== Healthy Appetizers & Snack Recipes [...] Bruschetta 1 loaf Italian or French bread 1 tbsp olive oil 2 large tomatoes, chopped ½ cup of sweet onions 2 garlic cloves, minced 2 tsp minced basil 1 tsp minced thyme 1 tsp oregano Pre-heat the oven to 350° F. Cut the bread into 6 even slices. Brush each slice with olive oil and place onto a cookie sheet. In a medium bowl, combine topping ingredients. Place onto bread. Cook in the oven and toast until bottom of the bread is browned (7-10 minutes). =================================== I would add the oil and the other topping ingredients later, *after* the bread is toasted, not in the hot oven. X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,sci.med >>I don't get that. If Inuit "did use to eat a lot of fat and never had problems with their health.", why is "cutting fat out of the diet" recommended today? << COMMENT: The optomistic answer: Because the wise authorities know that the Inuit are not likely to go back to a diet of high cold-water marine fat, and (even if not hunting) go and subsist mostly on canned red salmon and kippered herring bought at the local grocery, with some frozen berries and vitamins. Therefore most fat the Inuit get at the grocery these days is going to be the kind of stuff that will kill them. Hydrogenated veg oil in junk food, Crisco, farmed meat, and cream cheese. The cynical answer: Because the clueless athorities don't even know as much as the above, and think ALL high fat diets are bad for diabetics because that's what they've been tought in school. So they're trying to put the Inuit on the same food pyramid that they're trying to put all diabetics on, end of story. Never having considered that the Inuit doesn't have much diabetes on their traditional diet. Let us not, BTW, make the mistake that the Inuit diet was some kind of garden of Eden delight that magically protected them from all diseases. Eskimos eating the traditional diet famously had hemorrhagic stoke, many infection problems, some arthritis, and even some coronary disease (though not as much as these days). But obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and the general metabolic syndrome and the complications of same, no. That's from Western junk diet. SBH SBH On 26 Jun 2005 16:15:28 -0700, Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote in <news:1119827728.840674.62360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on sci.med.nutrition,sci.med : >>>I don't get that. > If Inuit "did use to eat a lot of fat and never had problems with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > them. Hydrogenated veg oil in junk food, Crisco, farmed meat, and cream > cheese. No way. :) The wise authorities also provide a recipe for bruschetta with olive oil, so they assume that Inuit people will no more use the "bad" fat after reading the booklet! Still, the wise authorities feel the need of recommending "cutting fat out of the diet". Less oil on bruschettas? ;) > The cynical answer: Because the clueless athorities don't even know as > much as the above, and think ALL high fat diets are bad for diabetics > because that's what they've been tought in school. So they're trying to > put the Inuit on the same food pyramid that they're trying to put all > diabetics on, end of story. Never having considered that the Inuit > doesn't have much diabetes on their traditional diet. Haven't the clueless authorities heard of the new Joslin Center guide lines for diabetes? > Let us not, BTW, make the mistake that the Inuit diet was some kind of > garden of Eden delight that magically protected them from all diseases. > Eskimos eating the traditional diet famously had hemorrhagic stoke, > many infection problems, some arthritis, and even some coronary disease > (though not as much as these days). And I read somewhere they ate all the parts of their preys, including the eyes and glands, to get all the vitamins they needed (and couldn't get from vegetables)... is that correct? > But obesity, hypertension, > diabetes, and the general metabolic syndrome and the complications of > same, no. That's from Western junk diet. Ok. Anyway, I see a communication problem with that booklet. They kinda don't explain very much, and provide some apparently contradictory information (fat was healthy in the past... yet fat is bad now), I think. X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,sci.med  SignatureEnrico C The bruscetta started out with the first ingredient as highly processed, junk food, carbohydrate hell....bread. > On 26 Jun 2005 16:15:28 -0700, Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote in > <news:1119827728.840674.62360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > X'Posted to: sci.med.nutrition,sci.med > http://www.inuitdiabetes.ca/mamaqtut_cookbook_final.pdf That is a complete joke. If it wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious. quote #1: "In the past, they used a lot of animal fats. They used fish oil, which is good for the body. They dipped their meat into caribou and seal fat. Cutting fat out of the diet is recommended today, but Inuit did use to eat a lot of fat and never had problems with their health." quoye #2: "People are more overweight today because they eat more often and food is available everywhere. Also in the past, everyone had little choice but to work all the time. People no longer have to go out hunting for their food; unfortunately now they just need to grab a bag of chips. In today's society, chips, pop, and foods with lots of sugar are the foods usually eaten. People can choose their own diet and may make unhealthy choices. Because these foods taste so good, people may want to keep eating and eating. If nutritious foods are chosen, not so much is needed because this kind of food is more filling." quote #3: "Junk Food You can not eliminate junk food from a child's diet, but you have to make sure that they have a proper meal in their body before they eat junk food. It would be better for their body if they had good nutrients before eating any junk food." quote #4: Healthy Snacks for Kids: · Low-fat or fat-free milk, cheese, and yogurt (regular or frozen) · Fat-free pudding snacks · Fresh fruits and vegetables · Frozen juice bars · Sandwiches made with whole-grain bread, lean meat, and reduced-fat or fat- free mayonnaise · Chips (baked, not fried) · Bagels (preferably whole-grain) · Pretzels · Cereals made from whole grains or bran (Cheerios, Raisin Bran, Quaker Squares) --- Published by Tungasuvvingat Inuit, Urban Inuit Diabetes Awareness and Prevention Program Financial support provided by Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative, Health Canada-Metis, Off-Reserve, Urban Aboriginal and Urban Inuit Promotion and Prevention Program and additional support from the Inuit Diabetes Network and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. ----- Does anyone else see the utter stupidity here? 1) On the one hand they used to eat lots of fats and few carbs and were very healthy. 2) Now the eat a lot of carbs and fewer fats and are very unhealthy. 3) The recommendations therefore are to eat lots of carbs and less fat. This is a perfect example of official-govt-type logic trying to grapple with a "paradox" and not being able to see the simple truth in front of them. Of course, there is no mention of the simplest solution, going back to their traditional diet. TC > > http://www.inuitdiabetes.ca/mamaqtut_cookbook_final.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > TC That's not possible TC. What you miss is the title: how the Inuit "really" eat. How do the Metis of your area eat? Can they go back to hunting the bison? Care to say why...white guy? Zee > > > http://www.inuitdiabetes.ca/mamaqtut_cookbook_final.pdf > > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Zee About 30 minutes from my house there is a Bison ranch. It is about 1.5 km north of the nearest Metis community, St. Eustache. North of the bison ranch, about 15 km away, there is another major metis community, St. Ambroise. East of the ranch about 5 or 6 km is another metis community, St Francis Xavier. It would be interesting to see the metis start ranching these animals themselves and start harvesting them. My brother was married to a metis from St Eustache. Hunting is still a major part of their culture and probably what is keeping them from losing their health to the same extent as other native communities. There still exists whales, seals and fish in the arctic. And there is no reason why the Inuits can't get back to hunting and eating real traditional foods. Now, no one expects them to totally forgo modern foods, but the availability of traditional foods and the expense of modern foods should make it easier for them to make the conscious effort. All they need is the political will to advocate a return to traditional foods as much as possible. The fly in the ointment is the professional, ie. white, nutritionists and doctors and govt agencies who tell them to eat less fat and more carbs ala USDA food pyramid. TC > > > > http://www.inuitdiabetes.ca/mamaqtut_cookbook_final.pdf > > > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > TC The fly in the ointment is the losses the people have suffered. Many don't even know their traditional ways. The PDF is an example of the end result. I agree it would be good for the Metis to hunt bison again. But the ability to do that is doled out by agricultural departments, because that is what the bison are considered now. Like Llamas, and other exotic species, a exotic cash crop. Metis could not afford these herds or breeding stock, would not qualify, and husbandry is not in their culture, so even willingness is often insurmountable. Yes, Metis by and large are a hunting community. And do you remember the various court cases they have fought, and still fight, to make that possible? Metis hunters fined and jailed becasue they brought in a moose out of season (season being when white guys buy licenses to sport hunt). The situation on the coast is no different than what the Metis and the urban natives face outside. The problem begins with racism and imperialism and that's where the solution is too. The Inuit, like the Metis, aren't interested in well-meant but uninformed, imposed solutions. Both the PDF, and what is proposed here, fall under that category. The PDF: how the Inuit "really" eat. Zee |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.