Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Renegade

Six Nations occupation at Caledonia

Recommended Posts

Although many have been under the assumption that the Six Nations protestors are welfare recipients with all the time in the world to protest, the fact is rather the opposite. The tobacco companies at Six Nations are financially supporting many of the protstors. there are a number of steelworkers and craftsmen between jobs who have been hired on to man the blockade. These guys are pretty good with heavy equipment and the like, so that is why when the blockade was extended to include hwy 6, it was done with remarkable aplomb.

The funniest (ironic-funny) thing about the blockade is that the cigarette traffic from Caledonia to Six Nations hasn't stopped in the least. I watched it all the last couple of weekends. Caledonians are flooded up Hwy. 54 and patronizing the tobacco shops on the east side of the Grand. Some of that money finds its way to supporting the blockade.

I find this is sweet. Even Native private industry has a vested interest in reclaiming reserve land. So there appears to be far more than meets the eye in this endeavour. doubly sweet is the fact that there are Caledonians who work in the cigarette plant as well. they are contributing to their own misery, but they need they work.

That is the true beauty of our economy...you can make people do anything if they need the work. Caledonians might protest the blocking of a highway, but they sure don't mind buying and making cigarettes for the Six Nations!

no wonder why they get drunk whenever they blockade. I'd do likewise in shame if I was from Caledonia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.smalldeadanimals.com has the .pdf files from the Caledonia.ca site and http://www.dustmybroom.com/?p=3548 has info. on this:

On that note... I do not agree with "reserves" in this day and age. They simply encourage the "bad" culture of laziness and personal "unacountability". How can a young native person growing up on a reserve be expected to grow up with any self esteem at all? By being segregated on a "reserve" he is being told that he is not "worthy". How can he grow up with any sense of accomplishment when the govt has provided everything for his family? How can he grow up with a work ethic in this situation?

I know many many natives who do not live on reserves who are very successful. I say tear up all those old "treaties" and let the people be free to work and live just like everyone else. Yah want land? Save up and buy it, just like the rest of us.

Agreed, although I don't think we can just 'tear them up', but we should take a firm stand on not accepting any new claims, no more squatting on land and declaring it 'theirs'.

Neither myself nor any of my relatives, past or present committed any crimes or took land from the 'natives'. Yet many people seem to feel that I and my family and other innocent Canadians (and their families in peretuity) should pay for crimes they never committed. The so-called First Nations is a bogus title if there ever was one, they were here first - so what (actually they weren't) Are all Canadian ssupposed to be held in some kind of feudal thralldom for the convenience of native overlords for all time? Are Canadians going to bow to race-based agendas forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point that has emerged from the Caledonians acting racist towards the Six Nations people is that many people from the reserve and the surrounding area no longer want to go to Caledonia to shop or otherwise conduct business.

Already, there has much discussion among Six Nations people about the future of Caledonia. There is an expectation on the part of many reserve residents that a number of Caledonian businesses will be whining very hard once they no longer have Six Nations people patronizing their businesses. Folks from Six Nations believe that Caledonians will blame the lack of business on the fact that the blockade "drove customers away", but this is not thr true point. The true point is that Caledonians will see just how much business the reserve brought into town, and will suffer accordingly.

I don't know about anyone else in Canada, but I've never seen a more graphic example of a community cutting off its nose to spite its face than Caledonia is doing to itself right now. What a train wreck! I'd feel sorry for them if they didn't think of me as a welfare-collecting, lazy, wagon-burning, timber nigger, or whatever else they scream when they are upset at Native people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm one of those off-reserve, tax-paying Natives who can't stand seeing posts like your that assume that people on reserves are lazy. I live in the GTA and I see alot of humans walking around here being a waste of skin, so I can't see how its only Natives on reserves who have problems.

I don't see that anyone said that problems are restricted to Natives on reserves. The question is, whether Natives should be entitled to special treatment and whether reserves actually excercerbates their problems. The statistics would show that the rates of many problems are higher on reserves than in the community at large.

Secondly, those treaties you want to tear up are Canadaian law. The whole basis behind the treaties was for the Crown to provide medical care, housing and education to the Indians, along with a recognized plot of land that they would have control over, in exchange for Canada.

If you want to abrogate the treaties, then its only right and proper to give the land back.

It is an interesting argument you put forward: that the Indians are entitled to benefits because they made a deal to give up their land in exchange. Do you have any evidence of that claim?

The fact is, medical, welfare and many other benefits are a relatively recent addition to society. Natives gave up or lost the land long before these benefits ever came on the scene. I have not ever seen evidence that the natives who lost the land hundreds of years ago traded it off for permanant benefits in the form of medical and welfare and funding. I am aware they traded it off so that they got permanant protected areas in which they have exclusive control (reservations) and they got guarantees of hunting and fishing rights.

So let's see some evidence of your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither myself nor any of my relatives, past or present committed any crimes or took land from the 'natives'. Yet many people seem to feel that I and my family and other innocent Canadians (and their families in peretuity) should pay for crimes they never committed. The so-called First Nations is a bogus title if there ever was one, they were here first - so what (actually they weren't) Are all Canadian ssupposed to be held in some kind of feudal thralldom for the convenience of native overlords for all time? Are Canadians going to bow to race-based agendas forever?

Scriblet:

I digress. If you or any of your ancestors voted federally in the past 150 years, and the party you voted for won, then -as a voter- you aided and abetted the governments' policy on residential schools, and therfore, you and your ancestors enabled pedophiles to do their dirty work on Native children.

However, it wasn't just Native children. Other children who became state wards also suffered abuse at the hands of the system -Newfoundland being a prime example-, so you and yours that voted to install winning provincial governments also.

I know that many Canadians take offense to these suggestions, but that is how the system is designed to work. We vote for a government to make decisions on our behalf, so we have to be accountable for our choices. however, we also have a tendency to "Eichmann-ize" ourselves so that the blame is shifted squarely to the pedophiles and the bureaucrats that didn't do their jobs properly. This is a cop-out, which I can see that you stand firmly behind, scriblet.

I'm not saying you or yours are pedophiles, but I am saying that you enabled them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I digress. If you or any of your ancestors voted federally in the past 150 years, and the party you voted for won, then -as a voter- you aided and abetted the governments' policy on residential schools, and therefore, you and your ancestors enabled pedophiles to do their dirty work on Native children.
The pedophiles that abused a small minority of residential school students were criminals that acted on their own. No one other than the criminals who committed the acts in question has any responsibility for what happened.

You can argue there was some negligence on the part of the gov't for failing to oversee the schools properly, however, negligence on the part of the gov't does not mean that the broader Canadian public should feel any personal guilt.

Another point that has emerged from the Caledonians acting racist towards the Six Nations people is that many people from the reserve and the surrounding area no longer want to go to Caledonia to shop or otherwise conduct business.
Native land claims are extremely racist in themselves. No one should be surprised if the locals respond with racism. The Six Nations are simply reaping what they have sowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither myself nor any of my relatives, past or present committed any crimes or took land from the 'natives'. Yet many people seem to feel that I and my family and other innocent Canadians (and their families in peretuity) should pay for crimes they never committed. The so-called First Nations is a bogus title if there ever was one, they were here first - so what (actually they weren't) Are all Canadian ssupposed to be held in some kind of feudal thralldom for the convenience of native overlords for all time? Are Canadians going to bow to race-based agendas forever?

Scriblet:

I digress. If you or any of your ancestors voted federally in the past 150 years, and the party you voted for won, then -as a voter- you aided and abetted the governments' policy on residential schools, and therfore, you and your ancestors enabled pedophiles to do their dirty work on Native children.

However, it wasn't just Native children. Other children who became state wards also suffered abuse at the hands of the system -Newfoundland being a prime example-, so you and yours that voted to install winning provincial governments also.

I know that many Canadians take offense to these suggestions, but that is how the system is designed to work. We vote for a government to make decisions on our behalf, so we have to be accountable for our choices. however, we also have a tendency to "Eichmann-ize" ourselves so that the blame is shifted squarely to the pedophiles and the bureaucrats that didn't do their jobs properly. This is a cop-out, which I can see that you stand firmly behind, scriblet.

I'm not saying you or yours are pedophiles, but I am saying that you enabled them.

I disagree, I have not enabled anyone to do anything, I wasn't responsible for abuse in residential schools or anywhere else and you don't know who any of us voted for at that time. I doubt that a change in gov't would have changed the school situation, as atrocious as it was. I do not condone any of it, but dwelling on history doesn't change nor help natives advance. I am not nor do I accept that I should have to continue to pay for a race based system of entitlement or pay for historical wrongs forever.

Neither do I accept that opposition to native illegal protests is racist, it is time we all accept the need for reasonable discussion without the usual accusations of racism etc. thrown around. The people of Caledonia have as much right to protest as the natives do, in fact, I would bet that there will be more protests of the same nature if there are any more illegal and violent native occupations.

The Nisga treaty has made apartheid legal in Canada, established Native homelands with laws that supersede provincial and federal laws enshrined it in the constitution and segregated the population by defining rights based on this racial ancestry where economic rights are granted to a collective based on this racial ancestry; land, resources and opportunity will be owned by a communist type model state where individuals in a communist style state are sometimes given a vote but the means of production are held by tribal heads. The people are powerless and more often not the individual on these reserves are poor while the 'chiefs' are rich.

We are losing a opportunity to enpower the individual native to improve their lives which I am sure would happen if they were given the means to do so. The billions of taxpayer dollars given every year would be better given out on an individual basis and inidividuals given property ownership. This could be reduced over time until the inidividuals have improved their skills and education or whatever it takes to empower them to be self sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renergade:

I don't see that anyone said that problems are restricted to Natives on reserves. The question is, whether Natives should be entitled to special treatment and whether reserves actually excercerbates their problems. The statistics would show that the rates of many problems are higher on reserves than in the community at large.

Should Natives be entitled to special treatment? I think you mean are natives entitled to different treatment, as per Canadian law. I'm not sure if entitled is the proper word, but we do have an Indian Act that ensures that I and all the other status indians in Canada are treated differently than everyone else in Canada.

I think that you point out one of the concerns with Canadian law and its treatment of Native people. When the government signed the treaties with the Indians, the agreement was that the government would provide free medical services, housing and education -along with a plot of their homeland under exclusive Native control (called a reserve) and tax exempt status, in exchange for the country now known as Canada.

However, in a series of Acts since 1867, the Government took it upon itself to create reserve governments, illegalize Native governments, ceremonies, dances etc., sell land, look after trusts on behalf of the Natives and determine who is and isn't native etc.

none of this was negotiated in any treaty. The government did it themselves. Rank and file Canadians just see the tax exempt status and have a whiny hissy-fit that natives are somehow "better" off for not paying tax, but they don't act the same when they hear that Canadian governmental policy aided and abetted in the sexual abuse and rape of Native children, which pretty much sprang from the same source: the federal government.

How's that for entitlement?

It is an interesting argument you put forward: that the Indians are entitled to benefits because they made a deal to give up their land in exchange. Do you have any evidence of that claim?

Yes. that would be here: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/index_e.html

They are called "treaties". They are legal Canadian documents that spell out the land exchange. Feel free to file through them, and by all means email INAC about the basis for treaty benefits etc. I doubt you'll believe me, so it is pointless for me to enlighten you.

The fact is, medical, welfare and many other benefits are a relatively recent addition to society.

Welfare is a new item. It was introduced to Canadian society after WW II. Medical benefits (for status Indians) came about in the 1800's.

Natives gave up or lost the land long before these benefits ever came on the scene.

Really? This is new. Are you sure you are not mistaken the Mik'maq for the Haida? The Mik'maq have been signing agreements since contact, but the natives on the west coast didn't make their treaty deals until the late 1800's.

I have not ever seen evidence that the natives who lost the land hundreds of years ago traded it off for permanant benefits in the form of medical and welfare and funding.

Geez, don't get all huffy if you are ignorant about Canadian law! Most of the treaties covering Ontario took place in the 1850's, and ending with the 1923 treaty. Six Nations received their deed in the late 1790's. Are you trying to say that Natives lost their land the moment Europeans showed up? That's a bit of a reach, isn't it Rene? Where are the "hundreds of years"?

I am aware they traded it off so that they got permanant protected areas in which they have exclusive control (reservations) and they got guarantees of hunting and fishing rights.

So let's see some evidence of your claim.

Sure. go to the INAC website and ask your own government. Then you can come back here and credit me for knowing Canadian legal history. As I said, I already gave you the facts, you don't believe what I'm saying, so I'm putting the onus on you to find out from your own government if what I'm saying is false, or in fact, 100% right.

Or put it this way. Do you think the government of Canada would give me a house and pay for my medical expenses, as well as recognize my tax-exempt status just because my skin is a pleasant beige colour? I think not. I think that there's more to it that that, and I assume that you believe so too.

cheerio!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm one of those off-reserve, tax-paying Natives who can't stand seeing posts like your that assume that people on reserves are lazy. I live in the GTA and I see alot of humans walking around here being a waste of skin, so I can't see how its only Natives on reserves who have problems.

Reserves promote a culture of dependance. Obviously you are independant as you live off reserve. Why did you leave?

Of course there are bad apples in every bunch (re: wastes of skin in the GTA)

Ever notice when you have one rotten apple in the bag the rest of the bag goes rotten very quickly?

I live in the Fraser Valley of BC. 20% of my clients are native people who are very successful in business. Not one of them live on a reserve. All the successful ones (like yourself) have gotten out and made something of themselves. Just the other day I was talking to a salon owner (the best hairdresser in the world IMO) and asked her how she got her start. She got a business loan, just like everyone else. She didn't get one cent from the govt in the form of grants. I hold her up as the model for business people everywhere (not just natives).

Secondly, those treaties you want to tear up are Canadaian law. The whole basis behind the treaties was for the Crown to provide medical care, housing and education to the Indians, along with a recognized plot of land that they would have control over, in exchange for Canada.

I am not responsible for what happened 150 years ago. If we all could go back, there is a brewery in Austria that belonged to my family until Hitler came along... should I go see if I can get it back?

If you want to abrogate the treaties, then its only right and proper to give the land back.

There is (was) no land ownership in native culture.

However, I don't think Canada and Canadians got the worse of the deal. I don't even think the Indians got the aorse of the deal until the government began to single-handedly alter the Indian Act to suit their needs...without a speck of input from the Indians themselves!

Ahhhhh! Good ol' Canadian democracy.

I also don't think there'd be an issue on most reserves if the feds bothered to live up to their agreements..but no one here thinks of actually demanding the Feds do anything other than sending the army after the Natives.

The worst things are the residential schools and the reservations. Reservations have done nothing to promote keeping the native culture alive. Residential schools.... we all know the sad stories that came out of those. Catholic priest abuse children no matter what culture they are.

You are not going to "guilt" me into feeling sorrow for what happened. I have never believed in seperating people and never will.

Is it not better to have all people assimilate into the country? Should new immigrants be segregated based on race or religion? Should we have special "areas" for them to live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrib:

Part A

I disagree, I have not enabled anyone to do anything, I wasn't responsible for abuse in residential schools or anywhere else and you don't know who any of us voted for at that time.

I know you believe that, but if that is the case -that you and yours had nothing to do with the abuse- then who voted in a succession of Canadian Federal governments that allowed the abuse to occur under their watch? Is not your government accountable to you? Do you -as a voter- not determine who the government is? Are you trying to tell me that every vote laid by yourself or your ancestors was a losing vote, ergo you really didn't do anything to enable the rape of small, Native children?

Give me a break. I voted for a federal government that sent troops to Afghanistan. I supported them, and they made that decision on my behalf. I'm accountable for my actions...but when it comes to the questions of residential schools...well, then that is someone else's concern, eh?

Bull crap. It is our tax dollars that are going to pay off the victims of our collective lack of sense. It is up to us to not just talk the talk about accountability, but to grasp the mantle and say that yes, by jeepers, it is our fault, and we are accountable!

but dwelling on history doesn't change nor help natives advance.

Why would you say this? You don't believe the Six Nations people should get the land in question back, and that took place in the past. If the governmetn was so "right" about the land, why are they taking weeks to solve this? Wouldn't they say "yup, the land is our free and clear!", and move in the army? No. there must be a problem with title if the negotiations are taking this long. That much I've learned since Oka...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scriblet Part B:

I am not nor do I accept that I should have to continue to pay for a race based system of entitlement or pay for historical wrongs forever.

Again...do you think that I would have treay benefits because I'm a nice beige colour? No, I have treaty benefits because the Canadian government wanted to extinguish my right to my area of Canada so you and yours could live a peaceful and profitable life here. That exchange seems to make more sense than skin colour, but if that is what you focus on then....what can I say?

Neither do I accept that opposition to native illegal protests is racist, it is time we all accept the need for reasonable discussion without the usual accusations of racism etc. thrown around. The people of Caledonia have as much right to protest as the natives do, in fact, I would bet that there will be more protests of the same nature if there are any more illegal and violent native occupations.

The people of Caledonia are allowing a bunch of unruly drunken welfare bums to counter-protest by using racist names. I know this because I take the time to actually go to Six Nations and peacefully protest. When I'm at the roadblock, I'm not yelling racist statements at white people, nor are any other Natives. in fact, they are being quite professional in their approach, unlike their counterparts in Caledonia who gang-up on individual Native women outside the bank and threaten and insult them.

If you want to go scare women and children, head to Caledonia and pick on individual Natives like the others do because "they are so tough standing up for the rights of Canadians".

The Nisga treaty has made apartheid legal in Canada, established Native homelands with laws that supersede provincial and federal laws enshrined it in the constitution and segregated the population by defining rights based on this racial ancestry where economic rights are granted to a collective based on this racial ancestry; land, resources and opportunity will be owned by a communist type model state where individuals in a communist style state are sometimes given a vote but the means of production are held by tribal heads. The people are powerless and more often not the individual on these reserves are poor while the 'chiefs' are rich.

I'm familiar with the Nisga and the Nass valley thing. although you sound intriguing, I have to do as my buddy Rene(gade) does and ask you to prove your claim about communism and the means of production residing in the hands of the tribal heads at the expense of everyone else. I have heard different, but you broached the subject first.

We are losing a opportunity to enpower the individual native to improve their lives which I am sure would happen if they were given the means to do so. The billions of taxpayer dollars given every year would be better given out on an individual basis and inidividuals given property ownership. This could be reduced over time until the inidividuals have improved their skills and education or whatever it takes to empower them to be self sufficient.

I'm sure it would happen if the government simply lived up to their end of the treaties. they have modified the treaties so much that they are not operating as they originally intended to. The number of changes to the Indian Act are only for the government's benefit, except for Bill-C-31.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should Natives be entitled to special treatment? I think you mean are natives entitled to different treatment, as per Canadian law. I'm not sure if entitled is the proper word, but we do have an Indian Act that ensures that I and all the other status indians in Canada are treated differently than everyone else in Canada.

Actually I do mean special treatment. Differential treatement which gives preferrential status to an group, especially on the basis of race is "special". Yes, I do know we have the Indian Act, but since the Canadian government passed the Act, the Canadian Government can change the Act at will or pass a new one which supercedes the old one. Governments do it all the time.

I think that you point out one of the concerns with Canadian law and its treatment of Native people. When the government signed the treaties with the Indians, the agreement was that the government would provide free medical services, housing and education -along with a plot of their homeland under exclusive Native control (called a reserve) and tax exempt status, in exchange for the country now known as Canada.

However, in a series of Acts since 1867, the Government took it upon itself to create reserve governments, illegalize Native governments, ceremonies, dances etc., sell land, look after trusts on behalf of the Natives and determine who is and isn't native etc.

none of this was negotiated in any treaty. The government did it themselves. Rank and file Canadians just see the tax exempt status and have a whiny hissy-fit that natives are somehow "better" off for not paying tax, but they don't act the same when they hear that Canadian governmental policy aided and abetted in the sexual abuse and rape of Native children, which pretty much sprang from the same source: the federal government.

You seem to want to justify the special status Native have by pointing out the sexual abuse and rape of Native children. They are separate issues. Of course I condemn the abuse that happened. But it is simply wrong to try and link the two issues.

You have stated that there has been an exchange of land for benefite, but have yet to provide a cite.

Yes. that would be here: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/index_e.html

They are called "treaties". They are legal Canadian documents that spell out the land exchange. Feel free to file through them, and by all means email INAC about the basis for treaty benefits etc. I doubt you'll believe me, so it is pointless for me to enlighten you.

I ask for a cite and you point to the general index of the Dept of Indian Affairs. I have looked through and I have yet to find a specific land-for-welfare or land-for-perpetual medical benefits deal. So if you have something more specific to point to, cite it, otherwise I can safely assume it is conjecture.

Welfare is a new item. It was introduced to Canadian society after WW II. Medical benefits (for status Indians) came about in the 1800's.

If what you mean is that a doctor occasionally visited a reservation, yes that happened in the 1800s. Medicare as we know it today is relatively new. The only medical benefits Natives are entitled to are to the standard at the time the treaty was signed.

Geez, don't get all huffy if you are ignorant about Canadian law! Most of the treaties covering Ontario took place in the 1850's, and ending with the 1923 treaty. Six Nations received their deed in the late 1790's. Are you trying to say that Natives lost their land the moment Europeans showed up? That's a bit of a reach, isn't it Rene? Where are the "hundreds of years"?

No, I'm saying the Natives lost their land once the lost control of it. They lost their land when they did not have the military power to enforce land claims. It is irrelevant when the treaties were signed.

Sure. go to the INAC website and ask your own government. Then you can come back here and credit me for knowing Canadian legal history. As I said, I already gave you the facts, you don't believe what I'm saying, so I'm putting the onus on you to find out from your own government if what I'm saying is false, or in fact, 100% right.

My government is not making the claim, you are. If my government make the claim, I'd ask them. If you want credibility to your claim provide a cite or evidence, otherwise it is notthing but that, a claim, and I give it the same credibility as other claims.

Or put it this way. Do you think the government of Canada would give me a house and pay for my medical expenses, as well as recognize my tax-exempt status just because my skin is a pleasant beige colour? I think not. I think that there's more to it that that, and I assume that you believe so too.

Actually it's not because they like your colour, it's because they feel guilty and much of the Canadian public does too. Native groups play on that guilt, however actions like the Six Nations are doing will eventually erode that guilt. It's time we get over that guilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riverwind:

The pedophiles that abused a small minority of residential school students were criminals that acted on their own. No one other than the criminals who committed the acts in question has any responsibility for what happened.

Funnily enough, but the province of Ontario has recently passed legislation determining levels of responsibility. For instance, how culpable are the Boy Scouts of Canada if a Scout Master lies on his resume and falsifies a reference check to hide his pedophiliac procilivities, and then procedds to sexually assault boys under his care?

The province does hold Scouts Canada vicariously liable for this occurence, even if the abuser went to great lengths to hide his past.

That is the law.

So therefore, although you feel that the criminals themselves are liable, this belief never endured beyond Nuremburg. Nazi camp guards never got off on the excuse that "we were under orders", and nor should any of the chain of command.

however, negligence on the part of the gov't does not mean that the broader Canadian public should feel any personal guilt.

Of course not! Outta sight, outta mind. That is the typical answer of mainstream Canada.... and that is also part of the underlying reason that nothing ever gets done about Native issues. Read the posts on this thread. There are many who crow about the debilatating life on the reserve...and most of these people haven't even stepped foot on a reserve. Gimme a break.

Native land claims are extremely racist in themselves. No one should be surprised if the locals respond with racism. The Six Nations are simply reaping what they have sowed.

Ok...this is a good one. can you explain to me how a land claim is racist in itself? I can explain to you why a drunken, in-bred Caledonian is a poor excuse for a human being, but I really, really need to see how a land claim is racist?

Please...enlighten me. go nuts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drea:

Reserves promote a culture of dependance. Obviously you are independant as you live off reserve. Why did you leave?

My parents left to become professionals. these jobs weren't available on their reserves after the Second War.

Of course there are bad apples in every bunch (re: wastes of skin in the GTA)

Ever notice when you have one rotten apple in the bag the rest of the bag goes rotten very quickly?

Yes. Perhaps that's helps explain why serial killers and mass murderers are endemic in our white community? Pickton, Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo etc. Now that I think about it, I think those of us in the non-EuroCanadian community should do something to help our white neighbours overcome this propensity to serial kill and mass murder. but this idea is digrssing from our thread....

I live in the Fraser Valley of BC. 20% of my clients are native people who are very successful in business. Not one of them live on a reserve. All the successful ones (like yourself) have gotten out and made something of themselves.

so. do these Indians walk around saying that reserve Indians are idiotic filth? I doubt it. My brother and sister both grew up off-reserve, and now they live on reserve. They seem to have a stable life and are successful in their careers (one being a high-school teacher, and the other being a contractor). I don't get your point. you assume that you must be off reserve to thrive. All those Caledonians are off-reserve, and they act like a bunch of semi-literate, drunken in-breds. I certainly don't see them as a positive influence for any child, whether Aboriginal or not.

Just the other day I was talking to a salon owner (the best hairdresser in the world IMO) and asked her how she got her start. She got a business loan, just like everyone else. She didn't get one cent from the govt in the form of grants. I hold her up as the model for business people everywhere (not just natives).

Wow...you've met one. Oh boy. My cousin is also a hairdresser, and she got her loan through our band's business start up. she is still in business AND paid the band back.

I am not responsible for what happened 150 years ago.

You are absolutely right. You are not responsible. Too bad your government took on the fiduciary responsibility for Natives. Maybe you could vote for a government who could help fix this up, eh?

There is (was) no land ownership in native culture.

Funny what people learn in cowboy movies. I think what you mean to say is that there was a different sense of land-ownership between Natives and non-Natives. Non-Natives put a premium on individual ownership, whereas Native people look at it as stewardship of a communal land base. Here in ontario, even the Iroquois recognized that Ojibway people controlled the lands in the Canadian shield.

The worst things are the residential schools and the reservations. Reservations have done nothing to promote keeping the native culture alive. Residential schools.... we all know the sad stories that came out of those. Catholic priest abuse children no matter what culture they are.

I actually agree with you here. A good for instance are the fly-in reserves in northern Ontario. they are having severe suicide problems, but they refuse to allow Native people to come and council them if these people are only using traditional healing methods, as they believe that this type of healing is "devil worship". they only want Christian healers, but they keep on killing themselves. It's too bad, really.

You are not going to "guilt" me into feeling sorrow for what happened. I have never believed in seperating people and never will.

Golly Drea, I don't think I could ever make you feel guilty because you really don't seem to care in the first place, given your prior outrageous posts. I wasn't even trying to impose guilt, just trying to make the point that your government has a lot more to do with how things are now than the natives do. So blame the government, not the Indians.

Is it not better to have all people assimilate into the country? Should new immigrants be segregated based on race or religion? Should we have special "areas" for them to live

Drea...the minute that you actually begin to think of Indians as Canadians is the day I'll agree to assimilate. But even look at what you said here. You say "indian this" and "Native that". Why not say "Canadian"? I have yet to hear anyone talk about "those Canadians at Oka who protested because they were cheated out of their land", or "I'm upset with those Canadians who have a treaty right to harvest the salmon run first".

Besides...when was the last time you walked up to a Chinese person and said: "So, are you a full-blooded Chinese?". Because I bet you asked one or more of your Native clients if they were full-blooded Indians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rene:

I just read your last post, and all I can say is that you need to quit being lazy and look for the proof yourself at INAC. They are your government, they are giving me "special" entitlements, and if this disturbs you so deeply, then do something about it, and don't wait for others to do it for you.

Of course, I find it ironic that a non-Native needs to get a Native to do things for himself, after saying how natives are lazy and all.

I'm sorry that your parents never taught you how to do things for yourself, but i'm more than willing to help you out, buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TS:

Thanks for your posts. You're providing a great perspective on this issue.

You said:

Drea...the minute that you actually begin to think of Indians as Canadians is the day I'll agree to assimilate. But even look at what you said here. You say "indian this" and "Native that". Why not say "Canadian"?

Should we automatically assume that Indians... native Canadians... want to be referred to as "Canadians" ? I'm not sure how I would address this offhand. I've heard Indians refer to themselves as Indians quite often, so that's the term I use. Indian Canadian is a no-go, obviously, because one would assume you're from Mumbai.

If Indians (I'll use that term for now) want to be self-governed, isn't it illogical to call them Canadians ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rene:

I just read your last post, and all I can say is that you need to quit being lazy and look for the proof yourself at INAC. They are your government, they are giving me "special" entitlements, and if this disturbs you so deeply, then do something about it, and don't wait for others to do it for you.

Of course, I find it ironic that a non-Native needs to get a Native to do things for himself, after saying how natives are lazy and all.

I'm sorry that your parents never taught you how to do things for yourself, but i'm more than willing to help you out, buddy.

The problem Temagami is that most Canadians don't want to learn new things nor understand what's going on outside their little world. Most people are content with following the crowd and separating things between good and bad, right and wrong. The six nations occupation(and it's an occupation, not a protest as some have said) is being portrayed in the media as an attack on our(white) culture, an encroachment on "our" private property, never mind the way it was acquired. There is no grey area anymore. Society is divided into the have and have not. If you don't follow our "lead", you are left behind and must assimilate.

We latch on to single narrow points like tax exemption and brand a whole segment of the population as being lazy without knowing anything about it.

We, as a society/culture are great at playing follow the leader in a homogenized world for your convenience.

Sad really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

Thanks for your posts. You're providing a great perspective on this issue.

let me return the favor and thank you for actually being nice. I'm not fond of being lumped in with the inherently lazy, dumb and myopic....especially my experience tells me that those characteristics know no racial boundaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rene:

I just read your last post, and all I can say is that you need to quit being lazy and look for the proof yourself at INAC. They are your government, they are giving me "special" entitlements, and if this disturbs you so deeply, then do something about it, and don't wait for others to do it for you.

I am. I'm actively supporting governments which will cut entitlements.

Of course, I find it ironic that a non-Native needs to get a Native to do things for himself, after saying how natives are lazy and all.

I'm sorry that your parents never taught you how to do things for yourself, but i'm more than willing to help you out, buddy.

Apparently you're not as you have not provided one shred of evidence. I freely admit I haven't found any, and I suspect I know the reason for your "go find it yourself response". It's becasue the evidence is not there. No problem., you've already answered my question.

Maybe you'd like to dig up the quote where I said natives are lazy, as I didn't say that. Or is that another one of your claims without evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOC:

The problem Temagami is that most Canadians don't want to learn new things nor understand what's going on outside their little world.

Yes, that's why I'm grateful I'm not from Alberta or Quebec.

Most people are content with following the crowd and separating things between good and bad, right and wrong.

Have you ever seen Monty Python's "Life of Brian"? The most striking scene in the whole movie (to me) is when all Jerusalem is outside Brian's window, and the entire crowd is saying in unison "Yes, we are all individuals", except for one lonely, little voice in the mass that says "No, I'm not".

To me, that is the very essence of being Canadian.

The other essence is supporting the Sens if the Leaf Nation is crushed like nuts, but that's another thread.

The six nations occupation(and it's an occupation, not a protest as some have said) is being portrayed in the media as an attack on our(white) culture, an encroachment on "our" private property, never mind the way it was acquired. There is no grey area anymore. Society is divided into the have and have not. If you don't follow our "lead", you are left behind and must assimilate.

Yes...and they are using women and black guys to send that message. That, too, is ironic.

We latch on to single narrow points like tax exemption and brand a whole segment of the population as being lazy without really knowing anything about it

I know. It's also difficult to get people to believe that being Native doesn't mean tax exemption is a ceremonial rite.

You and Mike H must be siblings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael:

Thanks for your posts. You're providing a great perspective on this issue.

let me return the favor and thank you for actually being nice. I'm not fond of being lumped in with the inherently lazy, dumb and myopic....especially my experience tells me that those characteristics know no racial boundaries.

TS, I also want to thank you for your opinion. I don't agree with your perspective, but you are articulate and intelligent in your debate.

BTW, I do agree with you that being lazy, dumb, and myopic knows no racial boundaries. It's certainly not a characteristic I ascribe to you or Natives in general over other races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TS:

let me return the favor and thank you for actually being nice.

Thanks for the thanks... now would you mind answering my question ? I'm really interested in figuring out what natives... Indians... what they... you... prefer to be called.

It's not political correctness, just common courtesy.

Thanks again.

"The other Mike H"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rene:

Don't say I never do anything for you.

In fact, you can extend that sentiment to all my people.

Here is the info you need (from INAC):

1. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/site/maindex_e.html

Above is the main index for treaty info

2. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/index_e.html

This link goes into the treaty research behind each treaty. The one that impacts me is the Robinson treaty. Go nuts.

3. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/site/guindex_e.html

I think this is the timeline. interesting stuff, but you can get it off the first link.

4. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/site/trindex_e.html

This is the treaty texts. You'll see that there is no mention of the natives giving the government the right to determine their style of government, nor determine who is or isn't an indian.

5. http://www.socialpolicy.ca/cush/m8/m8-t7.stm

This gives some pretty excellent background on the Indian Act of 1876. there are many websites that go over all the amendments to this Act and the Constitution Act, so i'll let you find them.

You're welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike:

From my experience, the best you can do is call them by their original nomenclature. My Dad is Algonquin, but that is close to Ojibway, Saulteaux, Pottawatomi and Odawa. Those are the euro-names for us, but we all self-identify as "Anishnabe".

phoenetically: Ah-nish-naw-bay.

A bunch of anishnabe: Anishnabeg or Anishnabek, depending on dialect. You can see the word anishnabe spelled a number of ways.

My Mom is from Six Nations. She is Tuscarora. We self-identify by using the term"Haudenosaunee", which means "People of the longhouse" to each of the Six Nations, or "onkwe:honwe", which means "the people".

The mohawk call themselves "kanienKehaka".

Phoenetically:

a) Ho-dee-no-shaw-nee

B) Onk-way-hone-way

c) Ga-knee-gay-ha-ga

I have no clue about the B.C. tribes because they all have so many languages. I know the mik'Maq call themselves Mig-a-maw. but I can't say anything else about the eastern tribes.

I can't call non-algonquians "anishnabe" because they aren't. I know the Swampy Cree from the north coast and the Plains Cree from out west describe themselves differently too.

hope that helps.

I for one have no "overall" name for Native people in general. I use Indians, Natives, Aboriginals etc. It depends on audience. In Caledonia, I'm a wagon burner or a timber nigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal title for Indians living under a treaty arrangment is Indian.

Otherwise you'll get various naming schemes depending on what anthropologist you speak to. 'Native' is factually incorrect, they weren't Native here but rather immigrated from Asia. Aboriginal is an ambiguous term. So really, Indian maybe most accurate.

Now they have their own names depending on their nations and stuff like that, which is fine. But I don't expect Indians to distinguish and instead of calling me 'white-man' call me 'white person of possibly French and Irish descent, born in Canada."

I don't think political correctness is really valid in any situation, I don't see what difference a name has, as long as its not hateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...