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

We pay while Indians live in luxury

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't call these people squatters anyway. And I see nobody in either story (other than a title writer) calling them such.

And it's interesting that all the people interviewed are very unhappy being cramped into their "luxury" hotel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh DNA has shown there were TWO migrations across the Bering Land bridge, and one from Europe. If that is a theory to you, go right on trucking. But you might want to ask yourself how nearly 25% of First Immigrants in North America have some European DNA. Research the Clovis Spearhead.

Or maybe they came from Asia too. It's possible. I've always wondered about how native Indians have asian features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
any lease payments would not be grand, by any means.
Sorry, lease payments are not acceptable under any conditions. If the SCC rules that private property owners would have to start making such payments then you can bet that the constitution would be changed within a year to protect those property owners. You can also bet that the Canadian gov't would be able to convince the various international bodies that such a move was a necessary compromise.

There is a town in New York State, Salamanca, which reverted to indian control in the 1990s. The houses are owned by the white, and the land by the indian, and lease payments are made to the indian. The people in the town get cheaper gas though.

The indians tried to get back Grand Island, but that was shot down after ten years in the courts though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a town in New York State, Salamanca, which reverted to indian control in the 1990s. The houses are owned by the white, and the land by the indian, and lease payments are made to the indian. The people in the town get cheaper gas though.
Salamanca is a different situtation. In that case people knowingly purchased houses built on leased land. The leases came due in 1990s and the rents were increased to market rates. People were pissed off but there was not much that could be done since the people were getting exactly what they paid for when they purchased a house on leased land. I am talking about a situtation where people already have freehold title which is taken away without compensation because of some land claim. That kind of abuse would not likely be tolerated by the gov't or the voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as "freehold title" since there are no property rights guaranteed in Canada. In essence everything is by right of the Crown and in turn is held in trust on behalf of the Indian Treaties and in accordance with the Royal Proclamation.

It would seem to me you would have to negotiate any stay on Indian land if the same scenerio arose.

As to ownership, the onus is on the federal government to prove that there was a valid and lawful surrender of any lands in Canada, since we all know that every chunk was once owned outright by natives. The problem is there is no such lawful record since most of the land transfers were underhanded.

Canada is in serious trouble where it concerns the land rights and treaties of First Nation people. Just like the Mckenzie Valley pipeline, EVERYTHING is subject to original Native title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no such thing as "freehold title" since there are no property rights guaranteed in Canada. In essence everything is by right of the Crown and in turn is held in trust on behalf of the Indian Treaties and in accordance with the Royal Proclamation.

It would seem to me you would have to negotiate any stay on Indian land if the same scenerio arose.

As to ownership, the onus is on the federal government to prove that there was a valid and lawful surrender of any lands in Canada, since we all know that every chunk was once owned outright by natives. The problem is there is no such lawful record since most of the land transfers were underhanded.

Canada is in serious trouble where it concerns the land rights and treaties of First Nation people. Just like the Mckenzie Valley pipeline, EVERYTHING is subject to original Native title.

We've been through this all before.

When push comes to shove the majority will win. Treaty or not. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Settlers? What century are you living in? It really doesn't matter whether you accept Canada's existence or not.

The Israelis refer to something called "facts on the ground". Well, the facts on the ground in the lands north of the USA are Canada, her people and her institutions. And they encompass it all.

'settlers' is a term used for non-natives. if you object to the term please say so. isfrael is irrelevant. 'facts on the ground' s you would have it re: north america are wrong. don't get stuck on the propoganda.

Here's an FYI for you. Six Nations is not sovereign. That ended the minute Joseph Brant and his followers decided to settle on the lands of the Haldimand Tract under the wording laid out in the proclamation. Joseph Brant's protests to the contrary and those since then matter not. They are subjects of the Crown which now rests in Canada.

6n sovereignty is still recognized by the government, what's your problem doing so? joseph brandt was coorierced. 6n is mother clan, no man has the right to sign anythign to do with land under their constitution. all signatures signed by men in all mother clan tribes are null and void.

The charter is pretty simple yet it has turned traditional jurisprudence on its head in the last 25 years. If the provinces and the feds agree that the scope of aboriginal rights needs to be limited then they can pass an amendent supercedes all other legal traditions and the SCC will be obliged rule accordingly. The idea that a centuries old legal tradition could be used to deny the stated will of the people is absurd. Law is nothing more that what people agree to. The Law is _not_ some supreme entity that exists independently of the politics and realities of the people being expected to follow the law.

That said, you have gone from saying that it is impossible to strip away aboriginal entitlements to saying that it is simply 'too complicated'.

there is nothing absurd about land claims and treaties. sorry, but no matter how hard you try the lawis on our side in all capacaties. dicta will no longer be accepted. i don't consider the law a supreme entity rather something to be followed and adhered to. the reality is canada must now accept her own laws.

the impossibilities of stripping aboriginal entitlements comes from those very complexities you and i both speak of. simply put, it won't be done.

If it was irrelevant then why is it in there is the first place? Section 35 was added because constitutional experts at the time were afraid that the new charter of rights could be used to take away aboriginal rights. The wording of the section is also telling - I am sure aboriginal leaders asked for a veto on changes but were denied - the 'duty to consult' was a political compromise intended to ensure that future generations of Canadians could fix problems created in the future by unexpected rulings by the SCC.

you tell me why it was there in the first place, we didnt write it. most of us follow similar systems to the truest democracy in the world, which is the iroquois constitution. those who have no been abiding are getting kicked out left, right and center. our constitutions are what western democracy is based on, espeically the united states, only they left out many important parts which makes the western world faux democracies.

'the cuty to consult' was a patronizing gesture used to appease the co-opted chiefs. it does not suffice.

I have never said that natives should assimilate. My position this that aboriginal rights are not absolute and have to be balanced with the rights of the non-aboriginals who are now the majority of the people living in this country. Finding the right balance is tricky but not impossible. However, the rise of a class of self centered native supremacists who believe that non-aboriginals are inferior beings will make finding a balance much more difficult.

if you feel rights should be balanced why are you saying there is a 'rise of self-centered native supremisicts who believe non-natives are inferior beings '? i can't help you with your insecurities. that is a very tell-taaling attitude on your part, it demonstrates fear and misunderstanding. if you think carefully you will note that the rise of a new nation for us is all about the system, not the non-natives.....we are becoming proud again , if you want to classify this as being supremist, think again. your words speak that pride on our part does not fit into oppression.

I wouldn't call these people squatters anyway. And I see nobody in either story (other than a title writer) calling them such.

And it's interesting that all the people interviewed are very unhappy being cramped into their "luxury" hotel.

thank you , they are not squatters. the dnd left the building behind while tearing down others. the dnd has no claim the living quarters. some of the people are complaining, others are not. they are not being put in the lap of luxury.

Or maybe they came from Asia too. It's possible. I've always wondered about how native Indians have asian features.

some do have asian features while others have polynesian. still others can't quite be placed. there was a lot of travelling done in early times after the continental shift. prior to that we were a unique people , here, on this land. science will catch up one day.

Salamanca is a different situtation. In that case people knowingly purchased houses built on leased land. The leases came due in 1990s and the rents were increased to market rates. People were pissed off but there was not much that could be done since the people were getting exactly what they paid for when they purchased a house on leased land. I am talking about a situtation where people already have freehold title which is taken away without compensation because of some land claim. That kind of abuse would not likely be tolerated by the gov't or the voter.

abuse? then the govenment should compensate all land holders, not the aboringals...we've had enough abuse. to turn matters around, it is 'not our fault' the government abused us and lied to the settlers and allowed them to build on native land that was taken illegally. that is for your government to handle and compensate. houses would remain the property of of people and could be sold at their value. land cannott be sold unless some tribes set up special provisions (which some may). some properties will be subject to lease, others will not. this is an individual native nation decision and i can only hope bands will be fair about it and not slip into the greed mode of the system.

There is no such thing as "freehold title" since there are no property rights guaranteed in Canada. In essence everything is by right of the Crown and in turn is held in trust on behalf of the Indian Treaties and in accordance with the Royal Proclamation.

It would seem to me you would have to negotiate any stay on Indian land if the same scenerio arose.

As to ownership, the onus is on the federal government to prove that there was a valid and lawful surrender of any lands in Canada, since we all know that every chunk was once owned outright by natives. The problem is there is no such lawful record since most of the land transfers were underhanded.

Canada is in serious trouble where it concerns the land rights and treaties of First Nation people. Just like the Mckenzie Valley pipeline, EVERYTHING is subject to original Native title.

yes , the royal proclamation has much to do with everything. i'm glad to see somone who knows their law. ditto for your other comments. more and more evidence is being brought forth that shows cooersion or outright fraud were the basis of many land deals. also, in our ways there were many chiefs but the invaders demanded to talk with the top one (chief is not an indian word anyways). this was difficult as we operated in circle with several 'chiefs' , who basically were representatives of the people and the people were to have a say in everything. our women chiefs went unrecognized. this and force did not make for true signatories.

We've been through this all before.

When push comes to shove the majority will win. Treaty or not. Sorry.

there is always room for new discussion and perspective, it puts things in new light and let's someone who has just joined in be a part of things and say what they have to. are you the board moderator?

'when push comes to shove'? such forceful words....do you view everything this way? i'm sorry for you life if you do. there are beautiful trees, mountains, rivers and animals around us. sadly, there is war in many parts of the world. these wars are over resoures and power. we are not asking for power over anyone, only that our rights are adhered to by the governement. it is not too much to ask.

the rightful will 'win'. this includes the many non-natives and large international community who support us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6n sovereignty is still recognized by the government, what's your problem doing so? joseph brandt was coorierced. 6n is mother clan, no man has the right to sign anythign to do with land under their constitution. all signatures signed by men in all mother clan tribes are null and void.

Their sovereignty is not recognized by the government. In fact, court decisions have come down on that side of the argument. You see, Six Nations are not like other indian bands in Canada. They are subject to the wording in the Haldimand Proclamation which states quite clearly that they are there under the protection of the crown. Courts have recognized that as meaning that the Six Nations owed allegiance to the crown and are therefore subjects of the crown.

At the time Joseph Brant made the land deals he had been given, in essence, power of attorney for the Six Nations on the Grand. He was not coerced in the least, he was very savvy. As for requiring only women to sign, you contradict every other Six Nationer out there who say that some of the deals weren't valid because they didn't have enough chief's signatures on them. Never has anyone from Six Nations claimed the deals weren't valid because men signed them rather than women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to ownership, the onus is on the federal government to prove that there was a valid and lawful surrender of any lands in Canada, since we all know that every chunk was once owned outright by natives.

I take issue with your term "owned outright". Did the natives consider the land to be something that could be owned? Did they consider it as something that they could buy, sell, have dominion over? When Europeans came, they brought with them a set of beliefs regarding the relationship of people with the land they live on, and applied that set of beliefs to their negotiations with the natives. The natives didn't have the same mindset, so were negotiating with a different expectation for what would be the end result. All the treaties were therefore flawed, and we shouldn't be looking to them for solutions to the current problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or maybe they came from Asia too. It's possible. I've always wondered about how native Indians have asian features.

some do have asian features while others have polynesian. still others can't quite be placed. there was a lot of travelling done in early times after the continental shift. prior to that we were a unique people , here, on this land. science will catch up one day.

Science has caught up and passed you by. As I said there were TWO migrations from Asia across the Bering land bridge. One was from the peoples in south Asia(what would become your polynesian people) and a second migration came from further north in Asia. (that would be your Oriental people) You think your people were here when the continents were one land mass. It was called Pangea(sp) and it hasn't existed for millions of years. Infact the continents broke up millions of years before mankind even had a primate ancestor walking the earth. There is no way any man of any race was living in North America before the migrations. We are all immigrants. You, me and you neighbour down the street.

We've been through this all before.

When push comes to shove the majority will win. Treaty or not. Sorry.

there is always room for new discussion and perspective, it puts things in new light and let's someone who has just joined in be a part of things and say what they have to. are you the board moderator?

'when push comes to shove'? such forceful words....do you view everything this way? i'm sorry for you life if you do. there are beautiful trees, mountains, rivers and animals around us. sadly, there is war in many parts of the world. these wars are over resoures and power. we are not asking for power over anyone, only that our rights are adhered to by the governement. it is not too much to ask.

the rightful will 'win'. this includes the many non-natives and large international community who support us.

Your perpesctive is not new. We had two or three "warriors" :rolleyes: on here who said everything you are saying and went even further saying they would starve me out of my home if that's what it took to get my land.

You think my saying push comes to shove is forceful? Just what the heck do you call armed occupation of land and blockades of railways and roads? Intimidation of Police?

Sounds forceful to me. Almost sounds like something a terrorist would do.

I think you will find your support flying out the window when people realise you are after their land and homes. I know mine did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't consider the law a supreme entity rather something to be followed and adhered to. the reality is canada must now accept her own laws.
Or change the laws. No matter how much you dance around you cannot escape the reality that the law nothing more than what the citizens decide is the law. If citizens decide that aboriginal title is no longer something that they believe is important then aboriginal title will be extinguished or at least reduced to something with purely symbolic value. Those are the facts deny them if you like but they will not change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their sovereignty is not recognized by the government. In fact, court decisions have come down on that side of the argument. You see, Six Nations are not like other indian bands in Canada. They are subject to the wording in the Haldimand Proclamation which states quite clearly that they are there under the protection of the crown. Courts have recognized that as meaning that the Six Nations owed allegiance to the crown and are therefore subjects of the crown.

At the time Joseph Brant made the land deals he had been given, in essence, power of attorney for the Six Nations on the Grand. He was not coerced in the least, he was very savvy. As for requiring only women to sign, you contradict every other Six Nationer out there who say that some of the deals weren't valid because they didn't have enough chief's signatures on them. Never has anyone from Six Nations claimed the deals weren't valid because men signed them rather than women.

their sovereignty is recognized to a certain point and this is why they are being afforded allowances that way by the ontario governemnt. it is a big beef of many calendonians that this sovereignty is being honoured as they feel they are being treated differently. the court decisions in recent times pointing to that side of the argument have all been based on dicta and not rule of law.

'never has anyone from sic nations claimed the deals weren't valid because men signed them rather then women'........ you're not keeping up with indigenous news. the 6n clan mothers have been using this for quite some time now. joseph brant was deposed from his role as ONE OF THE CHIEFS of sixn for his deciept of the people. his signature of anything dealing with 6n is not recogized by 6n. his depositon is still intact, on paper.

I take issue with your term "owned outright". Did the natives consider the land to be something that could be owned? Did they consider it as something that they could buy, sell, have dominion over? When Europeans came, they brought with them a set of beliefs regarding the relationship of people with the land they live on, and applied that set of beliefs to their negotiations with the natives. The natives didn't have the same mindset, so were negotiating with a different expectation for what would be the end result. All the treaties were therefore flawed, and we shouldn't be looking to them for solutions to the current problems.

ou're right...my apologies for the term. by 'ownership' i mean to say women were entrusted as stewards of the land by Creator. it was not meant to be 'sold' , here we have cultural differences that get a bit mixed in trying to explain things to a different culture. women were the 'titleholders', in other words, it was up to them to ensure proper sustainable measures and practises were kept up with. and yes that means treaties were flawed.

Science has caught up and passed you by. As I said there were TWO migrations from Asia across the Bering land bridge. One was from the peoples in south Asia(what would become your polynesian people) and a second migration came from further north in Asia. (that would be your Oriental people) You think your people were here when the continents were one land mass. It was called Pangea(sp) and it hasn't existed for millions of years. Infact the continents broke up millions of years before mankind even had a primate ancestor walking the earth. There is no way any man of any race was living in North America before the migrations. We are all immigrants. You, me and you neighbour down the street.

yesterday the world was considered flat. today the migration theories hold true. tomorrow will bring new answers. what was held true today in science a hundred years ago we laugh at today. what is considered true today will be laughed at in 100 years. science has not yet found the truth, they have only found clues.....the puzzle is not yet complete.

Your perpesctive is not new. We had two or three "warriors" on here who said everything you are saying and went even further saying they would starve me out of my home if that's what it took to get my land.

You think my saying push comes to shove is forceful? Just what the heck do you call armed occupation of land and blockades of railways and roads? Intimidation of Police?

Sounds forceful to me. Almost sounds like something a terrorist would do.

I think you will find your support flying out the window when people realise you are after their land and homes. I know mine did.

i know nothing of what others here have said. i am not responsible for what they said not do i feel what they said was the right thing to say. that is too bad they worded that, it does nothing for relationships.

where is there armed occupation today? blockades on our land are justified. it is our land. we are the stewards. who has intimidated the police....in recent years it seems the police have intiimidated us. they have used violence against unarmed people who did not provoke, tell me who the terrorist is in those cases?

Or change the laws. No matter how much you dance around you cannot escape the reality that the law nothing more than what the citizens decide is the law. If citizens decide that aboriginal title is no longer something that they believe is important then aboriginal title will be extinguished or at least reduced to something with purely symbolic value. Those are the facts deny them if you like but they will not change.

i see you are still in denial and talking circles. if this were the case then the citizens who feel this way would have the laws changed. why has this not happened then? are you telling me you are waiting for something beyond all the land claims and treaties now? are you telling me that if the kewlona accord is reinstated a minotirty of citiznes would try revoke it? what are you after....for things to remain the same and everyone keep their blinders on? for international law to be enacted in the hopes your government will avoid it? what exactly do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
their sovereignty is recognized to a certain point and this is why they are being afforded allowances that way by the ontario governemnt.

Which allowances are these? That representatives from the Confederacy are at the negotiating table? They are only there because the band council gave them the green light. Or are you referring to the fact that the police haven't made another attempt to remove the occupiers from the site? That can be chalked up to a lack of balls on the part of McGuinty who doesn't want to have another Ipperwash on his hands. The hope is that the occupiers will see the light through negotiation.

you're not keeping up with indigenous news. the 6n clan mothers have been using this for quite some time now. joseph brant was deposed from his role as ONE OF THE CHIEFS of sixn for his deciept of the people. his signature of anything dealing with 6n is not recogized by 6n. his depositon is still intact, on paper.

Kahentinetha Horn and her partner in crime who make up the so-called Women Titleholders do not qualify as a clan mothers. The chiefs were always the ones who signed the land surrenders, not the women.

As for Joseph Brant, his "removal" as a chief was part of some intrigue involving the deputy superintendent of Indian affairs in Upper Canada at the time. The superintendent wanted to discredit Brant in his attempts to get the lands of the Haldimand Proclamation granted in fee simple, so he tried to get the support of the natives at the Grand River in getting him removed. When he couldn't convince the Indians there to remove Brant, he went to the portion of the Six Nations in the USA to get their signatures. That is where your "evidence" of his removal comes from. However, the chiefs at the Grand River always backed Brant and continued him in his position. As Brant importantly pointed out, those of the Six Nations who decided to remain in the USA had no say over the disposition of the Grand River lands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yesterday the world was considered flat. today the migration theories hold true. tomorrow will bring new answers. what was held true today in science a hundred years ago we laugh at today. what is considered true today will be laughed at in 100 years. science has not yet found the truth, they have only found clues.....the puzzle is not yet complete.

Like the recent discovery that Europeans made it to North America 14,000 years ago?

i know nothing of what others here have said. i am not responsible for what they said not do i feel what they said was the right thing to say. that is too bad they worded that, it does nothing for relationships.

where is there armed occupation today? blockades on our land are justified. it is our land. we are the stewards. who has intimidated the police....in recent years it seems the police have intiimidated us. they have used violence against unarmed people who did not provoke, tell me who the terrorist is in those cases?

Oh so you are allowed to quote 300 yr old treaties and I can't bring up armed occupation because there isn't one going on right now? Nice double standard you have. Who's to say there are no guns at Caledonia anyway.

Who say's it is your land? Only you do.

Uh police not allowed to search for remains, or a killer even after finding a severed foot, because the search would be on alleged First Immigrant land. I would like to try and keep the cops from searching my yard after they had found severed apendages. Your arguments have all been beaten down. The more militant you become in your demands for land and money the harder the backlash will hit. I would advise you stop typing on the computer and go enjoy your tax free status and your hunting and fishing rights while you still have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which allowances are these? That representatives from the Confederacy are at the negotiating table? They are only there because the band council gave them the green light. Or are you referring to the fact that the police haven't made another attempt to remove the occupiers from the site? That can be chalked up to a lack of balls on the part of McGuinty who doesn't want to have another Ipperwash on his hands. The hope is that the occupiers will see the light through negotiation.

we are both agreed on another thing, that mcguinty has no balls. further , neither does stephen harper who keeps passing the buck (so to speak). that 6n is at the negotiating table is a show of good faith because ultimalty a third, outside, government is necessary for all negotiations with them.

'Sections 109 and 132 of the Canadian constitution respect our nation-to-nation relationship, which sets out the process for our formal relationship. Parliament only has jurisdiction to make treaties with us, that’s all. We never surrendered anything to anybody. We were and continue to be governed by our own constitution.'

so you see, 6n has mcguinty over a barrel. the clan mothers are in accordance with being at the negotiating table for now.

Kahentinetha Horn and her partner in crime who make up the so-called Women Titleholders do not qualify as a clan mothers. The chiefs were always the ones who signed the land surrenders, not the women.

and what qualifies as a clan mother? prey, do tell? chiefs were signatories only because it was demanded by the colonial government , and they demanded male chiefs. this is in violation of pre-colonial ways. and only holds in modern times for co-opted bands who have been forced to set up municipal style governments, which are not representative of the ways or the people.

As for Joseph Brant, his "removal" as a chief was part of some intrigue involving the deputy superintendent of Indian affairs in Upper Canada at the time. The superintendent wanted to discredit Brant in his attempts to get the lands of the Haldimand Proclamation granted in fee simple, so he tried to get the support of the natives at the Grand River in getting him removed. When he couldn't convince the Indians there to remove Brant, he went to the portion of the Six Nations in the USA to get their signatures. That is where your "evidence" of his removal comes from. However, the chiefs at the Grand River always backed Brant and continued him in his position. As Brant importantly pointed out, those of the Six Nations who decided to remain in the USA had no say over the disposition of the Grand River lands.

Brandt became a british subject, violating wampum 58. under wampum 35 he became a 'pinetree chief, a ceremonial position with no authority. in 1808 he muredred his own son and was no longer allowed to live with the mohawk. from the original document deposing brandt:

"Brethren. It is (erst?) a few words that we, the Six Nations, wish to inform at this time, it is what have been saying at our fireplace in Buffalo Creek. As it is customary for the Six Nations to call Councils for the misconduct of chiefs so as to have all faults related here before such councils, we have learned from information that Captain Brant has not conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Six Nations and according to our Indian customs he is no more a chief. And we the Six Nations all of us agree is no longer to be noticed as a chief in the Six Nations. The following are the names of the principle chiefs in the Six Nations. "

brandt was and is no hero in mohwaks's eyes. your brandt history is from colonial perspective.

Like the recent discovery that Europeans made it to North America 14,000 years ago?

like yesterday pluto was a planet and today it no longer is. what will tomorrow say?

Oh so you are allowed to quote 300 yr old treaties and I can't bring up armed occupation because there isn't one going on right now? Nice double standard you have. Who's to say there are no guns at Caledonia anyway.

if you are referrin to past armed occupation then you should have stated so. i am not imposing a double standard, i am pointing out that today, the opp have gone in and harmed unarmed people, that is my point, you need not get so riled. relax. as far as i know there are no guns at caledonia. if someone there were to be found with one the clan mothers would kick their butt.

Uh police not allowed to search for remains, or a killer even after finding a severed foot, because the search would be on alleged First Immigrant land. I would like to try and keep the cops from searching my yard after they had found severed apendages. Your arguments have all been beaten down. The more militant you become in your demands for land and money the harder the backlash will hit. I would advise you stop typing on the computer and go enjoy your tax free status and your hunting and fishing rights while you still have them.

please cite what you are referring to. i have nothing to do with the cops in your area. they are part of your government.

what arguements have been beaten down?

the more 'militiant' (your choice of words) we become the more everything stands a chance of finally being properly sorted out. the backlash may appear hard at first but we are prepared to go through with proceedings. time will tell.

oh, you advise me to do that, do you? and while we still have them? i'm shuddering. well, you are good for a laugh, quite the humour you have there :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which allowances are these? That representatives from the Confederacy are at the negotiating table? They are only there because the band council gave them the green light. Or are you referring to the fact that the police haven't made another attempt to remove the occupiers from the site? That can be chalked up to a lack of balls on the part of McGuinty who doesn't want to have another Ipperwash on his hands. The hope is that the occupiers will see the light through negotiation.

we are both agreed on another thing, that mcguinty has no balls. further , neither does stephen harper who keeps passing the buck (so to speak). that 6n is at the negotiating table is a show of good faith because ultimalty a third, outside, government is necessary for all negotiations with them.

'Sections 109 and 132 of the Canadian constitution respect our nation-to-nation relationship, which sets out the process for our formal relationship. Parliament only has jurisdiction to make treaties with us, that’s all. We never surrendered anything to anybody. We were and continue to be governed by our own constitution.'

so you see, 6n has mcguinty over a barrel. the clan mothers are in accordance with being at the negotiating table for now.

Kahentinetha Horn and her partner in crime who make up the so-called Women Titleholders do not qualify as a clan mothers. The chiefs were always the ones who signed the land surrenders, not the women.

and what qualifies as a clan mother? prey, do tell? chiefs were signatories only because it was demanded by the colonial government , and they demanded male chiefs. this is in violation of pre-colonial ways. and only holds in modern times for co-opted bands who have been forced to set up municipal style governments, which are not representative of the ways or the people.

As for Joseph Brant, his "removal" as a chief was part of some intrigue involving the deputy superintendent of Indian affairs in Upper Canada at the time. The superintendent wanted to discredit Brant in his attempts to get the lands of the Haldimand Proclamation granted in fee simple, so he tried to get the support of the natives at the Grand River in getting him removed. When he couldn't convince the Indians there to remove Brant, he went to the portion of the Six Nations in the USA to get their signatures. That is where your "evidence" of his removal comes from. However, the chiefs at the Grand River always backed Brant and continued him in his position. As Brant importantly pointed out, those of the Six Nations who decided to remain in the USA had no say over the disposition of the Grand River lands.

Brandt became a british subject, violating wampum 58. under wampum 35 he became a 'pinetree chief, a ceremonial position with no authority. in 1808 he muredred his own son and was no longer allowed to live with the mohawk. from the original document deposing brandt:

"Brethren. It is (erst?) a few words that we, the Six Nations, wish to inform at this time, it is what have been saying at our fireplace in Buffalo Creek. As it is customary for the Six Nations to call Councils for the misconduct of chiefs so as to have all faults related here before such councils, we have learned from information that Captain Brant has not conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Six Nations and according to our Indian customs he is no more a chief. And we the Six Nations all of us agree is no longer to be noticed as a chief in the Six Nations. The following are the names of the principle chiefs in the Six Nations. "

brandt was and is no hero in mohwaks's eyes. your brandt history is from colonial perspective.

Like the recent discovery that Europeans made it to North America 14,000 years ago?

like yesterday pluto was a planet and today it no longer is. what will tomorrow say?

Oh so you are allowed to quote 300 yr old treaties and I can't bring up armed occupation because there isn't one going on right now? Nice double standard you have. Who's to say there are no guns at Caledonia anyway.

if you are referrin to past armed occupation then you should have stated so. i am not imposing a double standard, i am pointing out that today, the opp have gone in and harmed unarmed people, that is my point, you need not get so riled. relax. as far as i know there are no guns at caledonia. if someone there were to be found with one the clan mothers would kick their butt.

Uh police not allowed to search for remains, or a killer even after finding a severed foot, because the search would be on alleged First Immigrant land. I would like to try and keep the cops from searching my yard after they had found severed apendages. Your arguments have all been beaten down. The more militant you become in your demands for land and money the harder the backlash will hit. I would advise you stop typing on the computer and go enjoy your tax free status and your hunting and fishing rights while you still have them.

please cite what you are referring to. i have nothing to do with the cops in your area. they are part of your government.

what arguements have been beaten down?

the more 'militiant' (your choice of words) we become the more everything stands a chance of finally being properly sorted out. the backlash may appear hard at first but we are prepared to go through with proceedings. time will tell.

oh, you advise me to do that, do you? and while we still have them? i'm shuddering. well, you are good for a laugh, quite the humour you have there :D

We'll see how hard you are laughing when the racist policies of this country are struck down and you have to stand in line with me to buy your fishing license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha, well my friend, all we can do is wait things out and see what happens, as you say. either you'll be livning on native land and paying lease, or i'll be standing in line buying a fish licesnse with you. either that or a few nukes will go off in the mid east, leaving us all standing around saying,'what the fu'''', and they'll be no fish to catch, no deer to hunt. we'll all have to survive together and will all need one another's help.

i wish you well, i have no malice. things will be what they will be. may life bless you and your family well, and you prosper and be in good health. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science has caught up and passed you by. As I said there were TWO migrations from Asia across the Bering land bridge. One was from the peoples in south Asia(what would become your polynesian people) and a second migration came from further north in Asia. (that would be your Oriental people) You think your people were here when the continents were one land mass. It was called Pangea(sp) and it hasn't existed for millions of years. Infact the continents broke up millions of years before mankind even had a primate ancestor walking the earth. There is no way any man of any race was living in North America before the migrations. We are all immigrants. You, me and you neighbour down the street.

Yeah Malamute, your timing is way off.

The super continent of Pannotia existed between 600 and 540 million years ago, then started to break up eventually leading to how the earth is now. Any creature within the Homo genus, including modern humans, neaderthals, etc, only came about between 1.5 to 2.5 million years ago. No where near in the same time period of the super continent.

Even more so, the idea that the so-called natives evolved here simultaneously as humans evolved elsewhere on the planet, yet they became the same species capable of inter-breeding is laughable. It just goes to show that you no understanding of even the simplest biological concepts which may be called theories (in the scientific usage of the word theory, not the general English usage), but in reality are working proofs shown thousands of times using bacteria, insects, small mammals, etc..

Anyway, all of this biological and geographical talk is pointless in regards to our modern problem. I am in agreement with Riverwind et al in that there should be no special treatment given to any Canadian. Everyone should be equal under the law irregardless of race, colour, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever classification you can come up with. Giving special privileges to some only serves to create racism and animosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you haven't been keeping up with science. the kazakhstan go back to africa, as do all groups of people. this is wide spread knowledge and fully accepted within scientific quarters....where have you been ? this is, of course, only as far as science has gotten so far. all may change tomorrow with new findings. science had people believing something different yesterday. remember it is still a fairly new discipline in the western world. the astronomers began the likes of science in the 16th century and it was upheld and persued by king charles to great degree. it took western astronomy a long time to catch up to what the chinese, mayans and other indigenous peoples figured out many centuries before.

What? Do you even read what you type? Of course the people of kazakhstan evenmtually came from Africa, as did all peoples in the world. I am referrign abck to where Natives and Caucasians broke apart and that was in what is now Kazakhstan.

We are all immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Sections 109 and 132 of the Canadian constitution respect our nation-to-nation relationship, which sets out the process for our formal relationship. Parliament only has jurisdiction to make treaties with us, that’s all. We never surrendered anything to anybody. We were and continue to be governed by our own constitution.'

I see that you're quoting from Kahentinetha Horn now. Thats the only reason I need to mark you as irrelevant.

Brandt became a british subject, violating wampum 58. under wampum 35 he became a 'pinetree chief, a ceremonial position with no authority. in 1808 he muredred his own son and was no longer allowed to live with the mohawk. from the original document deposing brandt:

"Brethren. It is (erst?) a few words that we, the Six Nations, wish to inform at this time, it is what have been saying at our fireplace in Buffalo Creek. As it is customary for the Six Nations to call Councils for the misconduct of chiefs so as to have all faults related here before such councils, we have learned from information that Captain Brant has not conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Six Nations and according to our Indian customs he is no more a chief. And we the Six Nations all of us agree is no longer to be noticed as a chief in the Six Nations. The following are the names of the principle chiefs in the Six Nations. "

brandt was and is no hero in mohwaks's eyes. your brandt history is from colonial perspective.

More Horn drivel. Buffalo Creek is the exact intrigue I was referring to. You've screwed yourself by relying on that as evidence that Brant was "removed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been attempts to remove Brant from control on the 6N, Brant although not a sachem was allied with Tekariho:ken, who was the sachem of the 6N mohawks.

link below:

http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=37284

The traditionalists did try to depose Tekario:ken in the 1811's but failed, it was a case of the progressives and the traditionalists, of which the protestors on DCE today represent the traditionalists.

Brant was a pinetree chief, because his mother was not of proper mohawk lineage. His fane came not only from fighting, but from his relationship with William Johnson the Indian Agent to whom Brant's sister Molly/Mary was married to. This allowed the 6N to get easy access to supplies as musket/ball/powder, blankets, iron knives/axes, and food in winter when it was scarce. In today's terms, musket /ball was equal to a F16 in devastating power , as well as making it easier to get food, so Brant was a very important man; thus he was elected pinetree chief. A pinetree chief was almost important as a clan chief, except he could be ignored at the Grand council which met every year at Onondaga, as well, he could not pass on hereditery role of chief to his children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a little bit of an issue for me.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/column...4b-2c96de049216

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...65c0&k=4124

Couple of links...

Anyways, we are paying for 600 squatters, not all Indians, but mostly, to hang out in hotels while their squatting area is repaired. I honestly can't believe this. The government doesn't help you if your house burns to the ground... Red Cross brings you some stuff to get you by until insurance, but no government will lift a finger.

But God forbid if some Indians living in accomodations they don't even pay for may be exposed to asbestos! They put them up in hotels!! A million bucks of our money.

It's crazy. Firstly, why can't they take care of a building? These barracks were in good condition when they were turned over, now they are a disgusting unsightly mess. I know the asbestos isn't their fault, but drive by this 'Black Bear Crossing' one day and you'll see what I mean. It's just horrible.

Secondly, why do we pay for their accomodations when they don't even pay for the use of our buildings?

Well, we quickly get their reasoning, with resident Bill saying that 'It's our land!"... what a cop out. I don't care who's land it is, people need to take care of their buildings.

Why isn't Tsuu Tina paying for their own? They are constructing a multi-million dollar casino (oh how that's going to help them <_<), it's not like they don't have the money.

Bottom line it's not our responsibility to provide hotels to squatters.

I'm not sure what world you are living in but I have yet to see a reservation with luxury homes, at least in New Brunswick where there are numerous First Nations reservations. Now if we are talking about people living in luxury how about looking at Acadian fishermen who do live in luxury homes, have luxury cars, trucks, ATV's, pools, etc, etc. and they make a small fortune during the brief fishing season and then live on EI the rest of the year at our expense. We are all equal but obviously some are more equal than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue was us paying for them to be held in hotels while their building to squat in gets fixed.

That would never happen if white people were the main 'victim' of this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My issue was us paying for them to be held in hotels while their building to squat in gets fixed.

That would never happen if white people were the main 'victim' of this situation.

Maybe now would be a good time to stop showing your racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue was us paying for them to be held in hotels while their building to squat in gets fixed.

That would never happen if white people were the main 'victim' of this situation.

Maybe now would be a good time to stop showing your racism.

IT is the Govt. who is racist and has racist polilices when they conintuously treat people of one race with a different set of rules from everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...