prairiechickin

You clearly live in a dream state of some sort. Treaty Four, and all the others are legally binding documents and are unaffected by the Proclamation of 1763. That Proclamation is a one-way statement by the British Crown outlining its settlment policies vis-a-vis Native peoples. Its not a treaty, and its impact is limited to the area controlled by the British in 1763, that is the St. Lawrence Valley and what is now the Maritimes. The numbered treaties were negotiated AFTER Confederation between the sovereign nation of Canada and the Native peoples of the West. I know many Native lawyers would love to drag the Proclamation into all dealings, but its legally a non-starter anywhere west of Sudbury. It has been used to reaafirm some Native rights in Eastern Canada, but it in no way affects the numbered treaties. They are all stand-alone documents, and what's in there is what you get. Five bucks a year, some farming tools, and a school on the rez. Anything else exists only in your imagination.

NORAD was set up in the 1950s to counter the very real threat of a Soviet attack, either by long range bombers or ICBMs. Clearly that threat has diminished, but I still think NORAD serves a useful purpose beyond tracking Santa Claus.

One could argue that the Rebellion in Lower Canada had some sort of indirect effect insofar as the outnumbered English in what is now Quebec realized they would have to merge with the Upper Canadians in order to achieve electoral superiority over the French. This would eventually lead to Confederation, but there was hardly a direct cause and effect. As for the Upper Canandian Rebellion, that was a bunch or drunks on horseback one afternoon and had no lasting effect on anything. The Northwest Rebellion of 1885 did manage to scatter the surviving Metis and gave the government a good excuse to crack down on the Indians, but otherwise had no lasting impact beyond giving John A. Macdonald a good excuse to lend even more money to the CPR to finish the railway. The Winnipeg General Strike gives history teachers a good lecture on labor relations after the Great War, but it again had no lasting effect on labor legislation in Canada. The Occupy movement gave some hippies and other malcontents a lesson in late fall camping, but otherwise was pretty pointless. Now, if you'd used the example of how the women's suffrage movement led to prohibition, or how the Maritime Rights Movement of the 1920s would eventually bear fruit in the 1950s, you might have an argument for how protest leads to lasting change.

Just to be sure I went back and read Treaty Four again. Nowhere in that treaty does it mention service and support forever. Maybe I'm wrong. You go read it and quote the part that says Canada agrees to support the Indians forever. And just to set the record straight, the part about "as long as the sun shines and the grass grows" was put there by the government so Indians understood that this deal was for all time, that is, the government had no intention of renegotiating treaties one they were signed. A mythology has grown up recently that the treaties were deals struck between two nations and were intended as a blueprint to share the land in perpetuity. This is pure historic fiction. The numbered treaties were mostly the product of 19th century thinking, and neither side considered the Indians a 'nation' as the term was understood in the 1870s. Indians were a collection of tribes, and the federal government's pursuit of treaties was designed to merely herd the Indians out of the way so immigration, railways, and settlement could take place in the West. Most Canadians considered the Indians to be a dying race, and the entire western reserve system was only intended to last one or two generations while the old folks died off and the young ones were assimilated into Canadian culture. It didn't work out that way, but that was the original intention. So all this nonsense about sharing the land forever is a fiction created by people with a very limited understanding of Canadian history.

Wow, sounds pretty dire. Let's look back for a bit through Canadian history for examples where violence got any group what they wanted. Let's see, we have the FLQ in the 1960's. That worked out well for them now that Quebec is a sovereign nation. Hmmm, before that we had the Regina Riot, that certainly secured the rights of the unemployed for time immemorial. And prior to that we had the Riel Rebellions. These most closely resemble what you're talking about, and I suspect the outcome would be about the same. But at least in the first one at Red River, Riel at least had a semblance of legitimacy since the West had yet to be claimed by Canada. Now Indians only have their own perceived sence of injustice and we'll see how long that holds up once the funding from Ottawa dries up.

You're ignoring the fact that the entire land claims process is choked to the point of immobility by bogus land claims started by groups hoping to cash in someday. Last year Federation of Saskatchewan Indians was pressuring the Saskatchewan government for a share of oil and potash revenues because the Indians in Treaty Four only surrendered the land "to the depth of the plow". There was much hot air blown around and the Natives were restless threatening various kinds of revolution and mayhem, but it never actually got to court. That was probably because the phrase "To the depth of the plow" does not appear anywhere in Treaty Four, and that would likely have been a tough thing to get past a judge. But you can't blame the Indians for trying, right? It costs them nothing to stir up the pot with these baseless accustations (much like you are doing), and it makes it appear to the rank and file that they are indeed challenging Whitey for their share of the pot. And it produces yet another angry batch of young Natives who believe they are being denied their birthright. I had a bunch of my students up in arms about it last spring, until I made them go read Treaty Four. As for your dire predictions regarding revolution and revolt, bring it on. Whatever sympathy non-Native Canadians had built up over the previous decades for the plight of Indians has been pretty much been squandered away due to an endless litany of corruption, mismanagement, and a philosophy of its-never-enough from Native leadership. If you don't believe me, go read the comments section at CBC.ca every time a story breaks concerning Attawapiskat. The Canadian taxpayer has had enough, and one short burst of violence from Natives would wipe out whatever sympathy was left. Harper's Conservatives would leap at the chance to wipe out billions in discretionary funding currently going to Natives, and Canadians would applaud the effort. So bring it on, I dare you.

So, you're best argument for wasting billions more on useless gun control is that we're already wasting billions fighting terrorism? That's very convincing. Here's some quick wiki-facts for you. In 2007 in Canada there were 594 murders, roughly one-third (198) were stabbings, one-third (188) were shootings. Of those 188 shootings, two-thirds involved handguns. Handguns are heavily restricted in this country, but nevertheless account for the majority of deaths. So, Mr. Lock-Up-Their-Guns, how do you account for this discrepancy? Its simple, the vast majority of those handguns were never registered, they were smuggled in from the States and used by gangs or wanna-be gangsters. So you can make all the rules you want, the burden of your protective fantasies falls on the law-abiding gun owners, since the criminals don't follow the rules. And if its all about saving lives, I've heard estimates that between 25,000 and 30,000 people die each year in Canadian hospitals due to medical errors by doctors and nurses. Compared to the 200 that die from gunshots each year, where do you suppose the bigger bang for our buck would be, harrassing gun owners or employing more rigorous standards in hospitals? But more stringent controls in hospitals costs real money, and then we have to go after those in the white coats, and that's not as satisfying as trying to bring the badass rednecks to heel, is it?

You frighten me with your broad pronouncements, but titilate me with apocalypse. I'm Enjoying Kimmy Everyday!

I for one would love to see an Indian take the Indian Affairs portfolio. It would mark a real point that we are at least trying to initiate a dialogue. But this Indian (don't care if its man or woman) should have a deep understanding of both sides, and some sort of mandate to start a discussion of the relations between Natives and the rest of Canada. We need to stop stereotyping each other (all Indians are good, all white people are evil oppressors -- all Indians are on welfare and drunk and lazy and have too many kids), and start to talk about how we, as a nation, can bring our first peoples into what is, after all, a pretty cool place to live. If you are Native and sucking the slough-water of one of the finest Nations on the Planet, you have to ask yourself why. Why does a town of 250 people (Binscarth, Manitoba) have a perfectly functional water and sewer system, and never have to declare a state of emergency? Multiply that by ten thousand and that's all the small towns in Canada that managed to build funtional water systems. Why is this such a big deal on so many Reserves? I want to know. Tell me that, and then we'll talk about the mould and the stray dogs.

You've got me there, I was thinking historically without considering the latest effort.

One could argue that they were, quite quickly too when you add up a couple of nuclear bombs, the Voice of the Emporer, and McArther in the harbour. This is not my field, but I'll bet they had a short list of get-it-done measures that turned them into non-aggressive participants in the global economy. As did Germany, by 1958 German imports into Canada were threatening Canadian manufacturing, and Japan was not far behind. By the mid-60s George Jones could record a song about his love with a Japanese girl while stationed there, named 'Made In Japan', which everybody understood since all the Walmart crap before Walmart was 'Made In Japan'. Then they moved into high electronics and cars, and never looked back. Those who love to slag America ignore the fact they have a pretty good record of whipping an opponent, then leaving them with a functional political system, a functioning economy, and the wherewithal to compete in the global economy in a reasonable timeframe. Contrast South Korea with North Korea, these are the spawn of capitalism and communism. America can be a bully, and does not always play by the rules, but it does have a track record of doing the right thing when it matters.

Where are Michel and Mangan from? I should have qualified Fred and the rest with dates. I first saw him back in the early '90s when he wasn't as well know. And you're right, he's a funny funny guy.

Abolutely true, Wild Bill, absolutely true.

This is what led to the long-gun registry.

I've travelled around this country a fair amount, and everywhere I go there are very cool bands playing in limited local markets, and often as not the rest of the country never hears about them unless they stumble upon them during a festival or a tour. I discovered Fred Eaglesmith in Ottawa, Hot Toddy in New Brunswick, Mark Green in Newfoundland, and Little Miss Higgins here in Saskatchewan. If they are ever anywhere near you live, check them out. So what are your picks for local bands that need a shout-out, or live acts that are worth seeing? Any genre, all flavors welcome, just don't say Nickleback. They should go back to Hanna and work on a new sound.

Sorry to shock you, but we've been shipping this stuff back and forth since World War Two. Most, if not all, the enriched uranium used in the Manhattan project came from Great Bear Lake via Chalk River south to the secret facility in Tennessee. New finds in Saskatchewan and northern Ontario fed most of the arms build-up, the US doesn't have any really good domestic supplies of uranium. Because we had the raw materials, we got to join Britain and the US during the War and share in lots of early technology, hence Chalk River was a world leader in processing uranium into a witch's brew of downstream products, one of which is bomb-grade material. So far so good, but you can see why they don't hold public hearings when they ship this stuff around.

You show me exactly where the Supreme Court of Canada has altered Treaty Four specifically. I'm not talking airy-fairy generalizations and musings by individual judges, show me the specific case where any article of Treaty Four was altered. Show me that, then we can talk. You wanted a link to Treaty Four, I provided it, so read it, then show me where its been amended. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

Check it out of where? Its stored safely at home and I won't see it until next fall when I take it out, sight it in, and go hunting again. As for coyotes, you know nothing. I used to trap them for pelts when I was young, but I haven't shot at one since. Sorry about your stop sign, but I didn't do it. My bullets are hand made and very expensive. Unless I'm sighting in or trying out new loads, I don't shoot at anything unless I intend to eat it.

Whay do I need the gun after the freezer is full? Because I fully intend to do it again next year and its not disposable. As for my "lackadaisical"(sic) food production practices, you know nothing about me, and I suspect you know nothing about farming practices either. The closest you've ever been to a chicken is a McNugget. So run along now, the adults are trying to talk here.

Ya, that'll work, I'll just tell the coyote to stop killing my chickens and by the way stand over there and wait, animal control should be here in about an hour to control you. Why do I need a gun? Right now there are three deer in my freezer, as there usually are at this time of year because I make a point of filling my freezer every fall. Venison is excellent lean meat, free of hormones and antibiotics, and you can't buy it in stores. So if I want it (and I do), I have to go kill it myself. I do own a bow and I hunt with it, but that's very time consuming. Bowhunting is enjoyable, but the rifle fills the freezer. That's why I need a gun.

Yes, and ongoing commitment to provide a school/teacher on the reserve, a medicine chest and annual payments of five dollars per person. As for your verbal contracts, that's pure hogwash. By that standard whitey is on the hook for anything Indians can dream up and verify by saying, "Oh ya, my grandfather told me they promised us all new cars every three years." The treaties are legally binding contracts, what's in there is what you get. Anything more you dream up has no legal standing whatsoever.

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/treaty_4.html

I did, I went down twelve or so spaces and the claim wass denied. It was yet another feeble attempt by Indians to extract money from The Man.

This ignorant Saskatchewan hick (you forgot redneck) would like a date on these Supreme Court rulings.