betsy

When did it get recognised by the government that they have a legitimate claim? I assume you meant "the government or the law" by "they". You got a link? At least it's informative if true.... If the law had recognised that the natives have a legitimate claim, then the law had revoked the order?

If I go along with you, I can be accused of "defending violent racists and their tactics." Some spew of racist slurs had been displayed on this forum from some native factions, which most probably...and with great possibility...only mirrors what was happening in the blockade scenario. Since your protest is illegal, I can also be accused of abetting unlawfulness on top of that. And since the legal adviser of the native chieftains had stated that the violent methods of these handful of Natives from within were in violation of the wishes of the chieftains, I can not say then that I am siding with the Native People....but more so siding with the radicals responsible for hijacking the peaceful intentions of the leaders, and therefore, I can be accused of dishonoring and dis-respecting the true representatives of the Native Nation (the chieftains). If we were in a ship, heck I'd be charged with abetting mutiny!

There's this contradiction between the first and second statement. If I don't base my opinion through the mainstream media (which clearly shows more objectivity and reliable info)...whom should I based it with? Turtle News Press Release? Yours?

Whose law? Canadian or the Confederacy's? So far, Canadian law allows people like Homolka to walk around freely after committing a heinous murder, and let's people out on early parole to kill again...and you expect everyone to follow that law? That's why it's justifiable to break the law?

No. I am defending rights and freedom. And what the country stands for. You asked me, "is this the Canada you want?" It definitely is not, IF just about anyone can use unlawfull and unjust means to make any demands. Not if it's mob rules. Not if lawlessness becomes the norm.

It's beginning to concern me too. Reading the news does not give quite an insightful look about the matter. To tell you frankly, now that I've read several threads on this forum from various related threads....especially from this particular thread....it made me realize without any doubt that if there is any REAL racism at all, it clearly comes from both sides of the fence. Being objective about it, how can I not think otherwise?

I've been accused of being melo-dramatic at one point on this thread, but now that' you've joined me.....this will indeed become a never-ending, twisting-and-turning debate. Just like soap. So now you're associating yourselves with the Jews circa 1930. I didn't know Jews were allowed to do illegal protest during that time. I thought the only time they're allowed to gather together was when they're about to be sent to camps....or to be executed. I thought they can't even say boo! Let alone take over properties and make any demands. As a matter of fact, nazis and sympathizers can get right inside those Ghettos (which you likened to the Reserves I presume) and yank just about any Jews and plug a bullet in his head for no reason at all. ...in full view of everyone. Do ghettos have any formal self-governments that was allowed? Then what about simple rights of any individual? Did the Jews enjoy any of those rights? I understand you are trying to legitimize and justify this protest....but I don't think equating yourselves with the Jews during that time is even appropriate....nor politically correct. This attempt only made it look like you're desperately grasping for straws. But the Jews may not find this amusing at all. They may resent the way you try to trivialized the most diabolical atrocity of that time.

There is a legal dispute. Natives say one thing whereas the government claims another. The legitimacy of your claim is in question. You can't even issue any eviction notice based on on that. I don't know much about the law to say that that is the reason why yourprotest is deemed illegal and that it was ordered by a judge that you be removed from the site....but obviously, that is the reason why the natives are in the wrong.

The "inconveniences" suffered by the Natives were not caused by the Caledonians. Degrees of suffering by someone is not for anyone to decide. What you may see only as a slight discomfort could be more than that for somebody else. The point is: Your protest was illegal. That clearly put you in the wrong, whether your grievance is legitimate or not. Until the matter is settled by whoever is deemed with legal authority to settle such matters....I believe the law should be followed. And no one is above the law. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to voice out your grievance. What you don't have is the right to disrupt innocent people's lives with an illegal protest. Whatever the reason behind this protest...it inevitably goes right back full circle. The facts remain the same: The protest was unlawful. The Caledonians were used as a political hostage. Violence ensued as a result.

Again, it's the same answer. Caledonia and its residents has nothing to do with your land disputes.

Caledonia and its residents have nothing to do with your land disputes.

Wouldn't this same kind of reasoning work the other way around? There is nothing wrong with Natives starting a protest or being angry, BUT there is no reason to start using Caledonia and its residents as a political pawn, disrupting lives and normalcy in the process (for something they have no control nor anything to do with), just to express their anger at the government.

But why are they angry?

I, too, await somebody who can provide the answer..... Didn't we have a couple of tragic incidents involving depression? A woman who killed herself and her baby in the subway? A woman who threw her child from the bridge? The flurry of media that followed were all dismissive of any other possible causes why these things happened....the culprit was automatically post-partum depression. I guess Susan Smith would've gotten off the hook if she did not concoct such convoluted stories and alibis. All she had to do was blame depression. What was her motive....increased chances of getting a particular guy if she had no extra baggage in tow?

But Harper is talking to the media. Inspite of the this "feud" and the so-called "un-availability" of Harper, he is visible. Some journalist had even pointed out that when Harper talks....he really talks.

But if you can't tell one from the other, how do you know? I have the impression that there's business interaction between the Natives and Caledonia, like neighbors. I assume you'd seen the angry reactions of some Caledonians you knew...and were in good terms with, or whom you'd never thought would spout racist remarks, prior to this protest. So you feel bewildered why they did not understand your grievances. And you feel betrayed because they did not support your cause. They turned against you, instead. The protest was illegal. They have nothing to do with your problems. And it was disrupting their lives. I bet some of these folks are bewildered why the natives did not understand it from their perspective: they don't have anything to do with the problem. And they probably felt betrayed....never had a hint that they'd be in the news, be used in a political game and become another Oka. Some are probably thinking along the same lines like you: "Dammit Myrtle, at least with apples, you can see and smell the bad ones, thus avoiding or ignoring them. The same doesn't hold true for people!"

"But I was surprised by the number of people who thought nothing of using racist terms to express their ANGER." Why are they angry?

Oh yes I've seen and experienced it. Coming from GRANDMOTHERS too. But there is racism everywhere. And every race have them. I see and hear some white folks being snickered at behind their backs. And sometimes, words are said....not because they are being racist....but simply because that's how they talk...or they didn't really mean anything nasty about it. Take for example this one scenario I witnessed. A Puerto Rican woman and one of my parents (a white). They're talking about a recipe that the Puerto Rican woman was trying to share with the white woman. The Puerto Rican said to the white woman, along with that tone, "You people...you don't even wash the chicken you buy. You put them straight in the pot from the pack." We know she didn't mean anything bad about that. "You people."...plus the criticism. If it was the white woman saying that....she'll be crucified upside down! But the white woman took it in stride and didn't feel defensive or sensitive about it. She still had nice things to say about the Puerto Rican woman the next time we talked. If that was said to me years ago, that would've gotten me bristling. I am sensitive. Even my brother find me sensitive....that's why as a last word of brotherly advice before I boarded the plane, he called out..."and don't be too sensitive!" It could be cultural too. My point is....there are rotten apples mixed with the good ones. In every basket.

what's so explosive about it? I still think that seeing people's true colors shining through is a good thing. Why would I want to spend my hard earned money at a business where the proprietor despises my skin color. But you are painting everyone with the same brush.

And yes. That was his real intention. Post #3, in response to you, confirmed that. If one would really analyze the emotion behind your post #2, it does really reeked of frustrations and anger (resulting from that frustration I guess)....lashing out blindly. Perhaps it was evident that you were responding out with your emotions. And it seems posters were understanding of that. The rest of the discussion that followed actually ignored your provocative outburst.

Ya call's 'em as ya sees 'em, bud. Sorry but I have to agree with August. I see the same thing. I've gone back to the top of the page with Enskat original post. Apparently it's been edited and I can't remember what the rest of the post had said.....however, I'll assume that his intention is as he said it. "In this thread id like to discuss what level of awareness about Native Issues are being taught in schools today. And the level of education any one of us received growing up." Tem, post #2 came from you. And here is the explosive excerpt from it. "If the Feds were so certain that things were in their favour, they would have pressed on with the court case and hammered the Six Nations... but they didn't. they know that there is far more involved that what the public knows, and the public is being fed with more misinformation on a daily basis. bout the only "good" thing that came out of the blockade was that we truly got to see the depth of hatred Canadians have for Native people. This should be a wake up call for all those people in our communities who keep saying that we need to work with non-natives. Bull crap. we need to protect ourselves from these people. That is what is clear."

Just recently, Liberal Nash was lauding the brilliance of promoting Canada as a haven for homosexual tourists, claiming they are a big boon to tourism since compared to heterosexuals, gays spend practically double the money on holidays. I've read other gay promotions (mostly from Liberals and NDPs extolling the earning capacities of homosexuals). The message that I get is that gays are mostly rich or with well-above comfortable earnings. They hugely contribute, money-wise to our economy. I have no problem with that. But why then do we have to pay for sex-change surgeries? Isn't that quite an expensively, impractically and frivolously, going way over the top in shoving this new lifestyle? Sure hope Liberals never get to sit in power again!

Ya call's 'em as ya sees 'em, bud. As you do too.I'll make a private comment in a public way. I enjoy reading your posts, Temagami. You make me think. Sort of off-topic but had to be pointed out. I like reading your posts too, August. We may not agree with some issues in other threads but you do have a way of explaining your views, inviting "opponents" to look at things from a different angle. I remember in one particular heated debate we had...reluctantly....you got me agreeing with you!

Holy Molly! I'm gonna be crude. We are in deep shit. I need a drink.....

Somehow she thinks Canadian history is reflective of the American experience, so she is grafting something completely different onto what goes on here. I've oft pointed out this error, but you certainly haven't August, and this is elementary. You misunderstood me there, Tem. I was only informing or being conversational (is that the appropriate word?)...what was included in my American History subject. I emphasized "in the Philippines!" cos who would've thought someone from the Orient is learning about these things....not that anything is wrong about that, don't get me wrong for Indians were part of American history. And no, I did not "graft" that onto what goes on here. Btw just out of curiousity, Indians here did not use Wampum belt? Oh, and if you ask me about American History....you'd still find me pathetically ignorant inspite of those education. What can I say, History has never been one of my favorite subjects.