Temagami Scourge
-
Posts
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Temagami Scourge
-
-
Led:
I guess I just didn’t grow up believing in the stereotypes as my family is soooo mixed in respect to our ancestry. My mother’s side of the family is a mixture of German and Russian and my father’s is French, Hungarian, Iroquois and Métis.My brother!
To complicate matters further my wife is a mixture of Australian Scottish and Koori (in perfect proportion of course) which leaves me wondering what stereotypes my kids should live up to.Wow...you must be a breast man. Damned lucky Germo-Ruso-Franco-Hungariano-Iro-Metis bastard! (N.B. Oh...I mean a nice bastard -like the kind brothers use to describe one another, not the "questioning your ancestry type of bastard" -author)
Now I'm envious....
-
Bleu:
That happens to white people as well.Yes, but as a form of evening enjoyment, not as part of a state-planned policy. That is the key difference.
-
Frere Bleu:
So should we stop giving tax dollars to reserves then.You can do whatever you want. Treaty payments come from the Crown, so they can use whatever money they see fit to maintain their obligation for the original land exchange.
I just don't want you to feel that you are giving Natives anything.
As well I wasn't part of the crown back in the 60's,Your parents were..and they ran up the debt you currently are paying for, so don't give me this crap about "history" when we are all still paying for your ancestor's mistakes.
I was born in the 80's.Which explains why you lack any reality base concerning Canadian history. If asked, I would have thought you were born yesterday.
Has segregation ever solved anything by the way?Nope, which is why I don't promote it.
Do you want to build walls and barriers to the rest of the country.no, but your American cousins certainly are on their border with Mexico.
I highly doubt that will ever happen.Then don't come crying to me when you see the Yankees building a fence between our countries.
Of course all white males have the same line of thinking, you criticize me for "supposedly" saying all natives are addicts yet you specify that all white males have the same line of thinking.I never once considered you representative of all white males, but if you feel that way, then crown yourself as such. I just think you think like Geoff and a few others here, who create topics like: "We pay while Indians live in luxury", then give us a link to a news story that explains that the people affected are not all Aboriginal, but the Natives are the ones focussed on, and then the whining starts when a few of us point out that the topic heading is spun to focus specifically on Native people.
You don't seem to mind that fact. In fact, you've been a pillar of support for people like Geoff.
Anybody else smell hypocrisy.coming from you....a long, long time ago.
I gave a solution which you conveniently ignored.Really? Where?
I'd rather have natives be in the framework of Canada's multicultural society rather then a segregated group from Canadian's as you seem to approve of.They are already in the framework. What would make you think otherwise? listening to Geoff? He's a separatist who is caught lying repeatedly.
Well, if we withdraw all ambulance services, all fire services, and all RCMP from reserves I think that the reserves would be in trouble without the government help.Do you actually believe that Native people aren't Paramedics, Firemen and Police? Are you for friggin' real?
You are consistently proving my point about your screwed-up reasoning. You actually think that white Canadians hold these jobs? Buddy...Native people are firemen and police in Calgary and Edmonton, not just on reserve.
you sound as retarded as White Mens Jobs (aka Who's doing who)
Let me get this straight do you want the government to stop giving money to the reserves alltogether???No, I want the government to live up to it's treaty obligations and roll back it's racist laws, like the Indian Act, so we can be self-determining and live under our own laws and regulations.
-
Fig,
I respect the fact that you do not like the idea of separation, but you seem to follow the ideals of a democracy. Would you endorse a plebicite on the separation of Alberta, or BC? What if BC suceeded and took all of Bubber's weed? Would you want to fight them on it, or is it just Alberta that pisses you off?
I invite you to check the thread Negotiating Separation on the Federal forum.
Very generally, I have three main issues c. separatism:
-the grievances that drive it are exaggerated or even fictional;
-destruction of Canada would be a terrible shame;
-separatists' agendas implicitly deny the valid interests of other Canadians outside their clique.
If no one else says so, those are three solid points Mr. (or Ms.) Leaf. I am especially attuned to the first point in particular. That is the kind of thing that makes people try to say that they are "just as oppressed" as Native people in this country.
Thank you for your insight.
-
Hydra:
And you, my friend, exemplify the typical indian trait of flying off at the mouth without thinking, period.Imitation is the sincerest for of flattery. As I said, you people can't even make a proper gibe without copying what I said in an earlier post in order to do it. Your natural "follower" abilities betray you, my fine prairie friend.
That is part of the reason why you need Eastern leadership and guidance. Left to your own devices, you'll use up your resources in no time and will be back with hat in hand, begging for more scraps from Canada's table.
fear not, though Hydro. I'm not like you. I would gladly extend a helping hand and care for you and yours. I mean heck, I've done it for years already...why stop now?
-
Heffie:
Can we all agree now that race definitely buys you some significant perks? Why aren't more Canadians upset at this?Perks? You mean like butt-rape at the hands of priests? Wow some perk. keep it coming lads....
-
Heffie:
Scourge... you know this wouldn't happen if the building was full of white alcoholics in downtown Toronto. But it would always happen if it were full of (mostly) Indians, and on their reserve?What a load of bull-pucky. This does indeed happen, regardless of race. The key is that there is a response to a defined need. You are the one who wrote "We pay while indians live in luxury", only to say that it's not all native people actually living in the old buildings, but they are the main ones! Who argues like that and then turns around and gets upset when people point out that it's racist.
Look...a "normal" person could have easily entitled this thread "Impoverished put up in hotel at taxpayers expense"....but no, It's Indians. Yes...you single out the Natives and then whine when you are called on it.
Here in Toronto, we talk about "Homeless", or the "addicted", but we don't say "Homeless Natives oh and others too "
-
Bleu:
Interesting, especially since it was the whites who had destroyed the native people. Whites are also largely responsible for the substance abuse, poverty, and the residential schools. I acknowledge it, and I'd rather support natives with programs that can help them be free from substance abuse, get jobs, and stay away from crime. No offense but it seems like your arguing for segregation here.Seeing as how your Crown's ideas of "helping" natives included residential schools, purposefully taking children away from families in the 60's, and in extreme cases, enforced sterilization, I'd say there was a very strong argument for segregation.
However, I'd prefer to let the Aboriginal people deal with these issues themselves...and it would help more if your government bothered to live up to their treaty obligations and stopped considering us for grand social experiments. In other words, let's work as equals, and not as wards of the State. Why don't you pressure your government to live up to it's obligations? We traded the land for certain rights, and the government has eroded those rights unilaterally without any consultation with Natives.
Do you prefer that we remain wards? Don't you think it would help if the Natives took control over their lives and began enforcing our laws?
-
Bleu:
Sorry, I missed this earlier:
So for those two members attacking me, do you want Canadian's to stop responding to poverty, crime, and substance abuse problems on reserves?You mean they already haven't? Where is a federal poverty reduction strategy? Why don't they lead the fight? The Feds committed to eradiicating child poverty by the year 2000 in 1989...and yet the number of kids living in poverty has increased by over one percent -representing a further 500,000 kids.
so, you tell me. Has Canada done anything to halt poverty? No. Drugs? We have Crystal Meth running through the country now, and it's increasing.
What have you done to halt any of these ills Bleu? Go to school to learn about them?
Would you rather Canadian's completely ignore natives in Canada?You mean they don't already? That has been the preferred course of action in this country since, say, 1867.
Oooh...I'm sorry. The Indian Act was changed in the late 50's to make Indians unilateral Canadian citizens, and it was amended in the early 1960's to give us the vote we have been missing since 1867...oh, and it was changed in the 80's to allow women to retain their status.
What progress, Bleu! Keep it coming!!! You're doing such a great job!!!
-
Geoffie:
Your very untactful Temagami and I'd really like to see you gone with comments like that.No...I simply call'em as I sees 'em. And to back myself up, Bleu ranted on another thread about Natives being "given" education, like they never paid for it by exchanging the land.
Hmmmm.
I think I have you two figured out....and i think that bugs you.
Sorry.
-
Heffie:
You must live in Ontario or Quebec. I love when Easterners come here or speak their mind on what's best for Alberta.Although you aren't directing this query at me, I firmly believe that you need appropriate, Eastern-based leadership.
Even you exemplify the typical Alberta trait of flying off the handle without thinking ahead. You need good, steady leadership, and if you want I'll offer my services to be your leader or "guru". I can provide the foresight you, and nearly everyone else in your province, lacks.
You can thank me later.
-
Tsi:
I knew one named Canadian Blue who thinks that all Aboriginal people need help to overcome their social ills because they can't seem to do it themselves.
-
Believe me, I know. Just read my signature line. It was given to me by someone on this board because I tried to make a case for true equality in Canada.
My sig is similar, for similar reasons.
My sig is meant for guys like the three of you.
I guess were even.
-
Hydroponic:
Excellent. I'll see you when you get here. (and I'll have some Tim's muffins waiting for you)I'm supposed to be in Edmonton in the spring, at the hotel in the Mall. Date and time pending.
I didn't know we (Easterners) allowed you people to have Tim Horton's. It's good to see that you're taking another step towards civilization.
We can discuss your surrender terms over an Ice Cap.
Actually, you don't let us have Tim Horton's. I was referring to Tim Polanski who own'e the NAPA in town. Makes great muffins.
And, sorry, we ain't got no Ice Cap. But the Esso makes coffee fresh on odd-numbered days.
Hell, we caint even spel serrender!!!
Does Tim have a sister? I've always been partial to females of Polish extraction....with their healthy chests and all. I can say "thank you" in their language.
I'm working on the surrender bit, though....it's easier in German (Thank You, Sargeant Rock!)
-
Led/Dancer:
You're right. I think stereotyping is a large part of the problem. I know full well that I am not representative of all Natives much in the way that many of the personalities here are not representative of the grouping they identify with.
...and yet the stereotypes are often conferred on me for simply daring to have a contrary opinion. So, I do likewise, rather blatantly, and appear to work some people up.
As far as I'm concerned, I think I'm some people's wet dream of the perfect Native: Tax-paying, lives off reserve, owns off-rez properties, highly-intelligent, university-educated, faithful to family and friends, one son in the gifted program at school (because he takes after me) and the other an accomplished musician (Also taking after me) and responsible....and who also happens to know an awful lot about Canadian law and history as it applies to Native people, and who also understand Native history (in relation to my mother and Father's Nations, respectively.
The only thing that I think I can be accused of that is "anti-Canadian" is my preference for the NFL.
I even like White people. Especially Peyton Manning, after watching him pick apart a top defence like Denver's yesterday.
My only regret is that I have to attend a parent council meeting tonight and will miss part of the first quarter in tonight's Vikings (no offense to any actual Vikings out there...I didn't name the team) and Patriots (No offense, see previous) game.
I also possess a sense of humour, which is a cultural trait of Native people, however, if you watch old westerns, we are portrayed as humorless.
Hence the stereotyping....
-
Heffie:
My question to you Temagami as I honestly have no idea... do these businesses and projects have to pay the same tax as if they were run by white (or others) people? How many extra incentives do they get?If on reserve and dealing exclusively on reserve, then they are tax exempt. If on reserve and they do some business off reserve, then they pay taxes on the off-reserve portion of business. If they are located off-reserve, then they pay taxes like everyone else, while getting upset with a plethora of non-Natives who whine that all Natives are tax exempt, like me.
What's your take on private home ownership on reserves as well?As long as the Aboriginal Nation in question maintains ultimate title to the land used as collateral (like the Crown does in non-reserve lands), then I have no problem what so ever. Banks already operate on reserve, so foreclosong a property and then re-selling to another person already occurs...but the land remains part and parcel of the Reserve.
In Six Nations's this is somewhat different, as much of the land "sold" was sold under the understanding that ultimate title remained with Six Nations, however, the Crown used these sales as justification to remove the land from Six Nation's and turn it into Crown land, which is part of the crux of the problem there.
-
Interesting news from Alberta that seems to fit in nicely with this topic:
http://www.businessedge.ca/article.cfm/newsID/13861.cfm
Funny that it always seems that Ontario has to let Alberta know what's going on in their own backyard, but that is another story.....
-
Hydroponic:
Excellent. I'll see you when you get here. (and I'll have some Tim's muffins waiting for you)I'm supposed to be in Edmonton in the spring, at the hotel in the Mall. Date and time pending.
I didn't know we (Easterners) allowed you people to have Tim Horton's. It's good to see that you're taking another step towards civilization.
We can discuss your surrender terms over an Ice Cap.
-
Actually, that is the ultimate irony of separatist movements. All separatists are always hypocrites because once you agree that Canada is divisible then all of the newly created units are also divisible. If a democratic vote is enough to trigger the separation of Quebec or Alberta then a democratic vote can trigger the creation of any number of aboriginal states covering the northern parts of the provinces. If separatists try to use violence to stop aboriginal secession then they are inviting the rest of Canada to use violence to stop them from separating.You will likely find we won't deal with terrorists and surrender would be out of the question.On the whole separation is a pandora's box that only the most naive would ever consider opening.
I agree. Such is the folly of separation. I've often argued about Quebec separatism while I hang out in Quebec...unfortunately, most people in northern Quebec (at least the western part ie. Rouyn, Ville-marie etc.) aren't as separatistically inclined as their neighbours further south and east, but I never cease to point out that their leaving means that we (the Natives) can leave too, and if that means cutting up their province, then so be it.
What response do I get most? Oh...but native separation is different...we are civilized and are a Nation, but you Indians aren't (say the above in French.)
As usual, this is simply a judgement call made by un separatiste who gets annoyed by having his 9or her) argument turned around on them. Flusters them to no end.
The same goes for Alberta...except that the argument can be made in English.
The key point is that les Francais, and the germano-canadian population in southern Alberta, both have a long history of surrender, and I can't see that changing.
River: By the by...I'm in Vancouver on business at the end of November, and hoping to blow some taxpayers money. I'm staying at the Hampton Inn. Where in downtown is that? Is it near the Chinese food places, or on the North shore?
-
That is what allies of the Crown will do. After Quebec is done, then we can drive west and deal with Alberta next.
I have no problem accepting anyone's surrender in the intereests of Canada.
You will likely find we won't deal with terrorists and surrender would be out of the question.
Fine by me. We'll just keep what we take then.
-
I'm all for Quebec separation. Always have been, always will be.
however, it's probably not for reasons shared by others here.
To me, a unilateral declaration of separation by Quebec means that I and many other Natives will have to go into Quebec and defend our Native brothers and sisters from their oppressors. Having been around Quebec myself, I always note that the population lives primarily along the St. Lawerence. Once you get a couple of hours north of Montreal and Quecbec City, you notice that the majority of people are Native. the further north you go, the more apparent this becomes.
Hence, "Quebec" pretty much constitutes a thin strip of land abutting the St. Lawerence. everything else is Cree, Naskapi, Maliseet etc.
These people will need protection because Quebec claims the northern half of the province, however, I see no problem with the northern half separating from the southern half for the same reasons. Essentially, as Quebec tries to extend its power north, we'll have to protect the north from this power grab.
That is what allies of the Crown will do. After Quebec is done, then we can drive west and deal with Alberta next.
I have no problem accepting anyone's surrender in the intereests of Canada.
-
There can be no barrier to participation other than residency and participation must include the right to become part of the leadership if they so desire. Participation does not have to mean citizenship but it does have to have real power.
This is a major show stopper. I think TS is only considering a scenario in which aboriginals are a massive majority in their nations. I don't think TS has considered the idea of non-aboriginals wanting to have positions of power. For example, can a non-native become a clan mother in the Confederacy? Can a non-native become a Confederacy chief? If not, what would happen if non-aboriginals formed a majority within the Confederacy?
Another thing that hasn't been considered is non-aboriginals living within the territorial boundaries of the aboriginal nations don't think that they are citizens of these nations (they feel they are Canadian). Therefore, they don't feel the laws of the aboriginal nations apply to them. I'm getting deja vu.
Dude...I said this in post #95:
Unlike other natives, I have no problem adopting any people from anywhere who wish to become part of the Confederacy. That is a historical norm. The Confederacy long adopted white and Black people...and many rose to positions of prominence, which was absolutely not the case in their's neighbour's society, where women weren't allowed to vote, and black people were slaves.New confederacy members would sit with the clan that adopted them. They would select clan mothers whose role would be to condole the Clan Chiefs. Any citizen can approach their clan mother and tell them their concerns, or complain about an impotent clan Chief. If an adoptee is communally noted for being a kind and thoughful person, they could themselves assume the roles of clan mothers or clan Chiefs. In this case, majority rules becomes moot as the clan mothers are forced to accept the will of the majority, or they are removed themselves.
Why would you infer that I don't want to see non-Aboriginal people in positions of authority? Bear in mind that the system I'm promoting is not like what we currently have. People with strong opinions and an ambition to lead aren't the best choice for leaders...as if we don't see that now in our current government. Although you might be tickled by people who seem driven and ambitious, Aboriginal traditional belief has often used people like this for specific, time-sensitive tasks. The driven, bellicose and ambitious have a place in society, but that is best suited for sports teams, or the military. These kinds of people would make good War Chiefs, but they only held a leadership position during the course of a war or raid. Once the conflict was over, their power went back inot the "Peace Chiefs", who were humble people who had to take the considertions of those they represent seriously. There will be times when a firm decision is made, and if there are Dissenters, then they can always move away to somewhere where their views are accepted.
That was one form of conflict resolution.
-
There are many possible legal formulas for aboriginal self-rule that have been discussed and continue to be discussed. I appreciate within the aboriginal communities there are differences of opinion as to how this
aboriginal self-rule should take place. We have heard for example Liberal candidate Ignatieff make references to recognizing the aboriginal nations as a distinct nation within Canada as he has about Quebec.
I am not sure whether his concept is original or genuine, but the concept of aboriginal nations being
self-ruling but co-existing in a federal state similiar to provincial and federal jurisdictions is not new and
inevitable as the existing system with the federal Ministry of Indian Affairs has proven to be out-moded and not working at all.
I personally would argue the aboriginal nations have become a 13th province so to speak already and must be recognized as such because like the provinces they have specific legal rights to govern themselves in
specific areas that was granted to them through legal treaties that would be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada if contested.
Yes...this is another option, and appears to be where we are currently heading. That's why I'm thinking of alternatives.
-
River:
however, the devil (as always) is in the detail.Agreed. I'm in no way implying perfection in my notion. What I'm confident about is that the model is still in use. There would be a great deal of resistance from other Aboriginal people, who are more into maintaining bloodlines. The Confederacy's perspective is that you are Onkwehonwe or you aren't. The choice is the individual's, but when Six Nations went to that law, a number of non-Natives who had married in were taken in by the confederacy, but not in the eyes of Canada.
1) Aboriginals would still be Canadian citizens and would be entitled to all of the rights and privileges thereof;Everyone would enjoy Canadian citizenship. I can’t see any reason for rights or privileges to be altered. The main point would be that everyone conforms to local laws, much like we currently do, and even then I can still see a commonality in laws. However, I can't speak for other Nations, but I know that there are many people across the country who think along similar lines to what I think.
2) Canadian law would still apply subject to whatever division of powers is negotiated (i.e. the RCMP would be entitled to enter aboriginal territory and arrest people who are accused of breaking federal laws without the need to resort to some extradition process). The exact set of federal laws that would apply would have to be determined during negotiations;- I don't see a problem with having a pre-eminent set of laws for all parties to draw on. In fact, I expect that. My only concern would be that the laws of Aboriginal Nations are unable to be overridden on an arbitrary basis. There would be much discussion, I don’t doubt, especially on hot button issues like gambling, prostitution, legalization, gay marriage etc. But even then, these issues are already being taken seriously across Canada. As an aside, I personally would like to see the legalization of some drugs and prostitution. These two vices contribute to a massive black market, similar to what occurred with the underworld when alcohol was criminalized during prohibition. I’m not fond of these vices, but I’m a realist. People are going to smoke weed and use hookers, even if they were punishable as a capital crime. My rationale would be that the police are better served going after meth, coke and harder drugs and ignoring weed, and women would not be as easily killed if they decide to turn to prostitution. Dealers and pimps would be undercut, and taxes collected on either the product or service. I’d prefer to see brothels opened so that women can be afforded some protection, and ensure that street corners are cleared.
3) There would be freedom of trade and movement to and from these territories and the rest of Canada. This implies a common framework for business regulations.
I think this would be in the best interest of both parties, as well as tax collection and tax sharing.
If you don't agree with the above then I don't think your wishes are realistic for various economic and political reasons.I don’t, but I can’t speak for every Native. Likewise, you might agree to these points, but we know that there are still going to be people who believe that Natives should be steamrolled into submission as there are Natives whose desire is to wave bye-bye to all the ships returning to the Olde World.
Assuming that we agree on the basic framework then real issue is how to reconcile aboriginal sovereignty with the principal that everyone should have a say in a gov't with the power to pass laws and raise taxes.If aboriginal Nations have the power to tax, then Aboriginal people will be taxed. This would create strong feelings because many natives believe in no taxation at all. I disagree with that notion because the concept of taxation has always been a feature in the Aboriginal Nations that I’m familiar with, the key difference being that we now use money instead of food, precious metals or other bulk items. Algonkian people had a man known as “the man who collects for the Chief”, whose job was to paddle around to the various extended families prior to a large gathering in order to collect food and other contributions from the populace to cache at the meeting site. In this way everyone paid for the common good, especially when it came to discussing business, which was the focus of these large gatherings.
I feel that since Aboriginals would still be Canadian citizens and would be entitled to live, work and vote in any part of the country then the same rights must be extended to non-aboriginals that choose to live within aboriginal territory.Yes. That would work both ways.
There can be no barrier to participation other than residency and participation must include the right to become part of the leadership if they so desire. Participation does not have to mean citizenship but it does have to have real power.I am all for having no barriers, although I know that there would be aboriginal people who would be opposed to that idea, but hen again, there would be non-natives adverse to this idea as well.
I understand the appeal of a consensus based decision making but I think such a system is only effective when you are dealing with relatively homogeneous groups of people.A common language helps. However, I feel that people who still need to conform to our shared culture. Religions will present a nother set of issues, but its not like we can’t think of an answer to these things.
Consensus based decision making would not work in territory occupied by a large number of non-aboriginal people that see themselves as Canadian first. Democracy is not perfect but it is the only effective system when extremely dissimilar groups of people occupy the same territory.I see your point and see how voting appears to be a good system, however, voting only ensures majority rule, and that is what causes divisiveness. Although some may argue that majority rule recognizes the feelings of most people, bear in mind that if we had localized majority rule situation today, the entire northern half of Canada –except for Dawson and Thompson, Manitoba would be a majority rule by Native people.
Your personal experience with Canadian Aboriginals
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
Yes...but are you a multicultural breast man. That is the pertinent question...