Temagami Scourge

Brother August: Temagami, take credit where credit is due. But a boastful manner is a sign of an inferiority complex. Maybe in suburbia, but where I used to live in Jane/Finch, you have to learn to walk around with your chest puffed out or you are seen as an easy mark. Remember, I'm responding to an a-hole who makes provocative statements about Natives, not you. water off a duck's back, bud. I had never heard of this Indian definition of territory before. It makes a lot of sense and I can see why it was done this way because prey probably follows the watershed. Incidentally, the border between Quebec and Labrador is decided by the height of land and whether water flows to the Atlantic or Hudson's Bay. I suspect too that watersheds will determine the territory for many environmental solutions. It only works in the Shield area. The prairie peoples, mountain peoples and both coasts have a completely different manner of defining boundaries. That's why I disagree with the Ontario MNR's "township" system because the lay of the land makes things like fire response much more difficult. think of it this way; Temagami MNR region includes parts west of the Sturgeon river -which runs north/south and is an excellent natural watershed. If a fire occurs west of the highlands, but not closer to sudbury, then Temagami MNR has to make the response, when the ground is better suited for Sudbury to make the response by land, if necessary. Temagami would have to use boats and helicpters to make a response, as crossing the ridges and fording the streams to get there forces a delay, which means danger to those near. Lastly, I am pleased to learn that native Indians defined property (or at least territory). Too often, I hear that natives followed a communistic system at one with Mother Earth or something. That claim never jibed with my knowledge of Native history. yeah, I know. That's why I'm not fond of our educational system. In school, I was taught that Natives danced around fires and lived in the bush, but when I actually lived in the bush and began to learn the system, then it made a world of sense given the type of land in northern Ontario/Quebec/Manitoba. It also made it easier to plan your canoe route at both high and low-water times.

Canchuk-i-stan: "Not creating delusions is enlightenment. -Bodhidharma" insightful words....try this one: "Abiding by the law is good, as long as we can ignore it when we want to. -Caledonian residents" or "Jamaicans are natural-born violent criminals...no really...it says so in MacLeans - G. Morgan"

River: apart from fishing limits -which have little to do with land reclamations in Caledonia- I do want to point out that this point: You cannot put native treaties in to the same category as a business agreement ...Is not what I was saying. I said a legally-binding agreement. As far as business agreements go, I still wouldn't sign one with someone with your constitution. I prefer and respect honour, not debasement. However, treaties are canadian law, and as you, Scrib and a host of others have said, you should follow the word of law. c'mon...we need law-abiding role models like you to respect and abide by the legal terms of the treaty. Ask your government for help if you need to understand this better.

I disagree with Goofy's appraisal of Maritimers. I think many are hard-working, astute, hope to create a niche for themselves and their families and just want to live a productful and peaceful life like anyone else in Canada. I couldn't possibly paint them as all being bad and lazy like Gooffy does...he says much the same things about Natives when he isn't denigrating their culture, but I do feel an affinity here for all the hardworking, responsible people from PEI who have been thrown into the same basket as those on EI. Have faith folks. There are many of us who know better than than to group people together to villify them because of the actions of a few. I don't want to be considered a Nazi. On another note, I also think that the manner in which society has treated us, especially the media, has put it into too many people's heads that they are "better" than many jobs out there. That is why recent immigrants, or in this case, Russians, are needed to hold down the "Joe" jobs as natural-born Canadians view them as inferior. That is the basis of my disagreement with Gooffy. He likes to blame the people for being lazy and the system for encouraging that, while I see it as the whole system, including the ideas that our parents put into our heads to get an education and don't take some "loser" job. anyone differ?

River: Your contrarian ideas are beginning to dig a bit of a pit for you. Canada is not accepting an old treaty between England and France. It accepts that the borders France had at the end of WW2 are valid. Similarily, Canada does not accept the claims of aboriginal "nations" because by the end of WW2 these nations no longer existed. The 200 mile fishing limit came into effect in 1977. WWII ended in 1945. Just this major error alone negates the rest of your comment about treaties The statements are completely consistent. See above. In both cases, what was written in old treaties is irrelevant - the status quo is the only thing that is important. The fact that the status quo happens to be that same as what is written in some old treaty is a coincidence How do you get staus quo when you go from a 20-mile limit to 200 miles? that is 10 times status quo? Buddy, I think you are confused. Don't let the blind rage that needs you to "prove" that Treaties are not part and parcel of Canadian law (which they are) get in the way of making claims about all manner of agreements? As a business person, I'd hate to enter into an agreement with you because you'd find the first excuse to ignore it. As a Native Canadian, i'm not really surprised with the manner in which you regard legal, binding agreements....you come by it honestly considering the fact that your ancestors seemed to enjoy not living up to their agreements either.

River: Since WW2 international law accepts the borders of soveriegn states as valid no matter how they come into being. Therefore, Canada accepts France's claim to these islands even though the original treaty is 100s of years old. Similarily, native "nations" must accept the current borders of Canada no matter what old treaties say. River...this has to be the most contrary post you ever made. Canada accepts France's hundreds of year old treaty, but gets to ignore the treaties they have with Canada's Aboriginal nations? Again, what makes Aboriginals different than the French, other than the French surrendered to Germany and got their land back after being beaten fair and square.

Machina: Also, where did you get the ridiculous idea that the Europeans thought fruit was poison? From Captain James Cook (1728-1779), whose crew on his first voyage believed that fruits were poisonous and refused to eat them until: "Cook's determination to avoid deaths from scurvy, and his success, was a vital step in the creation of the British Empire. So important was the avoidance of the disease that Cook resorted to disciplinary measures to make his men eat their rations." ...and now you know fruit is good! I'm surprised you weren't acquinted with this well-known snippet of history. I learned about it in grade school. Were you educated in Canada? Perhaps you are aware the term apple, was, in Roman times, used to describe a wide variety of fruit, including pears, plums, apples and others. The reason scurvy was a problem on long ship voyages was that fruit was not brought on board - it spoiled easily, and was not replenished. Cured jerky and stale bread were the order of the day. Blah, blah, blah, blah...don't sweat it m-man, this is in my tome on the history of the Royal Navy, and gets reference in my other book on the Days of Sail. good reads both. I suspect your ancedote about Indians helping Europeans cure scurvy comes from the fact that the Indians knew which fruit was NOT poisonous, while the Europeans were fearful of what they did not know. In my experience, Europeans are always scared of what they don't know, so the majority of time they kill it if they aren't running away. That does not apply to the Bear fella in Alaska who made all those up-close movies of Kodiaks until his untimely death in the tummy of a large Kodiak. He has my respect. On the other point, the Mik'maq didn't have tons of fruit, but they sure knew Cedar had vitamin C! A good cedar tea cures many ailments. you should see what beaver castors cure...and here Europeans didn't think Natives had science..... Now don't get me wrong, there were many things learned by the Europeans from Indian peoples across America - however, the balance, by far, of the new technology was provided by Europeans So...does that make Europeans different in any way? 62% of all the foodstuffs we consume in north America were originally developed by Natives. A few years back, 75% of all foodstuffs came from Native beginnings. To me, we blended technology. A polstyrene canoe is just as light as a birchbark canoe, and yet infinitely stronger. Toboggans are fun, but so are all the other sliding spin-offs developed after their initial use. Did you know Spadina Ave. in Toronto is built atop the old portage route between Lake Ontario and Simcoe? Actually, Spadina comes from the Algonkian word "Ishpatina", which conveys the idea of a trail that runs from a ridge top down to the water....which if you stand at Casa Loma and look towards Lake Ontario, you understand where the name came from. Wow...we do lots together, but no one recognizes it. oh, and thanks for Kraft dinner, Honest Ed's, "The Turner Diaries", CBC, sports jocks and syphillis.

River: Old treaties are ignored all of the time when one of the signatories find the inconvenient. I don't see Canada ignoring St. Pierre and Miquelon's 200 mile fishing limt (which easily covers half of Newfoundland). Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Geez...you guys still use the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to establish a legal relationship with natives, so old legislation still applies? I think you are right about the MicMac scalp law being ignored, but that is old legislation, not a treaty.

gooffy: Ok. Clear personal attack, do you not have anything material to add to the conservation besides these attempts at character assassination? oh my! were your feelings hurt gooffy? Did you cry when you were so fiercely attacked? I can see how the harm of an attack on your character would hurt in the same way that you attack my whole culture! Oh the pain...the agony...oh woe, woe.... Well, I think you'll overcome your angst, my lad. You've already taken a positive step by asking the moderator to fight your battles for you! That's good...you're coming out of the doldrums! Keep it up, G-man. There is a difference between blockading a roadway and digging a trench in the road, razing bridges and beating police officers. Yes...I agree! Digging a roadway involves digging, but blockading doesn't involve digging, whereas razing bridges involves fire, and beating police requires physical exertion. wow...you are Brilliant G-man! But destroying property I've paid for with my taxes is wrong and people need to be jailed. Hey...I paid for these things with my taxes and I'm not whining...and I bet I pay more tax than you do G-man because I own a number of properties. It is whiners like you that give taxpayers a bad name. Geez. Law and order used to be a priority of Canadians but now its political correctness it seems. Yes, and I'm sure law and order would be great if non-natives could find a moment to actually follow it. I mean, I saw them beating police, beating Native women and basically running wild .....really not good role models for law and order in my estimation, but what can you say about taxpayers and their liquid courage! Gooffy isn't disgusting....he's only the web-equivalent of Rainman. Although I can see how you'd come by the error. G-man: Again, you've realised that your argument condoning criminal activity holds no water and instead resort to personal attacks. Actually, I was defending your lack of intelligence and knowledge. But it's cool, Philospohy and I talked it over and we're on the same page now. I have yet to ever use a personal attack against you I know, you prefer targetting my race and my culture. You can't go after my character because I tend to shine a bit brighter than you, wouldn't you say? I've merely discussed the relevant factual talking points on the issue. I expect that you would extend to me the same respect I've extended to your character as well. or the time being, i'll extend you the same respect you extend my race and culture. the only exception is that I won't ask for anyone to make you a criminal organization. G-man: I'm not impressed with someone just joining a message board to attack long-standing members. I think trinkets and baubles would undoubtedly impress you...nothing else seems to phase you... I backed up all my statements with factual proof, those that I haven't, I'd be happy to reference you to some very credible sources if you wish to challenge them. HaHaHAHAHAHaHaHa....OOOO...HAHahahaha...ahh...my stomach hurts from laughing so hard...HaHAHahaha..jeepers..the tears are welling in my friggin' eyes...HahAhahAHAHAHAAH...Buddy...are you sure you didn't mean"fax" instead of facts? HAHAHAAHAAHAAA My arguments are along lines of common sense and equality of right HAHAAHAHAHAHAAH...oh god....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...Gooffy, you are slaying me man, this is the funniest diatribe I've heard yet! We need to get you on Leno...you are right up there with your stand up routine....Hahhahahaa I have no right to dig up roadways, assault cops and raze bridges so why do Indians? Ok...what's the punchline to this joke? I'm all on edge now..... That's too bad that you seem to think I have some kind of mental disability. Ooooooo...hahahahahaHAHAHAH....AHhahaahha! Oh Stop it...please...stop it...i'm dying here! This is too, too funny G-man! You have missed your calling, bud. We need to get a tape of you doing your routine and I mean now! Im not about to stand here and see brilliant comedic talent lost on the masses. Do you need a manager? I actually have an IQ in the genius range, am University educated and have been highly successful at a young age in business. HaHAHAHhahahaHHAHHA!!!!! Ok...now your giving us the resume to prove your intelligence! Oh my god...you are too funny G-man...please, stop or i'll bust a gut.... As for 'nature' minded things, as you seem to value these more than practical things, I've done a handful of expeditions deep into wilderness, have climbed many peaks, up to 13,000ft., and am a regular hunter and fisherman. I have a respect for nature. Peak-Climber....Cool, I'll see how to say that in a native language and i'll bestow an indian name on you! how's that sound! I've offered a couple of solutions to the 'Indian problem'. Oh yeah...which one was the "final" one? Hahahahahaahhhahah Self-government is my perfered method, Ok c'mon Mr. Hi-IQ, university educated guy....you know how to spell preferred properly! with absolutely no financial or any other support from the Canadian government. Have them set up their nations, and fund them internally. well let's do it! Why wait now...let's giv'er I say! I have no obligation to pay for people that don't want to be Canadian or follow Canadian laws like I do. Is this how you feel about our foreign aid packages? maybe you should tell your government about that. There is no in between solution that is at all reasonable, either govern and finance yourselves, or adapt to our way of life. Hey...you are the one out there peak-climbing, hunting and fishing..it sounds like you've adapted to our way of life! HAHhahahahahaha End of story. I will not respond to any further attacks on my character and I've reported your posts to the forum owner in hope that disciplinary action is taken. Uhoh...better watch out Philosophy! You can't go and upset people who freely belittle Native Canadians on both the racial realm and on cultural matters! That's a no-no because they speak the "truth"

Argosea: Part II (Isnt it the law that states you have to prove you paid for something in order to prove ownership? ) A-man: Not when you've had it in your posession for a century or so. But if the natives have a legitimate title to that land then by all means let them take it to court. The Canadian courts have been fairly sympathetic to them before. Why is there no court case over this? Why haven't the natives sued if they have such clear treaty rights to the land? Again, Argoose...this has been taken to court. A multiplicity of Six Nations claims -including the douglas creek site, went before the SCC over a decade ago until your Federal government asked for a hiatus to switch from litigation to negotiations. The Douglas Creek site was supposed to have been put into legal limbo, but the Feds obviously did not get together with the province to ensure this occured and voila! There is building going on what we were told was land in limbo! As I assumed, you have absolutely little knowledge of what has transpired here. You assume that this whole thing has been going on for a month, when really it has been dragging on (for the indians) since the 1800's. (Regarding, The Brant Treaty - It clearly states that 6 miles from either side of the grand river and ( if i remember correctly ) that tract of land would run from beginning to end of the river - one heck of a huge peice of land.) A-man: The argument, as I understand it, is that he never said all that land, but that they could choose the land they wanted from that area. Actually, Ronkwe is correct. It was six miles on either side. I think where you are mistaken is that when Haldimand left for England, the deed was only partially ratified, and the new governor used this excuse to begin changing the terms to suit their own needs, and unfortunately, this is where most of the serious claims by the Confederacy lie. But even the government recognizes the original grant. It is their position that all the land was either purchased or lost to squatters. The key legal question arising from this is that, by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (thirty plus years before the Haldimand deed), it clearly states that Native land must be negotiated and purchased by the Crown to be a legal transaction. Squatting is not a purchase by the Crown after negotiations. This will create concerns among non-Natives. (From what I understand Joseph Brant leased sections of this land for a set period of time. Upon which no payments were made, and no one left at the termination of the lease.) A-manWell then, that's a fairly basic legal matter and ought to be easily settled in court. Why no court case? Not really. The governors at the time did not want the Six Nations people selling land, and this is well-documented, they wanted Six Nations people to sell the land to the Crown, who in turn would sell the land to British subjects, as per the Royal Proclamation. This creates a problem because some of Brant's original sales are still recognized while others were struck down. The legal issue here is whether to uphold all Brant's sales (which means breaking Canadian law vis-a-vis the Royal Proclamation regarding land sales), or disregard Brant's sales (which means that a lot of people living within six miles of the Grand from mouth to source will be paying rent to Six Nations.) I think that's why the Feds asked to leave the court route and go into negotiations back in 1995. A-man: You might have a look at what the English did to the Irish some day. You might also have a look at some of the local indian vs indian wars, and what happened to the losers. Hint: They didn't get to keep an acre of land. actually, I'd like to know A-man, just how your family contributed to this country? Did anyone from your family fight for Canada? I can go back to the American Revolution as far as recorded history goes on my mom's side, and back to 1812 on my dad's side...and right up to today. Has your family ridden on the backs of mine? Has my family -through their sacrifice in Canada's wars-ensured that yours has the right to come online and call them lazy, conquered alcoholic terrorists? That I'd like to know....

Argoose (partie une): The same thing which gave the natives the right to take it when they came, or to take it off each other through war. oh...I see you are now a native historian too. I hope you have your facts straight. The same thing which brought about the borders in Europe after centuries of warfare. Not really...I think Europe was a bastion of mindless, unmitigated savagery. the only difference being they would write about their wars and who they raped or impaled, and how many... He who has the most muscle takes the most cake. That's the way it always was, and the natives played the same game before the Europeans arrived. Actually, you are mistaken Argy, we didn't fight in this country, both parties dealt peaceably with each other and signed agreements called treaties. Equally amusing is the fact that -for all intents and purposes- there was a passing chance that the Six Nations could be physically conquered on Monday, but the Kaledonians ran away, for the most part. It would be embarrassing to conquer Kaledonians over a Tim Horton's. (RE: time frame of the land disputes). We're not. In fact, most of the people here don't even have ancestors who were present at the time. Hell, my ancestors had their land stolen by the English. Am I supposed to start blocking roads in Dundee? That's just the way the world worked. Get over it. Everyone else has. HaHa...yeah...go block Dundee! That would be a hoot! I can just imagine you there in your kilt, waving your traditional flag of a little Scotsman carressing a sheep. Jeepers Argy...how many times do we have to tell you that a signed deal is a deal. Even your own people signed a deal in the 1700's agreeing to one British nation! As has been stated earlier, are the only "old" deals/agreements that are honoured are those between Europeans? You certainly adhere to those...so what makes adhering to the treaties different? Is it because us Indians are really Untermensch and unworthy of respect? You haven't really explained why European to European treaties are "more" legally-binding than a treay. I mean, after all, it wasn't the Natives that gave up St. Pierre and Miquelon, so don't blame use when those two islets argue that their sea boundary extends two-hundred miles because they are French National territory.

Lost: You're right....Silly me...I've clearly overstepped my boundaries and went and got all uppity! I really need to learn my place! By the way, I'm assuming you are Euro-Canadian, so I'd like to take a moment to thank you for snowmobiles, STOL aircraft, bondage pornography, doorbells and Shake n' Bake. Thank You

Rocket: "For thousands of years" Yeah. Right. An aboriginal hunter-gatherer culture with no technology to speak of implementing a "conservation system"??? well, Chief evans is actually right. I know that you think natives to be stone age, but they had a lot more going for them than Canadians believe...and we have to attribute this to the Canadians educational system. First off, the Indians that first met the French were able to diagnose and treat scurvy. That usually makes the point that there was already medical knowledge here while Europeans still believed that fruit was poisonous, but that's beside the point. In the Shield, Natives used a family grounds system where a male family head inherited hunting grounds based on watershed boundaries. There may be anywhere between a dozen to two dozen or more family reps in a nation, with each rep being responsible for an area 300-400 miles square. The family would move to a different area depending on the season...they knew where to go for the best berries at the ripening stage, they knew where to hunt Moose in the fall and spring, they knew where to put bear traps etc. Most importantly, they knew the value of water. A value that isn't contemplated by many North Americans today. Why? Because Euro-americans, in all their "wisdom" have a habit of fixing boundaries on water lines. they run boundaries down the middle of lakes, streams and rivers, which Natives never did. Why is this a problem? because whatever Hull shites out, ottawa gets to drink. When those Yankee chemical plants pumped toxins for decades directly into the Niagara river, the flow of the water brought the toxins to -of all places- Toronto! how can we tell that time haven't changed? Easy! 1) Walkerton and 2) Saskatoon. Man...500 years in-country and the simplest things still haven't been figured out...but will anyone listen to the Natives? Naaaa....too stone-age.

Philosophy: re: geoffrey You sir are disgusting human being. Gooffy isn't disgusting....he's only the web-equivalent of Rainman. Although I can see how you'd come by the error.

Gooffy: Temagami, I can't believe that you would even suggest that the Indians aren't doing anything wrong and its all the white Caledonians that are the trouble with the violence. I never said that at all, mein freund. I said that the Kaledonians started it after the Natives offered to open things up again. But then again, I'm often finding that I have to explain things slower to you so you get it. There is photographic evidence that the Indians destroyed a road, burnt down a bridge and knocked out power lines. ...and photographic evidence of a Native woman being assaulted in her car by Kaledonians, kaledonians hitting natives and then running away, Kaledonians yelling racist insults at Natives, Kaledonians throwing cheese (ok...that was funny) at Natives. although i've seen pictures of a burnt old bridge, I haven't seen any pictoral evidence of who did it, and the same goes for knocked out power lines...I've not seen anyone actally doing that, but if you feel you need to blame without any supportive evidence, then you may as well move to Kaledonia! you'd fit in beautifully! There is photographic evidence of an O.P.P. officer getting hit in the face with a bag of bricks by a crazed Indian. ...and photographis evidence of two OPP officers holding a young native while a young Kaledonian punches the young native in the face. I even saw the pepper spray go off, but I can't tell who did it in the general melee as the bodies were thronged together. I guess I just don't jump to conclusions as quickly as say....you? They think they are above the law and I think its time we send a strong armed message. Negotiations should have ended with the first violence by the Indians, now its time to bring in the Army and clean them up. Well mein Fuhrer! time to call the brownshirts in because der juden-Indiener are acting pissed at having land they were told was on perpetual moratorium -before the courts, mind you- sold to Henco for a housing development. Bring in der Panzers! vere ist der Luftwaffe? 40 hectares or fight! down with the Native Indian cabal secretly seeking to rule the world! jawohl! Das ist Kanada! Ok...enough of the Sargeant Rock...but Laddie...i have an idea. Go back a few posts to a couple of posts I directed towards Scrib and Argos and read what I wrote about the Hennings and Henco, and you'll see a whole new layer of intrigue has been added to this imbroglio. Makes for a good read. Heil geoffrey...Seig Heil!.....Sieg Heil!

Machina Partie Deux: You try to spin the argument into various tangents about historical wrongs - all of which are irrelevant. Prove they are irrelevant. If you want to make such statements, then cite fact, not "machinafiction" The fact is, the protesters are breaking the law. Ergo, they should be arrested. Then where are the paddy-wagons full of Kaledonians? don't you think that maybe the Kaledonians and the Six Nations people are treated equally? both broke the law as you maintain, but none do the time. As an aside, one tangent does intrest me - your declaration that the Indian Act is somehow a treaty between the Six Nations and the Canadian government. As I believe has been pointed out to you repeatedly, this is not the case - it is in fact a piece of Canadian law that made political concessions to Six Nations leaders - however, it can and most certainly will be changed unilaterally. Hunh? The Indian Act is a Six Nations treaty? Buddy...I never said that anywhere. I have said that the original agreements were usurped by the act, but that covers administration. It is the agreements themselves that are the basis for the legal relationship. i'm not fond of the act, but your government has now tied the treaty benefits to it, so we are stuck at the whim of the government. Further, concerning those treaties undertaken by both the English and the French governments which present courts have accepted as binding - I presume you are aware that the foundation of that decision is based on Canada being part of the Commonwealth. Were Canada to abolish (as many smart people propose) the link to the Crown, we would in one fell swoop lose the useless office of the Governor-General and the rubberstamp authority of the British Monarchy AND the outdated treaties signed hundreds of years ago by foreign governments. Imagine. Well, I don't mean to burst your bubble, nor defend treaties, but your government already made due provision for the treaties in the Constitution, so the treaty relationship still wouldn't disappear, but the Queen and GG would. Sorry. The current confrontational attitude we are seeing in Caledonia and from Teragami's posts will only inflame the resentment amongst ordinary, non-racist, help-your-neighbour Canadians. You can only tolerate this kind of lawlessness for so long. Say what you will about the past, but we live in the present and for the future. This kind of action, as we're seeing, reminds me of the precept: 'An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.' Cool! I'm like my own blockade in your estimation? Hey....no need for the compliments machina, I'm just a simple man doing his best for what he believes in. And I'll be sure to remember the "racist" comment when i'm giving directions to lost boaters this summer, or chasing after a teen canoe group from down south and inviting them back to my place to wait out crossing the lake in a windstorm! silly ol' racist me.

machinations: Most of your posts are characterized by your antagonism and your seeming refusal to accept lines of argument which contradict your own position. Please, enlighten me as to where my contradictions lie. I also have people on here calling me racist, but they haven't bothered to provide examples of my supposed "racism", so I'm taking the time to ask for clarification. I hope what you saw in that shameful video today, as I did, was the beginning of a sea change in Canadian policy vis-a-vis the aboriginal population. what...how to beat Indians with your bare hands better? To me, I saw the failure of Canadian society, and after having pooh-poohed Jane Jacob's latest offering on why we are advancing into another dark age, i now know that it is likely she is right. I also saw the failure of the current federal government to get involved and possibly tame the errant Kaledonians. I noticed you neglected to report the use of a backhoe which has not only ruined the road, but also knocked out the power to the city of Caledonia. Look at the time of the post and you'll note that I put it up before the backhoe event. nice try though. Am I racist yet? All acceptable actions, no doubt, to you - against the racist monolith that is the Canadian government. If a few innocents were inconvenienced, who cares - I mean, clearly their ancestors were evil racist oppressors as well, and therefore, this is karma. Yes...and never a better example of karma than the poor people of Caledonia who exalted that the blockade was down, only to have their own neighbours boo them and start calling them "Indian-lovers" and other names. I mean, I can understand racial epithets between different races, but Euro-Canadians trying to be racist towards each other!? that is the worst possilbe case of karma. I would appreciate if you could expound on what exactly you would like to see the future hold for the Six Nations people. given the treatment from some Kaledonians, I'd like to see Six Nations get its land back, and become an associate of Canada, but certainly not a part of. I've been to the blockade innumerable times, and the last thing Kaledonians call me and other Six nations people is Canadian. Actually, they never call us Canadians, so i can't see a compelling reason to remain so. Should Canada continue to maintain what is, essentially, a two-tier society? I think your vision of the future is vague, at best, only seeing some sort of permanent relationship that involves, what, a seperate state? I'd simply prefer Canada leaving us to our own devices. Just return the land and we'll give up all the "treaty benefits" that canadians whine about ad infinitum. Unless you feel that the land shouldn't be returned, then I see no reason for us to give up what we originally exchanged for our land. What aggravates most right-minded individuals about this the most is the double standard. No ordinary citizen could hold a protest which involved the destruction of public property (the road and the hydro lines) and not be held accountable. That is right, however, after having been told by the Federal government in 1995 that all remaining land claims would be put on hold, and a moratorium put on the lands in question (which happens to involve the Douglas Creek area), and then 10 years later a developer shows up and begins building on land that is supposed to be on hold....welll, you explain to me the legalities, machina? This is the single, unalienable fact - there is a rule of law in this country, and it should apply to all humans equally. Sounds absolutely utopian! However, why am I impacted by the Indian Act and you aren't? Why does your government get to decide who is and isn't an Indian? Where is this one law you speak of, machination? I know that none of my forebears wrote the Indian Act, so why do you expect me to answer for your government's decisions? I know from treaty negotiations that we never gave the Crown the right to our self-determination, nor did we give them the right to remove our children to residential schools, nor the right to determine how much money was invested in housing, So why is this now my problem? I think it's yours, if it's anyone's. I would just like to see your government maintain it's end of the agreement and leave us alone. If the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty occupied a road and denied its use to ordinary citizens, they would be arrested faster than you could shout 'discrimination'. In fact, Ill cite for you: That is probably because OCAP doesn't share a treaty relationship with the Crown in Canada. What I'd like to know is why you want to compare a group of anti-poverty activists to a distinct society that is made up of Six Nations, has traditions, languages and teachings that extend back before the beginning of time, a social code, its own laws until usurped by the Federal government in 1924 and in ownership of a plot of land by deeded agreement? TS (ps; sorry if I've been antagonistic, but i've answered the same questions time and time again, and it appears that no one has bothered to actually read the answers..hence my "ramblin'")

Scrib: I agree, if they had not set up illegal barricades in the first place, this would not have happened. I disagree with this part of your statement. The 40 hectares in question have been held in legal limbo since 1995, which begs the question: How did the land get sold to Henco? Well, as I'm beginning to understand things, the Henning brothers have held undue influence over the town of Kaledonia because they are rich businessmen. I understand this as i've seen rich businessmen influencing local municipalities for years as it helps their business interests. I've also come to understand that the Hennings managed to get a building permit for this same land ...using their own lawyers "proof of sale", which is one of the documents still being researched as to validity. How can land under limbo be sold when there is still a question as to ownership? Some townsfolk have pointed at many contrary documents that "prove" the legality of the sale, and yet why hasn't the Federal government ever used these documents -which they are well aware of- unless other documents exist which creates the question? therefore, given this new knowledge, I think the Hennings should make more of an investment now that it appears that their own greed contributed greatly to what is transpiring, eh? Maybe its time to work out a solution so that they can be a real sovereign nation, with borders Glad to, as long as you promise not to interfere in our decisions. I promise not to interfere in yours.

Argus...given what happened yesterday after the Kaledonians decided to mount their own illegal roadblock, I can't help but support this sentence of yours from a few days ago: People who are physically blocking a road are not peaceful. After seeing the Kaledonians punching away at the people from Six Nations (my favorite camera shot being the Native kid being held by the two OPP while the white kid throws a punch at the Native kid...typical), I wholeheartedly agree on the lack of civility expressed by the Kaledonians. At least now you'll have to agree that something has to be done to keep these filthy Kaledonians from flying off the handle at any given moment. The police and army should be called in to start arresting many of these kaledonian vigiliantes and teaching them proper manners....something which it is obvious their own parents didn't teach them. In all, I feel badly for many Kaledonians. I feel badly for all those wonderful Caledonians who praised the lifting of the blockade by the Six Nations yesterday, and to see and hear the horror as their own neighbours turned against them and began to incite a riot instead. But I also feel badly for those Kaledonians who were began the riotting and their desire to accost and assault Native people. It was obvious that their society never taught them proper respect or responsibility for their actions, and I also feel badly for those young Kaledonians who didn't make the best presentation in the media when asked why they decided to blockade the Indians. Apart from being monosyallbic, their inability to articulate there goals and plans clearly shows that the Canadian educational system needs to try to prevent people from leaving school too early; of course, I can't totally blame the young Kaledonians because their own Elders set a poor example of how to talk and how to accept responsibility. For instance, the elderly Kaledonian yelling at the guy from Six Nations who invited him to use Hwy 6. The Kaledonian went on and on about the blockade, while the poor guy from Six Nations had this puzzled look on his face while he repeatedly said: "The blockade has been lifted, please use the road, it's wide open, why are you still yelling about a blockade when the road is wide open!" Or at least, they're "peaceful" as long as you do what they tell you to, which is stay off the road. No kidding. Maybe you should go to Kaledonai and tell those people to remove themselves from the blockade, and I'lll do likely with the Six Nations folks! The cops should move in and arrest everyone involved. I could get behind this too. Many of the Kaledonians out on the blaockade are "recent" people, new to the area, or young hoodlums on a drunken rampage. They are nothing like the old-time Caledonians who look down on their neighbours at the blockade and wonder who they think they are. Even the old-time Caledonians remark that the Hennings are more of the problem since they have such an influence over town council. In fact, those old-time Caledonians maintain that it was the Henning's influence that got them ownership of the 40 hectares....even though that plot of land was still before the courts since 1995! Hmmm... makes you wonder how the world works sometimes.

Argy: I know that this was intended for Gerald, but he's not here right now, so I'll take a crack at it. I have to question this. Given the times when most treaties were signed, European health care was not particularly impressive, and many, many whites had little or no education to speak of. That a bunch of natives in the forests would demand white doctors and schools in all their treaties seems remarkably unlikely. Cows and blankets, maybe, but books? Hmmmm. To be a bit more precise -as well as emphasize how little knowledge you have with respect to the subject at hand- The treaties refer to "access to the medicine chest" which used to translate the concept of health care. You are mistaken about your inference regarding white doctors, but I understand why you'd come to the conclusion you jumped to. I hope this info helps. Secondly, they didn't demand schools, but education. Fortunately, my ancestors did realize that the world was changing, and they wanted to ensure that future generations could take part in these changes, so they ensured that education was included. They saw the importance of education among their neighbours, and responded appropriately. That is part of the reason why you, River, canuck et al. get so darn incensed by today's Natives, because we are at a far more sophisticated level and don't jump for trinkets and baubles like you feel we should. Jeepers, we are even better writes and spellers than many of you. That must be imposing to someone like you whose view of Native's doesn't quite make it past the famous one-line "Ugh". It must suck to be you. When they don't require taxpayer money for every bite they eat, every drop of water they drink, the clothes on their back and the homes they live in, you can get back to us on that nation to nation business. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the natives, by and large, are welfare lifers, not "nations". Oh here we go again...the minute Gerald explains the plausibility of acting as partners, you run down the "whining Canadian" route. "Oh...they get our money, they get our Tim Horton's wah, wah" Or put it this way....every Native here has said that the Canadian government made up these treaties, so if you despise the terms, then go after them instead of us, as we had nothing to do with anything after your great-great grandparents created the Indian Act. Additionally, I've also noted that both Gerald and myself have made it quite plain that we really don't want anything from you. Nothing at all. In my case, and I'll say it again because no one bothers to read it anyway, but I would gladly rip up the treaties and forget everything about education, housing or health care as long as the land is returned. If everyone else feels that the land shouldn't be returned, then feel free to continue whining away about treaty rights. Although people like to have their cake and eat it, this is not the case in respect to land reclamations because Natives aren't so incredibly stupid after all. Anyone want a trinket or bauble? Does anyone know if Argus likes shiny, sparkly stuff? I think he'd trade his land for some worthwhile trinkets.

River: Once again, you completely misrepresent what I said. Please give me one reason why I should take anything you say seriously when I see you deliberately manipulating the truth to suit your agenda. Why should you take me seriously? I appear to be more intelligent than you in these matters, I have access to greater resources than any you've put up yet, and i take the time to read what you say, digest it, and think of an appropriate answer (hence the rationale for me being smarter than you). That is why you should listen to me. You made claims about the extent of abuse and demonstrated that your claims were false. Yet you insist on repeating these false claims and exaggerations over and over. River...prove how false my claims are? I took you to two sources that indicated through study (and using actual residential school tallies) that 50,000 of 125,000 kids sent to these schools died. You completely deny this even though the two sources were creditted right there in the RCAP. to me, you are either: a) Someone who skims over detail, but still holds to their point for no good reason other than to not be proven wrong or; a fool I already know what I think, so feel free to deny the obvious. you are good at that.

Go figure.... the Six Nations opened the Highway 6 blockade today (completely) to honour Bread and Cheese day, the yearly Victoria day feast that reaffirms the treaty between the Six Nations and the Crown. What do the Caledonians do? They attack the Natives after the blockade is open. and I mean physically. Then they get on T.V. and blame the Liberal government for their violence against Natives. The non-Natives have set up their own blockade, and they are now blocking the road! This is hilarious! Fortunately, the cousin from Nova Scotia that I went in with yesterday was right there on the front! You can see him getting hit by two Caucasians, and then he hammers back and drives them up the road in fear. The best shots are all the big, strapping Caucasian Canadians threatening small Native women. A proud day to be a Kaledonian. Things will probably get worse there unless the OPP moves in and begins arresting the Kaledonians. Word around Six Nations this weekend was that something was going to happen while the majority of people were at the fair celebrating Bread and Cheese. I called the rez moments ago, and folks were already leaving early and rushing back to the blockade once they heard of the attacks.

Argoose: Wow. I've seen some inane comments on this site, but this has to take the cake. We shouldn't care if 80% of the gang violence is Jamaican because, like, most of the countries which fought world war two were Europeans. Inane comments? Like 80% of gang violence is Jamaican? Please Argus, how did you arrive at the 80% figure? Is 80% of the gang violence in Thunder Bay Jamaican-related? Is that the same for Montreal, Halifax and Winnipeg too? can you actually prove the 80% figure, or is that just wishful thinking because you want to avoid embarrassment of overstating your case on morgan's behalf?? or Inane comments like most of the countries participating in WWII were European? Well, France did a lot of surrendering, but Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, Chad, the Congo, Tunisia, Madagascar and Indo-China (Cambodia, Laos and VietNam) all fought against the Germans or Japanese on France's behalf. India, Ceylon, Hong Kong, South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Eqypt, Palestine, Guyana, Venezuela, Jamaica, Barbados, Antigua and a host of Carribean countries all sent peole to fight for Britain, and of course, Countries likethe U.S., New Zealand, Austrailia and Canada all had large numbers of minority groups in uniform, but we have to call them "european". Speaking of European, Argus, how has your family protected this country? My Dad, Uncle, Aunt and close to a dozen cousins all fought the Nazis in WWII. Both my grandfathers, and a number of cousins fought the Kaiser in WW I. Three relations fought in Korea; currently I have a number of relations in both Afghanistan and Iraq with the US forces. A great-grandpa fought in the Boer war. Four relations from my Dad's side fought against the Yankees in 1812, but even more from my Mom's side fought on the Niagara Peninsula against the same enemy. I hava number of relations that fought in the Revolutionary War, and some who even fought for the Union in the American Civil War. Where was your family, Argus? Were you the enemy and you just migrated here within the past couple of generations, like the Stronachs? What was your family doing during 1812? Nothing Morgan said was out of line, nothing he said was false. What...all Jamaicans are inherently criminal. He was pretty clear making that statement. Too bad there is no such thing as law-abiding Jamaican-Canadians. Speaking of which, the Jamiaicans that immigrated in the 1950's and 1960's, are they in the same boat too? Is there a distinction between the "good" Jamaicans and the "bad" ones? i'd love to know how you determine what a good and bad Jamiaican is...especially by sight. enlighten us, Argus.

Personally, I don't have a problem with racial profiling depending on how its done. If witnesses seean amish male gunning down some people at a truck stop, then by jeepers the police should look for an Amish male. The problem with profiling is that the net often is cast too wide, and all this does is create bitterness among the group getting stopped/searched/questioned etc. Morgan buys into the blanket approach in his full speech, and that is not only unhelpful to society at large, it gives the impression that certain groups are inherently criminal from top to bottom, and that is insulting. The second part of the problem is the manner in which "our leader" carried on about the appointment. Unlike other posters who assume a conspiracy, I simply think that Harper was caught with his pants down by giving a position of responsibility to someone who paints whole groups of people as inherently violent. To those of us who don't share Morgans' heritage, non-Caucasian criminality rings hollow when you consider who started the big wars last century. It certainly wasn't the Jamaicans or Vietnamese. So it is best to be careful on how you proceed with racial profiling.

Argus: In your case he'd need..... My god man! Can't this childishness stop and we focus on the questions at hand! No sooner do we get Scrib settled down than you chime in with personal attacks Argus! Please, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the issue around Harper's appointment of Morgan to the appointments post! Focus on the topic at hand, and if you don't then find somewhere else to spew your venom. Temagami