Temagami Scourge

Poliwog: You're a Grade 12? , then surely you know how to better talk to your Elders, boy! ""Why are you under mining my inteligence that is on a debate about indians and whites and fair treatment? ? " Because you, unlike most appropriate young adults, say filthy stuff like: "Well you sit on your ass saying your poor because you blow it all on booze " in a public forum. If you want to have an adult conversation, then act like one! I kow that many of your role-models here are hardly worthy of that description, but certain folks like Michael Hardner would make an excellent role model for a young person. However, If you want to get into it like an adult, then there is no use whining about hurt feelings...you can't be a Girlie-man. You guys always whine about how you want self government and how you are not given enough by the government, my mother a former banker has even told me how huge an indian check is and I would not doubt it, every month you guys get a big fat check from the government than you go back and say you want more, Canadians will say enough is enough once they relize this is all bull. . I'm sorry you feel that way boy. I'm even more sorry that your mom misinterprets the purpose of a cheque and then gives you the wrong impresion. That sort of thing breeds racism. On the other hand, you are from Winnipeg, and in my experience in that city, I've not met many "nice" Occidentals there.

Rene: Go check out collections Canada : http://collections.ic.gc.ca/aboriginaldocs/stat/statmain.htm They have many of the amendments that go into the treaties. I suggest you try reading through this stuff this time, instead of giving it a quick skim. "Yes, I too know the answer. and actually no, I think there are a few more benefits beyond hunting and fishing." Finally...you get it! QUOTE First Nations signed treaties with British and, later, Canadian governments before and after Confederation in 1867. Although these treaties differed, they usually provided for certain rights and payments. Some of the older treaties, for example, included payments for ammunition, annuities, triennial clothing allowances (for Chiefs and Councillors), hunting, fishing and other benefits. Your rights as an individual treaty Indian depend on the precise terms and conditions of your First Nation's treaty. Your First Nation council or DIAND office is the best place to learn more about the rights and benefits to which you may be entitled. You should know, however, that if you live in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, your right to hunt, trap and fish, except for commercial purposes, is guaranteed by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, 1930. Other rights are guaranteed by the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as by treaties. Registered Indians who live in the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are free to fish and hunt in all seasons throughout the territories. For further information, contact the Yukon Regional Manager of Lands and Trust Services, DIAND or the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) - Department of Renewable Resources. Funny, it never said anything about treaty rights including perpetual welfare, housing, and medicare. Perpetual welfare isn't a treaty right, but on the other hand, its also doesn't say that housing, medical assistance and education are not included. I guess you are incorrect again, because the government keeps maintaining those aspects of the treaties -albeit at the barest minimum. ""You would think they would have explicitly mentioned important benefits like that if they were included in the treties wouldn't they?" ?" Not necessarily. They didn't include info that some treaties pay four dollars a year, others 5 dollars a year, and others nothing. Speaking of which, I'm somewhat surprised that you missed the four dollars per year in the Robinson-Huron Treaty.

Riverend: The crown is paying money to native governments so the crown cares who is running them. . . Aw dude...give me a break. You complain about paying money to Natives but happily defend the practice as long as it is the Natives who are negatively impacted. No, buddy, that is racism. "Natives are at least as corrupt as any non-native and handing natives wads of cash without the basic set of checks and balances that other governments have is just dumb ." What? did you not read the Auditor General's report when she criticized the government for forcing First Nations to provide at least 138 reports to INAC annually to account for all expenditures? She made the point that the government is losing money through inefficient practices. ie. the Indians were so busy prepring reports that it took away from actual service delivery. Additonally, why do you assume that Natives are as corrupt as the average Canadian? What facts support this? "Well if the crown has obligations to the descendents of the original signatories of these treaties then the crown has a right to exclude people that it feels do not qualify as 'descendents' ." whoa...this is a cool flip-flop! It was only a few posts ago that you maintained that the descendents had no inherent rights! are you sure you have a clue as to what we are discussing, buddy?

Riverend: In any case, you have made it clear that you don't particularily care about the rights or wrongs of treaties - . Nah, not really. I'm just messin' with you because you argue like you are sitting on the pointy end of a hockey stick. The reality is that I'd much rather see the government live up to the promises they made in the first place, or give the land back and we'll look after ourselves. Although you like to focus on tax-exemption and piddly stuff like that, I like to focus on who gave the Crown the authority to determine the make-up of aboriginal government? Who gave the Crown the authority to determine who is and is not an Indian? Just these two items alone have created undue in-fighting in all First Nations for decades. That is why you have funky situations like in Caledonia, where the supposedly "underground" confederacy council is negotiating on behalf of the reserve, while the legal Band Council divested its authority to negotiate. In essence, your government is negotiating with a "banned" authority. Yet the people at Six Nations still have greater faith in their traditional council, and only a few hundred ever vote for Band Chief. Thank you Canada.

Riverend: What does that have to do with anything? Canadian society does not discriminate between people based on when they arrived - a citizen who arrived yesterday is equal in every way to a citizen whose ancestors come over on the boat with Champlain. You lie like a rug! Natives certainly aren't treated equally. We have an Act of parliament that prevents me from enjoying aadvantages like you get ie. using my on-reserve house as collateral for a business start-up loan. Give me a break! Your grandparents got to vote while mine were still not citizens by definition. However, you seem to think a certain group of Canadian citizens defined only by their race - should have special status because they immigrated here 10,000 years ago instead of 500 years ago. That is racism. No I didn't. See my previous posts. Your arrogant statement proves how much of a scam 'native rights' are. The more natives push - the bigger the backlash from the people who have to pay for the freeloaders. Not really. my arrogant statement was only a ploy to piss you off, which succeeded quite well. The painful part is that you still will have to pay taxes to me. In fact, let's cut to the chase, my taxpaying, whiny friend. Why not pay your taxes direct to me? Let's cut out the government middleman and you can pay me directly for living here? Who needs a government? You make too many presumptions about what these treaties included. Prove it, taxpayer. Show me the money! In most cases, these treaties include a tax exemption but at the same time there was an expection that natives would be 100% responsible for paying for their own 'social programs'. I suggest you and Rene get together and figure out your arguments. Rene doesn't believe the government owes Natives anything other than some hunting and fishing rights, and you argue that the government owes Natives some far more specific items. Which one of you is right? In addition, natives were not allowed to vote. Moreover, many native groups never had a treaty and can make no such legal claims yet they demand the same benefits as if they had a treaty. Oh my...where is my violin? Poor Riverend feels all oppressed. Maybe we could collectively write a song called the "Taxpayer's Lament", which has line after line of how tough it is to live here in Canada under the oppressive moccasins of Native Canada! Nah...too dramatic.

Poliwog: "Well you sit on your ass saying your poor because you blow it all on booze" As my dear friend Rene would say, prove it. Besides, you sound too ill-educated to actually be a taxpayer. Are you on welfare? Ever been to Caledonia? Do you have a sister whose child looks remarkably like you? (I'm assuming you are male)

Politika: "THey are living richer than any of the white people, No Tax with their treaty card, indian card whatever the hell you call it, while the whit epeople get the crap taxed out of them and the indians collect a big check every month, like geofry says. They want us to think they are poor by buying crap and complaining but really the crap they buy is cheap and makes them richer than any of us. Im glad Harpers cuting the funding to reserves" Geez. As a Native person, I wouldn't say I'm poor compared to you. I'd say I was infinitely smarter, far more refined and intelligent, and obviously much more creative and exacting at perfecting the use of your native language than you, but poor? Naaaa.

River: "The people who were here 'first' are long since dead and there priviledges died with them. What you are saying is anyone living today who can claim a genetic link back to those people should also be entitled to those same benefits. Using genetics as a basis for determining who qualifies and who does not qualify for certain rights is pure racism - no matter how much you try to deny it." One of the neat things about these sites is that you get to point out the senseless thought in people's statements and arguments. Check this out: River, if we to use your reasoning about how things were in the past, then, by your same reasoning, I and any other Status Indian would be well within our rights as Canadians to deport you because your ancestors recently moved here. Personally, I don't think you want to be deported, and from my standpoint, i don't want to deport you because I'm counting on you to pay your fair share of taxes. Secondly, if we used the "riverend" school of thought to argue, then could you explain to me what right anyone has who didn't sign the treaty to remain here, enjoying the fruits of the land? In essence, you are saying that Native people of today should have no rights or treaty benefits because we weren't original signatories, but that this doesn't apply to you or the white original signers because you are...well, what? What makes the non-Native signers so markedly different than the Native ones? Can I dare say that you are the one who is thinking racially, my taxpaying friend? Even Rene pointed out that there are two parties to an agreement, but in your fuzzy world, only the white ones count. Am I reading you right? To reiterate my original point: The treaties were signed because there were people here that already owned the land, and that the Crown (in all it's forms) recognized this fact, and undertook legal (by the Crown's standards)means to extinguish this original ownership by offering a series of perpetual benefits and rights as a form of payment, which the Indians accepted on behalf of themselves and future generations. This enabled the crown to open up the land in perpetuity for their subjects (because Indians weren't "people" until the 1960's). There. That should spell it out clearly. Anyone want to pointlessly digress?

Rene: "It's not my task to prove as YOU were the one who made the claim of a "land for benefits" deal, not I." Nope. I already know the answer about land for benefits. If you maintain that there are no benefits beyond hunting and fishing, then you better let the government know because they are providing housing, medical care and education to status indians. It is up to you to stop them from making these payments, not me. however, seeing how you've been a wonderful individual, did you see these links on INAC's site? http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/ywtk/index_e.html#wtr Can I draw your attention to the link that says "What Are Treaty Rights". It even tells you how you can go about finding them....you are about half done already.

I have to agree with Geoffrey. It sounds like a board reorganization/consolidation that someone jumped on and ran up the English Language Rights flag.

Taxpayer Criblet: a) "they were here first." no they were not Ok...who was here before Leif Ericksson? Please, let me know. "entitlements are based on race" I say the matter resides with who was already here, and by proxy, who had a recognized ownership of the land. I don't believe the Crown was overcome with wonder at the lovely shades of brown skin found here, and just decided to favour these people on that basis. In essence, even the Treaties talk about the land and the exchange herein, not on the colour of the land exchangers. But it doesn't matter, every country had someone who was there before - so what. Yes, but not every country has Canadian law in effect, like we have here. That is what makes us special. We are Canadian...except of course, the Indians, who are only Canadian when it suits mainstream's argument, and Ben johnson, who is Canadian right up to the moment he tests positive, and then he becomes Jamaican...but that's another argument. Its about now, and being full and equal citizens, taking responsiblity, working and paying taxes ho hum - you know, like the rest of us. Hey...get mad at the government, they make the rules. I just live by them, like you do. In fact, I even pay taxes and work like you do too! Jeepers...and here you'd think all indians were the same if we sat back and listened to Taxpayer Criblet. Who said anything about anyone having a 'peculiar look', I probably look peculiar to some folks, but hey, I don't want any preferential treatment. Preferential treatment? Like what those "fortunate" Native kids got at residential school? That was preferential....so do you want to be raped by a Christian teacher? I've heard of walking a mile in another's moccasins, but....

Taxpayer criblet: I agree, with full and equal rights comes equal responsiblity to work, pay taxes and respect property. The liberals are wrong for agreeing to terms in the Nisga Treaty which made apartheid legal in Canada, and established Native homelands with laws that supersede provincial and federal laws enshrined it in the constitution I wouldn't necessarily say they are wrong, i'd say that you have a tough time accepting the idea of Aboriginal leadership. For you, "white" leadership vis-a-vis British institutions like federal and provincial parliaments, are in the realm of "normalcy", whereas Native leadership over non-natives is not only "abhorrent", but somehow "not quite right". However, when you had a succession of federal governments whose policies resulted in the generational rape of untold numbers of Native children, and you have provinces selling land that was already before the court to determine ownership, like at Caledonia, then I can't really see how bad an Aboriginal government can be. In your case Taxpayer Criblet, if you feel all oppressed, then feel free to move somewhere that seems more suitable to your hopes and desires. Texas is nice. "...and segregeted the population by defining rights based on racial anchestry. The gov't lost an opportunity to enpower the individual native to better their lives." Again Taxpayer Criblet, you are a tad off-base. Treaty rights are not based on race, but on being here first, ie. exercising authority, having established laws etc. If one-eyed, one-horned Flying Purple People Eaters were here first, then you would be whining about what makes "People-eaters" so special, and it would be the same thing. they were here first. Because the folks who were first here happen to have a peculiar look about them that makes it easier to point your finger at and say "they are the problem", doesn't mean that their physical appearance garners any rights. It means... they were here first. You're Welcome

Rene: You'd better have your research ready. Here is an article from today's Toronto Star, by Sue Bailey: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116467 She has this particular sentence: "Ottawa spent $9.1 billion last year for education, social services, health and other programs for native people, many of whom are owed that support under historic, mutually agreed upon treaties." You'd better set her straight on the fact that you've found absolutely no reference to Treaty benefits owed to natives in all your vast research. She must not know what she is talking about.

Rene: Unfortunately TS, much to my disappointment you have provided anything. The references you provided do not back any of your claims. And your only answer is to say that I can find proof if I only look hard enough. Not to worry, I know what that means. If I'm so wrong, then why are there treaty benefits? It is your task to prove that there aren't (as you maintain). so far, you haven't proven anything, and yet the benefits are still there. I told you where you can look for them, i've offered you other sources who can verify what i'm saying, i've pointed out that you can verify through your MP...even your MPP. ...and the best you can come up with is to say that there are no treaty benefits? Geez, I wish that I knew more than the Federal government! Maybe you should call them quickly and let them know that, through your extensive research, you've found that Canada doesn't owe Status Indians any treaty benefits, and the Treaties are meaningless. hurry, before it's too late!!!!!

Talk about reading your fellow Canadian like a comic book.... Rene, I've given you all the tools you need that will explains treaty rights, now you can use them. What I do want to point out is your sentence from your last post: "No doubt you would say that. I say change the Act, drop the benefits and it is all perfectly legal and doesn't violate any agreements and your objections would not have a legal leg to stand on . Did I get it right or what? an hour ago, I wrote this to you: If you believe this, then why the need for research? Just write your MP for clarification. I have to admit that I have a tough time believing this statement. When I asked you before about why you thought the government allowed all these "free" rights to the Indians, you said it was because they were sorry for them. Forgive me, but I don't think the government gives away free anything for almost two-hundred years or so because they feel "sorry". You plain old don't believe that there is an Indian Act. ." I was referring to the fact that I knew you were feeding me a line of crap about you caring about equal rights! the last thing you care about is any form of equality, just ensuring that the white way is the only way. Where's my Bingo prize?

Taxpayer Scriblet: IMO the reaction by some Caledonian citizens is because they are fed up with the official approach to Native problems which is an absolute farce. It is driven by an absolute of fear of causing unrest and having to stand up to that unrest, and of overly-romanticised images of Natives. . I disagree. Just going on what I've seen with my own eyes, these people are a tiny minority. The vast majority are drunken hooligans using the protest as an excuse to raise Cain, and nothing more. Ask them any question and the answer is "because the Indians took over" Where? Tim Horton's? In the past, we have seen governments bend to or ignore illegal activities conducted by natives. . I guess you don't care about when government conducted illegal activites against the indians, eh?, or is there just a Statute of limitations on how far back you can go if its just the Indians complaining? These include smuggling across the border and blockading private and public roads. We are fed noble images of a people 'at one with Mother Earth' only to read of uncontrolled logging, hunting, the creation of bingo-lovers' paradises and extreme fighting events etc . Of course, we tend to ignore the white folks buying all the goods and attending all the events for creating the demand. All i can say is ignore stereotypes, my Taxpaying friend. I ignore the stereotype that all white people are intelligent, and that has served me well for many years. Life on Reserves is often characterised by slothfullness, lack of care for property, drinking problems, unemployment, failure to persue educational opportunities, and high incidences of assault against women and children. . Looks like another person who hasn't visited a reserve before...or went to one house on a reserve and now knows all about Native people. What is the key difference? I can point at the media reportage from Caledonia and the Indians are calm and talk about not surrendering that plot of land, while the Whites whine about different laws and that Natives should be picking up their monthly check. On the other hand, Six Nations is doing great business selling tobacco now. Sago cigrattes are now in every province, tax-free. the Sago plant has expanded to market about five other brands...and some of this is going to support the blockade to boot! Darn lazy Indians.... Naturally, the blame for this is placed everywhere except on the Natives themselves. . Which is probably why some folks are upset by the government helping to build treatment centres., when those darn Natives are never the problem HAHA! Despite the obvious ineffectiveness of current policies - i.e. throwing more money at the problem, holding Royal Commissions, and all kinds of incentives by giving Natives preferential treatment - governments show no sign of sorting out this mess. A mess where people are brought down by an over-dependency on others. . There...a coherent statement! At last i can see the thinking taxpayer shine through! Either get the government to live up to their agreements, or give back the land and we'll give up the tax exemptions, medical assistance etc. Despite the obvious ineffectiveness of current policies - i.e. throwing more money at the problem, holding Royal Commissions, and all kinds of incentives by giving Natives preferential treatment - governments show no sign of sorting out this mess. A mess where people are brought down by an over-dependency on others. . All right! no you are talking sense taxpayer criblet! excellent. This is exactly what's need...an actual commitment from the Feds to straighten things out, and not just dictate terms! The AFN, CAP, ITK and other representative groups are ready to talk any time the Feds are. i'm totally behind you, my taxpaying buddy!

Rene: So you agree none of the treaties specifiy any promise for permanant benefits to Natives. . No. most of the Commissionaires wrote down the additional terms and these were put into the Act. The fact that neither the Indian Act nor the Constitution are agreements between Natives and the government. They are unilateral acts of the government which can be unilaterally changed without any agreement from Natives. . Neither document is an agreement. They are Canadian statutes. They resulted from the treaties, which are the legal, binding agreements. I think you are confused, buddy. Because Parliament is supreme in Canada, it can therefore change the Act without consultation with Indians. . Yes, that's one of the main things that bothers me is that our agreements are subject to change at the behest of the government, but the Natives have no say, nor can change the Act to their taste. This was a good set-up to perpetuate racism. Essentially, the Government is saying that I'm incapable of taking care of myself or my business, and that only the non-Native government has that ability. I say just give us back the land, we'll drop the tax exemptions, medical care, housing etc, and pay for these services out of pocket. Oh yes, I do believe there is an Indian Act, but it is an act which needs revision and replacement. As I said, the Indian act is not an agreement between two peoples. It can be changed by a simple Act of parilament as many native websites admit. . Yep. I agree, but is this a broken record now?

Geoff: "Now they have their own names depending on their nations and stuff like that, which is fine. But I don't expect Indians to distinguish and instead of calling me 'white-man' call me 'white person of possibly French and Irish descent, born in Canada ." and Mike: ""Maybe you have a tougher skin than most, so you don't mind being called "redneck", "white trash", or anything else. But a common trait of civilised dialogue is that the parties refer to each other in respectful terms." ." Personally, I like it when you folks refer to each other by the term "Taxpayer". I like it so much that I use it myself.

Scrib: Well, he's giving his perspective which is of course - biased, he obviously subscribes to the idea that all 'natives' should be supported by the taxpayers in perpetuity. . As my grandpa used to say, "one mans tax is another man's legally-binding document". Personally, I'd prefer foregoing the treaty rights and just taking the land back. You can kick things odd Scrib! I doubt that at any time did the signers of these treatys ever envision this to be so. . Which ones, the White ones or the Red ones? I think the white ones expected us to disappear, but I know the Red ones expected the white ones to live up to their agreements. Neither has happened, so far. When you treat a group of people differently because of the race I believe that it causes resentment, contempt and possibly hatred. . No kidding! Have you seen how those crazy, drunken whites have reacted to the peaceful Native protestors at Six Nations and Caledonia? They scream racial statements and threats at the natives while the Natives are protecting their heritage. nothing more fearsome than a drunken Caledonian with a brown paper bag in one hand, and his pack of Native cigarettes in his other hand! So if you think people are hostile now give it a few more years of violent 'protests' and see how the average person feels then about one group having more rights, responsibilities and opportunity because of race . . I agree. That's why i'm proud of the six Nations youth who invited some screaming young white lads behind the barricades to show them there were no guns at the occupation site two Thursday nights ago. I was proud that our kids didn't sit back and trade insults with their Caledonian counterparts. The only unfortunate thing is that those same Caledonian kids were back during the riot night all drunk and cursing Native people again. Who knows...that might be on of the effects of in-breeding. If Canada grows through more immigration and becomes even more diverse and the government changes over the generations , which will bring in even more immigrants - watch out. I doubt that future governments will be so generous. . I totally agree. I always share a good laugh about British imperialism with toronto cab drivers, since nearly everyone comes from a former British colony. Sometimes we can't help but chuckle about how similar our experiences were, and how we still get the second-class treatment every now and then. I'm waiting for that change to occur as soon as possible.

Rene: I've looked at both the text of the Robinson treaty and the research....In no case can I find, that medical or other welfare benefits were promised in perpetiuty to the Natives. . I know. That is why you need to go through the Constitution Act and the Indian Act, and that is some serious research, but doable. There are numerous sites that go over all the varied amendments. I just pointed you in the right direction. I'm not trying to be obstinate. I think if a deal was made with the natives and there was an agreement for those benefits, it should be honoured, but I can't find any wording which such such an arrangement was made. . If you believe this, then why the need for research? Just write your MP for clarification. I have to admit that I have a tough time believing this statement. When I asked you before about why you thought the government allowed all these "free" rights to the Indians, you said it was because they were sorry for them. Forgive me, but I don't think the government gives away free anything for almost two-hundred years or so because they feel "sorry". You plain old don't believe that there is an Indian Act. That's cool Rene, you appear to be in good company judging from this web. Regarding who is or isn't an Indian, who do you think has that right? The canadian govt, the native govt, or do people self-declare? ? The First Nation(s) where their roots are from.

Mike: From my experience, the best you can do is call them by their original nomenclature. My Dad is Algonquin, but that is close to Ojibway, Saulteaux, Pottawatomi and Odawa. Those are the euro-names for us, but we all self-identify as "Anishnabe". phoenetically: Ah-nish-naw-bay. A bunch of anishnabe: Anishnabeg or Anishnabek, depending on dialect. You can see the word anishnabe spelled a number of ways. My Mom is from Six Nations. She is Tuscarora. We self-identify by using the term"Haudenosaunee", which means "People of the longhouse" to each of the Six Nations, or "onkwe:honwe", which means "the people". The mohawk call themselves "kanienKehaka". Phoenetically: a) Ho-dee-no-shaw-nee Onk-way-hone-way c) Ga-knee-gay-ha-ga I have no clue about the B.C. tribes because they all have so many languages. I know the mik'Maq call themselves Mig-a-maw. but I can't say anything else about the eastern tribes. I can't call non-algonquians "anishnabe" because they aren't. I know the Swampy Cree from the north coast and the Plains Cree from out west describe themselves differently too. hope that helps. I for one have no "overall" name for Native people in general. I use Indians, Natives, Aboriginals etc. It depends on audience. In Caledonia, I'm a wagon burner or a timber nigger.

Rene: Don't say I never do anything for you. In fact, you can extend that sentiment to all my people. Here is the info you need (from INAC): 1. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/site/maindex_e.html Above is the main index for treaty info 2. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/index_e.html This link goes into the treaty research behind each treaty. The one that impacts me is the Robinson treaty. Go nuts. 3. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/site/guindex_e.html I think this is the timeline. interesting stuff, but you can get it off the first link. 4. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/site/trindex_e.html This is the treaty texts. You'll see that there is no mention of the natives giving the government the right to determine their style of government, nor determine who is or isn't an indian. 5. http://www.socialpolicy.ca/cush/m8/m8-t7.stm This gives some pretty excellent background on the Indian Act of 1876. there are many websites that go over all the amendments to this Act and the Constitution Act, so i'll let you find them. You're welcome.

OOC: The problem Temagami is that most Canadians don't want to learn new things nor understand what's going on outside their little world. Yes, that's why I'm grateful I'm not from Alberta or Quebec. Most people are content with following the crowd and separating things between good and bad, right and wrong. Have you ever seen Monty Python's "Life of Brian"? The most striking scene in the whole movie (to me) is when all Jerusalem is outside Brian's window, and the entire crowd is saying in unison "Yes, we are all individuals", except for one lonely, little voice in the mass that says "No, I'm not". To me, that is the very essence of being Canadian. The other essence is supporting the Sens if the Leaf Nation is crushed like nuts, but that's another thread. The six nations occupation(and it's an occupation, not a protest as some have said) is being portrayed in the media as an attack on our(white) culture, an encroachment on "our" private property, never mind the way it was acquired. There is no grey area anymore. Society is divided into the have and have not. If you don't follow our "lead", you are left behind and must assimilate. Yes...and they are using women and black guys to send that message. That, too, is ironic. We latch on to single narrow points like tax exemption and brand a whole segment of the population as being lazy without really knowing anything about it I know. It's also difficult to get people to believe that being Native doesn't mean tax exemption is a ceremonial rite. You and Mike H must be siblings.

Michael: Thanks for your posts. You're providing a great perspective on this issue. let me return the favor and thank you for actually being nice. I'm not fond of being lumped in with the inherently lazy, dumb and myopic....especially my experience tells me that those characteristics know no racial boundaries.

Rene: I just read your last post, and all I can say is that you need to quit being lazy and look for the proof yourself at INAC. They are your government, they are giving me "special" entitlements, and if this disturbs you so deeply, then do something about it, and don't wait for others to do it for you. Of course, I find it ironic that a non-Native needs to get a Native to do things for himself, after saying how natives are lazy and all. I'm sorry that your parents never taught you how to do things for yourself, but i'm more than willing to help you out, buddy.