Temagami Scourge

Personally, I like the Arabs and the Jews. They were the only ones who came here and didn't try to make the Aboriginal people to be like them or force their religion on them...nor did either religion build a residential school like the Christians were climbing over themselves to do. Although people may decry Islamic suicide bombers or Israeli right-wing extremists, I can say with some conviction that neither the Jewish or Muslim religion used their faith to get at and rape Native children like the Christian religions did. I hope things go well betweenthe two sects. On another note, I couldn't help but notice Betsy's aversion to Muslims. Knowing that Betsy hails from the Phillipines, I can't help but think that she is bringing some of her "old world" garbage here to Canada. The Tagalog-speaking peoples have had a long-standing animosity towards the Moros and their ilk on islands like Mindanao and Palawan, so it would make sense for someone from Luzon or Leyte or thereabouts to ostracize Islam in any form. Oh yeah, the Moros are Muslim, and everyone else in the Philipines are Christian, in case anyone is wondering.

I also thought that Crawford Lake was part of the Neutral Nation, but it is looking more like a Seneca village given the oral tradition. I have spoke with Wendat people in both Wisconsin and Quebec, and they maintain that their ancestral area before the diaspora was along the hills south of Georgian Bay. The problem clearly appears that the Europeans who recorded the history wanted to simply make things easier by saying that the Iroquois lived in point A, and the Huron lived at Point B. I do think the Huron lived further south at times. I visited the burial mound just north of Canada's wonderland, on Teston road, back when they were excavating it a couple of years ago, and it was clearly a Huron burial; where all the bones were in one hollowed-out pit, lined with deerskin and stirred up together. Communal burial is a huron-specific trait in these parts, whereas the Algonkian and Iroquois people went with single burials. The Iroquois did also do a Feast of the Dead like the Huron, but the ceremony was different. Some really cool oral history about the Iroquois Wars concerns Ste. Marie Among the Hurons and the real version of the events that led to the hyped-up martyrdom of Brebeuf and Lalemont. According to the Wahta people, the "Iroquois" who attacked the mission were actually disaffected Huron who left their nation and joined the Confederacy to get out from under the baleful influence of the priests. The two priests were so pissed at the recalcitrant Huron that they purposefully impregnated a number of Huron women whose husbands were noted citizens who rejected Christianity. Well, it wasn't long before word got back to the disaffected Huron (living among the Seneca and Cayuga primarily), about what the priests did to their wives, so one thing led to another and poof! instant martyrs!. I had always wondered about the story of Ste. Marie and the events of the Iroquois Wars. According to mainstream, and the museum at Midland, the Iroquois were particularly horrible in their treatment of the two priests, so that one would get the impression that the Six Nations were mindless savages. however, when you understand what the priests did to the women, then all of a sudden their "savagery" gains a whole new perspective. Likewise, the concept of wintering over north of Lake Ontario in order to get a jump on the Huron by attacking in spring was sheer strategic genius for that time. What makes it more interesting from my prior military experience was that if the disaffected Hurons were the ones leading the attack, then they would be fully aware of the vulnerabilities that their villages would face at certain times of the year. Driving them off the land before the crops could be planted was an imporatant strategic victory over the Hurons. lastly, the other aggravating factor that gets little "airplay" given Canadian history was the fact that the Hurons that sided with the Christians were the ones that suffered most. Canadian history maintains that the Iroquois forced adoption on their Huron captives (if you were a Catholic thinker defending the martyrdom of two saints), but it appears that a very significant number of Huron were so unimpressed with the Christian influence that they willing left and sought out adoption by the Confederacy. Those who stayed behind were viewed with contempt by the disaffected, and suffered the consequences. I find it interesting how this oral tradition seems to answer much of what is missing from the European version of events. Europeans would have us believe that the martyred saints died horribly for their religion, when really they died horribly because they were rapists...much like the priests at the residential schools. Secondly, why didn't the Iroquois figure out the prime Huron weakness much sooner after off and on warfare for centuries, unless there were people around who not only had intimate knowledge of the Wendat social structure, but also knew the location of every Wendat village and the trail system? My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between, but I bet the priests did rape Huron women....that sounds like their usual M.O.

Just to sneak a quick point in, once we can assist the Caledonians in overcoming the influence of hard liquor, welfare fraud and chronic, long-term in-breeding, I truly believe that major strides will be made in the ongoing collegial relationship Six Nations has had with Caledonia. Unfortunately, the free money that the province has handed to Caledonians to "ease their pain" for the ongoing land dispute may cause further turmoil within that community and in many other communities across Canada. I can see that many communities will begin pressuring the province to give individuals and businesses as much free money as possible for merely living near a First Nation. In the case of the citizens of Caledonia, this could clearly lead to greater dependance on government and create a whole new set of social ills in the town....as if alcohol abuse, welfare collection and in-breeding weren't enough. However, as I've oft-stated, there are many on Six Nations who would be more than willing to lend a helping hand to Caledonians in overcoming their communal dysfunction. The first step, of course, is to shake the Caledonians out of their current state of denial....

I have to agree with Betsy on this one. It's too bad that it took a Native blockade before the media realized just how lawless Caledonia really is. But then again, only the Caledonians can change this perception of themselves. I think that merely curtailing the abuse of strong drink in public would do wonders for Caledonia's image.

River: No...of course not! There are people, and then there are Natives...two totally different things, eh wot? Laddie...Cultural genocide is identified in the UN definition from ages ago. I think that you are upset not because cultural genocide is "new", but that someone, somewhere, read the definition and said "Hey...that is what the Canadian government did to native people here!", and acted on it. According to your terms, we would need black-and-white photos of emaciated Canadian natives in striped concentration camp uniforms before you would accept a claim of genocide. Somehow, the idea of dragging children from their homes on reserve and sending them en masse to distant schools to be taught to not only hate themselves and their people, but how to become low-income workers -as a basis of official government policy- does not sound like "cultural assimilation", but more like "forced assimilation", or, say, genocide...would it not? To do this over a period of decades doesn't really assist your "assimilation" argument either. However, I see assimilation as being a product of choice, not force. If Native folks were given the choice to join the greater society, then you'd win the argument hands down, but when the edict comes down from a distant capital as a law...then choice is no longer part of the equation, would you not say? In that case, the definition of genocide becomes pretty compelling, eh? I agree....much in the same way as someone trying to say that official federal law authorizing the seizure of children from a specific minority population to be "educated" in the majority's culture and language, without any ounce of input from the minority population, is really assimilation instead of genocide. makes no sense.... That sounds lovely, but we still have an Indian Act on the books that many thousands of intelligent and educated Federally-elected public figures have done precious little to modify in the past 139 years, so the concept of "antiquation" makes little sense when there is still federal law in the here and now impacting the lives of Aboriginal people in this country. i will give credit for the fact that the "Micmac Scalp Law" was removed from New Brunswick's books a couple of years ago, though. Congratulations. I disagree. I tend to think it accurately describes Canadian Federal laws and policies respecting aboriginal people. Hey...did you know Natives got the right to vote in 1950! That only took 85 years from the initial introduction of the Indian Act! now that's progress....

Tsi: First off, let me give you a resounding Sago! Secondly, I see that you, too, have found out that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, as evidenced by a number of posters on this site and their"beliefs" on Aboriginal people. I'll admit that I have spent a great deal of time here previously trying to assist my neighbours in overcoming their profound ignorance respecting Aboriginal issues, but i'm at the point where one might think it a better idea to take these people away from their families to a distant location, and be given a proper education? sound like a plan? HAHAHA

River: Well, if it hasn't been said already, you could of been a great asset for the defence team at the Nuremburg trials given your perspective on genocide. I suppose that you also have taken to referring to Native people in general as "terrorists" too. Why yes....what better way of sweeping under the proverbial rug the fact that it was official federal policy (for decades) to remove Aboriginal children from their families and put them in a residential school, where they were taught to essentially hate themselves and their people in between rape sessions. Does this mean that Native folks should be thanking the government for the gift of impoverishment too? I can't speak for Tsi, but my understanding is that the U.N. definition of genocide was accepted by this country many years ago. That being the case, are you changing history on us again, River?

Betsy: I have to agree with Enskat. Your argument has been going in a circle for the last two weeks. You make the same points to Enskat that you did with me awhile back, and you receive the same answers. you know what the old saying is about crazy people; they do the same thing over and over even though they know the outcome every time. Now, I don't see you as crazy, and I understand that you are opposed to Native rights and ideas, but you must admit that the entire Haldimand tract issue is not going away, nor is there any evidence to support the notion that if the land reverted to it's original owners, then there would be a line of non-Natives marching off the tract to seek new homes elsewhere. But how about this idea: Six Nations is well aware of particular tracts that were legally sold throughout the tract. Some are in Brantford, and I saw the map once where the band has been tracking lots throughout the tract to see which ones are legal and which ones were the result of shady deals etc. Obviously, some people's land will remain untouched, as it recognized by Six Nations. Now, I know the government well enough to know that there is no way that they could allow non-Native Ontarians to lose property under a land claim, so they will offer to buy various sections ie. all of Brantford, Cambridge etc. This may prove to be a very expensive undertaking -an outright sale- so what if the government: a) Paid a monthly or annual "lease" to Six Nations or; The Crown espands on current treay promises, and instead of money, recognizes the applicability of the great Law over Six Nations reserve land, recognizes Six Nations right to determine its citizenship without interference from the Crown, pays an annual stipend and ensures that all treaty rights currently recognized by Canadian law remain recognized in perpetuity, and that current, regular band funding is topped up so that anyone can get education monies, housing and medical care provided on demand. To top this off, all Six Nations citizens (as recognized by the governing body at Six Nations) also get the best medications available, instead of the cheapest generic which is current NIHB policy. Oh, the NIHB means Non-Insured Health Benefits section of INAC.

How many times do you have to be told that the Natives had nothing to do with Canada creating a multi-ethnic society. We never made the immigration laws, so if Canada changed between 1867 and now, then that still won't change the legal nature of the agreements. I'll say it again...i'll give up my rights and tax exemption in exchange for the land, as per the original deal. Well, tell your government this. However, the natives aren't stupid. thhey'll still want the land because that is what they are tied to. To be honest, that would be for the people living there to decide which option they like best. The key concern is "given". As a native, I would never accept something that the government would refer to as a "given" right. However, I'm also of the mind that Native fishers will use the latest science combined with traditional knowledge to ensure the fishery is healthy. The example of what happens to a fishery when non-Natives run it, like the non-native fishers have done to the ground fish industry on the east coast. Either take some fish or they'll be none left, and then everyone will have to work the tarsands.

River: How many people need to tell you that the rights the Natives are exercising are not based on race, but are based on treaties signed exchanging the land we call Canada for these rights. I'll say it again for your benefit...if you are jealous of Native people getting their education, housing and medical care paid for, and their tax exempt status, then give back the land we exchanged for those rights in the first place. I'll even go as far as to say that you can keep your money and i'll just take the land. the bottom line is that Natives are not stupid. Why would we give up our rights after trading them for our land, only to turn around later on and give up our rights for nothing other than the fact that some Canadians get jealous of these rights. Especially when your people utilized the Indian Act to ensure that we remained at the bottom of the economic totem pole (and still do, for the most part) for over a hundred years. The days of trinkets, baubles and whisky are gone, my friend. Learn to live with the Indians...in fact, why don't you volunteer to drive their boat for them, or help them clean their catch in exchange for some fish. Or would you rather stand there and get upset because you can't do what they do.

I think one of my old land claim negotiators put it best at a public meeting years ago. A tourist operator wanted to know that if the land claim came into effect, would the indians be able to gill net in "their" lake. The negotiator replied that, up until 1927 -when the highway went through- his grandfather lived on that lake and set nets there daily for a couple of decades, until he was forced off the land and onto the Reserve. He asked the tourist operator if there were fish in the lake when they first arrived, which, of course, there were. Oh yeah, we could net there anyway because that was a treaty right, but no one wanted to travel so far to a little lake when there were larger ones close by. I bet that the Cheam band grew up on stories like I did...of the olden days when our treaty rights were ignored, and things happened like what occured to one of our Chief's in the 1930's. The old man came across a wolf-killed and half-eaten deer carcass frozen on his trapline one winter. He cut off the good half and took it back to his hunt cabin. The MNR showed up and saw the deer carcass hanging there, so they charged our Chief with poaching, took his guns and traps, and jailed him for three months -or long enough to miss the prime trapping season. In essence, the man's family had to live on handouts while he was in jail, and then he had to wait til summer came before he could get more work to replace his equipment and feed his family. He even offered to take the MNR to the spot where he got the carcass because the scene would offer proof of a wolf kill, but they declined. ...and that is only one story. I could go on and on, but I know that in the seventies and eighties, our people wouldn't put up with crap like that from the MNR, and they got a reputation for being violent thugs....but then again, most people just felt that we were born that way, when really we were taking a stand on our rights. It might not be "right", but but people weren't putting up with the "Indian quips" the white folks would make anymore, so it wasn't all as one-sided as you'd have us believe. I know folks like you too well to believe it. I agree that racism begets racism, but you have to admit that it is our Caucasian neighbours who've utilized the english language to have multiple descriptive words to describe every race, color and creed imaginable. I know of at least 5 or 6 good, solid racist terms for Native people, at least a dozen for black folks, about the same for East Asians, names for both the Chinese and Japanese, and even names for non-English speakers like Germans or French folk. So don't give me this one-sided racist indian crap when it is the occidentals developing and using the putdowns. I suppose you feel the Indians should just put up and say "thanks" when one of their "betters" calls them a dirty timber nigger or wagon burner.

Besides Betsy, don't you find that having a Judge with an interest in disputed property ruling on that same property to be a bit "Third-worldish". I've often seen Canadians scream blue murder when some African or Asian country makes a stacked court ruling, but here, you call it "justice". My next thought is that I wonder just how illegal the protest is if the judge who determined its "illegality" also happens to invest in land on the same tract impacting Douglas Creek. wouldn't it be smart on his part to a create precedent of illegality to protect his interests? wow...so many questions...

If I go along with you, I can be accused of "defending violent racists and their tactics." Some spew of racist slurs had been displayed on this forum from some native factions, which most probably...and with great possibility...only mirrors what was happening in the blockade scenario. Since your protest is illegal, I can also be accused of abetting unlawfulness on top of that. And since the legal adviser of the native chieftains had stated that the violent methods of these handful of Natives from within were in violation of the wishes of the chieftains, I can not say then that I am siding with the Native People....but more so siding with the radicals responsible for hijacking the peaceful intentions of the leaders, and therefore, I can be accused of dishonoring and dis-respecting the true representatives of the Native Nation (the chieftains). If we were in a ship, heck I'd be charged with abetting mutiny! Ok Betsy...if the Natives are so radical, then why have things been quiet for the past while? Wouldn't these natives who've "hijacked" the process have created a disturbance by now...or has the Confederacy taken care of business and sent the hot heads out...something that caledonia has failed to do (Seeing as how the drunken, rock-throwing racists gather nightly to drink and throw rocks and racial epithets at the Natives.) It's good to see you make innumerable assumptions, again. Yes, I'll also agree that Natives have hurled verbal abuse back, but I don't see how someone yelling "You f***ing asshole" is racist when the Caledonians are screaming "wagon burners" at the reclaimants.

The Cheam band insists on using drift nets during periods when most conservationists agree they should not be used. http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/issues05/08.../082105nn5.html River: Using driftnets does not translate into setting nets across the entire river. Likewise, from reading the article, it sounds like the "Canadians" are the problem by purposefully interfering with the Cheam's harvest, instead of respecting their annual harvest. If anything, the story you cite doesn't cast non-Natives in a very good like. It makes them sound like the same kind of provocateurs that the drunken Caledonians are. I think I'm right when I say that there is a strong racist streak among many occidental people in this country, and now that we have a conservative government, we are hearing calls from these people to use the army on their fellow neighbours. Hmmmm....

Kindred: would you have any proof that this is occuring? No...i don't think so. I find your statement tends to ring false, especially since I visited some Nations in B.C. a while back and was told about their harvesting methods. I have a hard time believing that anyone would be so willing to destroy a resource, but then again, considering the manner in which our Occidental brethren accuse Natives of terrorism, it is no surprise that they'd make other false accusations based on no reason. That is the Canadian way.

no kidding...that's why I have a good laugh when I listen to Caledonians who get in front of a camera...they say "our kids are scared", and then you see their kids happily playing by the blockade. Why would these children be playing by the blockade if they are crying in fear of the warriors at night? It does!? They didn't report the shooting of a reclaimant a month ago? They never said that the old German that stopped his car and was followed to Canadian tire had pulled over and was screaming racist terms and provoking the Natives eh? Personally, Turtle Island and the Tekawannake are the two magazines that bother to take both sides of the story. Even CKRZ takes calls from racist Caledonians during the talk shows. I don't see any of the Toronto or Hamilton stations doing that. They ytake their 15 to 30 second sound bite and go from there. ...or you can listen to me because I know what I'm talking about and tell the truth( which I know seems to annot many here). Besides, you are still defending violent racists and their tactics. Don't try to hide that fact. Oh....guess what! word is starting to filter out that Justice Marshall owns property within the Haldimand tract! Now I know why he wanted to order the protestors out, and to get the Crown involved so quickly! He has a personal stake in what is going on! gotta love our justice system! Wow...you gotta love that Canadian law (and good ol' Iroquois media fact finding!

Betsy: But the Caledonians voted for the succession of governments that created the inconveniences. Still, they aren't the target, but the Crown is. I don't know, but seeing as how both Caledonian business owners and residents are sitting back and counting the money the province rushed to them for their "inconvenience" in the past hundred days, while the reclamation remains unresolved certainly tells me who the government's priority is. no, the point is that the land sale was illegal, and the crown was doing nothing to rectify that situation other than sell the land to private interests. Anything afterwards was escalation. Whose law? Canadian or the Confederacy's? So far, Canadian law allows people like Homolka to walk around freely after committing a heinous murder, and let's people out on early parole to kill again...and you expect everyone to follow that law? I suggest you find a better law to base your argument on. How would you go about stopping the building of a sub-division. The Natives were smart enough to stop it before anyone moved in, thus there was a limit as to disruption. Secondly, there are many a Caledonian who turns up thier eyebrow when they hear one of their neighbours say they are "inconvenienced". Many Caledonians work in Hamilton and Toronto, where the jobs are. None of those routes were blocked. Actually, the Caledonians themselves are the ones crying out that they are hostages. The Natives wanted to leave them well enough alone, but the business interests in town goaded some Caledonians into provoking the natives. The funny thing is that you aren't familiar enough with the town and who runs it to know the personalities involved, but you are clearly basing your opinion onwhat the mainstream media feeds you. I understand. this country works better on misinformation and innuendo. truth just gets in people's way...

Again, it's the same answer. Caledonia and its residents has nothing to do with your land disputes. The residents don't, but the land Caledonia resides on is clearly marked as confederacy land in the Haldimand tract, so you are incorrect on that point. However, you are still defending violent racists, which does concern me. That is the same attitude everyday Germans had when Jews started disappearing off the streets in the 1930's. People found it easy to blame the jews for their "jewishness", and would agree whenever the Nazi government blamed the jews for the "criminality" of being Jewish. You seem to think of natives in the same way as the 1930's Germans thought of their Jewish population. they were called "terrorists" and "criminals" too, the same way you've described Confederacy people and their actions. That's where my concern lies. I don't want to see history repeated.

Caledonia and its residents have nothing to do with your land disputes. You tell them that, then. Lord knows we've repeated it often enough at the barricades, but the Caledonians are taking it on themselves and blaming the Natives, not the government. Fortunately, some Caucasian people are seeing the Crown as the real culprit, but the drunks and racists are seeing the Natives as the culprit.

But why are they angry? On the barricades, they are angry that Natives "get" so much free stuff, are life-long welfare bums, and are alcoholics, drug-abusers and general filth. When they get in front of a T.V. camera or a newspaper reporter, they say they are angry because their lives are disrupted, that they feel threatened by Natives, and that Natives are terrorists, and that Natives get so much free stuff. All I know is that they seem angry for one thing to the Natives faces, and angry for something else for the cameras.

Betsy: There is nothing wrong with Caledonians starting a counter blockade or being angry about Native protestors, but there is no reason to start using racial epithets to express their anger, or to resort to violence, both of which the Caledonians began early in the protest. Old white people attacked? sure, but why aren't you complaining about native Elders getting pepper-sprayed -which was caught on video- by the OPP...especially when the elder was just standing there, not threatening anyone. That act alone precipitated a response from the younger people, like hitting the police van with a bat, but no one went after the Caledonians, just the OPP. The only shooting was by some Caledonian who used a high-powered pellet gun to rip open the cheek of a protestor peacefully standing behind a barricade. Even then, the Chiefs asked the protestors to not retaliate, but to just build higher cover in case more people start shooting. Fights? mainstream media never reported on the ex-Chief's husband, who took his granddaughter out for ice cream near Hagersville, only to be accosted by five young Caledonians, who likely found the grandfather an easy mark because he was just with a little girl. No police responded, but then again, they don't anyway. Why would the police barricades face the Caledonians? I know this made the Caledonians upset, but they were the ones trying to provoke the native protestors, they were the ones shooting fireworks at the Native protestors, they were the ones rushing the barricades, and they were the ones screaming obcenities and racial epithets at the protestors. The bottom line is that none of this was supposed to happen because Douglas Creek was supposed to be off the table back when Six Nations agreed to halt litigation and switch to negotiations. The Feds promised that outstanding claims would be held in limbo until a decision is made...and then what happened? The province sold land the Feds told the Confederacy would be on hold. Secondly, the Feds are well aware of all the "sales" made on the land...they are aware of both the 1838 lease and 1841 sale because Six Nations entered this as evidence back in the 1980's during the court case. So tell me, if they knew about these things and still sought to remove the claim from the court process, how can the Crown turn around and publically state the land was sold? Why not just keep it in court if they were so certain? The easy answer is that Six Nations accumulated enough evidence and a paper trail to highlight the myriad discrepancies in many of the "sales". Sales took place without the 2nd party paying up. Leases were made with no money coming to the band. A ton of Six Nation's money from land sales was taken and invested in the Welland Canal with no return, and yet the canal still exists and is quite successful. Taken together, the Crown representatives have obviously stiffed the Six Nations, which leaves the Crown open to some serious problems...unless they got out of litigation and decided to negotiate. Remember, this "inconvenience" has gone on at Six Nations since the early 1800's -at least 150 years or more, with no end in sight, whereas the Caledonians were slightly discomforted by having one road out of town blocked, and yet they start seeing compensation within a hundred days. if that doesn't give you an idea of the "equality" rampant in this country, then I don't know what does. But if you want to continue to defend violent racists when you haven't actually seen what is occuring with your own eyes, then feel free to do so. that too, is the Canadian way.

What!? someone asked Bush Jr. about something?

River: Well, at least now I know you are not a lawyer....

River: I'll agree on this point. It's not a question of second thoughts, but more a matter of the Crown being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Legally, the Natives often have the weight of law on their side vis-a-vis the constitution, but politically, any government that signs off on a land claim is under threat in the next election, and the opposition starts screaming that if they were in power, they'd reverse any agreement. So we are stuck with an unending series of Caledonias. Like I've long maintained...it's cheaper for the Crown to drag things throught the negotiation process and the courts than it is by actually settling claims. I often wonder about the impartiality of SCC justices who may own homes or cottages on disputed lands...will they rule in favour of natives, in which case a precedent is set, or find a way around a solution, or better yet, fob it off on the Crown to find a political solution...

Well would you look at that...Indians giving back money owed to them by treaty.... Globe & Mail article Geez...it's the amount that gets me. The funny thing is the "$10 billion" getting thrown around these threads, when the $216 reality sounds so much more....real.