Live From China

Canada doesn't have the right to arrest and imprison these people but it does anyway! (I must admit that if the said warriors of this group were as powerful as has been indicated they would be able to stop this in an instant). We lost the land, but got it back! Our passports are recognized in 36 countries, but no one can actually produce a list! We don't recognize the laws of Canada, but have to go to a Canadian court to fight our case! We don't subscribe to Western views of offering proof and evidence of our claims, but continue to do so to a legal system that has no jurisdiction over us! (Isn't this just a waste of time then?)

How so? Well, you are discussing things with Westerners. And whether you like it or not, you are living in Western society. You will have to make your land claims deals with a Western government. And, if you are disinterested, why bother responding?

Actually, this is not true (and I say this with all due respect). Firstly, there is a huge difference between a friendly discussion at Tim Horton's and an intellectual debate (and no, there doesn't have to be a winner and a loser). Of course, at TH's no one expects you to run to the internet, the library or the university to find the facts. But even in coffee table discussions, people will say,"Hey, that's interesting; where did you read that?" Or the many permutations thereof. When we can show evidence to back up what we say, we show great respect for the people to whom we are talking. And for ourselves. We are saying, "I respect you as a friend/associate/person and an equal." I mean seriously, what does it benefit one to say, "F**k you, go look it up yourself!"? Or some other type of angry response? There is also discussion where friends simply talk about things. Generally, if everyone is on the same side, you are talking or "preaching to the converted." Here, no one cares about evidence. This is really just talk. Secondly, if someone says something that is suspect or lacks evidence the onus is upon the person making the statement, not the skeptic. Carl Sagan outlines this in is book The Demon Haunted World. An excellent read, I might add. This was first proposed by the philosopher David Hume (I believe he wrote A Treatise on Human Nature, among many other theses). It has become the basis of research, law, science, "debate, and yes, discussion. As an aside, he also stated, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof." Let's think about this. You go to court and say, "Joe murdered John." No proof, no evidence (circumstantial or otherwise). Jury or judge: Guilty and that's it. Yes, this is not a discussion, but it just shows how powerful and important a tool evidence can be. Life altering or life saving in some cases. I mean even you present evidence or attempt to when you say, "Our oral tradition says such and such."

Actually Tsi, I do not regard debate as having to have a winner and a loser. Rather, I regard it as a way a way of expanding one's knowledge. You may find this surprising, but I have actually learned a great deal from you. I find the passport issue fascinating; when I was a kid, I used to make my own, and my own money too (no, I am not a counterfeiter). Pretended I had my own country. I would just like to just see a picture of one of yours. When, you state somethings, I will say to myself, "Gee, that's interesting!" Of course, I haven't told you that until now (except when I said it would be cool to have your own passport).

I ask the following with all due respect: then why are you involved in the debate on this board? And you are in a debate whether you wish to recognize it or not.

A predictable rageaholic response! diedre, I'm with you! In the spirit of true, honorable debate, why not, "Here are five countries; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5." Then it is done.

diedre, I know you are wasting your time asking this question! I/we asked this in another native issues thread. Several times in fact. Actually, I just asked for the names of a few countries. My guess is you will NOT get an answer on this thread that will actually show you the 36 countries that accept such a passport. You MAY get a reference to a book but you will get nothing more (and you may also get, "I've given you the book, you go look it up!).

You're right CUF. I don't know why I persisted so long. Thanks for your support and sane arguments. See you in other threads.

I don't think one is hypocritical if they watch one show to find out what it is about. Different story if you watch "a steady diet" and then complain. Sort of like watching a football game for the first time to see what it is about and then saying you don't like football.

Read David Hume. You made the original statement. The onus is upon you to prove your statement, not for me to disprove it. You are getting frustrated; your anger, snotty comments and name-calling are increasing! And you have still not answered many of the questions we have asked. We have asked them in all sincerity and you just "dig in your heels", and refuse to do so. And you are rude to boot. Can you tell us why?

This would fit nicely into that poem Jabberwocky, you know that part "Twas brillig..." I guess it would have to be changed into Scots though. Anyone care to oblige?

Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don't get the impression that I am against low-tech warfare. Vietcong > one million dead, US around 58,000. You also need to get over yourself. Your megalomania makes you a poor representative for your people and cheapens your argument. Anyway, I still think your having us on!

Well said, kimmy! Murder, pedophilia as entertainment? God, help us! To change course slightly, what I can't "wrap my head around" are those shows (and, yes, I watch one but only one - upon someone's recommendation; and I should have known better) where a bunch of couples go to an island or some such isolated venue and then there is all this cheating and backstabbing. One by one, people are voted off the island. The winner, the last person remaining, got a cheque for $250,000. What really astounded me though was that one of the people said, "John (or whatever his name is), you really earned this!" Earned? To me that implies that John produced something of value, i.e., built a house, cured a sick person, taught a class, etc. No such thing happened! And, worse, even though the show claims these people are stockbrokers, lawyers, graduate students, and the like, they behave like nitpicking, vindictive, snotty, vengeful junior high school airheads! I think the producers may be having us on. I wonder if the said people are simply actors.

Actually Tsi, you were right, the following comment about "spider holing" should be credited to Okwaho. My apologies for that! You do tend to be evasive, however. So let me try this, and with all due respect, please answer the following: if the Viet Cong were adept at concealment and ambush, and this was one of their chief tactics, what tactic was it that native soldiers in the US Army/Marines were NEVER fooled by? Again, I am not being facetious; I really want to know. I will let you in on a little surprise. I am a "convert" of sorts; I used to actually support native land claims. Went to rallies and meetings. The whole nine yards. Then I found the natives who liked "our" support and even asked for it, refused to answer questions (like you do - sorry, no disrespect meant) and the more they were asked for answers, the more hostile and snotty they got. We (again, read whites) and even some of the natives began to say, "Hey, guys, we need to answer these questions!" Then, suddenly I realized that the more aggressive people (both whites and natives) were just that; angry and wanting to pick a fight. I/many of us, again both whites and natives withdrew our support. When we ask, "What, where, why or how?", we just wish you would answer our questions.

OK, let's try this! We were originally talking about the North Vietnamese using tactics of concealment and strike. Tsi, talked about the Native tactic of hiding under sand, ground and the like being learned by Ho Chi Min. (Although this tactic is not uniquely Native; I believe it was also used by Arabic peoples). Get the connection here? You are correct in that the word "ambush" was not used. But the idea was implied. OK, cleared that up. Not sure why the New Age comment has you so riled up. Oh well, no matter. And YES, you are having us on!

That was over 160 years ago! You weren't even alive then. Let it go, move on.

Actually, Tsi did. Go back and read Post No. 138. And Tsi, you could be millenia old and still be a New Ager. Just thought I would clear that up for you! We know you guys are just having us on! You do not represent the voice of your people!

Tsi, you are the one spinning your wheels. I give you the techniques used by New Age babblers to avoid answering questions, and what do you do? Turn around and give the old you're-not-ready-to-see-it argument, so there is no point is showing you. OK, let's try this, let's assume you are a sovereign nation, and you are justified in taking back what is yours, why not just use your mystical powers to do it? If you can shape shift, it basically means you have control of time and space. You could just create things the way you want them, and we would be none the wiser. And, do you have a website that shows a picture of a Six Nations passport?

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I found this story boring. And I continue to find it boring. I was the same with the death of Princess Diana. All I could say was, "Oh no, now were going to have to hear about this ad infinitum, ad nauseam!" I just do not understand why the Benet-Ramsey story has attracted so much attention.

Absolute twaddle! Polish lancers v. Panzers and Stukas as one example. Machine guns and breech loading rifles v. men armed with swords and spears. And you cannot prove that Native Americans that served in Vietnam (although probably statistically insignificant) were never trapped by Vietcong ambushes. And don't give me this nonsense that I can't disprove it; you made the statement, the onus is on you to prove it! Also: CUF never said he didn't believe you, he just said he wanted you to prove your contention. Something you constantly ask us to do. So it seems fair we ask you the same. Tsi, you use all the techniques that someone who doesn't like to have there beliefs challenged uses: 1. I don't owe you an explanation! (Usually used when an explanation doesn't exist). 2. You're not a believer, so I can't show you. (Used to mask one's inability to show someone a skill). Or the old "you're-not-ready-yet" argument. I mean think about it: I can run at 100 miles per hour but since you don't believe me, you were unable to see that I just did this. 3. Avoiding the question completely, i.e., the passport and sovereignty issue (FTA's question on the latter). Although, I think Okwaho, is "better" at this that you. 4. My sources are accurate to the nth degree, yours aren't. I have never heard you say,"Hmm, interesting point there, I am going to have to do more research on that issue." Once again, the sovereignty question comes to mind I am reminded of Carl Sagan's A Demon Haunted World. The chapter that discusses the dragon in the garage is an excellent introduction to these concepts. And no one is fooled by them!

I did do my homework! First, of all you are not Apache. And just because Ho Chi Min studied native strategies does not mean they are strategies unique to natives. They just happened to be the sources at hand. I will actually bet he also studied strategies of non-natives as well The Americans "left behind" around 58,000 dead. The war in left well over a million North Vietnamese casualties. The point I am trying to make is you cannot casualty rates such as these.

I'm with you kimmy. Why has this case drawn so much attention, given all the other cases that we know of? And: I don't think the guy they have arrested did it. I was once astounded by how many people "confess" to murders they didn't commit.

Why? And when you snottily reply (re: the passport issue), "I have already told you where to find this information!" it really shows you are NOT interested in debating in good faith.

So, you doing an additional wrong makes things right ? I also think of native-run companies logging in Clayquot Sound when they promised not to, claiming these were mystical, spiritual lands that they had revered for thousands of years. So much for Mother Earth! You are hypocrites as much as we are!

To Tsi and Okwaho: Mystical powers, connections to Mother Earth, maybe even shape shifting??????? Your credibility is totally shot. Or in short, you have just written another load of hooey! As for your military service, they prove absolutely nothing. They just showed you served in the military. Certainly, you can point to the "Vietnam experience" as an example of modern warfare v. guerrilla and regular forces. Yes, the Americans eventually withdrew, but the cost to North Vietnam was huge. And lest we forget, the region was a vast hiding ground, their bush skills were extremely current, they had a large population to draw upon, and they were well supplied. And if we want to get whacky about it, they had a huge mystical tradition to draw upon. It didn't prevent thousands of North Vietnamese from dying!