saga

The gov't is taking the position that cash compensation should be calculated based on the market price of the land (Toronto) in the 1800s when the band lost access to the land. They have also offered some additional cash for loss of use. The gov't has no intention of giving 'sovereignty' over these lands to the native groups.It don't have a problem with these kinds of cash settlement if the price is reasonable. I only get concerned when natives groups start demanding that land owners start paying taxes to bands instead of municipal gov'ts or when bands can deprive a municipality of its tax base by purchasing land which is turned into a reserve. Yes, it does get complicated. We are very lucky that they are reasonable people. However, we cannot expect to feel no effects at all. I think Toronto will work out ok too ... though there are precedents for the amount and it is not 1800 value, but not today either. They have chosen to reclaim the Toronto Islands, and I think that will work out too. Sovereignty will be up to each group. It is possible ... but they did not want Toronto.

I do not know how sunglasses guy got in there. Excuse.

No it is not. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. Article 1 The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: * (a) Killing members of the group; * ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; * © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. All of these things happened to them, one place or one time or another. Forcibly transferring children happened all the time. No one bullies me I found out all this information by myself. Then I went and offered my support, and I learned a lot more from them. No need to panic. There will be compensation to them for lands that cannot be reclaimed (like Toronto, 2003), and compensation to owners where necessary too. They want the unsettled land back, and sacred land, and they want planning and development function in their legal lands ... things like that. I believe that is what the Paul Martin surplus was intended for ... at least that is where I will tell them to take my share from!! This is not a matter for opinion. We must uphold our own Constitution. That is Canadian law, and that is Inenational Law. Canada chooses to negotiate rather than litigate because that is expensive and Canada knows it will lose a legal battle. This has already taken place for Toronto, and is taking place for Haldimand.

It is not about guilt. However, remorse and respect and are in order, and restoration of legal rights denied. The treaties are validated by our Constitution (1982). That is the law. Ignoring them is no longer a possibility. That is why the government of Canada has already recognized title of the Mississaugas Nations to Toronto (2003), and is currently negotiating price. They are reclaiming their legal right to sovereignty, which has alweays existed but was ignored by Canada because they were to be assimilated. They choose sovereignty, not assimilation. Canada is not granting any new rights, but recognizing existing rights and titles, as per the Constitution (sec35), treaties, proclamations and agreements. Canada was careless about land surrenders ... most are not valid (land descriptions vague, etc.) ... because assimilation was the goal, but it was not realistic. We are a blip in time in Indigenous history, and not a good one in many ways. The traditional indigenous people have survived, despite attempts, and it is they who want the land and self governance. Yes, the Indian Act must go. The Canadian Band Councils ... at Six Nations, they voted for the traditional Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy Council to have power to negotiate land claims. They will regain independence through land and compensation. It is their business how they do self governance ... personally I think we have meddled quite enough.

The child mortality rate in remote indian communities was high quite at the time. Before you could come up with a list you would have to figure how many kids would have died anyways. (addressed above) Frankly, I have little patience for arguments that presume that people living today should feel guilty about what happened generations ago. There was a time when the native groups were independent nations that were politically distinct from the British colonies. However, that time is long gone and attempting to re-create it is a complete waste of time. Natives are simply another ethnic group in Canada that unfortunately have been given too many apartheid like rights under our existing constitution. We should do whatever we can to limit the scope and effect of these race based rights. We should definitely not be granting any new ones. Obviously, the endemic social problems in native communities have be caused in part by paternalistic gov't policies such as the Indian Act. So that means the gov't needs work to fix these problems. A form of self-government modelled on a municipal or private corporation is certainly worth considering. However, any remedy must respect the multi-ethnic nature of Canadian society which means the rights of an individual citizen can never be based on their DNA/race/ancestry. The traditional indigenous people have survived, despite attempts, and it is they who want the land and self governance. Yes, the Indian Act must go. The Canadian Band Councils ... at Six Nations, they voted for the traditional Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy Council to have power to negotiate land claims. They will regain independence through land and compensation. It is their business how they do self governance ... personally I think we have meddled quite enough.

This statement demonstrates how little you know about the issues. Mandatory public education is not genocide. Assimilation is not genocide. I gather you looked it up. Attempted destruction of a people ... by imposed assimilation ... genocide.

The child mortality rate in remote indian communities was high quite at the time. Before you could come up with a list you would have to figure how many kids would have died anyways. Your initial comment appeared to be a denial of genocide. Are you backtracking on that... After the age of 5 or 6 or 7 (it was supposed to be 7, but they did sometimes take younger ones too), the kids were only home in the summer. StatsCan has no data on residential schools available. I am a datahound ... and that is odd. This would have to be an ethnographic study, reports from family members. They have strong oral traditions, validated often enough for credibility by diaries of the time (eg lady simcoe). However, these are stories of personal tragedy ... very painful ... very private. They will tell it in their own time, when they are comfortable that it will be received respectfully. Who would tell a personal story in a forum where it might be dismissed as fabricated ... (!!) However, you can search ...residential schools, stories ... for some that are available online. There is a new book coming out, I believe ... A Little Matter of Genocide... I think that is the title. Can not remember author. Academic study. I just started reading this stuff after the blockade started. I live in Hamilton, and go there and support them on here too, and all Indigenous Nations. It is for their kids and the generations to come and ours too.

This statement demonstrates how little you know about the issues. How is that ... What do you mean ...

ok ... I have a couple more things to add: The Two Row Wampum Treaty (1600s) specified nation-to-nation status. It was incorporated into the Royal Proclamation (1763) which also addressed land rights. The Royal Proclamation was incorporated into the Canadian Constitution (1982). The legality of the Haldimand Proclamation (1784) which granted 6 miles deep on either side of the Grand to the Haudenosaunee is not in question. It is the legality of the surrenders that is questioned ... but International Law, current Canadian Law and even the law at that time renders most or all surrenders invalid. It was common practice then to write down some land description that may not be specific or accurate, and to accept whatever signatures were available or could be obtained through bribery. Also, the process seldom respected participatory democracy whereby the Chiefs brought the message (offer, etc.) to the people for ratification, even though this WAS part of the Canadian law at the time. The voice of the Indigenous people was simply not heard ... not listened to ... IGNORED ... that is why they could not do anything. If they tried to organize, revolt, they were killed. LOTS of Indigenous people have been killed by Canada. I look forward to a day when there will be a national monument to all the missing and dead children from the residential schools and adults from the streets and from resistance and rebellion. It will have to be a big friggin monument to hold all the names!!!

Maybe this will help: Link Link It would appear that Native leaders were in favour of education, but not assimilation. I'm not sure why it matters though. What is worse, implementing these policies or not objecting to them? The government had the power to end residential schools, Native leaders did not. If they voiced their objections, do you think they would have been heard? What about non-Natives who objected but went unheard (for example Dr. Peter Bryce)? It was the law at the time to attend residential schools, and those who objected would be removed forcibly. Should they have resisted, using violence if necessary? Wouldn't that create a situation like in Caledonia? I am in favour of indigenous self government ... they did it for thousands of years and we have a lot to learn about democracy from them, particularly the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy. Participatory democracy is amazing ... and we have the ability to do it now with tools like this discussion board. Residential schools ... Canadians need to be aware that our government is about to try to shove this under the rug again with a paltry payout to everyone who attended (which avoids public airing in court) and a whining statement that is no apology and is an insult to all of us. NO it is definitely not dealt with and it is not even history yet as it has not been understood well enough yet. If it was understood, there would be no questions about land rights and governance rights. Canada, right now, could be brought up to the International Court on charges of genocide ... attempting to destroy a people ... for the purpose of stealing their land and resources. The genocidal policies include the Indian Act that criminalized their religion and traditional governance (1924, at gunpoint at Six Nations, and again enforced violently in 1959), the unlawful surrenders of land (so traditional people could no longer sustain themselves on their land, nor sell it to gain economic independence), and 100 years - 6 GENERATIONS of abuse and attempted destruction of spirit. Some residential schools operated in some provinces since the early 1800s, and the Canadian government made residential schools mandatory for indigenous people living on reserves in the 1880s. The last residential school closed in 1986. This is not ancient history. Government policy was assimilation ... all indigenous children were to speak only English and be Christian and grow up to be good Canadians. The children were beaten, had needles pushed through their tongues for speaking their own language, were horribly horribly abused in the name of Canada. MANY died. Many babies born from sexual abuse by staff mysteriously died. Many ran away ... but they could not go home or they would be captured again, so they went to the city streets. Parents were told that if they did not send their kids to the schools, their kids would be taken away from them permanently ... and many were. The children were psychologically abused, turned against each other with threat and punishment ... their culture, and connections and social behaviour were ALL attacked to break the culture by breaking individual spirits of children ... those who did not submit ... it could only be called torture ... perhaps death. Parents had no say, no power, no recourse, and for their spirits had been damaged too ... six generations of destruction by Canada. The story has not NEARLY been told yet. Canada seems to conveniently forget its criminal acts, and that is not good enough for me ... for my country ... I expect better! Which is all leading to ... they want their land back, and proper compensation for its use for 200 years, so they can be economically independent. They want self governance. How they do it is none of our business. We have meddled quite enough ... but I do believe they should also be given Canadian citizenship IF THEY CHOOSE since that is what we tried to force down their throats ... dual citizenship ... Indigenous Nations and Canada. ...in my opinion. HATS OFF TO SIX NATIONS ... !!! Stay strong ... you will be successful because right is on your side!!