Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne'

She:kon! I have already proven that Six Nations only receives about $1300 per capita in federal / provincial transfers so it is misleading to take the total budget of INAC and divide it up by person. The fact is that INAC spends the other $8700 per person in lucritive salaries, programs and services that benefit INAC government employees and never reach the reserve or urban Indians. You typical Canadian wasteful adminstrations in Ottawa are not our responsibilities. Deal with your own wasteful spending and garbage and take responsibility for your own failures in government. If you were Haudenosaunee you would be treated better. O:nen

She:kon! The problem with your supposition is that Canadians do NOT have "property rights" as one of their basic protections / freedoms. Therefore it is impossible before the courts to exercise a right you do not possess. However, through our right of possession we DO have property rights. O:nen

She:kon! Six Nation receives about $60 million a year in transfers. The interest on $30 billion amounts to $150 million a year. You figure out who paid for it. I've given you the clues. O:nen

She:kon! Riverspin, As Rotinosoni, I am the "leadership" My opinion not only counts in what is discussed at the negotiations but my decision on the matter will declare the final outcome. Your opinion - that others will not accept the proposal - is totally irrelevent since your "leaders" speak and resolve without your input or acceptance. We are in a better position to prescribe the result than you are at even understanding the problems. O:nen

She:kon! No. We are Haudenosaunee - a soveriegn and independent nation. I've already establish through fact that Six Nations does not receive welfare money (or education or or infrastructure monies etc.) from Canada. The transfers that Six receives are only about 1/3 of the interest monies on the $30 billion trust account that Canada holds on behalf of Six Nations. At the rate they are going with interest and infaltion that trust is growing by about $1 billion every 8 years (compounded it could be every 4 years). So get off you high horse and face the facts. Canada owes us, not the other way around. O:nen

She:kon! Riverspin, In 200 years of illegal occupation it is likely that through land speculation, industrial and commercial development and resource extraction, the benefits you have gained in that time have surpassed that $1 trillion value 10 times. If it takes you 40 years to pay off your debt then so what? You will be able to look to tax relief 40 years from now after the injustice has been restored and know that your account is settled. Otherwise we can make this drag on so that your children and grandchildren incur a compounded debt of $50 trillion for your inaction today. At some point you have to own up to your debt and pay back what you owe.....of course if this is the path of settlement that we agree upon........ We already discussed these options at length and your attempts to re-spin everything that has already been said in hopes that you can spin the facts around once again is simply a waste of everyone's time. I would suggest to Bluebird that she not allow herself to be abused by your incessent and obscessive denial of the facts and options of this issue. O:nen

She:kon! Oral history is not recorded in the way YOUR memory as a post-european is made. YOU have lost your ability to remember. The oral history is recorded and repeated until the learner can repeat it in the same manner as it was taught. Wampum belts are used to remind the speaker of certain aspects of an agreement or event. In fact I can look at the Hiawatha Belt and recite the not only the majority points of the Great Law, but by using the symbols contained within the belt layout, I can recall the original story of the Peacemaker's coming. And while I may not have all of the details intact (not being a fully practiced oral historian) I can repeat the core of the historical information in much the way it was taught to me by many people. I have also experimented by taking stones from different places I have visted and by picking up the stone later and examining it I can recall the place and the events that occurred when I was there. This "practice" hones ones ability not only to remember what was said and what is witnessed, but improves my ability to recall more detail than I might have had I relied upon the inconsistent distracted memory methods of mainstream thinkers. The problem in the mainstream is that you are often preparing for something say while other things are being said, rather than listening carefully to the response. This leads to miscommunication and often requires someone to repeat themselves a number of times (just look at the people on this discussion forum) before even one point gets through. The latest theory of the occupation of the Americas is that since tetonic plate movement separated the Americas from Africa (Central America was connected to North Africa) it is more likely the migrations occurred directly from Africa at the same time that the early hominids migrated north. If this is confirmed through archaeological research then it is possible that homo sapien development occurred simultaneously in the Americas at the same times as the African /Middle Eastern evolution. You must rmember that the Bering Strait theory was held as the only possibility for a long time. It has always been believed that native people migrated here from another place (which was used to support the "terrus nullus" declaration). The idea that native people pre-existed the Bering Strait ice bridge between 12,000 and 14,000 years ago was never challenged until recently and in a very short time they have confirmed that human occupation here preceded the human occupation of Eurasia. Marshall Ruling Point 14 of the Evidentiary Sources ". . . when considering a treaty, a court must take into account the context in which the treaties were negotiated, concluded and committed to writing. The treaties, as written documents, recorded an agreement that had already been reached orally and they did not always record the full extent of the oral agreement" "As a result, it is well settled that the words in the treaty must not be interpreted in their strict technical sense nor subjected to rigid modern rules of construction." One other point that arose out of the Marshall Case is that: "The Court held that exclusive occupation need not require proof that the aboriginal group physically excluded all others from the lands in question. Rather, the group had to demonstrate that it had “effective control” of the land — the ability to exclude others if it had chosen to do so. " This is relative to the argument that Six Nations still had control over the Haldimand Tract over the centuries even if they did not have exclusive occupation. O:nen

She:kon! A number of scientists have postulated that the "Americas to Asia" migration is highly likely. Their present task has been to study the timelines of occupation in comparison. Aslo remember the the archaeology of the Americas is relatively young, and given that the maximum occupation dates have changed from aout 15,000 to 50,000 through discoveries in the last 30 years, it is likely they will find evidence of earlier occupations before they are through. The oldest known archaeology of the Americas dates back 50,000 years nearly 15,000 years before Europe was populated from Africa. The Archaeological trend in the Americas appears to have formed from central America to the north and to the south. Oral history is not the same as mainstream rote. Europeans, by writing things down have actually limited their ability to forward accurate history and have lost their ability to remember in the way that oral history advances its accuracy. Oral history does not rely upon the story or recollection of one or two people. The information is held by many people - each with the ability to test their sources and reconfirm the accuracy through the relationship with the previous storey telling. If the story only traced back to once one source - even over a number of generations - if would be suspect. However, oral history does not signify one source but traces back through a multitude of generations to multiple sources - multiple witnesses - that tell relatively the same story. And so if there were a 100 witness to an event and they each tell a slightly different viewpoint (which is likely, given the differences between individuals) then the bias in their story will appear as inconsistencies and the facts will occur in the commonality. Written history however, is plagued with bias. It is told only from the perspective of one point of view and even though the authors may consult with many people, it is still limited to the bias of the writer when it is recorded. It is difficult to separate the bias from the written history because the writer often confuses their own bais with the facts and then presents all as a historical record. Yet we find many inconsistencies between a multitude of texts from different authors, the historical agencies tend to legitimize one or two only based on their own particular bias and dismiss the others as being innaccurate. Your Supreme Court has weighed this problem out between the historical record often prepared by the British, and native oral history, and recognizing the greater potential for bias in the written record has ruled that oral history must be given equal or greater weight, when the sources can be confirmed. Oral history is not a collection of fantasy promoted as truth. It is truth often altered only in the insignificant details while holding the major facts relatively unaltered. On the other hand the historical writer begins "his-story" from the basis of a conclusion and then fills in the details. In many cases the conclusion is wrong from the beginning and so any details he provides to support his conclusion are equally wrong. O:nen

She:kon! "Brother! Continue to listen. You say that you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeably to his mind; and if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost. How do you know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book. If it was intended for us as well as for you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us; and not only to us, but why did he not give to our forefathers the knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white people? Brother! You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book? Brother! We do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers and has been handed down, father to son. We also have a religion, which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us, their children. We worship that way. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we received, to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion. Brother! The Great Spirit has made us all. But he has made a great difference between his white and red children. He has given us a different complexion and different customs. To you he has given the arts; to these he has not opened our eyes. We know these things to be true. Since he has made so great a difference between us in other things, why may not we conclude that he has given us a different religion, according to our understanding? The Great Spirit does right. He knows what is best for his children. We are satisfied. Brother! We do not wish to destroy your religion, or to take it from you. We only want to enjoy our own." Red Jacket, Seneca Sachem May 1811 O:nen

She:kon! No abandonment. We put the land in control of our Mississauga cousins 40 years previous at a ceremony at Taiagon (Toronto). It was recorded by the British and witnessed in a trader's journal. At the same ceremony, the Mississaugas joined the Covanent Chain with the British and our ancestors as witnesses. When we returned, our ancestors brought many from the Mohawk valley with them (via Kanehse'take). Those whose home was in the south (with Joseph Brant) were in fear of retaliation for siding with the British in the AM. Rev. as well as becoming tired of the broken promises and treaties that we suppose to protect them from expansion. Many ended up staying in the south and Brant led people here to already established Haudenosaunee villages and homeland. There was no "grant" or "purchase" Read the Proclamation! It was a recognition of our sovereign lands and a vow to prevent the same kind of encroachment that happened in the US. The Crown had no hold over the land and recognized that fact in the Royal Proclamation 1763. These things are all consistent and clear. What is not consistent is that The Crown ever held title over ANY of Canada. The Hudson Bay purchase was merely a transfer of sales territory - much like Fuller Brush company might purchase the exclusive rights to market a product from Amway....... All the lands set out by the Royal Proclamation and treaties only cover settlers sharing the lands for their livelyhood and resource rights were maintained under the control of the First Nations. O:nen

She:kon! Our people returned to re-occupy our north shore lands after about a 40 year hiatus. The Mississaugas were here only by our treaty agreement with them and when we had indicated our return about 5 years before the trip, most of them returned to their North Shore of Superior homelands. The British offered the few remaining bands a free trip home. There was never any sale, or purchase from the Mississaugas by the British on our behalf. That's silly. We still hold the Two Spoons One Bowl Wampum treaty with the Mississaugas that allow either to live and hunt in each other's territory. As late as the 1600's many of our people co-habitated in villages along the lake shores with our Mississauga cousins and intermarried such that our nations were joined by families. Even today you will find common names shared between many Haudenosaunee and the Mississaugas living in the same territories that we did way back when. The land has always been ours and will always be ours "as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow". O:nen

She:kon! Wrong! There are archaeological records of Haudenosaunee Confederacy occupation of the north shores of Erie, Ontario and St Lawrence to Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe Trent River and Ottawa River that date better than 1000 years ago. Our occupation never cease. A "proclamation" doesn't sell land, it recognizes it! O:nen

She:kon! Jerry, Did you wake up a little more groggy than usual today? Or is it just a genetic flaw? I suppose you don't wouldn't know any better, not having good listening skills and all. However, we have not only a precise recollection of the transaction but the intent as well, in our oral history. It has been established in your Supreme Court that our oral history has as much legitimacy as any possible written history (which has been determined by the SCC to be inherently biased on many occasions). We can tell you the intent and the nuance and disputes of every agreement ever made. This quote is about as moronic as they come. Native people were never "conquered". I suggest you ~prove~ your point, or retract it. Native people do not have any "special" rights. We have fundemental rights that all human beings are entitled to. However, YOUR rights have been seriously restricted because the government believes that you are incapable of self-regulating yourselves. And from what I have read about your violent history, tortuous past and inhumane present generally speaking, I would tend to agree with them. Even in your latest post, given the full reign by the adminstrators to use your right to free speech and freedom of thought, you abuse it by making deliberately inciteful statements that have no basis in truth and either stem from a very ignorant and hick-like mentality or one of hate and advancement of racism. You fool no one except yourself The rest of your post is absolute bunk. On another note, Canada should amend the Charter to ban stupid people from the internet. They represent the worst scourge to the information superhighway since road kill became an Alberta renecks favourite delicacy...... O:nen

She:kon! You make this so easy FTA..... Canada is NOT a sovereign state. Six nations is. And the Crown's sovereignty is limited by the Royal proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. The Crown never held sovereignty over these lands by their own declarations! The fact that Canada refuses to recognize Six Nations' sovereign right becomes irrelevent since the Crown does and even prescribes that those rights exceed the right of Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are a sovereign and independent state. You neighbour doesn't have and land. He's actually standing on my land and try to asser t I have no right to it. O:nen

She:kon! Six Nations 2003 Annual Budget The total transfer to Six Nations from the federal and provincial governments in 2003 was about $39,000,000 Divide that by about 22,000 residents it comes out to about $1772 for every man women child and old person, to cover health, housing, education and social services, roads, and administration. On the other hand, a medium city like Waterloo receives about $8,000 per capita in transfers. Given that our trust fund is over $30 billion the amount is hardly equitible. BTW the INAC budget covers programes and services that benefit INAC employees and should not be used as raw data to calculate Indian benefit. That would be like saying that if we add in the $120 billion civil service budget to the calculation for non-natives, the net benefit would be well over $400,000 per capita in government transfers.... O:nen

She:kon! Six Nations IS conducting itself to the rule of law and in with significant civility. EVERY confrontation has been the result of an outside attack and or instigation by the Caledonians. So before you go making sweeping gneralizations about something you know nothing about, I would suggest that you take the advanced course on Haudenosaunee history. We have fully honoured every single agreement and treaty we ever entered into. And given that Canada has violated its own rule of law by ignoring the Royal Proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation, then they are guilty by your declaration! The assertion and defense of sovereignty is a right reinforced and protected by the UN. (Look at Israel's actions as example). The international law is in our favour. Canada refuses to participate in an international forum to arbitrate these issues. Instead they have attempted over the years to keep their abhorrent actions secret and censored from the world's scruitiny. Currently, for the second time in about 3 years, the UN has condemned Canada's treatment of aboriginals. You can't believe for a moment that they would accuse us that asserting our sovereign right is unlawful........ O:nen

She:kon! One of our largest tradiing partners has always been the British and Canadians. We buy, we grow and we sell products in exchange for other goods and services as a sovereign state. Granted sovereign states can trade with whomever they want and they are within their rights to impose trade embargos, this was a deliberate attempt to further the genocide against our people by starving them and impoverishing them until they submitted to the greedy agendas of the government. However, the act did not break us and we managed. It actually enhanced our concept of nationhood and sovereignty. Now instead of relying only upon Canada for trade goods we have diversified and enjoy trade agreements with many countries around the world. The problem with your preposition is that the money coming into any of our territories doesn't belong to you. Canada holds a trust account worth in excess today of $30 billion the $50 or so million that Canada funnels to us doesn't even dent the interest rate on that trust. So essentially based on a minimal 5% interest the trust is growing by $100,000,000 per year (...every 7 years another $1 billion is added to the trust). Our health care, our educational funds, our infrastructure and adminstration are all paid out of the trust interest. Certainly we could take the whole $30 billion and invest it ours and divest ourselves of Canada. However, your country cannot afford a lump sum payment. They even have trouble paying us the full interest every year. You could cut us off bu not without vacating Kitchener-Waterloo and all the other occupied cities and towns in the Haldimand Tract and paying off your $30 billion debt. The issue of taxation is a another funny but useless crack, since we don't have or need to tax our citizens. On the other hand taxation is completely your debt to yourself. There are very few racists among Haudenosaunee. Our society is based on the principles of equtiy and equality and so it is unlikely that your friend interpreted his rejection the way you relate it. However, as onkwehon:we we are cpable of recognizing the vast difference in thinking. Your societal world view is based on violence and destruction. It is more likely that the thinking system was rejected and not the person...... __________________________________________________________________ That's a good observation. However, justice in Canada isn't equitible and therefore by default you just reinforced my point that it is also inequal. There are thousands of examples - from the disproportionate populations of your prisons to the gates of Bre-ex that demonstrate just how unequally weighted your justice system is. And so your fundedmental principles of equality collapse because justice is inequitible. That's absurd! The purpose of rights is that they are beyond control! They are guarantees that the basic human precepts will be preserved and protected inspite of the majority. And the more a society truly becomes equal and equitible by recognizing all foundational rights the more the majority begins to disappear as a source of authority. It is no wonder this concept scares you because no doubt you consider yourself as one of the majority! O:nen

She:kon! Get over your silly sensibilities for golly gosh darn sakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The internet full of inuendo and hyperbole. Discussion boards are places of creative thought without the confinement of body language or facial expressions. If you are reading into ~anything~ then it is happening all in your own mind and you should be chatising yourself for being so sensitive to nothingness instead of me having to do it for you!!!!!! THIS IS SHOUTING!!!!!!! THIS IS JUST creative expression that replaces verbal tonal emphasis that would otherwise be noticed if we were having a face-face discussion. Get over your misconceptions. They are disturbing the flow..... O:nen

She:kon! Actually it is not. The equality movement (you should already know this being a Conservative invention) was created in order to throw people of all backgrounds and origins into a melting pot of minorities (this includes women, as well). The idea was that the majority - the anglo-saxon Christian male - could over rule the petitions of the minority and when they did make amends on the basis of fairness they could say that they treated everyone "equally" merely because they address a micro-segment of the minority issues. However, true equality does not come without equity. An equality movement that is built on the rule of the majority (the majority cannot be trusted to care for the interests of the minority) without equity is actually racist and unequal. An equitible society, however, MUST also be an equal society where justice and human rights are not controlled by the majority but but the equtible rights of the minority. Such rights when recognizing them, do not infract the rights of the majority, but in fact enhance the rights of all people, equally. Your society is so unequal and inequitible it isn't funny. When one group - such as gays and lesbians as example - must fight the majority for their inalienable rights as human beings then there is nothing equal about it. And even though the charter guarantees Canadian rights, the approach of the majority has been for the one whose rights have been trampled on to prove that he was infringed. That is hardly a just or equal society but one that is disparagingly racist and biased. On Freedom And an orator said, "Speak to us of Freedom." And he answered: At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom, Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them. Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff. And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment. You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief, But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound. And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour? In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes. And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free? If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead. You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them. And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride? And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you. And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared. Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape. These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling. And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light. And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom. The Prophet, Kahlil Gibran

She:kon! Didn't call you any names either. maybe you should go back and read what I said!!!!!!!!! It is short and sweet. Put aside what you want it to read!!!!!! {Geez.....Anything to pick a fight off-topic. That is typical of internet nubes as well, although they don't seem to as practiced at as you are........} O:nen

She:kon! I see you draught your sensitivity by example too! There were no insults. You did that to yourself. O:nen

She:kon! Nope. We're demanding equity (not equality - we're not interested in joining your society or your corporate business you call Canada). O:nen

She:kon! No your example is more like an internet nube that hasn't learned what the caps lock button is for. Using exclamations denotes emphasis. I get it and I'm sure so do many others....... However if you are jaded by irrelevent symbols then good luck to you!!!!!!!!! O:nen

She:kon! Nope. We defend. The level of that defense will depend on the level of the aggression against us. We are aware that you and the rest of Canadians are willing to kill however. Dudley George would agree with me, I'm sure. So our preparations for our defense must include the inevitiblty that killing might be necessary. Never underestimate a Mohawk Warrior. They train US Special Forces and Navy Seals because they have an exceptional level of self-discipline. Your only fear should be for the lack of discipline your pimply-faced society misfit armed forces personel. At Oka, just the sight of a warrior had them crapping their pants. Even with only 25 warriors holding against 3000 troops we still had the misfits outnumbered. O:nen

She:kon! We would be willing to kill to defend our position. There would be no outward act of aggression on our part. We are sworn to uphold the peace. But like policeman and reservists sometimes it is necessary to remove a direct threat. However, should military invasion be contemplated by your leaders, then they would be fair targets....and your cities and towns become the battlefields. That is what happens when one becomes the aggressor against us. We strike back with venomous tenacity. O:nen