yam

What you shag are sinply these: a) your mother = dutch courage any woman of colour against het wishes because its the only way you feel power c) a sheep. This is where you feel most comfortable. They do not find the things you find stimulating. Rather, i bet they spew up without trace . . . . your name should be SS which means 'sheep shagger'. Not squaw shagger - in your dreams - well at least willingly in your dreams - rapist blood that is what you are. Canadian eager christian pale faces just dont have spark - right?

I actually do not know how you can look at your `self in the mirror every single day and be happy with yourself. I also dont know how anybody could EVER communicate with you positively. You are nothing short of a monster. And anybody that would not consider your chosen title is equally disgusting. You are the FILTH of the earth. If i had signed in as 'Christian Shagger' i would have been banned. You have not. It says everything about Canadian society. You are backward people. You have a lot to learn. There are many countries that support F/ns - sns in their fight against the canadian neanderthol. If you came to my countries - EU and one other you would be spat on at the safest and feel lucky. You would need police protection from all the people that would like to see you handicapped. . . . not dead but living in pain. You are a regressive people and have a world reputation for being so.

Certainly, good for comic relief. I was thinking more along the lines of having a party that fights for the environment, downtrodden etc.... but ya good for a laugh as well. I get a few chuckles from the blatant hypocracies of the conservatives, and the liberals are such a mess it might just be mean to laugh...but I will anyways Yes im sure they are laughing too . . . .all the way to the bank. . . .they just love your sense of humour!

Bah....I can turn into an asshole at the drop of a hat. What? You mean you can turn into an additional asshole at the drop of a hat.

Not a Dutch -but a Belguim colony, followed.

Rwanda, before it was a Belgium colony, was a German colony. At least that's the written history. The oral history may differ, but oral history is only as reliable as the ether its written on. Hey Nancy the Nazi!! Is that ALL you can remember . . . . and you even have it in written form . . .perhaps reading a full page was a little tiring for you was it? Like i said they were factioned off by the Dutch; REGARDLESS of whether Rwanda was initially colonised by the Germans or not. . . . The Germans did not seperate them into two spheres. The Dutch did - based on bone structure . . . something im sure you'd aspire to.

jpg et al The fact that people = are sheep is due to christianity which now is running parallel with propoganda. Here are some written references . . . since you cannot cope with oral history. It has been pointed out continually since Descartes whom said thinking is the proof of our humanity - nothing else will do. Spinoza revealed that the 'god' within us is in nature and self - not religion. Kant questioned what is enlightenment and argued to understand that you must break from the chains of bondage being the church. Hegel said thought is of the essence and Marx asserted religion is the opium of the people . . .an aid to block the empty condition of alienation. Which means man is alienated from himself and fellow human-beings. The Hutis and Tutsi's were factioned off from each other by the Dutch. before then they lived side by side without problems sharing same` social ammentities - mixed. (ref: can't remember but was a best seller) No their are no rules against name calling. The newest member is called "squaw Shagger" (ref: mapleleaf forum) Independence of thought we all dont have. We reflect the society we make (refs: Durhheim, Woodiwass, Althussar and more). Look you have much support in your political angle. it is good to have other people that share another angle so i hope "trial and error' does not leave the forum. You do not know Marxism let alone any errors he may or maynot have made (ref: yourself)

I must congratualte you on one thing. You have revealed the source of racism and its celebration of 'pig ignorance' . . . .CHRISTIANITY. You are Unbelievable.

Have to say I've lost a lot of empathy since reading some of this stuff and elsewhere, it sure has opened my eyes. Obviously, you never had empathy in the first place. Empathy is not self seeking and does not cater for vanities. Empathy is like a sponge - you soak it ALL up, get to know it and dont judge it. It is only then you might . . .. and only might start understanding without any reward whatsoever. However, you would then have a clear picture of justice and injustice. ________________________________________________________________________________ _ By the way you guys with the short attention span. It was told about 10 minutes of reading ago in this post that shape shifting is to do with a body manouvere and strategy that was taught to the army seals (soldiers) by some s/ns to surprise and kill members of the governments enemy. It is an army tactic. Now all of you, do yourself a favour and go drop a couple of acid tabs. It might just wake you up. We might even find you have an imagination afterall . . . .However id bet you would never make the grade of sheer and outright common sense. ___________________________________________________ To the aspiring SS guy who could never make it, including managing an erection and growing out of dypers. The reason for your problems is this: You are simply a spoilt pampered little baby that has never had a fight in his life and that has a closer than normal relationship with his mother. Im sure it puts a smile on her face. How on earth are you going to get laid otherwise?

i suppose they are in a rather dubious position right now to be outrightly hostile to Howard concerning his support of the US and its 'occupations' to install western democracy.

its good to chuckle

This is the bit of the article that bothers me is more to do with women and how far he wants 'integration' of gender equality here - as he says: "And if any migrants that come into this country have a different view, they better get rid of that view very quickly." "I don't retreat in any way from that. It doesn't involve singling out a group." PM John Howard I think forwarning migrants might be of help!! But the problem is of those that have lived there together for a few generations now without being told to do this. . . .it could get nasty and especially for the young women that were born in Australia and are muslim. They will have to meet dress codes etc of the West which in turn will have the effect of their families not allowing them to go into further education and get a career.

Apparently, if they were legal they would be much cheaper to buy. Which would decrease crime that is done to meet the high costs of them being illegal.

Are you advocating pure objectivity here? I dont know how the political side that taints most things could be excluded. if it was then would it not be risking something of an authoritarian state? Perhaps not though if the process was transparent. . . .accountable.

To have to edit and re-edit history in a wikipedia is proof enough that : 1) your written history is highly dubious otherise you would not have to keep re-writing it in educational texts every 10 years and on the wikipedia every 10 minutes. 2)That due to your inherent ten minute long attention span and even worse of a memory span, how on earth are you even able to comment on oral history? An experiment: Wait ten minutes from now and see if you remember what oral history actually is.

However, it is the nuts and bolts that finances the democracy/government and are far from two seperate things. Im not sure what you are driving at when you seperate the two. I agree that the economics of any given country is complex especially when dependent upon the international arena (stocks & shares). However, it is the core to any democracies existence and should be made accountable - somehow - to the citizens of any particualr nation. Something better than having to wade through the financial times - put it that way.

I see why your asking that because it runs parallel with the 'policing' of democracy. However, if we think of the monitoring as a protection from the erosoin of democracy we can then think of the monitors as fulfilling the role of the security guards for democracy. Today our governments canada/Uk/US lack accountability to its people. The 'security guards' could make sure they are accountable.

Im all for the government being monitored - over-seered. However, not in the same way as a board of directors in the private sphere would/does.

What? You trust the Wikipedia for knowledge . . . hell . . . hope you never site it as a resource!! Terrific mate. You trust something that is edited by anybody every ten minutes! They did commit suicide and there was much hysteria. Its accepted as common knowledge. Embarrassing or otherwise.

It is rather pointless to even use the word 'equality' if you want to twist the definition to mean 'if I like it then it is equality - if I don't like it then it is not equality'. In fact, abusing the term like that simply encourages others to adopt similar self serving definitions of equality and makes it even more difficult to build any sort of social concensus. Riverwind Nobody was speaking of like/dislike. Rather we are speaking of equality. Equal opportunity and more. Now you cannot say that for example a woman earning $7.00 an hour while doing the same job as a man that earns $12.00 an hour under the same employer, same conditions etc is Equal. What is so twisted about that is people support this and believe canada is for equality. It is not. Why pretend. Its no skin off of my nose. Besides this canadian tradition - you have in your country those that live with equality and social consensus. This is the Clan Mother System that could work thoroughly if freed from the government. Thus canadians get to live how they like and sns do too. Now that is equality of life choices. In fact canadians could learn a lot from the clan mother system here concerning government accountability and equality. However; if you want to haggle canadian taxation issue here dont bother there are plenty of other spaces for that. We are rather speaking/asking/or debating and learning about the Iroquois freedom of speech, equality and consensus in their tradition.

Indeed! Equity is the key - however - Id say this. Despite the issues that we have been debating, id hope that the six nations are sorting out something much larger outside of canada NOW (before waiting 10 yrs on some fat ol judge to make a favourable decision to himself or the others).. It is not impossible. Im sure they are. We know sns have allies that want to support each other economically outside the British and canadian context. . . .im guessing within the next ten years or so from what im reading about natural resources this will simply fall into place. Who knows - i maybe completely wrong but it is worth (for me) and much more for you - a cautious bet at least, especially when we consider geography, forget politics and focus on need! You could come up trumps! Ohhh if only we could speak freely. Nevermind common sense will suffice.

Since the post is all over the place im going to add and ask about mediating roles . . . .afterall we are speaking of freedom and tradition - let alone the past Role playing is all well and good. However; HOW can anybody be a 'mediater' between those that want to commit cultural genocide and those that dont? Afterall, you cannot evenly distribute genocide because it means complete anihilation. So you need to ask what is it that you are politely supporting here - six of one and half a dozen of the other does not cut it - There are many cases of land and cultural appropriation in reality - globally. Equality at this point in time is not symmetrical. We can only talk of symmetry when ALL stand in an equal social position concerning rights and justice. It is unfair to give the majority a head start and call it symmetrical and of equal opportunities when it is quite obvious there is a law for one group and a law for another. I wonder what your position would be as a 'mediator' between the catholic priests and those people that endured abuse. What would you say to the abused by way of councilling or 'compensation'. How would you explain to a victim why there molester is happily still offering up hail Mary's while in all probabilities bending over yet another vitim for the count? Afterall, this is precisely what mediators do.

The issue is not whether the land was granted to six nations - the issue is whether it was subsequently sold back to the gov't. Yes and some of it was and as iv been following, is it not also the size of land tract allegedly sold that is in dispute? However, iv found that what was sold off in general were small portions of land and not great strips of it. These plots though were not all sold back to the government but were apparently sold off to some of the trading establishements along the River. Which accordingly gets complicated because of what and how payments were made. RWind There is overwhelming documented evidence that the land was, in fact, sold back to the gov't. The only way that Six Nations can claim the land today is if they can show that the people who authorized the sales were not authorized to do so. This is a difficult thing to do since much of the land was sold by Brant himself. me Are you certain that this evidence is overwhelming. The reason why i ask is simply due to the continual stalwarting of the process which often is linked to a problem with evidence in general. me Ok yes Brant. I have read that this fella was a bit of a loose canon concerning the sale of small parcels of land. . . .yet this can be/has been linked to economic pressures since owed money from leased lands was not paid. Thus he had no choice but to sell to cater for the comminity. me Again though, i have also read that Brant "leased' land to companies and did not sell these tracts to the government per se because he knew they were valuable and useful to sns. The reason why it was leased was because they were of benefit to the people though they were not occupying it yet. So it makes sense that he would choose to lease out land that was not being or going to be occupied for this while (I do not know how long the lease was for. I also read that when Brant and sns returned, the leasee's had sold tracts of land without permission to the government ( id assume the lease then was over a long period of time for them to feel they could get away with or forget). me So we are perhaps having to look up a lot of transactions with traders who leased off of sns territory as well as some of Brant's more direct transactions he may have done without the consent of the wider community. IF the trading companies or traders alone did sell some of the land to the government then one has to face the prospect that the government was involved in illegal transactions. And it is at this point something any government would not wish to be called upon. Especially if it does involve huge tracts of land. R Wind That said, Brant was not involved in the final 1841 transfer so there _could_ be an argument that the 6 people who authorized the transfer did so fraudulently. me Could be, rather should be, but will it be if it was a fraud made with the canadian government? RWind However, even here the Six Nation's case is far from a slam dunk and depends entirely on how the SCC would interpret various legal precedents. The SCC upheld a land sale by the Ipperwash band in 1924 even though there was evidence that some band members opposed the sale - in other words, the SCC could decide that those 6 people did have the authority to sell the land even if the the oral tradition evidence shows some Six Nations chiefs opposed the sale. Me For me your last paragraph is the most worrying. It is the influence of the external law saying 'ok we acknowledge the oral tradition and will take it into consideration, but will not respect it as the system of law and order it is'. So this would complicate the whole process in a Canadian, or should i say greedy brit system. . . yet another spanner in the works. As you said even though SOME of the chiefs opposed the sale the 6 people were making, the SCC leaned to the six that MAY have been out of line. Importantly we would have to know how many opposed this because IF it was NOT a majority, the sns system (as iv read and pieced together) would go ahead based on a majority consensus (higher than 51% from my understanding of clan mother system) Verification or otherwise anybody? RWind In short, the Six Nations claims on the land are tenuous at best and depends on complicated legal arguments that can only be properly evaluted by judges and lawyers with expertise in these issues. me See this is why iv been "ranting" (not to mention that a complete philosophical tradition has been . . . ermmm "ranting")according to Spambumbino anyway, about the problems of interpretation (which he believes is irrelevent). Im hoping that at least you can see the concern here and how it can shape consequences. That was all i was originally speaking about anyway. . . though it is relevant here concerning KEY intentions As follows: me evaluated by judges and lawyers with the expertise . . . The thing here is that these experts are drawn from an adversarial legal system that does not represent sns system of governance. For a TRUE fair trial it would be imperative to have clan mothers present sns with equal weighting or more in power and status. The whole process would have to be monitored because in the last instance a final decision by a judge, an external judge at that, who is importantly only hearing the case from beginning to end in one go as opposed to 100s of time over as witnessed by the oral tradition. A judges power and final decision does not have to be based on evidence simply power, status and self interest (we have had a recent occurance of that already - judge owning some of the disputed land the mind boggles). In view of that then me It would seem that the evidence presented would have to be overwhelming, perhaps even more than usual to "corner" the judge out of empowered choice decision but into an honest, selfless verdict drawn from evidence. In other words to have a court filled with experts but not awarded titled experts the commoners you and I and are . . .which they extend to the sns people, are forced to assume are!!! RWind One final comment: the 1841 transfer explicitly excluded some lands around Brantford so Six Nations likely has a strong case for the return of those lands if those lands have been expropriated by the gov't (I am not sure because the 1841 legalese is hard to understand). However, those lands represent a small fraction of the Haldimand tract and would probably be a suitable basis for a compromise. me Well that's something i suppose but the negative thing here is, is that the required evidence from other sns land claims will be more than likely "moulded" upon the more clear cut evidence of this case.

I still think the middle road position is damaging to everything f/ns have been fighting for. The peace that is spoken about may sound `nice but i think that in reality it becomes a measure of assimilation/even cultural genocide of f/ns. Peace=conform with government reform. it is a PC way/tactic that eventually will lead to total anihilation. Therefore sides and real stands have to be taken.