yam

Skyclad you are being very elusive here. You have just admitted that the gift was reviewed due to the abuse of land selling. A gift is a gift. You never said in the first instance that it was conditional now you do. Now you seem to be saying that this tract of land was not given for helping the Brits in the war, rather that it was lent out for hunting and fishing? The Royal proclamation did not state the above. The proclamation as far as i can gather, has been dumped by canada to put it crudely to favour the GGs control. Perhaps he should have represented it. But no, he rather took control over and beyond it. Hence what we are debatibg now. As for what you wrote concerning freedom of speech, see the links Gayo listed in post 10. Also ask Tsi to help. He's got news for you concerning the freedom and consensual nature of the clan mother system. I picked at him elsewhere and he still kept coming back with info that flys inthe face of what you described. This area is his/her forte.

Ok Skyclad Im not being akward so i still have to ask this Lets just say/ pretend for argument sake (to straighten this out a little) that the land was given as a gift by the British . . as you have said. Then it still surely means that all these years later that gift still remains in the hands of the six nations as owners since the gift would be ownership of these lands. Thereby it is still not the property of Canada. Thus as you say land was offered and nobody was obligated = a gift. So Brandt signed the papers. Good. I dont have a problem with this so what is the problem with the canadians here if what you say is the case? However, without pretence and in truth the mohawks did own the haldiman track even though they lived in the US for a while. It certainly was not new to them since they hunted and farmed these lands earlier ( i think sometimes seasonal rotations etc). And these lands were always occupied one way or another they were never fully abandoned were they? So the land still belongs to the Haudenosaunee despite the govener general's later interpretation of events when they returned from US to arrive at Canada's subsequent ownership ammendments i presume?

Unfortunately we should do. . . . until governments get the feeling that the public wants accountability. Otherwise we will suffer the effects of mismanagement or from being lied to.

And it was dismissed indeed. It became a joke! Really, why would outright "execution" be mentioned other than to twist the logic behind what the poster was saying. And to bring out "ovens" in comparison to Nazi gas chambers? If there is any comparison to be made at all with those dreaded ovens....those disgusting "safe injection" sites really fit the bill! The Jews were lied into thinking they were just going to have a shower to rid themselves of lice and other vermins. Just like these brain-fried addicts AND THE SUPPORTING PUBLIC are being lied into thinking this is for the good of our society! im not kidding but i think you might have a point here. . . though horrifying as it is.

Rue It is well and good you support six nations (as i do). And you are a very considerate person. However, in supporting the settlers also, as you claim to do for peace and to live side by side, do you not think there is a flaw in your support of anything? in other words HOW can you support both positions when they are each at the opposite side? Its a nihilistic position since each one seeks to eliminate the other. To take a 'middle of the road' position is damaging. It equates in physical land claim terms to allowing only SOME fns or sns getting their land back. While for the canadian residents it implies that they will have to pay half of the trillion` dollars owed which im thinking they will still contest. This is the nature of liberal peace`deals. They serve to keep peace for a little while but do not solve the problem. Invariably, due more often than not the unsorted problems will flair up again - dezspite whatever reformed/halved compensation either party recieved to "brush it all under the carpet' for peace sake.

Im for the opposite Geoffrey. I would think that any students would also be be. Afterall, it is making news which suggests that people want to keep informed. For you it would be practical to simply ignore this subject.

I'm sure you can easily note that there was never a denial of the actual issue. In fact, if you wade back to the beginning of this mess you'll see that the only defensiveness that arose came from Tsi and Gay after being asked to provide evidence for their assertions of sovereignty and independence. Yes, some were insulting towards them, but those idiots are not important. What matters is that, like cornered animals, they both lashed out whenever a logical question was asked, throwing insults along the way at people who had never directed similar treatment towards them. You're right that such behaviour degrades the discussion and blocks the road to truth. However, you're looking the wrong direction when placing your blame for the degradation - it's obvious that every non-Native, and even some Natives, besides me it seems, left this discussion because they were sick of battling against defensive Indians. This doesn't address the point that the truth safely guarded by the Royaners was, in this case, untrue right from the very beginning. If you're speaking of me specifically, I'd like to know where I treated Tsi and Gay's claims as a threat to Canada. Further, I never said non-Native history was untainted. But, I've been working off the actual texts from the time - so I'm reading these things through no gauze of interpretation, meaning there's no possibility of historical bias. Tsi says the historical texts are backed up by First Nations' oral history, but, in this specific instance what's contained within the documents contradicts what Tsi is claiming. He's been asked to explain this, amongst other things, and never did. The only way such analysis would matter is if you're attempting to assert that the supposedly superior awareness of the Six Nations caused them, back in 1784, to interperet the words "sovereignty of the Crown" in a different manner to the agents of the Crown with which they were dealing. Perhaps this was the case, the misinterpretation of the Haldimand Proclamation we still see today had to stem from somewhere. But, even if it were true, what does it mean now? The Lieutenant Governor worked out a deal with the Six Nations - it was not imposed on them; it was a conclusion reached through discussion with the chiefs, and the chiefs consented to it. That means the Six Nations are still bound by the proclamation, despite any misinterpretation. That’s a basic tenet of law - if you sign a contract you don't understand, you're still bound by that contract. Any court of law will uphold that fact, as they have been doing with this Grand River issue since the mid 1800s. I might venture to suggest that you adhere to your own criticism of others: "Such defense disables thorough communication and becomes self gratuitous as a weapon. It drastically cheapens what would otherwise be a valuable endeavour to truth." No, I don't know them, but then, I don't know Ukrainian-Canadians either, though I share the same land with them; one can't know everything. That, of course, doesn't mean I don't want to know, and in this instance I thought I might learn something - there seemed to be a window of opportunity. Admittedly, my immediate reaction to Tsi's assertions of Six Nations sovereignty was that they were baseless, I had never heard of any such thing as another, unknown, independent state on the North American continent. So, I challenged them by asking questions and presenting contrary evidence - that's what debate is all about. In any debate I am willing to be proven wrong. But not once was a sufficient answer or counter argument given. All I got was oral history, oral history, oral history - but not once were any specific excerpts of the oral history actually quoted. Futher, questions about the proclamations and modern passports, financing, laws, etc. were simply ignored or dismissed with one line, further baseless answers like 'political prisoners" and "Canada is a colony of Britain." Why then, in the absence of any real, supported alternative, should I believe anything other than what I already know? From what I've seen here it seems the Six Nations history of the Haldimand Tract needs a good bit of patching up as well. History is, generally, a summing up of past events based on the evidence we have in hand today. As Tsi has pointed out, on occasion First Nations oral history has supported what has been written of history by non-Natives - it has been used as a form of confirmation. But, in this specific case of the sovereignty of the Haldimand Tract and the Six Nations who live on it, the evidence in hand (read: not the historical interpretation), from past and present, contradicts what the oral history is stating. Therein lies the biggest problem for Tsi and his compatriots - it has nothing to do with the philosophical nature of human interpretations of history, and everything to do with the concrete proof that can't be denied. As they say on CSI: "the evidence doesn't lie." So, still, we wait for the data that undeniably affirms that Six Nations are a sovereign people living in an independent state beyond the laws of Canada. Bamboozled bambi We are not on the Caladonia specific thread!!! We are on the thread that engages 'Freedom of Speech, An Iroquoian Tradition!!! Hence what i addressed in the post that you challenge IS the problem of Written history and ITS consequences to FREEDOM let alone freedom of SPEECH per se! So when you point out to me that the Haudenosaunee tradition of protecting the truth is IRRELEVANT to what is at issue, it may be for you but not to the topic at hand!! For YOU the issue is of CALADONIA, for the thread topic it is the issue of the tradition of freedom of speech - you can see how not only have you misinterpreted my point but also the entire thread. I brought up the Iroquian tradition and you went straight into sovereign title deads - what gives? My point was about philosophy and freedom/fact and interpretation world wide from BEFORE the enlightenment period - again what gives? How you read my point was in the following way " The only way such an analysis matters " . . . Who the phuck are you anyway/ have you read the whole history of philosophy and the philosophy of history and have you read anything of the Iroquoian tradition? You literally say IT IS ONLY RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF THE HALDIMAN TRACT. Tut, tut - i should have realised that world history was written to relflect Caladonia and the Haldiman tract!! You further assert: " If you are trying to show the supposedly superior awareness of six nations and how they misinterpreted the words sovereignty and the crown blah blah blah . . . . .". Again yet another over defensive exceedingly poor strategy. YOU ATTACHED CROWN AND SOVEREIGNTY to what was a point concerning the making of history and its interpretation. I was making a point that the METHOD of the Haudenosaunee people for guarding the truth (of all things - not just the ruddy sovereignty and crown issue) was and is remarkably advanced concerning INTERPTETATION and MEANING of HISTORY not just Caladonian issues. You next point is to try and venture to call me a redneck - why venture/ Just call me it if you want to - i dont particularly care - simply because: You dont know the meaning of redneck. In order to save face dont venture an opinion about my assertions being redneck. . . . actually a redneck opinion would be calling me a "commie bastid" For North Americans anybody that stands their corner alone and does not 'believe' or follow the nations propoganda is a redneck or a commie (because they do not know the difference). You next refer to the law and contracts. You say that if a contract is signed (in reference to property ownership) by mistake or without comprehension of its meaning (such as revoking ownership without the signee knowing this), it then is tough s*it or appeal is null and void. Now YOU are speaking of an external law to the six nations. A Canadian law belonging to the new arrivals, that was imposed years after the six nations occupation, but nonetheless imposed by the new sqatters to take ownership and title deeds away from the original occupiers of the land. An act of changing history yet again. . . oh but you think that is irrelevent PERHAPS they were signed ( i dont really think so though) and without full comprehension as other nations have accidently done so. However, what you fail to realise is that those signing had to deal with the archaic English language!! How on earth could those targeted know the pitfalls here? We are essentially speaking of a "con job" and lies to the six nations. Which would be proved by them SIGNING something to their disadvantage and would`NOT sign if they knew the meaning. It would be that obvious and could be appealed on compassionate grounds. Again, I DO NOT THINK THIS IS THE CASE AT POINT. Besides, the treaty should have been written and spoken in the Mohawk language ALSO for a start. . . .You only think this assertion is absurd because you doff ya little cap to colonialism. With that in mind i will` give you an analogy to make the point. When YOU signed your title deeds i bet they were NOT written in JAPANESE and you did not have to quickly go on a seven year course to learn japanese ( it takes about seven yrs to learn english - thoroughly) in order to be able to know what you were signing did you? IF and i mean it more hypothetically since the sns do possess records, anything was signed by six nations that throws the issue of land ownership out, they still can fly the banner of attempted or outright FRAUD by the government . . .not to mention COERCION and THREATS of taking the lAND AWAY IF THEY DONT. When i mentioned that Canadian history is STILL undergoing a 'patch up jobby' or a 'face lift' (to save face in the international community) i really mean it and it is true. Now if you read Gayogoho's most recent posts you will see exactly HOW the government is going to ATTEMPT that. In a nut shell it is going to pass a law that denies any investigation of treatise rights beyond 40 years!!!! THAT WILL ENABLE THEM TO : 1) Appropriate ALL the disputed lands in Canada 2) to re-write canadian history for the next generations to come 3) to wipe out any written validation for any fn and sns very existence (let alone property). It is a VIOLENT act of cultural genocide - nothing more or nothing less. Now can you see the importance of history and its interpretation and the problems of interpretation? Do you STILL think that this is irrelevent? History see's historians, philosophers, sociologists and more see the relevance but none MORE SO than its VICTIMS. Still irrelevant to you? Who is the redneck again? Your next muddled tactic is to switch back to the problem of oral history and ownership rights of the Haldiman tract. You say the problem is not interpretation it is to do with evidence. Id STILL argue the opposite. The way new laws and policy are formed around old laws, policies and treatise is completely reliant upon ARCHAIC and shoddy imcomplete wording. It is a ticket for double meaning and misinterpretation which allows for there CONTINUAL ammendements. By the way Evidence does not lie but its misinterpretation does - there is a complete sociological school of thought in this There is also a philosophical school of thought in this. There is a linguistic school of thought in this. There is a school of thought in law in this . . not to mention a school of thought in communications, global studies, media studies . . . shall i go on? Real hard and factual evidence is supplied by science and the social`sciences. But the idiots/greedy merchants etc that sponsor the research OFTEN "misinterpret" (twist) the real facts to suit there own ends. This is how corporate business functions. If it paid attention to truth they would be out of business. This is how the lumber industry works, this is how fishing laws work and more. Evidence can simply be rewritten just as history IS re-written.

. . . . some link up the debate to life after birth say if the child is severely handicapped etc. Trouble is all of these issues are circular. Perhaps there is no definitive conclusion concerning the rights and wrongs . . . of moral issues. Life would be much simpler if there was. But then we'd all run the risk of stagnation in our capacity to progress.

I read history; NOT propogander. Your nothing but a right wing, home grown clone.

In other words your convictions are CRAP concerning each of your assertions.

Tsi - i was targeting 'whose doing what' - NOT SNs. And was playing on his idea of "his" property - that might blow up in his face as it were one way or the other

Say your initials are missing the last K, regardlful . . . I hope you dont mind if i call you "Dick" . . . . . . .for short ey

I hope you dont mind if i call you "Dick" . . . .for short

yes and they could get into customised wheel chairs too!

Would it not be better to eliminate those things that drive people to drugs and dependency in the first place? As the majority are concerned with how their salaries will be effected, surely elimination of its cause would eventually be cost effective - not to mention humane even if it is not your concern.

Im confused - I thought nobody knew how much estimated oil Saudi Arabia has let alone proven. Some argue how far over or otherwise they are in the scale of peak production.

What you call mine, mine, mine is an object that happens to be sitting in a mine field . . . of contention . . . for you at present. Though contention may prove to be pretty explosive stuff . . . . what!

Bumblingbambi I was speaking of the problem of written history. However, i was adopting a western/european approach. Adopting, because i was reitterating a problem that has been recognised down through the ages in Europe concerning the misinterpretation of 'their own' history. Needless to say other countries in the world have had this problem too and have jumped upon the philosophical tradition of unravelling their written history (which includes the US by the way) - i dont know about Canada per se. But by all accounts the latter's written history has abandoned the history of Canadian geography/borders one way or another. However, I was endeavouring to pick up on the points Tsi made because they quite simply reminded me about Merleau - Ponty which further bounced into other european philosophers. And in doing so i was making a comparrison of Tsi's points with theirs which have been engaged with historically, through the meidum of philosophy. Now philosophy is the tool which digs deep into every single assumption made in history in its written form due to its alleged duty in being the gate keeper of truth while succumbing to its propensity for misinterpretation, much political bias and the interpretation of language between borders. I was NOT including the possibility of sns oratators misinterpretations or otherwise. It was NOT the point or purpose of my response to Tsi. Rather, to elaborate that misinterpretation of history is a documented WORLD phenomenon. I dont just dive in. Tsi may have wanted to engage with the above or not. If he had we would have no doubt broached the pluses and minuses of the oral tradition that he has outlined numerous times - remember?. But i guess Tsi's getting sick of having to wade through defensive canadians even though we are speaking of an issue recognised the world over!! Such defense disables thorough communication and becomes self gratuitous as a weapon. It drasticallycheapens what would otherwise be a valuable endeavour to truth. What i do know of the Mohawk tradition is not grounded yet in consciousness (due to the fickle nature of the forum) but i do know 9as you should too by the`way) that interpretation of every single historical event is safely guarded by three Royaners present for the sake of the clan mothers and the whole community. It is more complicated than how i have jotted this down. But they have cared greatly about this down through the ages, indeed its the core of their existence. How could they be what they are today without what they were in history? ALL of this he has written for you and I by the way! Why do you think everything is a personal attack on Canada? Europeans easily admit to misinterpretation of their histories and are compelled to debate it and seek to contextualise even as we speak despite the end product as truthful or otherwise - many now say written history = partial truths (especially the 'critical realist' school of thought). You canadians (in general) are always of the opinion that you never make errors and your egos get mighty prickly and defensive. I was expanding the problem out of shear delight not to have a moronic bar brawl. But ohh no you have to wade in with your stupid maple leaf flag sticking out of your a$$ with a passive/aggressive warning in your opening sentense . . . "I hope you are including Six Nations blah blah blah". However you did not dare to put "or else" . . . Iv got news for you buddy . . . i was NOT including Sns . . . at that point!! I was drawing upon the incredibly similar insights of the Haudenosaunee in engaging a deeply philosophical awareness of interpretations and contexts way BEFORE the european enlightenment period endeavoured to deal with it in the late fifteenth to eighteenth century, regardful of current philosophers too!! Now you cannot expect me to just jump in from the 15th century of europe and challenge sns oral tradition like any village idiot would . . . all progressive steps and complexity would be abandoned because of YOUR chosen and biased ORDER of things. You cannot just leap accross issues to prove your points about sovereignty when we have not concluded the other issues Now if you want to pick bones with that good luck. . . . . in your quest for fellow rednecks You share the same soil as sns and fns guys and you dont even know them. You would have thought you would have been proud because it is a history of canada though born out of Kanada somehow and shows how you got here. Oh but wait a minute; your historical side through the ages has a record of genocidal practices. . . though not always historically recorded! Canadian history here is 'hidden' and found in many a 'redundent' government institution. Your history is still being 'patched up' in its major details. Therefore how can we engage it here when we are speaking of the problems of what has`already been established?

Exactly. So, this a line in the sand against this rule breaking. You let one dog in, you have to let them all in. Precisely! We would not want to be 'over run' by wheel chairs

Iv found a wasase site that deals with this. I dont know if this is your 'cup of tea' to put it crudely - but just in case- 'Adventures of the Dialectic' (1973) Maurice Merleau-Ponty

You might think that your "Vallium anybody?" routine will make people see you as a tremendous wit; you're actually only half right. -k hahahahaa But come on, europeans dont particularly care about being european at all - they dont get all nationalistic - they see things for what they are, albeit to greater and lesser degrees. The problem of International corporate leadership and alleged democracy vs terrorism (US) is something that they have a prob with.

Vallium anybody?

Vallium anybody?

Vallium anybody?

It is unfortunate that g.bamboozled got all defensive in the end. I finished reading the first sentense and then the rest of his response was to use key issues as a personal defense. So again contextualisation and issues have been thwarted. However not with me. You really have hit on an incredibly important point/s concerning the problem of written history. As you say - that principly historians bend the truth and context of history because their understanding is steeped in their modern principles. So true. And reading what the Haudenosaunee say about the subject is something to behold. I did philosophy for three yrs which dealt with history/ideology and the principles of distortions ages ago. One particular philosopher called Maurice Merleau-ponty . . .focuses upon the problems of historical analysis per se. . . actually ALL that you have pointed out. His strategy seeks to avoid the VERY problems you have stipulated in paragraph two which then roles into paragraph three - myoptic visions as irrational. Things REALLY are not one- dimensional as too our understanding should not be. Hence it makes our stupid ideas of freedom the very key to our own bondage as you further explained. Perhaps Merleau- ponty plagarised from the Haudenosaunee (i do believe it has been done before)? Im not exagerating but the logic is astonishingly similar to what you have described - as far as i can remember anyway Ill try and find out the book title/date because you might want to compare them (I would like to but am stuck without any access to books whatsoever so i'll have to wait). But what is the title/author and date of your peoples book since they were speaking about these issues way before western philosophy (just in case i can get it at some point) ? I know it goes into this debate and way of life. . . . ahhh its something, something 'An Iroquois way of life'? If i cant get it i'll keep LISTENING . .