yam

All you have to do is advice people to go and read about this stuff. We are lucky enough to have public libraries - so we cannot even use cost as an excuse for not bothering. Simple belief of who says what is actually worse than racism itself for it will not involve critique or even curiosity - just acceptance. Ducking your head in the sand or banning what does not appeal to you is equally as stupid. In that way it would mean that every poster on the US relations thread would have to be banned, likewise every poster on the topic of Israel would also have to be. Likewise the abortion/religion thread. . . .and so it goes on. What this poster attempted to do was show how lecturers and students in education promote their own views. ironically; he shows exactly what happens (im part of the uni establishment and always see this in student essays, student presentations, student newspapers and seminar debates between profs purposely occupying opposite positions as an intellectual exercise - apalling or otherwise. Universities have the official RIGHT to do that. . . . according to tenure for associate and seniour profs for students as portrayed under the banner of a learning environment . . . however wrong or ignorant they maybe. The penalty is simply a low grade because they cannot back up their argument. What universities ask for over a given opinion is research and the citing of resourses. If that is given we cannot do a thing about it. Other than to do a counter research to shred the former to bits through a demonstration of evidence.

Greetings Tsi Yes and this actually does sum up the position well -first paragraph As bambino says "Why mince words and pretend things are all hunky dory when they are not? My point exactly so im not going to stop just because you and you buddies feel a little tired and a little bored that we have to labour the collective racism of canada. " is Iroquoian free speech only free when it is politically correct" you ask. To be FREE is to be informed. It is not the slave of a lazy mind. Freedom is hard work. If you want to know what Iroquoian FS is, best ask them.

when somebody is hospitable to you then, do you say there place is a shit hole all over the forum? Do you describe your 'buddies' place as this that and the other when the whole point is allegedly speaking of their selfless (hard to believe) hospitality. Perhaps you do. It actually is derivative of a 'false class consciousness'. The 'Ikea' mentality. Billions suffer from it - materialistic/plastic souls that they are. As you say . . . why beat about the bush ayyy!

I was not speaking of whom should be in control. Hence your startling insightful response is completely reactionary and irrelevent. If you read that which you have quoted from me, is says the following "i wish things within the UN was equal in voice and power . . . ." And those that are involved in the US do not come from your sited countries. But you have given yet another typical red neck argument - You see Argus the type of control you aspire to is the 'cloak and dagger' or the inverted form of the countries you have just listed, though they are still undemocratic as seen in you and your fellow peons eyes. The US has license to simply role in the tanks anywhere it wishes because it can rely on an unimformed public. The UN is there to clean up the mess after invasion and murder.

Why were you scared? why did you feel it necessary to point out the unrelated detail of the reserve being a sh!t hole? You are doing wonders for representing the racist canadian you are. So, you think fns are ok if they rally round and serve you sandwhiches and beer do ya? Ohhhh but wow betide them injuns who defend themselves right? Best dont let em ave a computer an make em live in a shit hole . . . right gov ?

Iv just found this concerning the US and native trritories. Now i do believe this unconstitutional archaic relic has been attempted by the Canadian government to usurp treaty rights. However, this doctrine has been recognised as brutal and inhuman and thereby does not stand. Some of the consequences of the Doctrine of Discovery as follows: The myth of U.S. "plenary power" over Indians - a power, by the way, that was never intended by the authors of the Constitution [savage:115-17] - has been used by the United States to: Circumvent the terms of solemn treaties that the U.S. entered into with Indian nations, despite the fact that all such treaties are "supreme Law of the Land, anything in the Constitution notwithstanding." Steal the homelands of Indian peoples living east of the Mississippi River, by removing them from their traditional ancestral homelands through the Indian Removal Act of 1835. Use a congressional statute, known as the General Allotment Act of 1887, to divest Indian people of some 90 million acres of their lands. This act, explained John Collier (Commissioner of Indian Affairs) was "an indirect method - peacefully under the forms of law - of taking away the land that we were determined to take away but did not want to take it openly by breaking the treaties." Steal the sacred Black Hills from the Great Sioux nation in violation of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie which recognized the Sioux Nation's exclusive and absolute possession of their lands. Pay the Secretary of the Interior $26 million for 24 million acres of Western Shoshone lands, because the Western Shoshone people have steadfastly refused to sell the land and refused to accept the money. Although the Western Shoshone Nation's sovereignty and territorial boundaries were clearly recognized by the federal government in the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty, the government now claims that paying itself on behalf of the Western Shoshone has extinguished the Western Shoshone's title to their lands. The above cases are just a few examples of how the United States government has used the Johnson v. McIntosh and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia decisions to callously disregard the human rights of Native peoples. Indeed, countless U.S. Indian policies have been based on the underlying, hidden rationale of "Christian discovery" - a rationale which holds that the "heathen" indigenous peoples of the Americas are "subordinate to the first Christian discoverer," or its successor. [Wheaton:271] As Thomas Jefferson once observed, when the state uses church doctrine as a coercive tool, the result is "hypocrisy and meanness." Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court's use of the ancient Christian Doctrine of Discovery - to circumvent the Constitution as a means of taking Indian lands and placing Indian nations under U.S. control - has proven Madison and Jefferson right. Bringing an End to Five Hundred Years of Injustice to Indigenous Peoples In a country set up to maintain a strict separation of church and state, the Doctrine of Discovery should have long ago been declared unconstitutional because it is based on a prejudicial treatment of Native American people simply because they were not Christians at the time of European arrival. By penalizing Native people on the basis of their non-Christian religious beliefs and ceremonial practices, stripping them of most of their lands and most of their sovereignty, the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling stands as a monumental violation of the "natural rights" of humankind, as well as the most fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples. _________________________________________________________- Hence then as unconstitutional it also greatly overlaps with human rights abuses, theft, fraud and more. References Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831). Davenport, Frances Gardiner, 19l7, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Johnson and Graham's Lessee V McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823). Rivera-Pagan, Luis N., 1991, "Cross Preceded Sword in 'Discovery' of the Americas," in Yakima Nation Review, 1991, Oct. 4. Story, Joseph, 1833, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Vol. 1 Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Thacher, John Boyd, 1903, Christopher Columbus Vol. 11, New York: G.P. Putman's Sons. Williamson, James A., 1962, The Cabot Voyages And Bristol Discovery Under Henry VII, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wheaton, Henry, 1855, Elements of International Law, Sixth Edition, Boston: Little Brown, and Co. Ziegler, Benjamin Munn, 1939, The International Law of John Marshall, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Of course both the left and right raise the importance of governance. In fact the left focus on government, whole political economic systems both nationally and internationally. This does not necessarily make them anthropomorphic - despite often being used metaphorically to debunk myth. Perhaps canadians suffer an existential crisis but not particularly for those reasons you have outlined. Your government is the 'all powerful'. People dont just assume this they see what the US government dictates world wide and they look to history. Are you sure its not you having an existential crisis . Aferall; it takes the 'individual' citizens to vote the government in. They vote such in because they agree with their agenda dont they? You could argue that not all vote for lets say . . . Bush. However, it could be argued that you do not have anything ressembling a left wing party. Which again is the mirror to what US citizens demand. On the whole the choice is between center right and the right . . .right?

From what i can gather the issue of land claims is not necessarily to do with sns sovereignty but rather something to do with 'The Doctrine of Discovery'? Im not certain but it applied when some of the reserved lands were not in use or habitated though it was still sns land. So this document i GUESS (just from what it is called) gives some rights to the early 'colonial' discoverers. However im betting that these lands were discovered much earlier than the european discovery of them and before they had a colonial/treatise deal with a 'reserved' stamp on them. These lands 'discovered' (secondly discovered) by the visitors were claimed by them as their original discovery . . . However. . . these lands were used by the then hunter and gathering societies in sns. Which means that being hunters and gatherers implies that it is impossible to physically occupy all the lands at one time . . .though they are still used but not necessarily lived in a few months of the year. Now when we look at previous discoveries, importantly, before the doctrine was written up the land was recognised by brit sov as sns, the negotiations were about how the brits were going to protect these lands from those that were not sns but were under brits jurisdiction. Rather as an ultimate sanction but not in the daily affairs, unthreatning scenarios. Thus today we can argue that forcing sns to cede their land is going against the conditions of its ultimate sovereign rights.

[quote name='Riverwind' The Haudenosaunee Passport is listed by Immigration Canada as a "Fictional passport issued by non-existent territories" in Section 5.13. I find it hard to believe that other countries would accept travel documents that Canada uncategorically rejects as "fictional". Well im not surprised that immigration canada would have this simplistic opinion. Afterall; it has been in denial for a few hundred years now concerning its identity, or rather its lack there of . . .as a nation.

Id argue No. Simply because a consciousness is there. But if they were in pain and wanted to die i think they should be able to have there decision respected. Many severely disabled people have fulfilling lives. . . an they certainly would not choose to die.

Im actually nether canadian or native. In fact it is irrelevant what i am here. However; i can discuss how for example europeans have understood the issues since they would have read their history which does not exclude the colonised or otherwise. Thus - this is not personal. We are speaking of what has occured and how it occured. And who has got the correct information. So to reiterate the question: Does not the royal proclamation acknowledge their rights within its tracts of land ? Thus recognised and respected as opposed to the ruling over . . . And again - many of the international community think this is so

Perhaps Drea meant that a severely disabled fetus could be diagnosed with having terrible life opportunities, or even worse just a cruel and painful existence. Thus one is rather judging quality of life as opposed eye color, minor disabilities that would not make the potential formed person suffer etc.

Indeed! However SNs landownership issues do not comprise a threat to Canada - though it does imply a huge payout. Regardless of that for a mo . . . Iv always had the impression that the Brits 'recognised' sns sovereignty and their occupied lands according to the royal proclaimation. Thus they and their land fall under the recognition and accountably of the royal proclamation as opposed to 'fallng under' its jurisdiction/rule so to speak. And i thought that HOW it has been divided subsequently was the issue of contention because this proclamation has not been taken serously?

OK Just a wee queston here you say "all acts by the crown is upon the "advice' of the PC. This does not necessarily mean that the advice is a command? Advice implies to take into consideration things before a decision to act in a certain way ?

I will simplify it for you: she has a burden that can not be ignored. I am not denying her freedom to deal with that burden as she chooses. She has to DO SOMETHING to overcome this burden. No. I am not talking about the burden of morality. I am talking about the burden of HAVING TO DO SOMETHING which she otherwise would not have to do if she was not pregnant. Does it ever acquire a right to life? Do YOU have a right to life?What I am getting at is that ultimately, whether you like abortion or not, you have to ARBITRARILY decide when you assign a responsibility or a right to life. The decision making or criteria for that arbitrary threshold is not objective and is equally valid as a religious opinion. Neither choice can be objectively deemed right or wrong. Having to do something is still not an unfreedom. For example would you say that having to feed yourself to stay alive is a 'burden'? Also having to do something one would otherwise not normally do runs into a myriad phenomenon in daily life . . . . But getting back to your statement here " 'arbitrarily' 'deciding' 'when' you 'assign' a 'responsibility' 'or' a 'right' 'to' 'life'" Each and every word used in this statement implies a decision and choice thereby freedom. However you ask at what point in life does one have a 'right to life' or whether i have a right to life. Id say not so but im going to protect it and others lives regardless of rights. But then i can only think in these terms after a considerable lengthy period from my birth. Society speaks of rights and applies them. If you were an isolated individual without society then you would never consider rights and freedom but just get on with life. The notion of rights and the notion of freedom arise out of the collective. All (as in each person) are born into the collectives notion of rights/freedoms and choices and what and how they are derived. Also these notions do become a reality - laws and appropriate codes of behaviour. We are born nto them and they then effect us.

This is pretty neat stuff. I think that with 'modern' democracies of today it has allowed for a freedom choice not only to its cits but extending to those in power as to whether to be accountable or not!! Which is there downfall because they often choose not to be. Now your Clan Mother System seems to be/is quite the contrary. So it enables ALL to speak and thrash through issues - freely as a true democracy should do. Yet it also watches over, guards and protects within its own confines/laws. However, it sounds as if these laws are not restrictive but rather 'enabling'. The responsibility is huge for the Royaners then. Im glad to see that they can bow out when necessary and that they have to always meet the criterea of the people. You are seriously lucky. Wish people would let you get on with it

You are missing the point. I suspect that I may not have been clear at all -- too many long sentences. With respect to the balance of freedom between the non-aborted-thing and the pregnant mother, the mother's freedom is being limited already. She is not free. It is analogous to me tying a wounded man to your hip and telling you to drag him to the nearest hospital otherwise he will die. You are not free. To free yourself, you either have to cut him off and let him die or drag him to the hospital. Either way, there is an imposition upon you. Interestingly in the case of the abortion, the mother is physiologically responsible for the creation of the imposition but it is not always wilfull. First of all; id say that she is still free to make a choice (health care system allows that, or if illegal it often still is done). You suggest that because she is pregnant she is not free. Id argue that she is pregnant full stop. Her freedom is still available but her circumstances have changed. She still has the faculty of choice. . . that is, if she is living in a rich democratic country. Otherwise we are speaking another ball game. This may lead into your example of the burdensome wounded man. But even then somebody could just cut him off. What you are speaking about more is the burden of morality. What religion, philosophy etc has to say about 'responsibility', rights and more. However, these are just abstractions in reality. But they are useful as security mechanisms for society. Freedom is 'dependent' upon the level of democracy practised. However, we could argue that because freedom is dependent on democratic practises it is therefore NOT free. You say "The neat thing about abortion is that it cuts to the very core of identifying human rights and the right to life. I think it forces adopting a "religious" (in other words, a subjective or blind-faith-based or illogical) stand point from both sides. Pro-abortionists ultimately take a religious but opposing view too. The issue of abortion makes it impossible to objectively determine exactly when and how a non-aborted-pregnancy-survived-thing acquires a right to life. It becomes a subjective choice". As for the faetus and its 'right' to life, again 'rights' is a mental abstract phenomenon concerning what we think about it including the mother. However, the faetus does not know this and is simply feeding and growing. It does not feel or have knowledge of rights and itself cannot project into the future about its own life like we do. . . however, sucessfully or otherwise. Probabilities is not going to be that fetus's forte.

Yes Rue. The third world is literally 'maintained' for its peripheral status as 'the' resourse for exploitation by the core nations. The world economy could not function the way it is now to benefit core nations if it were not set up this way. The whole economy would collapse if every nation was a winner. Third world =fuel/canon fodder to perpetuate the running of first world. Disease, war, famine are the consequences to a 'rich' economy. It is sick. Argus is sick too.

regardless of what the UN approves or otherwise, the US has the ultimate sanction over all issues. The US allows the UN to 'mop up' some of the debris created between wars and economic/political transitions.

OK - so the Royaner . . . chief? . . . is outside and neutral until he marries a mohawk woman then he has to represent the whole community to which he has married into? What about his own that he may be leaving for the clan mother mohawk? perhaps he is not leaving but uniting? Darn your piece is very elusive (well done ). However i still wish to get my head around it accurately - tomorrow maybe! There is a reason why i ask. And it is to do with the clan mother system and the cree nation. This does `not seem as promising as the mohawk clan mother system (so far as i know in dealing with dodgy leadership to put it extremely crudely). Maybe too much too engage with over a forum when you've got caladonia to wrestle with right this`minute

Yep; iv heard of this acountability and consensual process before in detail. It is impressive. And for the way things are today if it were adopted on a larger scale really could do wonders. However; iv got one question for you and it is to do with the role of chief (whom has been selected by family ties). Can this person ignore all that has been advised and passed along from the people and house mothers to royaners and then the clan mothers? Is this person's voice the ultimate decision regardless of some kind of missing capacity. . . .or somebody is too selfish etc. Or can the community at large ultimately remove this selected one ( to the wilderness?) if not making the grade as it were.

Im writing this before iv read your thread so im hoping not to get it out of context. But im certain im going to agree with you. I think that often academia makes things worse here by promoting a cultural relativism they seek to make static and thus to frown upon any movement it may make within the modern world. Original cultures within a newer nation are subject to racist slurs endeavouring to keep them antiquated, a kind of national souvineer (some latin american indigenous peoples for example). Racism seems to manifest itself both cruely and kindly. The latter though is still as dangerous as the former since it does somewhat seek to 'preserve' thereby forbidding or blackading the roads to freedom and choice.

There more than likely is a gradation in the ranking of priviledge between each county that probably runs parallel with each ones economic contribution. I only wish the thing was equal in voice and power and was not so heavily influenced by Bush and co. Take the recent invasion of lebanon for example, im certain that the UN on the whole would have chosen to act far more quickly than it did if it were not for Israels ties with the US whom controls the UN in the last instance before any activity.

yes. Old feudal lords and lines of the old emerging merchant class. The former had to marry in to the latter due to the changing economy from agriculture to industrialisation. However; this is somewhat of a generalised view; but what sustained parliament then still sustains it today. Real democracy is somewhat elusive wherever you go. And to be frank; it presumes a far better world order/society that we have now. Afterall freedom/democracy has to arise from a bedrock of an informed freedom to work toward democracy. Freedom =knowledge. Voting without knowledge is a set back o say the least. A set back however great or small is an unfreedom. Hence we can never really have a democratic society (fully informed) because the society it is supposed to work for are ignorant and ill informed. They relied on the church then the state now it is the media. All of whom are liars. It is only the truth that can set you free. Are you saying your democracy (selective) honestly does its best to function in truth (i know your bound to have corruption but i'll just brackett these off for a mo to get the larger picture/goal/pursuit if you were free from corrupting influences).