jennie

I am interested in the archeological evidence. What our Euro ancestors said just might be biased a bit, so I'm interested in knowing more about the science part. The Brits and French had a bad habit of making up their own names for groups of Indigenous Peoples, and clumping them together wrong, confusing the history. They called Iroquoian peoples above Lake Ontario 'Hurons' (Fr. savages) and those below the lake 'Iroquois' (Fr. snakes). However there were multiple peoples above the lake, as you point out, but many of them were Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy, one or more of the Six Nations, and farther north were the Wendat, another Iroquoian people who were also called 'Huron'. It is much more complex than what I ever learned before this year, that's for sure. In any case, in the 1600's communities of the Confederacy were on the north shore too. (Seriously, if you were them would you leave the north shore unprotected?) http://counterweights.ca/cms/content/view/153//

still waiting ... but I guess he is busy eating his words.

People who want to deny structural faults thus endangering what might be should ... ... feel free to express their opinion but don't be shocked when we don't agree. Only the truth will set us free.

It was at Kahnawake at the same time. Video posted up above.

The time for the " ... but ... " story is past. We must clean up production and improve conservation. This is not a 'wouldn't it be nice if we could do both' scenario anymore. We have to do both.

Ah so do you like eating your words with ketchup or mayo? http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/17-246412.html Franklin, then Pennsylvania's official printer, became familiar with the Iroquois political system by printing minutes of their meetings, according to the magazine. "He recognized that the Iroquois constitution contained many features absent in other governments at the time," including the concept that "elected officials were never masters but remained servants of their constituencies," the magazine states. However, the Iroquois constitution differed from the later U.S. document in one important way -- it specifically mentioned women, said Knapp. Many Indian nations were matriarchal with women nominating legislators, she added.

Scott this is socially unacceptable.

Boy, I could not agree with that more !! Seems to me party politics is just dividing us when we really want pretty much occupy the same ground, though perhaps with different approaches. I do think (sorry) that Harper is dull and unenlightened and unrealistic. What I think a lot of Canadians could get behind is Jim Prentice. He is very politically accomplished, strategic, and a man of integrity, an honest man. Ultimately a diplomat and statesman, I think. I don't think Dion will suffer for trying to help Omar Khadr. I don't think it could it any worse for him.

Angus I don't think you started this thread for discussion, it's just a biatchfest. yawn

It is clear because you were there? How else could it be clear? The point you are not acknowledging is this: The OPP had closed the site to builders. The builders were not to be on the property without checking in with police, and they knew it. They snuck in the back.

I think they are doing very well in negotiations, by my reading. The government is very slow to produce any evidence. I admit sometimes I wonder if negotiators stalling-for-pay is a good deal for us taxpayers.

Oh ya right ... THAT'll work ! Doesn't it get tiring being scared like that all the time when it isn't necessary? kinda tilting at windmills?

Absolutely, their claim is to the entire tract. In negotiations they will do the facts and accounting for each transaction and tally up what land and money is owing. There will be substitution of existing or acquired government land for settled land, where possible. Nobody would even notice, if the govs would do their jobs right.

Well since you have the grace to apologize, I won't respond to the other post. There is only one very simple answer to all you have written. They were not conquered in Canada. We had no wars against Indigenous Peoples. They were our allies. We made treaties with them. We broke treaties. The treaties are still legally valid and important as some of them define Canada's borders, etc. The treaties cannot be ignored. It is simply a tedious bit of law we have to go through, and the governments are doing their level best to make it as difficult and dangerous as possible. But I assure you it is not a farce.

They are talking about the undeveloped land. I don't think they have any interest in administering a bunch of whining settlers. Their communities are growing at a tremendous rate. They are simply talking about their own territory, much of which is so-called 'Crown' land and other government land holdings in the Haldimand Tract, and perhaps some willing-seller willing-buyer land too. All dependent on negotiations, of course, and it will take years to get there, but they are asserting their right to be consulted. They have also demanded that the provincial government stop all development on 'Crown' land.

You might want to temper your remarks until it is clear who attacked whom.

The case will be decided in negotiations.

But the study's prescription to remedy this situation contains a surprisingly green twist: big cuts in personal and corporate income taxes to be funded in part by a broad-based environmental tax on energy that varies according to the damage done by each fuel. I like the sound of this, as it includes personal income taxes too!

Well harruuummmppphhh U2 !!! we will just see about that ... won't we!! I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it. And you can't prove me wrong, I'll bet. Got any data on your "majority"? :lol:

Yes I realize there are some who would off-handedly counsel to destroy a young life, to satisfy their personal angst. I am not among them, obviously. And I get REALLY sick and tired of their whining. We are talking about a young man's life here. And you are worried about what ... your taxes? what? wtf does it matter to you personally that you wish a young man so ill? I would personally rather meet him in a dark alley than you. And you are wrong about how many people want him home. You are a extremist minority that unfortunately includes the government and its supporters. It is issues like this that show the inhumanity. It is disgraceful that Harper has not written a request. harumph!! hmmph!!! :angry: in my opinion

He is Canadian. This is an account from a young man ... In A LONG WAY GONE: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, Beah, now twenty-six years old, tells a powerfully gripping story: At the age of twelve, he fled attacking rebels and wandered a land rendered unrecognizable by violence. By thirteen, he’d been picked up by the government army, and Beah, at heart a gentle boy, found that he was capable of truly terrible acts. At sixteen, he was removed from fighting by UNICEF, and through the help of the staff at his rehabilitation center, he learned how to forgive himself, to regain his humanity, and, finally, to heal.

I am saying we cannot make that judgment without proper assessment. And I am saying can we not accord to him the same effort we put into saving child soldiers in other countries? http://www.unicef.ca/portal/Secure/Communi...iers%5B1%5D.pdf In A LONG WAY GONE: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, Beah, now twenty-six years old, tells a powerfully gripping story: At the age of twelve, he fled attacking rebels and wandered a land rendered unrecognizable by violence. By thirteen, he’d been picked up by the government army, and Beah, at heart a gentle boy, found that he was capable of truly terrible acts. At sixteen, he was removed from fighting by UNICEF, and through the help of the staff at his rehabilitation center, he learned how to forgive himself, to regain his humanity, and, finally, to heal.

I am posting this for general information, so everyone has the same knowledge of what the Six Nations Confederacy is pursuing and why. Haudenosaunee Confederacy Land Rights Statement Posted on July 21st, 2007 by moderator in the Confederacy News. The Council of Chiefs of the Haudenosaunee, Grand River Territory, wish to affirm and clarify our land rights in the tract confirmed by Governor Frederick Haldimand on October 25, 1784. In making this statement, the Council of Chiefs wants to make it clear that we hold certain land ethics and principles that must be respected in any agreements on land use or occupation. The Haudenosaunee, and its governing authority, have inherited the rights to land from time immemorial. Land is a birthright, essential to the expression of our culture. With these land rights come specific responsibilities that have been defined by our law, from our Creation Story, the Original Instructions, the Kaianeren:kowa (Great Law of Peace) and Kariwiio (Good Message). Land is envisioned as Sewatokwa’tshera’t, (the Dish with One Spoon); this means that we can all take from the land what we need to feed, house and care for our families, but we also must assure that the land remains healthy enough to provide for the coming generations. Land is meant to be shared among and by the people and with the other parts of the web of life. It is not for personal empire building. First and foremost is the concept that we are connected to the land in a spiritual way. The earth is our mother and she provides for our long-term well-being, provided that we continue to honour her and give thanks for what she has provided. We Haudenosaunee have upheld our tradition of giving thanks through ceremony, and in the cultural practices that manifest our beliefs, values, traditions and laws. Planting, cultivating, harvesting, gathering, hunting, and fishing also have spiritual aspects that must be respected and perpetuated if the land is to provide for our future generations, and the future generations of our neighbours. We are stewards. Our spiritual obligation is part of that stewardship. Second, according to our law, the land is not private property that can be owned by any individual. In our worldview, land is a collective right. It is held in common, for the benefit of all. The land is actually a sacred trust, placed in our care, for the sake of the coming generations. We must protect the land. We must draw strength and healing from the land. If an individual, family or clan has the exclusive right to use and occupy land, they also have a stewardship responsibility to respect and join in the community’s right to protect the land from abuse. We have a duty to utilize the land in certain ways that advance our Original Instructions. All must take responsibility for the health of our Mother. Our ancestors faced overwhelming odds and relentless pressure to give up our lands. We all know that unscrupulous measures were employed to seduce our ancestors into “selling” the land. At other times, outright fraud took place, as was acknowledged in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The agreements we recognize reflect an intention to share land, and to lease land, within the context of the Covenant Chain relationship that our nations maintain with the Crown. Our wampum belts, treaty council documents and oral history inform us that we always retained the right to hunt, fish, and gather upon all of our lands. This reflects the spirit of sharing that we expect to continue, and is another example of the Dish with One Spoon. We seek justice in our long-standing land rights issues. We seek an accurate accounting of the use and investment of the funds held by the Crown on our behalf, and land transactions conducted by the Crown involving our lands. For nearly two hundred years our Chiefs have been asking for such accounting and justice. Generations of our elders have passed away with these matters unresolved. It is time to end the injustice. Our faith in the Canadian people is strong, as we feel that the majority of Canadians also want to see justice on these matters. However, their elected representatives and public servants have failed to act effectively to address and resolve these matters. It is time to lift the cloud of denial and to wipe away the politics that darken the vision of the future. It is time we are heard clearly, and our cases should be addressed with utmost good faith and respect. We firmly believe that if we have respect and trust, we will find mutually agreeable solutions that will reflect our long-standing friendship We want the land that is ours. We are not interested in approving fraudulent dispossessions of the past. We are not interested in selling land. We want the Crown to keep its obligations to treaties, and ensure all Crown governments – federal, provincial and municipal – are partners in those obligations. We want an honourable relationship with Canada. That relationship, however, must be based on the principles that were set in place when our original relationship with the Crown was created. That is the rule of law that we seek. It involves the first law of Canada - the law that Canada inherited from both France and Britain. It is the law of nations to respect the treaties, to not steal land, or take advantage of indigenous peoples by legal trickery. As the Supreme Court of Canada has frequently stated, where treaties are involved, the honour of the Crown is always at stake. We seek to renew the existing relationship that we had with Crown prior to 1924. That relationship is symbolized by the Tehontatenentsonterontahkwa (“The thing by which they link arms”) also known as the Silver Covenant Chain of Peace and Friendship. Our ancestors met repeatedly to repolish that chain, to renew its commitments, to reaffirm our friendship and to make sure that the future generations could live in peace, and allow the land to provide its bounty for the well-being of all of the people. The Covenant Chain symbolizes our treaty relationship, also symbolized by Tekani Teyothata’tye Kaswénta (Two Row Wampum) which affirms the inherent sovereignty and distinctness of our governments. An essential part of the relationship is our commitment to resolve matters through good-faith negotiation between our governments, including consultation on any plans which might affect the other government or its people. In any land issues, we want it understood that the following principles will govern any actions taken by the Haudenosaunee Council of Chiefs of the Grand River Territory: 1) The land is sacred to us. It defines our identities, belief system, languages and way of life. 2) We hold the aboriginal and treaty title to our lands collectively. 3) Our treaty relationship with the Crown is still alive and in force and directs our conduct in our relationship to Canada. Within this relationship, the terms of the treaties continue to bind both our government and the Crown. 4) We require a careful accounting for the Crown’s dealing with our lands, and the return of any lands that were improperly or illegally taken from our ancestors. 5) We require an accounting for the funds administered or held by the Crown for the Six Nations people, and restitution of any funds unaccounted for. 6) It is not only within the context of our treaty relationship with the Crown that we see justification for such accounting and restitution. Canadian and international law is clear on the right of the Haudenosaunee to seek justice on these matters. 7) In any agreements with the Crown concerning land our goal is to promote and protect a viable economy for our people on our land – an economy that will be culturally appropriate, environmentally sustainable, and not injurious to our people and our neighbours. Our fundamental approach is that Six Nations lands will come under the jurisdiction, management and control of Six Nations people. The federal and provincial governments must not impose jurisdictional, policing, taxation, and/or economic activities as part of the land rights settlement. Our people, our laws, and our government have survived by being thoughtful, respectful, diligent and practical. In our relations with the Crown, and in any negotiations concerning land and the resolution of land-related issues, we will continue to apply those principles.

We don't know whether he can be rehabilitated unless we request to bring him home. 6 years is enough when he has been convicted of nothing.