kengs333

...

...

THREE suspects sought in beating of Sam Gaultieri: Byron Powless, age 18 Richard Smoke, age 18 and an unnamed 15 year-old. also, names of the NINE people arrested yesterday have been released... http://www.thestar.com/News/article/258842

Where to begin, but I'm really not interested in wasting my time or energy typing out lengthy factual posts that will simply be ignored or dismissed with some ignorant one-liner. Incidently, the term "conquest" is a misrepresentation of what occurred, and as a person of European decent makes me feel bad because it implies that Europeans inherently acted with sinister and malicious intent. In fact, Europeans simply came to North America seeking to trade on a friendly basis, and that hostility on the part of the "native" inhabitants is what changed the dynamic of the relationship.

I ask myself why do I even bother posting replies to jennie's crackpot posts? It's next to useless trying to have any sort of reasoned discussion with her (or him), so what can be gained?

So what does that make them, then? Foreigners?

So somebody has to be a devotee of George W. Bush if they make a comment about Islamic terrorism being a likelihood in Canada? That's pretty stupid if you ask me. I prefer to inform myself about topics and then draw conclusions based on the facts that have been presented. If the best you can to is insult the intelligence of people who have differing opinions to yours, don't expect much respect for you opinions. So maybe you would care to rethink what you wrote in your last post and come up with something a little less stupid, and then maybe I'll consider getting into a serious discussion on this topic. Sound fair to you?

It's safe to say that it's a matter of time in Canada, and unfortunately, I think that the underlying desire and support of such an act is probably more widespread than many would want to believe.

What relevance does it have? It's nothing in comparison to what Inians are known to have done, or the ancient Israelites, for that matter. King John reigned from 1199 to 1216, the fact that you'd make such a statement is even more ludicrous.

Good managers at what? Most could neither read nor writer.

...

...

Watched about ten minutes of it before it got tiring. There's little point to this because nothing that it says will translate into anything once one of them gets elected. That's the way that it always is. Moreover, with the other parties being excluded from the debate, it doesn't really represent the choices that voters have. All leaders should be participating, regardless of how small the party. Any other arrangement is not democratic as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, I've already decided who I'll vote for, and it ain't going to be any of these three guys.

...

...

...

Actually, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. From what I've read of contemporary government reports they recognized that there were problems, problems that arose because the Indians were incapable of managing their own affairs. It was usually religious ministers who had to speak on behalf of the Indians, right? The fact of the matter is that the Indians were incapable of dealing with squatters and land speculators, and you can't blame the Government alone for this. The fact of the matter is, though, that he did it; the Government didn't like it, but there was little they could do about it once the deals were done. The Canadian of 2007 should not be expected to pay for something that something that Joseph Brant did in the 1790s. This is an internal Six Nations issue as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the Six Nations is trying to bilk Canada for this too just underscores how stupid this situation is, how this is more than about "fairness"--it's about undermining Canada as a whole.

Actually, the "Euro conquest" occured towards the end of the Middle Ages, with the so-called "Dark Ages" ending c. 800 AD. The whole theory about the Dark Ages has essentially been debunked, though, since there is now considerable archeological evidence to show that European society prospered during the "Dark Ages" period. I'm not sure that you really want to go down the path of being critical of how European society functioned, because there's much evidence to suggest that Indians were not model human beings. I'm not saying that Europeans didn't have their faults, but relatively speaking Europeans were much more advanced than the Indians in just about every respect. It was, after all, the Europeans who came to this continent on large sailing vessels; while all the Indians were capable to making were bark or dugout canoes. Also, in terms of eating with their hands, I'm quite certain that Europeans had long used wooden bowls & plates and spoons & knives to eat. Naturally, some foods were more easily eaten with hands, such as bread. And in reference to shitting in the streets, I believe in actually shitting was done in private and then the waste was discarded in the streets. Whatever the case, this only occured in larger urban centres, and eventually scientific knowledge allowed for solutions to this problem. One thing's for sure, though, Europeans didn't display their dead family members in their longhouses and then bury them in the floor once all of the flesh rotted away. And I could go on and on....

You really just don't get it, do you?

They're doing it because they're caving in to terrorism, not because they feel like there's any legal validity to what the Six Nations want. They're trying to further violence and terrorism, because that's what the Six Nations has proven that it will resort to. Of course in the end, the government is only setting itself up for further "land claim" issues once other disgruntled Indian "nations" see how easy it is to extort money from the government. Thus Canada slowly gets sucked dry and implodes, which it looks to me is the real end goal in all of this. In any other country a situation like Caledonia would have seen the military roll in, and my guess the longer this situation drags on the more open most Canadians, be they European, Asian or African, will be to such a recourse. Nobody came to Canada to live in a country where mob rule is allowed.

The fact that he made land sales has been established; it's been a historical reality since the time he conducted the transactions. Whether or not you agree with them, doesn't mean that he didn't make the sales.

Guess what? He did. And regardless of whether or not he had the authority to do it, the blame rests on him in part for the current situation. That is all, of course, conveniently forgotten by the reclamation crowd--if they ever knew this in the first place--who simply want to run wild like a lawless bunch of thugs. Please spare me the overly idealized statement about Indian egalitarianism. No society exists without some kind of social hierarchy. Prisoners--well, male prisoners, at least--were also subject to torture and put to death on occasion, depending on who they were and what the circumstances of their capture was, I suppose. Any way you look at it, capturing people and "allowing" them to join the captor's society is a pretty blatant violation of their human rights. Certainly you wouldn't approve of such things happening nowadays, would you? I won't even get into the whole divorce thing... Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I'm always happy to discuss issues in a factual manner, but your queer understanding of Iroquois history really makes that next to impossible.

Actually, no, the sales of land that he made can be substantiated, there's really no disputing this fact. Maybe there are issues with certain parcels of land around the Six Nations Reserve, but what he did is final. The government certainly didn't like it, and in later years, from what I understand, they did take measures to stop such sales from happening again, but there's no going back on what he did.

More like, Canadian law is okay if it suits your agenda and gets you what you want, right? Otherwise, it's burn tires in the streets and accuse Canadians of being racists... You can't tell me that these kinds of tactics won't eventually alienate many Canadians, regardless of their ethnicity. Nobody likes to live in a country where this kind of mob rule takes place. In fact, I think that this is why many people come to Canada, to get away from this kind of crap.

I've been doing some reading, government reports from the 1840s stuff like that, and the interesting thing about them is that, according to them, the Six Nations Indians were generally incapable of maintaining control over what land they had not surrendered by that point. The documents go on to discuss the problem that squatters were causing--a problem that the Six Nations Indians were doing nothing to rectify. It further discusses means of rectifying the problem through the removal of the squatters, with some exceptions if the squatter proved himself to be a good person, ie. was not causing problems for the Indians, and had improved the value of the land. But it makes it clear that the vast majority of the squatters were to be removed. Suggestions are also made as to how to improve the situation for the Six Nations Indians by trying to get them to settle on individual plots rather than holding the land communally. While the reports admit that the was a problem with dishonest land speculators, it does seem that to a certain extent the Government was intent on protecting the Six Nations Indians; I think at that point, if that was not their true intention, all of the land in the Haldimand Tract probably could have been disposed of; in other words, if it wasn't for the Government, the would be no Six Nations Reserve. At least that's how I understood what I read; I'm surely you'll have a quite different interpretation