charter.rights

No, it is very specific about protecting against acculturation and assimilation policies being imposed upon indigenous peoples.

She has no credentials. Even her name is fake. You'll be waiting until the sun no longer shines before that one can prove anything.... An example of where TrueMetis is really coming from: 100 peek(36879) 110 poke 36879, 0 120 gosub 100

They were no doubt remembering Residential Schools and the cultural genocide perpetrated against First Nation children, which attempted to brainwash, destroy their culture and abuse their bodies to effect their mission.

and the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights.

See you Gary.

You have succumbed to the romanticized colonialism, not the other way around with me. Mechanization is not more efficient than manual labour. One can argue that the energy consumed in manufactured farming versus traditional pre-contact farming methods is actually more when you consider the energy used in the manufacture, transportation and maintenance of the equipment on top of the farmers labour that goes into it, wile also considering the energy used to get those goods to a greater mass market. Many farmers are going back to the no-till methods, which is much more efficient than till farming, requires less fertilizer (energy) and takes less time (less energy). The no-till methods, and companion planting come from early Iroquoian farming practice. Native peoples for the most part did not have to domestic animals for food, which in the old world is responsible for many of the world's deserts and barren lands. Rather they harvest animals by cultivating the environment conducive to increased food sources and created places where animals flourished. An old native guy I met once said he didn't need to go hunting. He just sat on his porch in the fall with a cross bow and waited until the deer came up to his apple trees to feed. In my travels I have found many such apple trees in forested areas that no doubt were used for the same purpose.

Do you hold an Israeli passport?

Perhaps you can provide a pre-Family Compact historical text here for examination as well. The reality is that the French killed off many of the Wendat by bringing in disease. That decimated populations and it wasn't until after that happened that the Six Nations "pushed" their way into Wendat territory (being the Georgian Bay region). The result was the Wendat were pushed further west into the Beaver Hunting Grounds(Fort de Tret),which Six Nations ceded to Great Britain under Nanafan 1701. And the remaining Wendat went to Quebec when the French colonists fled out of southern Ontario. About 60 years later the Wendat "pushed" back. Like I said it was push and pull conflicts over land and resources. Not like the deliberate attempts by colonial militaries to use biological weapons to attempt to wipe out entire nations of people. There is no comparison.

No they don't. The have bursaries and grants (just as we do) that are offered to them on a lottery based award system, but they are not guaranteed any post-secondary education, whatsoever. Aboriginal people are not a sub-culture and therefore the rest of your argument falls apart. No. They declare regularly that they are sovereign and independent nations. Your view is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is their right to self-determination and right now most of them never want to be called Canadian. Period.

Ha ha ha ha ha. No doubt that would be an attempt at an insult in not for the fact that you don't even know about the treaty relationships we have with First NATIONS The modern destruction of the environment by aboriginal people in small isolated communities is a result of our impositions on them. FFS we are still sh*tting and pissing in our drinking water and when you push people into small rock formations called reserves and then tell them they MUST have indoor plumbing, what do you expect. The fact is that their agricultural communities and hunter-gatherer techniques were far less destructive and more sustainable than our modern practices. And in fact that is why we prescribe hunting and fishing laws that native people are exempt from - we cannot control ourselves and would destroy the resource before we even paid attention something was happening. The early settlers learned those methods but later became dependent on manufactured methods to sow, cultivate and harvest. Yet the 2010 farmer is not wealthier in relative terms than the early 1700 farmers. They just own more stuff that sits idle most of the year. Nor do they have the time that early farmers once had. So the older aboriginal inspired farming practices were much more sustainable and as equitable as any technology we have thrown at it since.

From an aboriginal perspective, they are not wealthy or free despite us owing them trillions of dollars for their trust accounts, and us controlling them and their economies through the Indian Act. And I would say that we have let corporations destroy much of what was once beautiful and pristine, and for the most part that has occurred either on their unceded lands, or in many cases immediately adjacent to their communities. So from their perspective I would have to disagree with you. There are lots we can learn from aboriginal people about the care for this planet, and the fact that despite millions of trees we cut each month or the agricultural land we destroy in the name of development, we still can't eat money. There is absolutely no nutritional value in it. As far as freedom, having studied the Iroquois Confederacy and their Constitution, I would suggest that they have a far superior democratic system, then we do. Why would they want to give that up, if they have a chance to fully restore it? But the real point of the matter is "we can do better" and in order to convince aboriginal people that Canada can recognize and accommodate them under the Constitutional orders, we must do better. That would be the only way I think it would work out.

It doesn't exist in the context that you believe it did. There were few out and out wars in aboriginal history, especially not in any form or fashion that we engaged in war over the centuries of mass crusades, extermination of peoples and massacres. What the history actually shows is that there were conflicts, mostly related to land and resources that from time to time pushed one way or the other. Under Mohawk law, if a Mohawk child was killed then they had a right to take your child and raise them as their own. Thus there were no kidnapping or slavery, but a simply and seemingly just way to compensation for murder. So there were many children brought into Mohawk communities that had to work alongside Mohawk children in daily activity. The same fate often happened to orphaned children of other nations who were brought up under Mohawk principles as a means to prolong peace. Now what IS mythical is your image of the Hollywood inspired savage Indian. It never happened and the British and French were far more savage than any Indian on a comparison by comparison basis.

He hasn't "deferred" to it, he has endorsed it, as in making it his / ours. Through our social contract - The Charter - we control ourselves. "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: " That is correct. They are not by inherent right, Canadian. They can choose to be one or the other or both. They are self-determining.... We are fully independent. We are called "Canadians" and operate under our own constitution. Many native nations also operate under their own constitutions and sets of laws. No, and possibly. We have no choice...anymore than we have a choice to recognize that an American citizen is not subject to Canadian law while living in his own country. We don't give them their rights. They are theirs because they are inherent and inalienable. That is debatable. Canada is actually quite restrictive but only because we agree it to be that way. Emancipation is not needed. We don't own them, nor are they citizens of Canada. We merely share a land base with them through treaty arrangements made over the centuries. And we comply with and recognize those treaties because: Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Really.... I would like to inform you that the days your kind of ignorance of the law and racism are what is really over. Time to grow up and join Canada as a 'free" country. That is entirely up to them an is presently the subject of national scholarly debate. The crux of the discussion is that we cannot reconcile with aboriginal people until we recognize them, and recognition cannot be realized until there is struggle (under the way the government presently works) and conflict, and misidentification is corrected. If we want to invite any First Nation into the Canadian Constitutional order then we must first prove that we can treat them with equity and respect our responsibility under the rule of law. So far we're not doing a good job there. One need only read the daily newspapers for the inequity that permeates our nation. What the Charter of Rights and Freedoms already guarantees is that 1. they get to decide how they want to exist inside or outside the framework of Canada, 2. that they have inequities under the current recognition that must be corrected before they decide, and 3. we cannot decide for them. It is simple really. “Brother! – If you wish us well then keep away; don’t disturb us.” Red Jacket, Seneca Sachem May 1811

They already do under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Are they entitled to autonomy within Canada? That is yet to be fully determined. Canada is a state that sits belong the right aboriginal self-government. However Canada has tried to create new treaties which recognize that self-government would only exist within the Canadian Constitution order. I wold suggest that the Declaration recognizes that this arrangement is not automatically assumed. Yes. The rights are recognized, not because of their indigenous status, but because their indigenous status was recognized before the Royal Proclamation 1763, and those rights have been recognized and maintained since that time. Are they special rights? I wouldn't say they are, because in essence they are rights not controlled by or modified by our presence here as a colonial state. Rather those rights are inherent and inalienable and so the best we can do is to recognize them as being extraneous to the limitations we have set out for ourselves in the social contract of Canada.

No one is "giving" or "affording" indigenous peoples extra rights. The declaration, as well as the Charter recognizes and affirms inherent and existing rights previously recognized and affirmed by the Royal Proclamation 1763 or by continuous application. The point is that we do not own or control indigenous people. They are independent and autonomous self-determining people, and most of Canada (the state) exists on their land. Canada authored much of the UN Declaration, and Harper was not forced to sign it. In fact he has resisted signing it, and only when it was pointed out that it is fully consistent (and does not over-ride) the Charter did he agree to sign it. So is it a "leftist document"? I don't think so, when it is freely and willingly endorsed and now underwritten by a right wing government. While it does not over-rule the Charter, or add to it, it will certainly frame the future interpretations made by the Supreme Court....and rightfully so...

First Nation refers to the "Band of Indians", and those that belong to that band. You cannot belong to the Band, unless you can connect as a direct descendant. Claiming a great great great great Grandma was a Mohawk Princess just doesn't cut it. And the point is successfully made that TrueMetis cannot call herself "First Nation" unless she is either a card-carrying member of a Band, or she has ascendants that were entered on the Band rolls at some time. Now you are just being obtuse. They would have referred to them as "human or original beings" just like the Ojibway and the Mohawk would...of course in their own language. I stand corrected. In my haste I didn't recheck my statement. I am fully away how much the French bastardized not only Mohawk, but the land, the people and the countryside by their presence. It stands however, that to the Mohawk, the Algonquin and the Ojibway peoples in Canada saw all people as human beings, making no distinction for colour of skin. In the case of Mohawk, again I have been told that the word they used was o'serroni but that refers to the fact that they built villages. The funny thing is that Native people here were not only close allies but friends and neighbours of most the settlers in the new world. There was free trade, and co-operative living, such that food was shared and no one went hungry. With new trade goods available the settlers and the Natives created wealth that was eventually usurped by the Family Compact, which not only destroyed relationships and trust, but created the Indian class of people. They rewrote history and created laws that segregated and limited Indians in their own lands.

You're the idiot. First Nations is a modern term that didn't exist back then. They referred to themselves as Anishnabe, or Onkwe'hon:we meaning human beings. In fact the word Iroquois comes from the English bastardization of I:i ron'kwe meaing I am a man. A one wonders how you ever made it out of grade 8.

You mean "without Riel there would be no Manitoba". Had the Canadian government not hung him, Manitoba would be its own Metis Nation. Like I said, you are a poor thief.

See. Again you are out of intelligent contributions and as usual you fall back on your ad hominem to get you through. Man a guy who doesn't know his roots and one that is trying to steal his. You two should get a room somewhere.....

Shows how little you know. You can't even misappropriate a culture with any conviction, can you...? Gabriel Dumont And there were many more that were instrumental in creating a Metis cultural and political identity. Your ignorance is telling of a sleeping Canadian.

Given that you have misidentified yourself on this forum, I figured it was just another of your disguises....petite garcon...

I guess an illustration of that hypocrisy in white privilege is lost on you too? Native people are asked to prove themselves everyday to government, to retail, to anyone who doubts that they have rights that exceed ours. Of course when was the last time you were asked to prove that you were a Canadien within Canada? Accordingly, TrueMetis may not call herself Metis in any shape or form. It is a misrepresentation and a misidentification that neither the Metis Nation or the Government would accept. So mutt is the best that WE can use to describe her. There is no other legal or official qualification. However, she could call herself a Martian, or a Sumsqat from Ititierland, if she wants. There is no copyright on those forms of self-identifications. However, the Supreme Court and the Government, Metis Nations and First Nations do own the copyright on Metis and Indian and unless you fit their definitions you cannot call yourself either. Misidentification creates the basis for most racism in Canada, and is the result of white privilege. (Who do you think came up with the definitions?) That was the point. Too bad your resentment and indignation got in the way of a good illustration.

Au contraire, ma petite fille. J'ai le droit de vous dire qui vous êtes, tout autant que le gouvernement a le droit de vous exclure de Métis et les Premières nations. The military wouldn't care about who you call yourself, Rex. They are just looking for dogs to suck their bones. On the other hand the government and legal beagles do care because your misidentification and your poor behaviour is a detriment to your mutt ancestry and that reflects badly on Canadians in general. Perhaps you just dreamed that you had an Mohawk Princess auntie or that you mistook that the counselor really said you ancestors accused and hung Louis Reil? Who knows. You only have your word (and of course you could always prove it by a Wikipedia reference) and that is not worth much in law or in trying to be something you are not.

So that 17th century chinks means you are not pur laine, either.

So you are neither Metis or First Nation....and your moniker is a misrepresentation of that group.