The Coward of Caledonia?

[Wild Bill]

Here's the link:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=248281

Isn't this just typical of these clowns? The only good think about this situation is that the injustice to the Caledonia citizens is now getting attention in a national newspaper and not just the local Hamilton Spectator.

I wonder what Dalton would do if the natives claimed the land under Queen's Park? Wouldn't surprise me if he caved then as well.

Just how far is this situation going to go before someone gets hurt?

[joan]

Here's the link:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=248281

Isn't this just typical of these clowns? The only good think about this situation is that the injustice to the Caledonia citizens is now getting attention in a national newspaper and not just the local Hamilton Spectator.

I wonder what Dalton would do if the natives claimed the land under Queen's Park? Wouldn't surprise me if he caved then as well.

Just how far is this situation going to go before someone gets hurt?

Oh it is way too late to be thinking about QPk - The Mississaugas Nation's claim to Toronto was successful in 2003.

The gov is trying to figure out how to pay for it. The Toronto Islands are unceded, thus still Mississaugas title. Toronto is too until the feds pay up, of course.

Land claims are not political, but legal. Dalton can only stretch the law so far, and he is way beyond it anyway: Ontario has failed to consult with Six Nations about development on disputed land, so developments is being halted until he does. Makes perfect legal sense to me.

[kengs333]

Oh it is way too late to be thinking about QPk - The Mississaugas Nation's claim to Toronto was successful in 2003.

The gov is trying to figure out how to pay for it. The Toronto Islands are unceded, thus still Mississaugas title. Toronto is too until the feds pay up, of course.

Land claims are not political, but legal. Dalton can only stretch the law so far, and he is way beyond it anyway: Ontario has failed to consult with Six Nations about development on disputed land, so developments is being halted until he does. Makes perfect legal sense to me.

The landclaims may be "legal," but they have political ramifications and the manner in which Six Nations has conducted itself at times has clearly not been "legal". I hope that makes sense to you, too.

[joan]

The landclaims may be "legal," but they have political ramifications and the manner in which Six Nations has conducted itself at times has clearly not been "legal". I hope that makes sense to you, too.

Let me know when OUR governments observe OUR laws.

Only then do we have a right to criticize Six Nations: their behaviour is a response to flagrant violations of our laws by our governments.

[kengs333]

Let me know when OUR governments observe OUR laws.

Only then do we have a right to criticize Six Nations: their behaviour is a response to flagrant violations of our laws by our governments.

Your style of argumentation sounds rather familiar...

So you're not a member of Six Nations, nor do you have anything to do with them? You're simply concerned that "justice" should be done?

I think that our government is not responsible for much of anything when it comes to this issue; past governments may have not acted as best as they could have, but the fact of the matter is that much of the current "problem" is the result of how Six Nations mismanaged their own affairs and wilfully entered into agreements that now, 150-200 years later, didn't seem like a good idea. Six Nations feels itself to be a "nation" and some of its members claim not to be Canadian, and when they show up in court, they claim to be "political prisoners" and not subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian law. If that is the case, and they believe that Six Nations has always been a seperate "nation," then they have no grounds for "land claims"--as a "nation" they made mistakes, used poor judgement and were ultimately defeated, and as such are not in a position to accept compensation for anything.

[Wild Bill]

Let me know when OUR governments observe OUR laws.

Only then do we have a right to criticize Six Nations: their behaviour is a response to flagrant violations of our laws by our governments.

Are you serious? I would say that we have as much right to criticize Six Nations as we have to criticize any and all levels of non-native governments!

Who died and made the natives perfect and above reproach?

"No Mummy, you can't scold me for doing wrong 'cuz one of the other kids did wrong too!"

Give me a break! If your argument came from someone on Six Nations then they should grow up and act their age.

[joan]

Are you serious? I would say that we have as much right to criticize Six Nations as we have to criticize any and all levels of non-native governments!

Who died and made the natives perfect and above reproach?

"No Mummy, you can't scold me for doing wrong 'cuz one of the other kids did wrong too!"

Give me a break! If your argument came from someone on Six Nations then they should grow up and act their age.

The CURRENT SITUATION is caused by Ontario's flagrant evasion of Supreme Court rulings - Constitutional Law.

[joan]

Your style of argumentation sounds rather familiar...

So you're not a member of Six Nations, nor do you have anything to do with them? You're simply concerned that "justice" should be done?

I think that our government is not responsible for much of anything when it comes to this issue; past governments may have not acted as best as they could have, but the fact of the matter is that much of the current "problem" is the result of how Six Nations mismanaged their own affairs and wilfully entered into agreements that now, 150-200 years later, didn't seem like a good idea. Six Nations feels itself to be a "nation" and some of its members claim not to be Canadian, and when they show up in court, they claim to be "political prisoners" and not subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian law. If that is the case, and they believe that Six Nations has always been a seperate "nation," then they have no grounds for "land claims"--as a "nation" they made mistakes, used poor judgement and were ultimately defeated, and as such are not in a position to accept compensation for anything.

I think you don't know Canadian law.

[margrace]

Hey you guys did it ever occur to you that when you educated the Natives you made a big mistake. There is a Lady Native professor at Uof T in Toronto and she would be a good one for you to debate with. Good luck she is one smart lady.

[kengs333]

Hey you guys did it ever occur to you that when you educated the Natives you made a big mistake. There is a Lady Native professor at Uof T in Toronto and she would be a good one for you to debate with. Good luck she is one smart lady.

Who is this professor, and in the end what difference does it make? She has spent her life "studying" the issue and has had time to formulate all of her arguments, while rest of us have had to find other means of getting by and haven't had the time or inclination to develop the specialized knowldge on the subject. Having a discussion with her would be no different than any other professor on any subject. But just because she has a specialized knowledge in something, doesn't mean that her opinions are 100% valid, and I dare say that it's quite obvious that she would have an agenda, so I doubt a rational discussion could last all that long with her either.

[kengs333]

I think you don't know Canadian law.

Oh, right, this is real useless. Why even bother posting if you're just going to make such terse statements?

[margrace]

Who is this professor, and in the end what difference does it make? She has spent her life "studying" the issue and has had time to formulate all of her arguments, while rest of us have had to find other means of getting by and haven't had the time or inclination to develop the specialized knowldge on the subject. Having a discussion with her would be no different than any other professor on any subject. But just because she has a specialized knowledge in something, doesn't mean that her opinions are 100% valid, and I dare say that it's quite obvious that she would have an agenda, so I doubt a rational discussion could last all that long with her either.

Sorry I don't remember her name but she was on the Agenda on TVO some time ago.

[charter.rights]

Who is this professor, and in the end what difference does it make? She has spent her life "studying" the issue and has had time to formulate all of her arguments, while rest of us have had to find other means of getting by and haven't had the time or inclination to develop the specialized knowldge on the subject. Having a discussion with her would be no different than any other professor on any subject. But just because she has a specialized knowledge in something, doesn't mean that her opinions are 100% valid, and I dare say that it's quite obvious that she would have an agenda, so I doubt a rational discussion could last all that long with her either.

So really what you are saying, is that in the face of facts, and legal history your arguments would not hold up......?

[kengs333]

So really what you are saying, is that in the face of facts, and legal history your arguments would not hold up......?

No, what I'm saying is that had I decided to simply focus my study of history on the very narrow (and in most historian's opinions, relatively insignificant) field of Native history, I would have the specialized knowledge to thoroughly debunk the sham arguments that she and members of Six Nations are making in a manner that would be consistant with academic debate, although the political climate in academia would probably exclude it from being fully accepted. Academic history has always been subject to the prevailing political, ideological, and even popular cultural trends; what gets lost in the shuffle is the pure truth of the matter.

[charter.rights]

No, what I'm saying is that had I decided to simply focus my study of history on the very narrow (and in most historian's opinions, relatively insignificant) field of Native history, I would have the specialized knowledge to thoroughly debunk the sham arguments that she and members of Six Nations are making in a manner that would be consistant with academic debate, although the political climate in academia would probably exclude it from being fully accepted. Academic history has always been subject to the prevailing political, ideological, and even popular cultural trends; what gets lost in the shuffle is the pure truth of the matter.

Ah, you are confusing your common rhetoric with articulated scholarly study. IF your arguments held any form of fact or truth, you wouldn't be so afraid of discussing them with someone who really knows when you are bullshitting and when you are not. And that is your problem. You can't separate you own prejudicial myths based in that backward Christian thinking from what really happened historically in this country. We all know your agenda because you are pretty transparent - not at all as intelligent as you think you are, but easily exposed.

Edited January 22, 2008 by charter.rights

[fellowtraveller]

First Nations governance, governments and laws are all subordinate to Canadian government, governance and Criminal Code.

If violence and extortion are occurring, the Ontario government has a duty to end any that occurs in their jurisdiction. If they can't or won't, the feds should step in and end it. The rule of law is hierarchal and the basis of our mutual safety in this country. We will not be ruled by hooded thugs.

if some people think otherwise, they can challenge it from prison.

[kengs333]

Ah, you are confusing your common rhetoric with articulated scholarly study. IF your arguments held any form of fact or truth, you wouldn't be so afraid of discussing them with someone who really knows when you are bullshitting and when you are not. And that is your problem. You can't separate you own prejudicial myths based in that backward Christian thinking from what really happened historically in this country. We all know your agenda because you are pretty transparent - not at all as intelligent as you think you are, but easily exposed.

No, I don't think you're reading what I wrote properly. I am a historian, and if I would have bothered to study history only in relation to a narrowly defined topic like First Nations, I would be able to derive the thruth of the matter, rather than approach it with an agenda like she does. She can't be relied on to present an accurate history of this issue because of the agenda she has. My concern with this issue has always been the distortion and fabrication of history that is being done primarily by members of the Six Nations for political reasons. I know nothing that I argue can make you understand this because you yourself have demonstrated that your only means of understanding this issue is from a subjective, pro-Six Nations perspective; and whatever ideological basis you have (communistic, anarchistic...). Your own lack of knowledge on this subject, not to mention historiography in general, is demonstrated by the manner in which you flippantly dismiss my arguments. Needless to say, I doubt you can present any credentials that makes your opinion on any historical issue worthy of consideration.

[joan]

No, I don't think you're reading what I wrote properly. I am a historian, and if I would have bothered to study history only in relation to a narrowly defined topic like First Nations, I would be able to derive the thruth of the matter, rather than approach it with an agenda like she does. She can't be relied on to present an accurate history of this issue because of the agenda she has. My concern with this issue has always been the distortion and fabrication of history that is being done primarily by members of the Six Nations for political reasons. I know nothing that I argue can make you understand this because you yourself have demonstrated that your only means of understanding this issue is from a subjective, pro-Six Nations perspective; and whatever ideological basis you have (communistic, anarchistic...). Your own lack of knowledge on this subject, not to mention historiography in general, is demonstrated by the manner in which you flippantly dismiss my arguments. Needless to say, I doubt you can present any credentials that makes your opinion on any historical issue worthy of consideration.

woulda-coulda-shoulda ... who friggen cares!

[joan]

First Nations governance, governments and laws are all subordinate to Canadian government, governance and Criminal Code.

If violence and extortion are occurring, the Ontario government has a duty to end any that occurs in their jurisdiction. If they can't or won't, the feds should step in and end it. The rule of law is hierarchal and the basis of our mutual safety in this country. We will not be ruled by hooded thugs.

if some people think otherwise, they can challenge it from prison.

fellowtraveller, you are under the same mistaken impression as many Canadians, including perhaps our governments, that the Band Councils actually represent all of the Indigenous people, but they don't. In fact, only about 5% ... that's right 5% of Indigenous people across Canada support Band Councils.

You see, Band Councils were imposed by force, at gunpoint in some cases, and traditional governments and spiritual practices were outlawed in Canada: People were thrown in jail for singing, dancing, drumming, praying. At Six Nations, for example, in 1924, Chiefs and Clanmothers were removed from the Council House by the RCMP with force, at gunpoint. The Council House and private residences were searched (trashed) and the wampum belts signifying Six Nations treaties with Canada were STOLEN. (What does that tell you?)

If 1924 seems a long time ago, think about this: The first person I spoke to at Six Nations told me emotionally that his grandfather was removed from the Council House with a gun to his head. It is not ancient history.

People don't forget what an aggressive colonizing oppressive country like Canada has done to them, and continues to do. They want nothing to do with our governments. They have their own traditional government as they have had for thousands of years.

Canadians who still believe our governments are benevolent toward Indigenous people are pulling the wool over their own eyes intentionally: Our economy is entirely dependent on resources from their land. They are, effectively, a captured, oppressed population and their land and resources is being continually stolen from them. If not for these stolen resources, Canada would not exist.

The first step to resolution of these issues is education and recognition by Canadians that our governments mislead us: Canada has no authority over them except by force. What does that make us?

Edited January 22, 2008 by joan

[AngusThermopyle]

Well, it doesn't happen often but this time I have to agree with Kengs, at least in part.

What he appears to be saying is that if you have a purpose primarily driven by an agenda then it will be hard or impossible to see any point of view as valid if it does not support your agenda. I've heard people state that everything Six Nations announces is true. This alone is clearly and obviously untrue. There is a lot at stake here and the natural tendency of any human is to try and stack the deck in their favour. I do not believe for one second that Six Nations are being totally honest. In fact when claims Six Nations have made are shown to be false they have turned around and tried to defend their position using specious and, really, rather vacuous rationalizations. Things such as not destroying property, the bridge was just burnt down because it should have been demolished. That sort of simplistic arguement.

History too can be distorted by ideology. Currently there is a great deal of revisionism occurring in this country when it comes to Native history. On these very forums we've seen utterly ridiculous claims made about Natives. The one that springs readily to mind is the "Natives evolved in North America" claim. He appears to merely be pointing out that just because an educated person who is agenda driven says something, that doesn't necessarily make it true. On the other hand, you CR, have openly implied that you know the truth. This is a rather bold claim to make, and one I seriously doubt. Kengs disagrees with you, that alone doesn't prove much of anything, on either side. It just means you disagree.

[guyser]

Well, it doesn't happen often but this time I have to agree with Kengs, at least in part.

I would think it better be a small part.

kengs pontificated that ". I am a historian, and if I would have bothered to study history only in relation to a narrowly defined topic like First Nations, I would be able to derive the thruth of the matter, rather than approach it with an agenda like she does."

So he admits he has not studied it in detail and admits he doesnt know.

But then goes on to say "My concern with this issue has always been the distortion and fabrication of history that is being done primarily by members of the Six Nations for political reason"

But he admitted he does not know yet he can ascertain that it is all "distortion and fabrication."

Not to mention of course "Your own lack of knowledge on this subject, not to mention historiography in general, is demonstrated by the manner in which you flippantly dismiss my arguments"

Maybe, just maybe there were dismissed because you have admitted you did not study First Nations?

Signed,

One who never gets into historical arguments.

[joan]

I would think it better be a small part.

kengs pontificated that ". I am a historian, and if I would have bothered to study history only in relation to a narrowly defined topic like First Nations, I would be able to derive the thruth of the matter, rather than approach it with an agenda like she does."

So he admits he has not studied it in detail and admits he doesnt know.

But then goes on to say "My concern with this issue has always been the distortion and fabrication of history that is being done primarily by members of the Six Nations for political reason"

But he admitted he does not know yet he can ascertain that it is all "distortion and fabrication."

Not to mention of course "Your own lack of knowledge on this subject, not to mention historiography in general, is demonstrated by the manner in which you flippantly dismiss my arguments"

Maybe, just maybe there were dismissed because you have admitted you did not study First Nations?

Signed,

One who never gets into historical arguments.

just fyi: 'kengs' knows a lot more about white supremacists than he knows about natives, about whom he makes a point of not learning anything. He likes his prejudices too much.

The story of the bridge is an interesting one, told to me by an elder while it was still burning. (btw, it has been found to be salvageable and will be rebuilt): The story is this: That is a historic old bridge, an original route to Caledonia for the Six Nations people. They valued their 'private' entrance to town: It made them feel welcome, and that was its original purpose - a special link between Caledonia and Six Nations. However, a few years ago it needed fixing and the County Council refused to fix it, so it sat there unusable, and a sore spot for Six Nations people. Burning it was not intentional: It caught fire from the vehicle blocking the railway tracks. Hopwever, once it was burning it was a source of some merriment for them on a day when merriment was in short supply. The elder also mentioned that his grandson was tasered 4 times by the OPP that day.

Screw the town: They didn't want the bridge or the good will that went along with it enough to fix it, so screw them!

imo

Hey kengs ... where is the rest of your usual list of Six Nations 'misdeeds'? You have forgotten quite a few ... or perhaps you are mellowing now that you are banned from town?

[M.Dancer]

just fyi: 'kengs' knows a lot more about white supremacists than he knows about natives, about whom he makes a point of not learning anything. He likes his prejudices too much.

Hey kengs ... where is the rest of your usual list of Six Nations 'misdeeds'? You have forgotten quite a few ... or perhaps you are mellowing now that you are banned from town?

So how do you know this, being a n00b here?

[charter.rights]

So how do you know this, being a n00b here?

Some of know who kengs333 is in real life and he is nothing resembling a historian. Rather he definitely has a history but it is not welcomed in most parts of Ontario.

Like I said earlier. He is very transparent.

[M.Dancer]

Some of know who kengs333 is in real life and he is nothing resembling a historian. Rather he definitely has a history but it is not welcomed in most parts of Ontario.

Like I said earlier. He is very transparent.

Thanks for answering for Joan...or whatever its name is this week