The Coward of Caledonia?

[Ontario Loyalist]

I've backed them up! You do know how to use Google don't you?

Royal Proclamation 1763. Mitchell Map 1757 Quebec Act 1774. The Jesuit Relations. Maybe it is just that you are slow, but if you read these things instead of looking for irrelevancy then you might just learn something new.

I see you have reverted back to Troll Status. Perhaps you should just ht the Ignore Button too and let the adults discuss this further.

You still haven't explained why some European sources are valid and why others are not. Early maps are notorious for containing fabricated and mistakes. Acording to the wikipedia article:

Since Mitchell's main objective was to show the French threat to the British colonies, there is a very strong pro-British bias in the map, especially with regard to the Iroquois. The map makes clear that the Iroquois were not just allies of Britain, but subjects, and that all Iroquois land was therefore British territory. Huge parts of the continent are noted as being British due to Iroquois conquest of one tribe or another. French activity within the Iroquois claimed lands are noted, explicitly or implicitly, as illegal.

It makes sense, really. Mitchell had an agenda, and as a result one could argue that he would misrepresent the extent of Iroquois power in order to justify British control of the region.

More on the map can be found here:

http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/mitchell/history1.html

[AngusThermopyle]

You still haven't explained why some European sources are valid and why others are not.

Well thats an easy one to answer.

Anything that can, may or does support the posters views is good. Anything that does not is automatically unreliable and worthless. Talk about being the perfect picture of objectivity.

[charter.rights]

You still haven't explained why some European sources are valid and why others are not. Early maps are notorious for containing fabricated and mistakes. Acording to the wikipedia article:

It makes sense, really. Mitchell had an agenda, and as a result one could argue that he would misrepresent the extent of Iroquois power in order to justify British control of the region.

More on the map can be found here:

http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/mitchell/history1.html

I don't discount European sources at all ....~The Jesuit Relations contains some of the most extensive and compelling information on early First Nation contact. And no one with any scholarly intention use Wikipedia to refute an argument. The fact is that the Mitchell map 1757 was commissioned in support of British dominion over the Americas via the Royal Proclamation 1763 and so it provides the most accurate picture of the land holdings and settlements prior to the Kings Proclamation. Whether or not it exaggerates the Iroquois holdings is irrelevant to the legal and constitutional examination. The point is that the British recognized Iroquois territory at the time of the Royal Proclamation 1763 so Six Nations is legally entitled to claim territorial jurisdiction.

The other point to be made is that since in 350 years the British nor Canada have never refuted that territorial jurisdiction in spite of the fact that they have attempted to to an end run around Six Nations' refusal to sell land off. There are a number of treaties that were made with the Mississauga and Algonquin that purportedly hand over all of southern Ontario. None of them are valid since the record shows that all of southern Ontario belonged to Six Nations at the time of the RP 1763. No where has Six Nations given up that right to jurisdiction or made a treaty to all joint management.

Low and behold the Quebec Act 1774 confirms that the limit of British authority is limited to "... all the Territories, Islands. and Countries in North America. belonging to the Crown of Great Britain..." (settlements and territories assumed after the defeat of the French in N.A.) and that all other lands identified under the Royal Proclamation 1763 were still under the same rules - meaning the only the Crown could purchase land from the Indians and those purchases must be approved a meeting of all the people held for the purpose of selling land, by the Governor of the colonies.

Fast forward to 1982, I have heard some say that the Charter began without the RP 1763 or aboriginal rights being included and that it was the Queen who insisted that there be some provision to protect the rights of Natives they had made agreements with. Whether or not this is true is not relevant since the RP 1763 was included and it puts the Charter requirement (retroactively) back to the original requirements. In order to declare that a certain parcel of land was surrendered, the burden is on the Crown to produce evidence of compliance with the RP 1763. In the negotiations at Six Nations the federal negotiators have refuse to produce this evidence. I would assume that they do not have it despite the fact that the British and early Canadian governments were meticulous record keepers. What we do have are a series of letters and memorandums sent to the Crown as refusals to the proposals that Six Nations had to sell the land and could not lease it. Despite all these recorded objections we find the British (through William Jarvis who was found to have been dirty) produce a general surrender of most of Six Nations Haldimand Tract in 1844 with 45 signatures of so-called Chiefs, half of whom were in the US when they were supposed to have signed the document. We also have the absence of a public meeting to which there is no record presented thus far, which sugests that the surrender was a fabrication.

BTW Joseph Brant was not even alive at this time, so there is no way he could have "sold out Six Nations". What Brant did do is create a series of 21 year leases with the intention of having the settlers clear the lands for farming and in time would be assumed by Six Nations people. These leases were converted over the year to title without the required compliance with the rules under the RP 1763. As such all such claims that ownership title of Haldimand lands usurps their claim to ownership or jurisdiction is incorrect.

Unless and untill the required documentation is produced by the government Six Nations have a right to use proprietary estoppel to stop development on any lands under claim. While this is not a court case (since the courts belong to Canada) the only way out of this dispute between our two nations is to negotiated in good faith. I suspect as well that since the federal negotiators have proven thus far that they are not acting in good faith, I would expect that Six nations patience will run out. It is almost a given that there will be more work and construction stoppages as Six Nations demands that we comply with our own law.

[Smallc]

Just so you don't forget, section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What you advocate isn't allowable under that condition.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Smallc

[charter.rights]

Just so you don't forget, section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What you advocate isn't allowable under that condition.

You really have to get past the first sentence:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

( any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15)

Section 25 over-rules Section 1 limitations since no other rights contained within the Charter can diminish the rights described in Section 25.

Edited September 6, 2008 by charter.rights

[Smallc]

You really have to get past the first sentence:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

( any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15)

Section 25 over-rules Section 1 limitations since no other rights contained within the Charter can diminish the rights described in Section 25.

Actually, section one was made with the express purpose of overriding all other rights if necessary. Its why there's a sentence like it in almost every constitution of every country.

[charter.rights]

Actually, section one was made with the express purpose of overriding all other rights if necessary. Its why there's a sentence like it in almost every constitution of every country.

Try again. Section 25 over rides Section 1. Maybe you need it presented in simpler terms.

Sect 25 synopsis:

Nothing contained in this Charter concerning other rights or freedoms can be used to reduce the natural rights of native people.

The essence of Section 25 and Section 35 is that the rights of aboriginal pre-existed the rights of settlers and were expressly guaranteed to them by the Crown in an number of agreements and treaties, especially the Covenant Chain. Therefore the inclusion of aboriginal rights in the Charter was to exempt aboriginal people from Charter rights that would seem to diminish their rights. Aboriginal rights are inalienable and therefore beyond the limitations prescribed by colonial society.

[gullyfourmyle]

Just so you don't forget, section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What you advocate isn't allowable under that condition.

Smallc, I don't think you have interpreted Sentence 1 incorrectly. There is nothing unreasonable about the Aboriginal land claims from a historical perspective. The passage of time and the escalation of property and economic value has simply worked to expand the dimensions of the crimes committed against them.

The reasonableness has to be fitted to the time the crime was committed not centuries later because governments could not get their acts together (pardon the pun). Government sloth and wrong-doing is not their fault. When someone is murdered or raped we don't allow the criminal to escape because a few decades have elapsed. Land crimes and social injustices are no different.

What has happened since then is irrelevant to the 'original sins' but subsequent developments have to be factored into redress. That redress should be appropriately huge. There is no reason any native should live in poverty or be denied education. What they do with what they get is their affair, but that would have to be addressed with appropriate education. There is a lot that could be done differently to the benefit of the entire country.

Unfortunately, the proper resolution of the issues will likely never happen. There is just too much money involved. But that does not diminish the wrongs committed against Aboriginals according to our own laws, not theirs.

From my perspective, Europeans erred by not simply adopting the native concept of non-ownership of land and resources from the outset.

The natives were on to something - all you have to do is think about the lyrics of John Lennon's song Imagine to understand the opportunity that was lost because none of the participants at the time had the mental or social tools to comprehend it.

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

Reality of course would never have allowed it since European cultures at the time were so brutal and crude. But a lot that could have been learned was lost.

That isn't to say there was an idyllic life being conducted by the aboriginals. But one tribe, the Neutrals may have held the key to maintaining lasting peace among nations. Losing their knowledge or techniques might be the single most important loss humanity has ever suffered.

[Wild Bill]

That isn't to say there was an idyllic life being conducted by the aboriginals. But one tribe, the Neutrals may have held the key to maintaining lasting peace among nations. Losing their knowledge or techniques might be the single most important loss humanity has ever suffered.

And how did we lose the Neutrals?

[Smallc]

Smallc, I don't think you have interpreted Sentence 1 incorrectly. There is nothing unreasonable about the Aboriginal land claims from a historical perspective. The passage of time and the escalation of property and economic value has simply worked to expand the dimensions of the crimes committed against them.

Te amount of money and land being requested could bankrupt this country and leave the rest of us, the taxpayers from which this money is coming, with less and less of a country. The crime is very old and was not committed by any living person. It should be put to rest.

Reality of course would never have allowed it since European cultures at the time were so brutal and crude. But a lot that could have been learned was lost.

I find this extremely funny. It really shows your bias when you say that the far more advanced society were crude in comparison to less far less advanced society.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Smallc

[charter.rights]

And how did we lose the Neutrals?

The Neutrals became adoptees of the Seneca Nations. Their remaining people, songs, culture and traditions were melded with the Seneca after the Jesuits and other settlers killed most of them off with their diseases.

[charter.rights]

Te amount of money and land being requested could bankrupt this country and leave the rest of us, the taxpayers from which this money is coming, with less and less of a country. The crime is very old and was not committed by any living person. It should be put to rest.

I find this extremely funny. It really shows your bias when you say that the far more advanced society were crude in comparison to less far less advanced society.

Precontact Europeans were not more advanced - another of the many myths you seem to rely upon but very far from the truth.

[AngusThermopyle]

Precontact Europeans were not more advanced - another of the many myths you seem to rely upon but very far from the truth.

Thats a pretty big statement. How bout you back it up? You know, with facts, not just opinion or fabrications.

Cite please.

Edited September 6, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[charter.rights]

Thats a pretty big statement. How bout you back it up? You know, with facts, not just opinion or fabrications.

Cite please.

Where do you want to start? With the smelting of metals, the socialization of communities, evolution from hunter-gather to farming? What?

[AngusThermopyle]

Where do you want to start? With the smelting of metals, the socialization of communities, evolution from hunter-gather to farming? What?

Well you could if they'd done any of that, but they didn't so I guess you can't.

Why don't you start with that which is most basic, the invention of the wheel? Oh, thats right, you can't because they didn't.

Give me time, I'll try to think of something they did invent.

[charter.rights]

Well you could if they'd done any of that, but they didn't so I guess you can't.

Why don't you start with that which is most basic, the invention of the wheel? Oh, thats right, you can't because they didn't.

Give me time, I'll try to think of something they did invent.

Europeans didn't invent the wheel. So try again.

And yes natives were metal working, including smelting metals almost 3000 years before Europeans discovered. There have been farming in organized communities longer as well.

Care to try again or are you just stuck in your ignorance trying to do a tit for tat?

[AngusThermopyle]

Care to try again or are you just stuck in your ignorance trying to do a tit for tat?

Care to provide some links or cites for your claims? Or are you just going with your usual style of making shit up?

Europeans didn't invent the wheel. So try again.

Care to show me where I said they did? Oh, thats right, I didn't, so you can't. Just keep on making stuff up though, thats one thing you know how to do.

What I did say was that Natives never got that one, it had to be given to them.

Edited September 6, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[charter.rights]

Care to provide some links or cites for your claims? Or are you just going with your usual style of making shit up?

Care to show me where I said they did? Oh, thats right, I didn't, so you can't. Just keep on making stuff up though, thats one thing you know how to do.

What I did say was that Natives never got that one, it had to be given to them.

Ah so you have attention deficit disorder, right?

thjis only 4 posts back:

Precontact Europeans were not more advanced - another of the many myths you seem to rely upon but very far from the truth.

Thats a pretty big statement. How bout you back it up? You know, with facts, not just opinion or fabrications.

Where do you want to start? With the smelting of metals, the socialization of communities, evolution from hunter-gather to farming? What?

Why don't you start with that which is most basic, the invention of the wheel? Oh, thats right, you can't because they didn't.

Europeans didn't invent the wheel. So try again.

Care to show me where I said they did?

Duhboy - look two lines up. Ya you said it and BTW the Europeans didn't invent much in their day and age. Most of their technologies were stolen from plundering, murdering and raping other countries around the world. Such a violent crowd that YOU no doubt are descended from, no?

[gullyfourmyle]

Before this conversation degenerates into a schoolyard scuffle, let me interject a little perspective.

It isn't fair to say that Europeans were more advanced than the natives or that the natives were more advanced than the Europeans.

Each culture advanced with the tools available.

Europeans advanced with material possessions and technology.

Aboriginals advanced spiritually and socially.

There were pros and cons to both social constructs and physical reasons why they developed on divergent lines. Entire books have been written on these subjects.

Suffice it to say that Europeans had two things that were not present in North America - the horse and ready access to a wide variety of metals in close proximity to one another.

A few years ago, I spent some time analyzing popular religions to determine what the differences were if any.

The religions I focused on were Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and Aboriginal Belief Systems. I ignored the Chinese religions due to the language barrier. Buddhism isn't a religion and neither is what indigenous people practice. But these six are the main sets of beliefs that are affecting and have affected world history for the last thousand years or so.

What I did was to compare these belief systems using identifiable criteria such as whether or not a single God entity was accepted or multiples. Religious days, a devil or devil like spirits and so on. I set it all up in chart form.

When it was all done the results were interesting and sadly obvious.

The four religions are all so similar they are nearly identical. All that is different are the customs attached to each. There was nothing better or worse about any of the customs between religions.

Of the religions, Christianity eclipsed the others in terms of sheer violence, followed distantly by Islam. That is not to say that Muslims are any less violent, it's more about lack of economic opportunity. Deserts don't provide much of a spring board to world domination. Even now it's only spreading by piggybacking on Christianity.

Judaism has always been a victim of oppression and that oppression has caused it to thrive rather than the opposite. Oppression and simple hardship tends to strengthen resolve.

Hindu turned out to be the most advanced and most intelligently conceived in terms of its relationship with the actual, physical environment. The others tended to see man as a superior being whose mission was to rape and pillage the environment at will and at need.

The Buddhist belief system was based more on common sense than any of the religions and more closely aligned with Aboriginal belief systems.

As ancient as the Aboriginal belief system is, it turns out that it is at the same time the most modern and combines commonsense with the whimsical to make it comprehensible. In terms of reality and modern science, it makes not only the most sense, it makes the only sense. None of the other religions account for science and man's real place in the world as well as Aboriginal Beliefs do.

That being said, I don't expect anyone to rush out and embrace the Aboriginal Belief systems. Their beliefs developed historically the same as everyone else's and there is a comfort zone attached to each. As well, there is history attached to each which help them make a weird kind of sense that bears no relation to the real world, Aboriginal beliefs included.

But the thing is, Aboriginal Beliefs allow for wildlife to be accepted as equals among humanity. It allows humans to live in harmony with the environment. No other religion or belief system approaches this concept.

Accepting the worth of other creatures is central to Aboriginal Beliefs and it also has to become central to 21st social understanding if we as a species are to survive this century.

So in that sense, all Aboriginal cultures were more primitive yet more advanced at the same time than any other social groups on earth. They had not lost touch with what it takes to exist without wholesale destruction.

That isn't to say they did this with any conscious intent because they didn't. They had no choice - primarily because they didn't have horses. Horses and when they were domesticated are the biggest difference between developed nations and undeveloped nations.

Set against the ability to live in harmony with the environment has to be industrialization - or the complete abandonment of living in harmony with nature.

Industrialization has given the ability to step outside the realm of the survival of the fittest regime and into the well buttressed illusion of techno domination. In the seventies we were taught in school that science would soon find the causes of most if not all diseases. We would find ways of working more efficiently and the work week would shrink to the point where people would be paid to stay home. The Russians had super farms where they were developing new strains of agricultural produce that would revolutionize food production.

By the beginning of the twenty-first century, it had become pretty obvious that not only were none of those things true, but more and more, our technological advances were beginning to backfire. Diseases are becoming more resistant and are mutating into strains impervious to drug solutions. Better communications has meant longer hours not shorter. Technology has shortened the time from idea to finished product to such a degree, that there is no way the environment can replenish what we remove. Consequently even renewable resources are being consumed at a rate that is certain to cause the sixth extinction I keep mentioning.

All it will take is for one vital resource to fail. Of our vital resources we have air, water and soil. We are contaminating the air as fast as we can extract oil from the ground. Every bit that is in the ground is intended to be burned and transformed into air pollution. The residue from oil all ends up in surface water. What ends up in the water eventually ends up in the soil.

This could never have happened under the Aboriginal Belief system.

So which is the right way?

My view is that there is probably a happy medium that would allow progress in moderation. The key is to slow the pace of development and withdraw those elements that allow human over-population where such populations can't be sustained. That will cause a huge human die-off. But that die-off is going to happen sooner or later anyway regardless of what we do. The thing is, if we manage the die-off, we can ensure that humans survive extinction. If we don't manage the die-off, we almost certainly won't.

So. Were Europeans more advanced because they invented most of the things we consider basic essentials today or were natives more advanced because their approach meant that the integrity of life on earth would be protected from the ravages of Chemical Winter and Nuclear degradation?

The one difference between the two is likely only one thing - the speed at which new social elements are integrated into society.

All over the planet, wherever Aboriginal populations have been faced with assimilation into European culture, there has been a wave of social collapse. The exceptions were those that had the option to evolve their social networks as ours developed. India is a good example. Those cultures that didn't have the opportunity or were so far back on the social evolutionary scale that they couldn't adapt have had major problems.

The black problem in the US is an example of how hunter gatherers were brought from a hunter-gatherer social structure to Western lifestyles in the course of a single brutal boat ride. But their descendants have proven that given opportunity, black people have the mental equipment to be the equal of anyone.

What continues to hold them back is their social boat anchors that too often stunt personal development. But blacks are certainly not alone in this. Aboriginal cultures the world over have exactly the same problem or worse. So in an an ugly way, slavery actually gave Afro cultures a leg up on other Aboriginal cultures.

It isn't only animals and so on that evolve. It's also societies that evolve. The evolutionary process is not something that can be rushed. Democracy is the pinnacle of social evolution right now, as unwieldy as the process might be. Grafting Democracy onto other cultures, countries and people is not like taking a pill or handing someone a set of instructions and then expecting them to build an aircraft. It's much harder.

So as obtuse as Aboriginals and other ethnic groups may appear to be from our perspective, they really do have impediments Western cultures aren't saddled with.

When we have slow learners in a classroom setting, we have learned that there are ways of helping them reach their potential. It's been shown over and over again that abusing them doesn't work.

Nurturing them has been shown to work and work well. That's why we have social safety nets. Only the fortunate never need them. But they have to be there in case you or I should fall and by you or I, I mean all Canadians, not just the fabulous few who might take a loss at the markets.

[Smallc]

It isn't fair to say that Europeans were more advanced than the natives or that the natives were more advanced than the Europeans.

Each culture advanced with the tools available.

Europeans advanced with material possessions and technology.

Aboriginals advanced spiritually and socially.

I'm sorry, but it is fair. There was just as much in the way of resources available here as in Europe.. So much, that the native groups in Central and South America began to make use of them. North American natives did not have something that fits the definition of a civilization and were nearly 1000 years behind Europeans (and by some accounts more).

My Western Civilization professor put it best. European society did not invent many of the things that they used to spread out in the world, but there was no one else who was able to put the things together in such a way. The printing press, paper, gunpowder, and sailing ships were an example of such things.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Precontact Europeans were not more advanced - another of the many myths you seem to rely upon but very far from the truth.

It is generally accepted that you are saying is wrong, so prove otherwise. I have taken Western Civ and Early Canada in my recent university time.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Smallc

[Rue]

This is absurd. The very manner in which you are defining civilized is one that suggests one way of life is superior to the other because of things it has the other didn't. That is absurd.

The things some of you are using to assume it makes the society that has them superior does not all it does is mean that society has those things.

Using things one has and the other does not to assume superiority is nonsensical. It is not logical. Superiority is not determined because some of you assume by having a thing the other party does not, it must make you better.

Think of the absurdity. Well go on. Try. Oh look I have a gun. See that person over there he has a spear. That makes me superior. Why? Oh look I have gun powder and he does not. That makes you superior?

Can some of you try make a serious effort to look at the way you define superiority and the assumptions you make for turning it into such a subjective assumption?

You piddle paddle the word civilization about because you actually believe one society is morally superior than another because of what it has discovered. Really?

Oh I see. I am civilized because I have a mind that can invent germ warfare and nuclear bombs. That makes me more civilized. Right.

The toxic waste I spew out, the toxic poisons I destroy the world with and cause epidemic rates of disease with, the mass genocides I now can carry out with such ease, they make me superior?

Seems to me some of you have no clue that what you assume makes you superior makes you the exact opposite but please, go to church and believe you are good people and superior to the heathen. You don't eat people, you just run over them in a car or rip them off in a business deal right?

Bah.

[Smallc]

A civilization or civilisation is a society or culture group normally defined as a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in cities. Compared with other cultures, members of a civilization are organized into a diverse division of labour and an intricate social hierarchy.

Social scientists such as V. Gordon Childe have named a number of traits that distinguish a civilization from other kinds of society.[7] Civilizations have been distinguished by their means of subsistence, types of livelihood, settlement patterns, forms of government, social stratification, economic systems, literacy, and other cultural traits.

All human civilizations have depended on agriculture for subsistence. Growing food on farms results in a surplus of food, particularly when people use intensive agricultural techniques such as irrigation and crop rotation. Grain surpluses have been especially important because they can be stored for a long time. A surplus of food permits some people to do things besides produce food for a living: early civilizations included artisans, priests and priestesses, and other people with specialized careers. A surplus of food results in a division of labour and a more diverse range of human activity, a defining trait of civilizations.

Civilizations have distinctly different settlement patterns from other societies. The word civilization is sometimes defined as "a word that simply means 'living in cities'".[8] Non-farmers gather in cities to work and to trade.

Compared with other societies, civilizations have a more complex political structure, namely the state. State societies are more stratified than other societies; there is a greater difference among the social classes. The ruling class, normally concentrated in the cities, has control over much of the surplus and exercises its will through the actions of a government or bureaucracy. Morton Fried, a conflict theorist, and Elman Service, an integration theorist, have classified human cultures based on political systems and social inequality. This system of classification contains four categories:

* Hunter-gatherer bands, which are generally egalitarian.

* Horticultural/pastoral societies in which there are generally two inherited social classes; chief and commoner.

* Highly stratified structures, or chiefdoms, with several inherited social classes: king, noble, freemen, serf and slave.

* Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments.[citation needed]

Economically, civilizations display more complex patterns of ownership and exchange than less organized societies. Living in one place allows people to accumulate more personal possessions than nomadic people. Some people also acquire landed property, or private ownership of the land. Because many people in civilizations do not grow their own food, they must trade their goods and services for food in a market system. Early civilizations developed money as a universal medium of exchange for these increasingly complex transactions.

Writing, developed first by people in Sumer, is considered a hallmark of civilization and "appears to accompany the rise of complex administrative bureaucracies or the conquest state."[9] Traders and bureaucrats relied on writing to keep accurate records. Aided by their division of labor and central government planning, civilizations have developed many other diverse cultural traits. These include organized religion, development in the arts, and countless new advances in science and technology.

There are definitions for such things, as can be seen above.

European society has been organized in this way for a long time. The fact is, first nations people were behind Europeans when said Europeans arrived. Its not based on any type of bias, its based on fact. There is almost no category under which first nation society could be seen as more advances or less crude than the societies of the old world, particularly of Europe.

Seems to me, that some people have a problem being presented with historical and current facts when it does not support their position, but yet they are very happy to return it. I'm not even sure what kind of point your trying to make with much of what you say. Trying to portray people as bigots and religious zealots doesn't make the truth go away.

Now, back to the original topic.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Smallc

[charter.rights]

It is generally accepted that you are saying is wrong, so prove otherwise. I have taken Western Civ and Early Canada in my recent university time.

It is fact that Natives occupied North America approximately 3000 years before the first hominids entered Europe. You are a product of a false education. Go read some more. They weren't telling you the truth. They had a good reason to. Your pathetic education does not match beans to my expertise on the subject as a historian and present day researcher of aboriginal history. As I suggested earlier to have to examine archives and British documented records before you get a clear picture of the real history of North America pre and post settlement.

As well, there is no such thing as "aboriginal religion" anymore than being a Baptist defines all facets of Christianity and Judaism combined. Spiritual belief systems within the Iroquois as an example had only one commonality - they were individual. This is the result of the general philosophy of Iroquois people in that no one can impose upon another a blief or understanding and everyone, including children are to learn and understand in their own ways. The same type of thing holds true in the Anishnabec who's creation stories do not have the same concepts or origins as the Iroquois. Very different.

The Iroquois Confederacy was organized more than 1000 years ago - a time that Europeans faced malevolent monarchies and dictatorships. Just think...1000 years ago even the opinions young children were considered in a participatory. It is event longer still back to the Mayan and before that agriculture, cities and law and order was a way of life in the Americas.

The primary differences between the pre-contact Europeans and Iroquois is that the latter had no need for weapons of mass destruction. They did not seek out to destroy peoples or rape and pillage neighbouring villages. Instead they operated on a system that Peace was paramount and every action that disturbed the peace had to be calmed or removed. As well since North America is full of interconnecting waterways, there was little need for mass transportation equipment. Even the horse was rejected by all but the Plains peoples since a horse could not easily navigate many of the rocky passages that are easily traveled by canoe. Plus canoes did not have to rest or stop to eat, so waterway travel was much swifter than horse and buggy.

I know an Elder from one of the reserves that I deal with every day that tells of a time when Iroquois runners used to regularly travel from the Mohawk homelands ( in present day near Ogdensburg, New York) to Taiaiagon (present day Toronto) in under 4 days. A canoe was only used to cross the St Lawrence at Frontenac and the rest was by foot day and night. The runners did not eat until they arrived at Toronto, then feasted for 2 or more days. Farming and living in organized villages, the Iroquois did not need to travel long distances except to send messages to distant villages in the north shore.

They did not need metal implements realizing the the skill of making clay pots or chert arrow points was much less labour intensive. Metals were reserved for ornaments, having to retrieve copper from the North Shore of Superior in trade for tobacco. The difference to Europeans is that the rich elite masters forced slavery and poor conditions on their peasant servants, while the Iroquois had an egalitarian soceity where no one person - not a child or an old person - was worth less than anyone else. Food was shared equally. Tools and implements were community property, and disputes were solved with face to face discussions and not intermediaries and courts controlled by the very rich.

In North America the Iroquois and many other First Nation societies had little need for anything, while the poor in Europe always had to better themselves and free themselves from enslavement. Thus most often that freedom came through violent means, by joining a pillaging army or by stealing from another less fortunate. The European system is built on competition while the Iroquois system was build on equal division of all things. That in itself is the main difference in world views and the reason the Iroquois were cheated so often, having believed that the Europeans were men of their word and would treat the Iroquois the same way they treated the newcomers.

[Smallc]

It is fact that Natives occupied North America approximately 3000 years before the first hominids entered Europe. You are a product of a false education. Go read some more. They weren't telling you the truth. They had a good reason to. Your pathetic education does not match beans to my expertise on the subject as a historian and present day researcher of aboriginal history. As I suggested earlier to have to examine archives and British documented records before you get a clear picture of the real history of North America pre and post settlement.

As well, there is no such thing as "aboriginal religion" anymore than being a Baptist defines all facets of Christianity and Judaism combined. Spiritual belief systems within the Iroquois as an example had only one commonality - they were individual. This is the result of the general philosophy of Iroquois people in that no one can impose upon another a blief or understanding and everyone, including children are to learn and understand in their own ways. The same type of thing holds true in the Anishnabec who's creation stories do not have the same concepts or origins as the Iroquois. Very different.

The Iroquois Confederacy was organized more than 1000 years ago - a time that Europeans faced malevolent monarchies and dictatorships. Just think...1000 years ago even the opinions young children were considered in a participatory. It is event longer still back to the Mayan and before that agriculture, cities and law and order was a way of life in the Americas.

The primary differences between the pre-contact Europeans and Iroquois is that the latter had no need for weapons of mass destruction. They did not seek out to destroy peoples or rape and pillage neighbouring villages. Instead they operated on a system that Peace was paramount and every action that disturbed the peace had to be calmed or removed. As well since North America is full of interconnecting waterways, there was little need for mass transportation equipment. Even the horse was rejected by all but the Plains peoples since a horse could not easily navigate many of the rocky passages that are easily traveled by canoe. Plus canoes did not have to rest or stop to eat, so waterway travel was much swifter than horse and buggy.

I know an Elder from one of the reserves that I deal with every day that tells of a time when Iroquois runners used to regularly travel from the Mohawk homelands ( in present day near Ogdensburg, New York) to Taiaiagon (present day Toronto) in under 4 days. A canoe was only used to cross the St Lawrence at Frontenac and the rest was by foot day and night. The runners did not eat until they arrived at Toronto, then feasted for 2 or more days. Farming and living in organized villages, the Iroquois did not need to travel long distances except to send messages to distant villages in the north shore.

They did not need metal implements realizing the the skill of making clay pots or chert arrow points was much less labour intensive. Metals were reserved for ornaments, having to retrieve copper from the North Shore of Superior in trade for tobacco. The difference to Europeans is that the rich elite masters forced slavery and poor conditions on their peasant servants, while the Iroquois had an egalitarian soceity where no one person - not a child or an old person - was worth less than anyone else. Food was shared equally. Tools and implements were community property, and disputes were solved with face to face discussions and not intermediaries and courts controlled by the very rich.

In North America the Iroquois and many other First Nation societies had little need for anything, while the poor in Europe always had to better themselves and free themselves from enslavement. Thus most often that freedom came through violent means, by joining a pillaging army or by stealing from another less fortunate. The European system is built on competition while the Iroquois system was build on equal division of all things. That in itself is the main difference in world views and the reason the Iroquois were cheated so often, having believed that the Europeans were men of their word and would treat the Iroquois the same way they treated the newcomers.

Yes, NA pre European contact was a utopia. Now I understand.