Ontario Loyalist Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Oh, so it wasn't "Lovelace vs. Ontario" after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I happen to think that people alive today are not entitled to special rights simply because their ancestors came to this continent early.Does this thinking extend to Quebec dualism and/or sovereignty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Does this thinking extend to Quebec dualism and/or sovereignty? Or does he mean "special rights" as in what white anglo saxon males have enjoyed over the last 200 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Or does he mean "special rights" as in what white anglo saxon males have enjoyed over the last 200 years? Might makes right!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Or does he mean "special rights" as in what white anglo saxon males have enjoyed over the last 200 years? The world that they created is something that you benefit from every day. Unless you prefer that people die by the age of 40 from a whole host of illness we now longer worry about, eat meals made of maggoty corn mush and rotting deer jerky, and engaging in never ending inter-tribal warfare, then I suggest you have no reason to complain about what Canada is--one of the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the history of human civilization. Funny how some people just can't stand that, and in order to fulfill their anarchist agenda, they have to gravitate to the cause of peoples who never could have accomplished what Canada has become. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 The world that they created is something that you benefit from every day. Unless you prefer that people die by the age of 40 from a whole host of illness we now longer worry about, eat meals made of maggoty corn mush and rotting deer jerky, and engaging in never ending inter-tribal warfare, then I suggest you have no reason to complain about what Canada is--one of the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the history of human civilization. Funny how some people just can't stand that, and in order to fulfill their anarchist agenda, they have to gravitate to the cause of peoples who never could have accomplished what Canada has become. If you think you are referring to Haudenosaunee people, think again. There was an abundance of food available in almost all communities and as we are just finding out today, the "three sisters" - corn beans and squash - are complimentary nutritionally. Plus meet was only about 10-15% of their diet. Supplemented by amaranth grains and a wild assortment of fresh green in season the Haudenonsaunee had a better dietary system than we do today. Plus their stories tell of people who lived more than 150 years prior to contact. I even knew one gentleman in particular that lived till he was 96 years old, while all his life he smoked 2 packs of cigarettes (a pouch of rollies) a day, a pack of cigars a day and a pouch of pipe tobacco every couple of days. The community he is from regularly has people live until they are in their eighties, living largely off a traditional diet. On the other hand when the Europeans first arrived here they were lucky to make it to 40.....45 being extremely old age....Once they started eating the foods that were available here people began to lengthen their lifespan. If not for the "Indian Givers" the world would not have the wealth of foods we have today. As for wars one need only examine the violent British and European's history to see who has problems containing their violent nature. Hell, even your Christianity began in violence and celebrates each Easter. Of all the people in the world for time immemorial I would suggest that the Christians have been the most violent and malevolent anyone has ever experienced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 If you're the best that SN can do for support from among "whites" their's is a lost cause indeed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 If you're the best that SN can do for support from among "whites" their's is a lost cause indeed... How's that court case coming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Plus their stories tell of people who lived more than 150 years prior to contact. I even knew one gentleman in particular that lived till he was 96 years old, while all his life he smoked 2 packs of cigarettes (a pouch of rollies) a day, a pack of cigars a day and a pouch of pipe tobacco every couple of days. The community he is from regularly has people live until they are in their eighties, living largely off a traditional diet. So what? We have stories that tell of guys called Methuselah and people who could fly. That doesn't make it true though. As for the rest...well...show us some proof, not just your usual made up bull. Oh, thats right, as usual you can't because its all just stories and lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 How's that court case coming? Which one...? You still haven't clarified which one's the right one... Besides, what difference does it make? If the court rules against your side, you'll simply consider it to be not valid. Otherwise, it's set in stone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 So what? We have stories that tell of guys called Methuselah and people who could fly. That doesn't make it true though. As for the rest...well...show us some proof, not just your usual made up bull. Oh, thats right, as usual you can't because its all just stories and lies. Look! A new species just showed up.....its....its...Homo erectus ad hominem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Look! A new species just showed up.....its....its...Homo erectus ad hominem! Once again you show us that your wit is as tenuous as your grasp on reality. So, would you care now to present proof of these amazing 150 year lifespans? Thought not. As such your previous statements will be filed with the rest of what you claim, under the designation of bald faced lies. Does it not shame you that you are known as a blatant liar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Well, he's obvious all to willing to accept at face value the stories his Indian friends tell him around the camp fire... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Well, he's obvious all to willing to accept at face value the stories his Indian friends tell him around the camp fire... What...and YOU read history books written by one guy? Oral history stands to scrutiny because is is collected by many people and repeated verbatim by the students. When it is recalled, anything that might have been embellished or left out becomes relatively clear because it doesn't jive with the history other tell. It is far more accurate then books, given that history books tend to compound bias on the sources and add the writer's bias to the mix. I would give 20 oral accounts more weight then one written on. If you even understand how history is research you would know that we always go back to the source of all events and pretty much ignore written editions. "The source" in many case with native history are the oral teachings and then we can confirm our joint history by confirming them with the written record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 What...and YOU read history books written by one guy? By the time one complete's their education in the Canadian public school system, they should have developed the ability to think critically. That applies to both "oral" as well as written works. Oral history stands to scrutiny because is is collected by many people and repeated verbatim by the students. Which I guess is why much of Indian knowledge of their heritage is based on written works such as the Jesuit Relations, and that legal actions by SN are based on written documentation. I would give 20 oral accounts more weight then one written on. I dare you to say those exact words in front of a university lecture hall filled with history students/faculty. If you even understand how history is research you would know that we always go back to the source of all events and pretty much ignore written editions. "The source" in many case with native history are the oral teachings and then we can confirm our joint history by confirming them with the written record. Laughable, just plain laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 By the time one complete's their education in the Canadian public school system, they should have developed the ability to think critically. That applies to both "oral" as well as written works. Most don't know how to think. Period. Which I guess is why much of Indian knowledge of their heritage is based on written works such as the Jesuit Relations, and that legal actions by SN are based on written documentation. I don't know what you have been sniffing, but most of the Indian heritiage and history that has been offered to me comes from oral history. As a critical historian I do use the Jesuit Relations, ancient British texts and authors like Horatio Hale to confirm that history - especially when dealing with post contact stuff, but the majority comes from the source in oral history. I dare you to say those exact words in front of a university lecture hall filled with history students/faculty. I deal with Trent and Queens University faculty and students on a regular basis. The Professors of the Aboriginal Program at Trent agree with my assessment of oral history and that is very much where they reference the program from. In fact the Supreme Court of Canada also agrees and have ruled that oral history has as much weight as any British written agreement. Laughable, just plain laughable. I've seen you before and just like the Family Guy munching on cheezies I would agree that you are laughable, very laughable. BTW How's that court case coming. I hear that McHale is going to lose....but that's just the opinion of one Crown attorney..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 So give us some cites, give us some references. All you ever do is offer up bullshit with no proof. It seems that I spend quite a bit of time requesting such references from you and every time you maintain a stony silence or attempt to change the subject. That behaviour alone speaks volumes as to the veracity of what you claim. So now you're a Historian, boy, you really are multi-facetted aren't you. Sorry, but I have to call what you've presented on this forum so far. You are not what you claim to be, you're merely a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 So give us some cites, give us some references. All you ever do is offer up bullshit with no proof. It seems that I spend quite a bit of time requesting such references from you and every time you maintain a stony silence or attempt to change the subject.That behaviour alone speaks volumes as to the veracity of what you claim. So now you're a Historian, boy, you really are multi-facetted aren't you. Sorry, but I have to call what you've presented on this forum so far. You are not what you claim to be, you're merely a liar. I've cited lots of points. You mustn't have been around to read them...unless of course it is just laziness on your part. How would you like me to frame the oral history? As far as other information, we don;t rely upon the internet for much of anything since it is often nothing more than a bastardization of a poor opinion. If you really want to follow this stuff up you have to go much deeper into books, periodicals and old letters. I have a fairly large collection of more regional stuff and a number of documents concerning land claims in much of Ontario, but that I'm not at liberty to share. The real truth is found through thorough research. If you want sound bites to fill your ears then I suggest taking up CPAC for a couple of hours. Otherwise the stuff I have will be presented in the form I have given, sometimes long-winded and boring but purposeful. You can take that or leave it but you obviously can't argue it when you don't have very much knowledge of Haudenosaunee history. I would suggest that you start with "Indian Givers", Jack Weatherford. It isn't a complex read, but provides a simple grounding in the gratitude we should be showing our First Nation allies. If you don't want to do that then I suggest the rest of this stuff will be over your head. UNtil you have respect for First Nation people, their culture and history you'll never get to understand them the way I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Most don't know how to think. Period. Then I suppose they should become male nurses... I don't know what you have been sniffing, but most of the Indian heritiage and history that has been offered to me comes from oral history. As a critical historian I do use the Jesuit Relations, ancient British texts and authors like Horatio Hale to confirm that history - especially when dealing with post contact stuff, but the majority comes from the source in oral history. So in other words you use texts recorded by white men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Then I suppose they should become male nurses...So in other words you use texts recorded by white men. Louis Hall and Ely Parker aren't "white men". But I see from your racist implication that because they are authorities on native history and culture they don't count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Louis Hall and Ely Parker aren't "white men". But I see from your racist implication that because they are authorities on native history and culture they don't count. I've never seen Ely Parker referred to as an "authority on native history and culture" before. Just because he was Indians, doesn't make him such. But on the other hand, having had (at the time) modern education, and having been successful in the modern world, he certainly would have been more suited for being an expert had he chosen to. as for: I might believe that you don't agree with skin-heads and nazi types. But right now you exemplify what a typical racist does - promote hatred and bigotry at every opportunity. Look who's talking? I'm not the one who created Six Nations, made them Indian, and has convinced them that they have a distinct "national", racial, and cultural identity. If these people want to be viewed in a positive light because of those attributes, then if the opposite is the case, then how is that racism and the former not? Canada has a multicultural society, but these people want to opt out and have a "special" status and create a pseudo petty state which they can't even police properly. Whether you want to admit it or not, Six Nations is the hub of organized crime in the region. Whether or not the members of SN on the front lines of their "reclamaiton" are involved or not is beside the point; they facilitate the existance of a political entity that permits that kind of criminal behaviour. You have no problem going after the Canadian government for the supposed wrongs that it's committed, but won't hold your dear SN friends to the same standard--and anyone who tries to is a "racist". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 this thread should have been kept deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 this thread should have been kept deleted. Or you should have been permanently banned under your other name. That would have solved a major part of your problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Or you should have been permanently banned under your other name. That would have solved a major part of your problem. Wait, are you suggesting that I'm a previously banned member? I believe that's against forum rules... not to mention your flaming and trolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Wait, are you suggesting that I'm a previously banned member? I believe that's against forum rules... not to mention your flaming and trolling. I "suspect" you have been kicked a couple of times. That is not against the rules. However, presenting a name might be and I'm not as foolish as you to fall into that trap. As for flaming and trolling, I suggest you reread the rules again since that seems to be your M.O., not mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.