The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[Moonbox]

Land claims are being settled. I know it. I agreed with you.

The proof for you is there, however. Add up ALL of the land claim settlements in the last decade, however, and then tell me how long it would take at the current pace to reach $1 trillion in settlements.

You have not once, in the last several months, provided anything even CLOSE to proof that the Supreme Court supports the claim from First Nations in anywhere NEAR the area of $1 trillion. All you've done is show us examples of small settlements being made here and there from time to time.

As for the sulking, I know for a fact that what you're saying is pure balogna so it doesn't upset me one bit. The worst you're going to get from me is sneering contempt and a total lack of respect for your clownschool claims and opinions.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Moonbox

[Remiel]

In any case, it could never the the case that natives could half self-governed soverighty over all the land in Canada, or perhaps even all the land in a province (because we are a federation and provincial conditions actually matter). The simple reason being is that no other country that matters would accept Canada suddenly turning from a state into a nationality claimed by stateless refugees. Because you know, they all sort of believe in democracy, and anywhere that 2 million make the rules and 32 million don't get to vote generally does not mesh well with that.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Because you know, they all sort of believe in democracy, and anywhere that 2 million make the rules and 32 million don't get to vote generally does not mesh well with that.

...but 2 million not getting to vote was much more acceptable!

Registered Indians living on-Reserve had previously been prevented from doing so by this section of the Canada Elections Act:

14. (2) The following persons are disqualified from voting in an election and incapable of being registered as electors and shall not vote nor be so registered, that is to say, ...

(e) every Indian, as defined in the Indian Act, ordinarily resident on a reserve, unless

(i) he was a member of His Majesty's Forces during World War I or World War II, or was a member of the Canadian Forces who served on active service subsequent to the 9th day of September, 1950, or

(ii) he executed a waiver, in a form prescribed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of exemptions under the Indian Act from taxation on and in respect of personal property, and subsequent to the execution of such waiver a writ has issued ordering an election in any electoral district.

An "Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act," repealing the discriminatory parts of Section 14, was given royal assent on March 31, 1960.

[Remiel]

...but 2 million not getting to vote was much more acceptable!

Where did I say or imply that?

Treament of natives has historical been, if I may use the vernacular, a total fucking crapshoot. That does not exempt anyone from treating anyone, even if they have been wronged by them, according to basic democratic principles.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Remiel

[bush_cheney2004]

Where did I say or imply that?

OK....let me be perfectly clear, as the inference apparently wasn't obvious. Was Canada "accepted" by other countries before 1960 (native suffrage)? I challenged your premise with historical fact.

Treament of natives has historical been, if I may use the vernacular, a total fucking crapshoot. That does not exempt anyone from treating anyone, even if they have been wronged by them, according to basic democratic principles.

Sure it does...why the hell would/should "natives" trust and participate in so called democratic processes now after getting hosed by same in the past?

[Remiel]

OK....let me be perfectly clear, as the inference apparently wasn't obvious. Was Canada "accepted" by other countries before 1960 (native suffrage)? I challenged your premise with historical fact.

You mean the historical fact that most Western countries sucked the big one over racial issues back then? Tell me, what exactly was happening in the 1960s in the United States?

Sure it does...why the hell would/should "natives" trust and participate in so called democratic processes now after getting hosed by same in the past?

You need to think more of " democracy " in the Lockean sense in which everyone in principle has a say in how society will be run. This is is different from what we think of as day to day voting. It is the same principle by which native communities are entitled to have their traditional forms of government, which are not " democratic " in our every day sense, but are in the Lockean sense because presumably that is how they want their government to be organized.

[bush_cheney2004]

You mean the historical fact that most Western countries sucked the big one over racial issues back then? Tell me, what exactly was happening in the 1960s in the United States?

No....you made a specific reference to Canada's "acceptance" by other countries that I find dubious at best. In 1960's US, "natives" were voting in elections.

You need to think more of " democracy " in the Lockean sense in which everyone in principle has a say in how society will be run. This is is different from what we think of as day to day voting. It is the same principle by which native communities are entitled to have their traditional forms of government, which are not " democratic " in our every day sense, but are in the Lockean sense because presumably that is how they want their government to be organized.

Democracy has many attributes in definition and practice, but it is not a reliable determinant for equitable policies or outcomes. Canada and the United States are not pure democracies by design, but have some democratic principles. My purpose in challenging your 32/2 million assertion inverted was to demonstrate that Canada was accepted by other countries as a democracy, and would be today. For instance, US residents of territories, possessions, and DC generally cannot vote in presidential elections but the US is "accepted" as a democracy by other countries.

[Remiel]

No....you made a specific reference to Canada's "acceptance" by other countries that I find dubious at best. In 1960's US, "natives" were voting in elections.

I was not comparing to natives in the US in the 60s. Some particular people you may be familiar with may have had the right to vote in the 60s but they sure as hell were not treated as citizens in many places.

Democracy has many attributes in definition and practice, but it is not a reliable determinant for equitable policies or outcomes. Canada and the United States are not pure democracies by design, but have some democratic principles. My purpose in challenging your 32/2 million assertion inverted was to demonstrate that Canada was accepted by other countries as a democracy, and would be today. For instance, US residents of territories, possessions, and DC generally cannot vote in presidential elections but the US is "accepted" as a democracy by other countries.

Your new example makes it seem like you completely missed the point of what I just said.

But you inversion question is just strange. If Canada is not accepted as a democracy then everything the West is based on is a complete lie because it sure as hell is treated the same as every country that is. You really have no sense of perspective if you do not think that a major Western country suddenly changing so that 90% of the people did not have any role in recognizing the government of the land they live in would not be a major shakeup of the world order.

[bush_cheney2004]

I was not comparing to natives in the US in the 60s. Some particular people you may be familiar with may have had the right to vote in the 60s but they sure as hell were not treated as citizens in many places.

Even better....your assertions for voting would have less relevance for "acceptance"...then and now.

Your new example makes it seem like you completely missed the point of what I just said.

It's another example to decouple your notion of perceived and real "democracy".

But you inversion question is just strange. If Canada is not accepted as a democracy then everything the West is based on is a complete lie because it sure as hell is treated the same as every country that is. You really have no sense of perspective if you do not think that a major Western country suddenly changing so that 90% of the people did not have any role in recognizing the government of the land they live in would not be a major shakeup of the world order.

The "world order"? Come now....the "world" fully accepts that in some cases more than 50% of the electorate doesn't even bother to vote.

[Bonam]

The "world order"? Come now....the "world" fully accepts that in some cases more than 50% of the electorate doesn't even bother to vote.

Not bothering to vote and not being allowed to vote are two very different things.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not bothering to vote and not being allowed to vote are two very different things.

Not in this specific context for "world order" recognition of a democratic process, which has no such threshold defined save for instances of compulsory voting (e.g. Australia).

Edited July 10, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Yesterday]

I have a friend who's mother is native, Six Nations but I'm not sure which one. She loves to bitch out white people regarding our usurping of native land. Usually the attacks are leveled at me...I'm so lucky!!!!!

Yesterday when she got started, I just looked at her and said 'You know, your wrong. We've been paying rent to be on this land since 1710 and it amounts to roughly 650 billion dollars right now and it is not my fault that the government refused to release this money to who it rightfully belongs. I never took anything of yours or anyone else's and you can take your opinion and stuff it!'

What a world.

Also, the same sort of thing is happening in the US for those natives. I'll look for some links, seems I'm always looking for links. It is a fun way to learn eh. I am personally very pleased to see the money get transferred.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Yesterday

[Remiel]

Not in this specific context for "world order" recognition of a democratic process, which has no such threshold defined save for instances of compulsory voting (e.g. Australia).

Most things in the world do not have a " defined threshhold " , yet people have a good idea what is happening when they see it.

Tell me, what is the " defined threshhold " for a major terrorist attack? 2? 50? 100? 375? 681?

[charter.rights]

In any case, it could never the the case that natives could half self-governed soverighty over all the land in Canada, or perhaps even all the land in a province (because we are a federation and provincial conditions actually matter). The simple reason being is that no other country that matters would accept Canada suddenly turning from a state into a nationality claimed by stateless refugees. Because you know, they all sort of believe in democracy, and anywhere that 2 million make the rules and 32 million don't get to vote generally does not mesh well with that.

You make a number of errors in your thinking.

First of all the sovereignty of any one nation is over the people and it is the people who manage the lands on behalf of the nation.

The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty was in part a recognition that the British Crown could not manage the land through its own resources, and in turn required the co-operation of many native nations to protect and manage the lands and resources. To that point at the time of the signing, the British had expanding colonies in the eastern US that was inter-populated with First Nations communities. The British knew that warring with the natives would not turn out well for the colonists. As well they did not have enough military forces to protect all the homesteaders. Their experience was that the Iroquois Confederacy not only was made up of 5 co-operating nations, but that Peace and Goodwill helped them enter into the territories of many other nations to hunt and fish and trade, with very little resistance or opposition.

Fashioned after the Two Row Wampum (Or the Kahswenta),through the Silver Covenant Chain, the British sought to expand their co-operation in conjunction with the Iroquois Confederacy with other First Nations, for trade and security.

Secondly and more importantly you make the most amateur mistake of generalizing First Nations into on homogeneous group. We are talking about a land base 5 times the size of Europe being managed or used by about 250 distinct nations but only sharing about 4 or 5 different languages. Co-operation between nations was a notion of survival, in as much as disputes that arose during lean times were over hunting grounds.

However, here we are only essentially initially talking about early eastern US west to the Ohio valley, the Michigan Peninsula north to the north shore of Superior, Nippising east to Montreal and back to New York, being managed not only through British and Dutch colonial settlers, but through the Iroquois Confederacy (which by this time was expanded to include a number of nations adopted into the Confederacy) as well as French colonists and Metis people populating the northern wilderness. Through the co-operation of the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty the lands and resources were commonly managed for the benefit of all.

Lastly, the Iroquois are hardly "stateless" since the lands of Southern Ontario, and New York are still occupied by the Iroquois Confederacy. The US has on many occasions recognized and confirmed the sovereignty of the Iroquois both in court and by declaration. In Canada, the "polishing of the Chain" signified by the presentation of the gifts by the Queen reaffirms the sovereignty and independence of the Iroquois Confederacy as friends and allies of the Crown. As well the Iroquois Confederacy still maintains its 1100 year old participatory government - the same one that the US fashioned their own Constitution after 250 years ago.

A just to restate it, the US already recognizes the sovereignty of the Iroquois Confederacy, in as much as the Supreme Court of Canada is also reaffirming the sovereign interests of First Nations today, through far-reaching constitutional decisions. While Canada does not currently accept the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) passport, this polishing of the chain is likely to change all of that. This one gesture unravels the way that Canada has viewed the Iroquois Confederacy and will over time restore the recognition of the control of lands, to the Confederacy through a spirit of Peace, Goodwill and Friendship. The honour of the Crown depends on it.

Edited July 10, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

Most things in the world do not have a " defined threshhold " , yet people have a good idea what is happening when they see it.

Tell me, what is the " defined threshhold " for a major terrorist attack? 2? 50? 100? 375? 681?

Are your talking about the real possibilities or just the perceived ones propagated through fear and manipulation of the masses to increase the consumption of corporations good and services? Keep your context focused in Canada too BTW.

[Remiel]

First of all the sovereignty of any one nation is over the people and it is the people who manage the lands on behalf of the nation.

This makes no sense. A nation is nothing other than the people who make up the nation. You are making it sound as if you think a nation could exist without people.

Lastly, the Iroquois are hardly "stateless" since the lands of Southern Ontario, and New York are still occupied by the Iroquois Confederacy.

I was not referring to Iroquois being stateless. I was referring to Canadians being made stateless.

[charter.rights]

This makes no sense. A nation is nothing other than the people who make up the nation. You are making it sound as if you think a nation could exist without people.

It absolutely makes sense if you reread it.

"...the sovereignty of any one nation is over the people...." one statement

"...it is the people who manage the lands on behalf of the nation..." another statement.

I was not referring to Iroquois being stateless. I was referring to Canadians being made stateless.

No one said in this discussion or any other that Canadians would be displaced if there were land settlements. In essence our Ontario settlements are still on Haudenosaunee territory, who are not Canadians. Therefore we are living on Indians lands, even though we are still Canadian. That does not make us stateless. But it does mean that we are in violation of the Royal Proclamation 1763, and are infringing on their rights.

Of course there is a case to be made for a portion of our taxes, and profits from resources being paid for them for the use of their land, but still we have property rights under Haudenosaunee law.

Edited July 10, 2010 by charter.rights

[lictor616]

First of all the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations) have a right of occupancy law within their Great Law of Peace (Constitution) that give the right to use land that is occupied by homesteaders for the purposes of making a reasonable living (i.e. farming, limited resource harvesting etc.). However, it does not give the rights to corporations, or to government to profit from their occupation of land, nor can the occupation rights usurp the territorial rights of Six Nations. Essentially, homesteaders can stay but corporations and industry require permission from Six Nations to operate within their territory (southern Ontario).

In the past the perpetual care the Crown has offered Six Nations was accepted compensation for some of the industrial commercial uses within their territory. But lately there have been squabbles over the government claiming ownership over the land and refusing to force companies that do not consult with Six Nations, off the land.

Not including current claims to parts of southern Ontario lands, the government of Canada holds a trust for leases and small surrenders that is estimated to top $1 trillion. The interest on those monies that are calculated at interest rates set out by the Bank of Canada and INAC, amount to about $3 billion a year. Six Nations and Tyendinaga receive only about $250 million a year in transfers to maintain services, roads and infrastructure. That is a huge inequity.

This new development of polishing the chain puts the government in an awkward situation concerning the lands at Caledonia, Brantford and Deseronto, in that Six Nations has maintained that no surrenders took place in accordance with the Royal Proclamation 1763, and that the land be returned. The government has only offered an insignificant sum of money. The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty suggests that disputes such as this are to be settled in the spirit of the Silver Covenant Chain.....which could mean that the government obstruction to the return of land should be dropped and they should find a way to either swap land, or give jurisdiction back entirely to Six Nations control in order to protect the honour of the Crown.

why aren't you on other communist forums (like rabble.ca) misquoting and misrepresenting your arguments?

you fraud... gtho of here.

[Moonbox]

charter.rights has only acknowledges/accepts things that support his/her opinions. Don't bother.

[charter.rights]

charter.rights has only acknowledges/accepts things that support his/her opinions. Don't bother.

Moonbox thinks his opinion is a great substitution for fact. He is a waste of time.

[Remiel]

It absolutely makes sense if you reread it.

"...the sovereignty of any one nation is over the people...." one statement

"...it is the people who manage the lands on behalf of the nation..." another statement.

Sovereignty is over territory, not people. It has not been for a very long time that there was such a thing as the " King of the Scots " , or " King of the Greeks " . Now it is " King of Scotland " and " King of Greece " .

[lictor616]

Moonbox thinks his opinion is a great substitution for fact. He is a waste of time.

what's this you litigious freak?

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/freak-dominion-ordered-turn-over-user-info

[charter.rights]

Sovereignty is over territory, not people. It has not been for a very long time that there was such a thing as the " King of the Scots " , or " King of the Greeks " . Now it is " King of Scotland " and " King of Greece " .

Incorrect.

Merriam Webster Online

Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty

Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty \-tē\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural sov·er·eign·ties

Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Anglo-French sovereinté, from soverein

Date: 14th century

1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it

2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : autonomy c : controlling influence

3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

And sovereign has a similar meaning

Main Entry: 1sov·er·eign

Variant(s): also sov·ran \ˈsä-v(ə-)rən, -vərn also ˈsə-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English soverain, from Anglo-French soverein, from soverein, adjective

Date: 13th century

1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader : arbiter

2 : any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom

Sovereignty is over people, not land.

[Moonbox]

It's really a moot point. If sovereignty is over people, and those people occupy the land, it's pretty much the same thing.

[charter.rights]

It's really a moot point. If sovereignty is over people, and those people occupy the land, it's pretty much the same thing.

No it is not.

Canada is a nation without a land base. Really. All land has some First Nation encumbrance, whether it be treaty, harvesting rights or unceded. The Crown made agreements that cannot be undone without their approval and as such Canada has very little in terms of land.

All Crown sovereignty is only over the people in Canada. That is a simple fact.