First Nations peoples are being eradicated by

[Guest Peeves]

And I'll call you on a lie Angus. There were no other Warriors intimidating that soldier when that confrontation took place. Here's the video.

And....

It would have been suicide for the Armed Forces to attack on Canadian soil. The world was watching and UN oversight was on the ground. The Canadian government and the Armed Forces could not have won that one. So it stands. 25 Warriors held off 3500 troops. That is a fact.

Looks to me that more than the one confronted him attempting to provoke and intimidate, but it didn't work. Of course the mark of a coward is the mask.

Unfortunately till now, our government(s) approach to the Indian problem has been appeasement and concession.

Eventually there will have to be an insistence of equal complying with our laws. If the Indians are indeed Canadian, the law applies to them equally. If they deny being Canadian, no more extended rights or support.

Caledonia is an absolute disgrace as far as equal rights and equal law enforcement applies.

[AngusThermopyle]

Two In This Shot

As you can see clearly in this shot there is indeed another "Warrior". In the complete shot there are three. Yes Bryan they did keep walking away and finally when they realized they couldn't get to him they walked away completely.

For those who want to know the facts surrounding Oka and not just the propaganda there is a very thoroughdocument available, its in PDF form so I can't post it but if you do a google search using "Canadian Forces Mandate At Oka" it will be the first link that comes up. Its a lengthy read but well worth it for any who are truly interested in the facts of this matter. It clearly shows that no use of excessive force was authorized for the CF and non was used. Further it shows that the CF performed admirably and gives dates and locations when the Warriors were compelled to abandon barricades and move back into an increasingly smaller area. As I said, a lengthy document but very well worth the read.

[DogOnPorch]

If there was any racism towards missing aboriginal women, it was from the RCMP and not from mainstream Canada. My understanding is that there has been a large number of missing women in that area, mostly prostitutes. One thing I've never seen in the media is whether or not the authorities looked for ANY missing prostitutes! IOW, did they jump on any cases of missing white prostitutes and ignore ONLY those of aboriginal women? I think the answer would be necessary before we can lay a considered charge of racism.

As for trusting the government, I for one would never advise the natives to do that. I don't trust our government myself! Why on earth would I tell anyone else to trust them?

The Highway of Tears involves women other than just missing natives. But, that gets lost in the political hoo-hah.

[charter.rights]

Two In This Shot

As you can see clearly in this shot there is indeed another "Warrior". In the complete shot there are three. Yes Bryan they did keep walking away and finally when they realized they couldn't get to him they walked away completely.

For those who want to know the facts surrounding Oka and not just the propaganda there is a very thoroughdocument available, its in PDF form so I can't post it but if you do a google search using "Canadian Forces Mandate At Oka" it will be the first link that comes up. Its a lengthy read but well worth it for any who are truly interested in the facts of this matter. It clearly shows that no use of excessive force was authorized for the CF and non was used. Further it shows that the CF performed admirably and gives dates and locations when the Warriors were compelled to abandon barricades and move back into an increasingly smaller area. As I said, a lengthy document but very well worth the read.

Just more of YOUR propaganda.

Anyone who wants to see the disgrace of the Canadian Armed Forces only needs to see: "Kanehsatake - 270 years of Resistance" A National Film Board Documentary produced by Alanis Obomsawin. It provides live interviews. Also see: "Rocks at Whiskey Trench". Another NFB documentary by the same producer. The CAF acted like uncivilized clowns.

[charter.rights]

Looks to me that more than the one confronted him attempting to provoke and intimidate, but it didn't work. Of course the mark of a coward is the mask.

Unfortunately till now, our government(s) approach to the Indian problem has been appeasement and concession.

Eventually there will have to be an insistence of equal complying with our laws. If the Indians are indeed Canadian, the law applies to them equally. If they deny being Canadian, no more extended rights or support.

Caledonia is an absolute disgrace as far as equal rights and equal law enforcement applies.

Nope.

There was a line between both sides. There were only two Warriors in the soldier's face at separate times while at the same time there was a line of soldiers behind him. And that soldier reportedly pissed his pants while standing there.

Edited December 21, 2011 by charter.rights

[Shady]

Don't the face coverings remind of you of the fighters of Hamas and Hezbollah? And you gotta love the sun glasses too. They're really going back to their roots with that look!

[The_Squid]

Nope.

And that soldier reportedly pissed his pants while standing there.

I up your immature rhetoric and say that the native fella shit his pants.

Edited December 21, 2011 by The_Squid

[charter.rights]

I up your immature rhetoric and say that the native fella shit his pants.

Nope. He didn't. But the soldier did piss his pants. The Warriors ridiculed him over it.

[cybercoma]

Another example of the RCMP's systemic problems when it comes to sexually harassing women and abusing Natives.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2011/12/20/mb-rcmp-harassment-racism-manitoba.html?cmp=rss

"I could hear the male members talking about me, you know, like, saying, 'Well, I would do her.' 'Why don't you go ahead and do her?'" she said, tearing up while recalling it. ...

Hudson said she started out as a special native constable and eventually moved up to regular constable, but she never moved beyond that position, while fellow non-aboriginal officers climbed the ranks. ...

[Assistant Commissioner Bill] Robinson, who said he is not aware of racism being a problem in the RCMP, said this is the first time he has ever heard of Hudson's allegations against the force.

"I would have seen her in a minute" to talk about the issues, he told CBC News.

But when he was told that Hudson was denied an exit interview when she left the force, Robinson said, "I can't comment on that. I don't know who would've denied her that." ...

[Hudson] has tried to move on from her Mountie days. She has burned most of the photos and other remnants of that time. ...

Other links from the story about the problems at the RCMP:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/07/bc-rcmp-harassment-galiford.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/14/bc-rcmp-harassment-commons-hoyland.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/08/bc-rcmp-harassment.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/11/14/edmonton-harassment-stony-plain-hoyland.html

Just add to this the Highway of Tears problem that has gone unresolved for so long and it's quite obvious that we need someone to watch the watchmen.

[AngusThermopyle]

Just read the PDF file I recommended guys, it outlines all the events in complete form, its really all you need. If you are interested in knowing what actually happened that is.

Hey Charter, didn;t you recently acuse smallc of telling lies because he couldn't provide a cite or proof for what he was saying? Thats right, you did exactly that. So how about some proof from you? Or are you up to your actuall time worn tactics of just making things up again? Oh, right, thats exactly what you are doing again. You're a real piece of work aren't you. First you say there was only one "Warrior" then you post a link showing you to be the one who is telling lies, thats hilarious actually. Then when I show a picture showing two of them you back pedal and make ludicrous and childish claims of pants pissing. Do you really not see just how retarded you make yourself look? I'm sure just about everyone here does even if you don't.

This is why I generally don't bother with you anymore, you're so full of it you aren't even worth wasting any time on.

[Bryan]

But the soldier did piss his pants.

Prove it.

[prairiechickin]

I've been reading this thread and a number of posters have raised my hackles with the careless and casual use of the term 'genocide'. This term refers to the deliberate and systematic attempt by one group of people to destroy another, usually through sustained warfare or outright mass murder. This practice has too many examples from time immemorial, but the two most recent examples that come to mind are the Armenians in World War One, and the Jews in World War Two. That was genocide.

I challenge any posters using this term to supply even a single example in what is now Canada of Europeans practicing genocide on any group of Native peoples. I can think of three examples off the top of my head where genocide did take place. The Iroquois tried to wipe out the Huron in the winter of 1648-49 in an attempt to gain a foothold in the fur trade. They didn't manage to kill them all, but they effectively destroyed them as a nation. The Dorset people of the high Arctic were wiped out by the descendents of todays Inuit by 1500, although a few souls escaped the carnage. Finally, the Cree ascended the rivers from Huson's Bay in the early 18th century and wiped out the Gros Ventre that lived in what is now central Saskatchewan. I'm sure there are many more examples, but I trust I've made my point. The only genocide in what is now Canada occured between Native peoples.

I know it is fashionable in some circles to use this term for shock effect and to score political points, but I find its use reprehensible. Its an insult to co-opt the term from those peoples who have been subjected to real genocide, and its an insult to Canada as a nation. And before someone pipes back with the term 'cultural genocide', the residential school system was a long drawn out tragedy, but that was forced assimillation, not genocide. There's a big difference, and if you can't see it you need to head down to your local library and start doing some reading.

[Guest Manny]

Natives claim to be victims of 'Cultural genocide'

Here's an interesting article, haven't seen or head anything about this before. Very little is being mentioned in the media.

November 5, 2011 23:11:00

Linda Diebel

National Affairs Writer

The Harper government is fighting a class action lawsuit by aboriginal children who argue the loss of their culture in foster and adoptive care was a wrongful act — a case that could make western legal history.

Although Ontario Children’s Aid agencies took 16,000 children from their families during the so-called Sixties Scoop and placed them in non-aboriginal care, the multi-million-dollar lawsuit names only the Attorney General of Canada. Ottawa is constitutionally responsible for native peoples.

Ottawa quietly appealed the lawsuit in a Toronto courtroom on Oct. 28 — a year after it was certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

As a result, the case hasn’t gotten to court almost three years after it was filed.

Jeffery Wilson, who represents the aboriginal plaintiffs, criticizes Ottawa for tangling up the suit with legal wrangling paid by taxpayers.

“You’re dealing with a defendant (Ottawa) with bottomless resources and certainly no interest in seeing any resolution to this litigation.”

During the certification hearing in 2010, Wilson cites an exchange with Superior Court Justice Paul Perell. He says Perell inquired what would happen if 16,000 Jews in Canada similarly lost their cultural identity.

Wilson paraphrases his response: “Well, your honour, there would be a huge uproar if 16,000 Jews lost their culture . . . (as there would be) with 16,000 Muslims or 16,000 Hindus.” This prompted a clarification that only with First Nations people is there a clear constitutional obligation by the federal government.

A decision on the appeal — before a three-member tribunal that includes Associate Chief Justice J. Douglas Cunningham — is expected this fall.

Since the Toronto case began, similar claims have been launched in B.C. and Saskatchewan.

In her 2008 annual report, then-federal auditor Sheila Fraser criticized Indian Affairs for failing to oversee the “cultural appropriateness” of child-care services for aboriginal children.

Edit note: Added bold text!

Edited December 21, 2011 by Manny

[Guest Peeves]

I've been reading this thread and a number of posters have raised my hackles with the careless and casual use of the term 'genocide'. This term refers to the deliberate and systematic attempt by one group of people to destroy another, usually through sustained warfare or outright mass murder. This practice has too many examples from time immemorial, but the two most recent examples that come to mind are the Armenians in World War One, and the Jews in World War Two. That was genocide.

I challenge any posters using this term to supply even a single example in what is now Canada of Europeans practicing genocide on any group of Native peoples. I can think of three examples off the top of my head where genocide did take place. The Iroquois tried to wipe out the Huron in the winter of 1648-49 in an attempt to gain a foothold in the fur trade. They didn't manage to kill them all, but they effectively destroyed them as a nation. The Dorset people of the high Arctic were wiped out by the descendents of todays Inuit by 1500, although a few souls escaped the carnage. Finally, the Cree ascended the rivers from Huson's Bay in the early 18th century and wiped out the Gros Ventre that lived in what is now central Saskatchewan. I'm sure there are many more examples, but I trust I've made my point. The only genocide in what is now Canada occured between Native peoples.

I know it is fashionable in some circles to use this term for shock effect and to score political points, but I find its use reprehensible. Its an insult to co-opt the term from those peoples who have been subjected to real genocide, and its an insult to Canada as a nation. And before someone pipes back with the term 'cultural genocide', the residential school system was a long drawn out tragedy, but that was forced assimillation, not genocide. There's a big difference, and if you can't see it you need to head down to your local library and start doing some reading.

That's very enlightening info. Indians (some)also engaged in cannibalism and torture did they not?

Seems to be the term 'noble savage' might be a bit misplaced.

Still, today, my concern is that natives are being decimated by reserves where boredom and drug abuse and some malfeasance by their political leaders are leading them to destruction.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's very enlightening info. Indians (some)also engaged in cannibalism and torture did they not?

Seems to be the term 'noble savage' might be a bit misplaced.

Still, today, my concern is that natives are being decimated by reserves where boredom and drug abuse and some malfeasance by their political leaders are leading them to destruction.

I must agree.

[eyeball]

Still, today, my concern is that natives are being decimated by reserves where boredom and drug abuse and some malfeasance by their political leaders are leading them to destruction.

My sense and understanding is that the type of political malfeasance characteristic on so many reserves can be traced directly to the example of political malfeasance our own government set. I've lived about 1/2 mile from a reserve for almost 35 years now and know more than a few native people who've commented on how the government would improve conditions in one village only to ignore the next. This is also mirrored within many villages where certain families would clearly be favoured over others.

This has gone on for decades up and down the coast. Divide and conquer has always been the way. It's not to say native people aren't human and prone to malfeasance but the difference is, our government has had a moral responsibility to know better and set a better example.

Myself, I think we're barrelling headlong towards a First Nations Spring that will more resemble an Intifada and although they appear completely blind to it Stephan Harper and especially John Duncan are probably staring at their Waterloo's.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

My sense and understanding is that the type of political malfeasance characteristic on so many reserves can be traced directly to the example of political malfeasance our own government set. I've lived about 1/2 mile from a reserve for almost 35 years now and know more than a few native people who've commented on how the government would improve conditions in one village only to ignore the next. This is also mirrored within many villages where certain families would clearly be favoured over others.

This has gone on for decades up and down the coast. Divide and conquer has always been the way. It's not to say native people aren't human and prone to malfeasance but the difference is, our government has had a moral responsibility to know better and set a better example.

Myself, I think we're barrelling headlong towards a First Nations Spring that will more resemble an Intifada and although they appear completely blind to it Stephan Harper and especially John Duncan are probably staring at their Waterloo's.

You may very well be right.

[TimG]

My sense and understanding is that the type of political malfeasance characteristic on so many reserves can be traced directly to the example of political malfeasance our own government set.

Of course. Never blame the people responsible. It has to be "someone" else. In your perverse world no one needs to be held accountable for anything since they were 'just following an example'.

Myself, I think we're barrelling headlong towards a First Nations Spring that will more resemble an Intifada and although they appear completely blind to it Stephan Harper and especially John Duncan are probably staring at their Waterloo's.

Why? Because billions being pissed away on disfunctional reserves is not good enough to keep the chiefs in style to which they feel entitled? There is nothing stopping any native person from fully participating in the economic life of Canadian society today. The real question is why so many choose not to.

[jbg]

being supported in living conditions that contribute to their deaths from drugs, boredom, suicide and abuse.

*********

Our governments funding such a way of life, (death) is well past a time for change. Throwing money at reservations that are obviously not functional has proven to be a failure.

If that life is all an Indian wants, then they are drumming their own demise.

It's time they were treated to the contemporary way of life.

Schwa and/or Charter.Rights may be the best ones to answer my question, and I don't mean this in a bad way even though we usually don't "play nicely". Why is there such a serious FN problem with alcohol, or is it just stereotype? I'll take an answer from anyone but would like the answer to be thoughtful and reflective, not bigoted.

[eyeball]

Of course. Never blame the people responsible. It has to be "someone" else. In your perverse world no one needs to be held accountable for anything since they were 'just following an example'.

In MY perverse world, politicians including chiefs would effectively be wired to the Internet. I'd hold them all to a level of accountability that would make Orwell himself blush.

Why? Because billions being pissed away on disfunctional reserves is not good enough to keep the chiefs in style to which they feel entitled?

No, because just about everyone below the chiefs will be thoroughly pissed off at their own dispossession.

There is nothing stopping any native person from fully participating in the economic life of Canadian society today.

Nothing except the shock of contact between our cultures. I suspect that answer puts an ugly sneer on you and a lot of other Canadians.

The real question is why so many choose not to.

Maybe it's because there're too many people who think like you in our society.

Edited December 21, 2011 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

Nothing except the shock of contact between our cultures.

I'm curious: Since when has cultural difference been a barrier against participation in economic life? Trade has gone on between disparate cultures around the world for millennia. What's so special about First Nations in this regard?

[Guest Manny]

I'm curious: Since when has cultural difference been a barrier against participation in economic life? Trade has gone on between disparate cultures around the world for millennia. What's so special about First Nations in this regard?

Indigenous peoples culture and rights are now protected by a United Nations declaration-

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 62nd session at UN Headquarters in New York City on 13 September 2007.

The Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. It also "emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations". It "prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples", and it "promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples

I think that spells it out pretty clearly, they don't have to conform to our way of living and have the right to protect their own cultures and values.

And Canada has recently signed on to this declaration-

Ottawa wins praise for endorsing UN indigenous-rights declaration

November 12, 2010 5:02PM EST

The Harper government stepped up to the plate Friday, formally signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ending Canada’s isolation as one of two countries that refused to endorse the text.

The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand refused to sign when the accord was adopted in 2007, claiming that resource rights and other claims included in the text clashed with their constitutions. Australia and New Zealand have since signed on. And the Conservative government signalled in the Throne Speech this year that the Prime Minister was prepared to end his government’s opposition. Word came Friday afternoon from United Nations headquarters that Canada had signed, with certain qualifications. The government decided it was better to endorse the declaration and explain its concerns, rather than reject the whole document.

“It signals a real shift, a move forward toward real partnership between the first nations and the government,” Shawn Atleo, Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said Friday in an interview.

Mr. Atleo believes the next priority should be for Ottawa to work with first nations and provinces to tailor more effective education programs, to end the egregious gap between aboriginal and rest-of-Canada graduation rates.

“It makes sense that we focus in on areas like education” systems in each province and territory, he said. “Let’s reform them, strengthen them, let’s get it right and make sure that young people are supported, can succeed and that their potential can be realized.”

The declaration, hammered out over 20 years of talks between diplomats and representatives of aboriginal groups from around the world, says indigenous peoples have a number of rights – to their lands, culture, and languages, among other things – and that governments should work to protect these rights.

The United States remains alone in refusing to endorse the declaration.

[Guest Peeves]

I'm curious: Since when has cultural difference been a barrier against participation in economic life? Trade has gone on between disparate cultures around the world for millennia. What's so special about First Nations in this regard?

First nations were tribes with no written language, little transportation, never invented a wheel, and no hoses or alternate for most of their history. They never got along, were often at war, and then treated badly by 'white eyes.'

It's proven very difficult to get trust for good reason, or cooperation and their recent political leaders seem suspect at times. All factors in any stable economic life.

[cybercoma]

I've been reading this thread and a number of posters have raised my hackles with the careless and casual use of the term 'genocide'. This term refers to the deliberate and systematic attempt by one group of people to destroy another, usually through sustained warfare or outright mass murder. This practice has too many examples from time immemorial, but the two most recent examples that come to mind are the Armenians in World War One, and the Jews in World War Two. That was genocide.

I challenge any posters using this term to supply even a single example in what is now Canada of Europeans practicing genocide on any group of Native peoples. I can think of three examples off the top of my head where genocide did take place. The Iroquois tried to wipe out the Huron in the winter of 1648-49 in an attempt to gain a foothold in the fur trade. They didn't manage to kill them all, but they effectively destroyed them as a nation. The Dorset people of the high Arctic were wiped out by the descendents of todays Inuit by 1500, although a few souls escaped the carnage. Finally, the Cree ascended the rivers from Huson's Bay in the early 18th century and wiped out the Gros Ventre that lived in what is now central Saskatchewan. I'm sure there are many more examples, but I trust I've made my point. The only genocide in what is now Canada occured between Native peoples.

I know it is fashionable in some circles to use this term for shock effect and to score political points, but I find its use reprehensible. Its an insult to co-opt the term from those peoples who have been subjected to real genocide, and its an insult to Canada as a nation. And before someone pipes back with the term 'cultural genocide', the residential school system was a long drawn out tragedy, but that was forced assimillation, not genocide. There's a big difference, and if you can't see it you need to head down to your local library and start doing some reading.

Genocide is a legal term in international law. The only definition that matters legally and in academic parlance is the one that is provided by the United Nations. Using that definition there are several examples of things Canada did to the Natives that would be considered genocidal.

[jbg]

Indigenous peoples culture and rights are now protected by a United Nations declaration-

***********

The declaration, hammered out over 20 years of talks between diplomats and representatives of aboriginal groups from around the world, says indigenous peoples have a number of rights – to their lands, culture, and languages, among other things – and that governments should work to protect these rights.

The United States remains alone in refusing to endorse the declaration.

Does that Declaration contain any obligation to subsidize the "indigenous groups"?