First nations patiences waning

[Smallc]

Only in the modern bizarro world of politics, does wanting to treat everyone equally become 'xenophobic'. Could not possibly be more off base. We want the native to engage and be a productive part of society, that is the opposite of xenophobic.

Exactly. They're just people. The sooner they realize it, the better.

[eyeball]

Sorry, what shit did Mulroney just "make up", again?

I didn't mean him specifically because as you point out various concepts of what constitutes a nation have been around a long time with more than one meaning. Do we know specifically which one Mulroney meant? If there wasn't any ambiguity then why is there now?

There's never a pedant around when you really need one.

Edited April 9, 2013 by eyeball

[jacee]

Only in the modern bizarro world of politics, does wanting to treat everyone equally become 'xenophobic'. Could not possibly be more off base. We want the native to engage and be a productive part of society, that is the opposite of xenophobic.

Yes I find your posts full of generalizations and negative stereotypes vilifying and denigrating all indigenous people, with no facts to support your insults.

You demand that they be denied their legal rights that are integral to Canada's existence.

You seem very poorly informed and even less interested in learning.

Dismiss, denigrate, deny and disrespect a whole cultural group and refuse to educate yourself?

Yup, that's xenophobia.

Edited April 9, 2013 by jacee

[hitops]

Yes I find your posts full of generalizations and negative stereotypes vilifying and denigrating all indigenous people, with no facts to support your insults.

You demand that they be denied their legal rights that are integral to Canada's existence.

You seem very poorly informed and even less interested in learning.

Dismiss, denigrate, deny and disrespect a whole cultural group and refuse to educate yourself?

Yup, that's xenophobia.

Xenophobia is a dislike or fear of people from other countries or of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

Are they from another country? No. Are they perceived to be foreign? No, we are all exposed to them all the time and very familiar with this group, especially here in MB. Are they strange? Not in any sense beyond anybody else. It has nothing to do with education, and I am highly educated (postgrad degree). That's why I can easily recognize you have mis-used this word.

You don't know the definition of xeonophobic. I would start there because words do matter if you are trying to make a coherent argument. Japanese are xenophobic. They make it almost impossible to work in vast sectors of the economy if you are not Japaneses or don't adapt perfectly to Japanese language and culture. They dislike foreigners.

We do the exact opposite, we make allowances, wave costs, provide support in various ways so that it's easier for natives than any other group in Canada. That is the opposite of xenophobic.

I think you have heard the word xenophobic, you thought it sounded good and you added to your bag of 'words for people I don't like' but you have no clue what it means.

You desperately want this to be about a racial issue, or some kind of inherent dislike for a people group. But it's not, and I think you actually know this. It's about people being dependent, lazy, hopeless, and making the rest of us pay for it. It doesn't matter if it's native people or little green men from mars. In this case it happens to be a large chunk of the native population, but they far from the only ones.

The worst part about native privileges is that they institutionalize native poverty and dependence. I'm arguing for raising the standard of native living in this country, you are arguing for making sure they stay where they are. You just don't know it.

[jacee]

Xenophobia is a dislike or fear of people from other countries or of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

Are they from another country? No. Are they perceived to be foreign? No, we are all exposed to them all the time and very familiar with this group, especially here in MB. Are they strange? Not in any sense beyond anybody else.

Do you prefer the word "racism"?

I'm not interested in petty word wars. Call it what you like, but your wording clearly expresses a generalized prejudice against all Indigenous people.

It has nothing to do with education, and I am highly educated (postgrad degree). That's why I can easily recognize you have mis-used this word.

I was referring to your lack of education/awareness of the foundations of Canada in Aboriginal law, and the current reality and legality of Indigenous self-governance within Canada.

(EG, See question 5 on this Canadian Citizenship Study Q&A).

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitchurch-library.on.ca%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Ffiles%2FCitizenship%2Fcanadian%2520citizenship%2520study%2520questions.pdf&ei=_D1kUZrgHYjU8gGN2oCoCQ&usg=AFQjCNENScggwE9FHagXL-hC-bxqLiL3ew&sig2=lhFKPYi8ZpCYucgnNh19OA

We do the exact opposite, we make allowances, wave costs, provide support in various ways so that it's easier for natives than any other group in Canada. That is the opposite of xenophobic.

I didn't say Canada is xenophobic - That's another discussion.

I said I find your posts to contain negative stereotypes generalized to all Indigenous people. That's prejudice and discrimination based on racial/cultural/ethnic differences.

You desperately want this to be about a racial issue, or some kind of inherent dislike for a people group. But it's not, and I think you actually know this. It's about people being dependent, lazy, hopeless, and making the rest of us pay for it.

First, "dependent, lazy, hopeless" doesn't describe any of the many Indigenous people I've encountered in academic, professional, activist, social, familial or any other contexts. I wouldn't even describe homeless addicts, Indigenous or not, as "dependent" or "lazy" as survival in those circumstances demands constant vigilance and self-reliance.

That's why I object to your gross overgeneralizations and negative stereotypes as 'prejudice': Because they simply are not true.

Are all white people "dependent, lazy, hopeless" because a few may be seen that way?

Secondly,We're not paying for it.

The interest from First Nations trust funds pays for their services.

This is what I meant when I said you have failed to educate yourself on the realities of Canadian Aboriginal Law. With your education credentials, you are certainly capable of researching it yourself.

It doesn't matter if it's native people or little green men from mars. In this case it happens to be a large chunk of the native population, but they far from the only ones.

I see you are now starting to get the idea of not generalizing from your perception or misperception of a few to an entire racial/cultural/ethnic population.

However, "a large chunk" is still your own overgeneralized personal opinion, and not accurate in any of my experience at all - ie, still prejudicial and discriminatory, imo.

The worst part about native privileges is that they institutionalize native poverty and dependence.

I have no idea what you mean by "native privileges". Do you?

I'm arguing for raising the standard of native living in this country, you are arguing for making sure they stay where they are. You just don't know it.

If you are asking ...?

I'm arguing for Canada's full implementation of Canadian Aboriginal Law.

A few specifics:

- That the federal government release sufficient First Nations trust fund income to provide equal health, education, social,public housing, infrastructure and other services to those of all Canadian communities. ALL First Nations services are currently underfunded and below Canadian standards.

- That federal and provincial governments fully implement the law regarding the 'duty of the Crown to consult, and to accommodate Aboriginal and treaty rights' in ALL development and use of traditional Indigenous territories.

- That the federal government stop using First Nations funds to fight against First Nations land claims in negotiations and courts. It's absolutely ludicrous that our costs are included in AAND's budget, and disgusting that the federal government uses these budget numbers to engage in slanderous propaganda against Indigenous communities.

These 'arguments' of mine are geared toward hope for a better future, autonomy, and economic development opportunity for Indigenous Peoples and communities.

And all that is needed is adherence to Canadian law.

Edited April 9, 2013 by jacee

[hitops]

Do you prefer the word "racism"?

I'm not interested in petty word wars. Call it what you like, but your wording clearly expresses a generalized prejudice against all Indigenous people.

I was referring to your lack of education/awareness of the foundations of Canada in Aboriginal law, and the current reality and legality of Indigenous self-governance within Canada.

(EG, See question 5 on this Canadian Citizenship Study Q&A).

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitchurch-library.on.ca%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Ffiles%2FCitizenship%2Fcanadian%2520citizenship%2520study%2520questions.pdf&ei=_D1kUZrgHYjU8gGN2oCoCQ&usg=AFQjCNENScggwE9FHagXL-hC-bxqLiL3ew&sig2=lhFKPYi8ZpCYucgnNh19OA

In no way does that guarantee them access to my tax dollars. Yet, that's the situation we have.

I didn't say Canada is xenophobic - That's another discussion.

I said I find your posts to contain negative stereotypes generalized to all Indigenous people. That's prejudice and discrimination based on racial/cultural/ethnic differences.

First, "dependent, lazy, hopeless" doesn't describe any of the many Indigenous people I've encountered in academic, professional, activist, social, familial or any other contexts. I wouldn't even describe homeless addicts, Indigenous or not, as "dependent" or "lazy" as survival in those circumstances demands constant vigilance and self-reliance.

That's why I object to your gross overgeneralizations and negative stereotypes as 'prejudice': Because they simply are not true.

Are all white people "dependent, lazy, hopeless" because a few may be seen that way?

I clearly said it applied to anyone who acts that way, not an entire people group. It applies equally to anyone who wants to depend on the state for subsistence. But you're not hearing that because its easier to just call people racists than deal with the problem.

Secondly,We're not paying for it.

The interest from First Nations trust funds pays for their services.

This is what I meant when I said you have failed to educate yourself on the realities of Canadian Aboriginal Law. With your education credentials, you are certainly capable of researching it yourself.

I see you are now starting to get the idea of not generalizing from your perception or misperception of a few to an entire racial/cultural/ethnic population.

However, "a large chunk" is still your own overgeneralized personal opinion, and not accurate in any of my experience at all - ie, still prejudicial and discriminatory, imo.

I have no idea what you mean by "native privileges". Do you?

If you are asking ...?

I'm arguing for Canada's full implementation of Canadian Aboriginal Law.

A few specifics:

- That the federal government release sufficient First Nations trust fund income to provide equal health, education, social,public housing, infrastructure and other services to those of all Canadian communities. ALL First Nations services are currently underfunded and below Canadian standards.

- That federal and provincial governments fully implement the law regarding the 'duty of the Crown to consult, and to accommodate Aboriginal and treaty rights' in ALL development and use of traditional Indigenous territories.

- That the federal government stop using First Nations funds to fight against First Nations land claims in negotiations and courts. It's absolutely ludicrous that our costs are included in AAND's budget, and disgusting that the federal government uses these budget numbers to engage in slanderous propaganda against Indigenous communities.

You must be used to talking to some very uninformed people highly willing to drink the cool-aid. We pour literally billions into reserves every year, above and beyond the usual benefits Canadians get including natives. Natives get all the benefits of being Canadian that everyone else does. In addition, 7.5B is spent through the department of indian and northern affairs, that the rest of us do not benefit from.

It's not our fault if natives want to live up north where it's 10x more expensive to live. If you want to do that, you should be willing and able to pay for it. Otherwise you should not ask the rest of us to pay.

These 'arguments' of mine are geared toward hope for a better future, autonomy, and economic development opportunity for Indigenous Peoples and communities.

And all that is needed is adherence to Canadian law.

Your arguments are the same old argument that will guarantee another generation of natives will remain an underclass, forever the victims, and passing on that reality to their children. People coming form other countries, starting from scratch with literally nothing, seem to adapt just fine. But the group here in Canada with tons of programs and financial perks, can't seem to do it. What they and you don't get, is that the programs are perks are the reason. If we provided the same benefits to new immigrant Canadians, we could quickly mire them in the same cycle.

Edited April 9, 2013 by hitops

[PIK]

People of all stripes are fed up ith the natives, including natives, the ones living in squalor because of thier chief and councils. There is no way in hell we sholud have the poverty we do on reserves with all the billions poured in. I can't for the life of me understand people like jacee, that for some reason keep ignoring that fact. The chiefs have learnt well from the white man on stealing money from the taxpayer.

[hitops]

People of all stripes are fed up ith the natives, including natives, the ones living in squalor because of thier chief and councils. There is no way in hell we sholud have the poverty we do on reserves with all the billions poured in. I can't for the life of me understand people like jacee, that for some reason keep ignoring that fact. The chiefs have learnt well from the white man on stealing money from the taxpayer.

It's just such a bizarre situation. The native trusts which are funded by us, are somehow proof that we aren't paying for it? That is the same argument as 'the RBC is not replacing employees.....because it hired another company which is replacing employees.'

The gov is getting a little tougher with them in last 10 years, and it is starting to make a difference. In some places like the prairies, many are working in the resource sector and improving their lives.

If only we could scrap indian affiars entirely, that gap would be close in under a generation.

[eyeball]

People of all stripes are fed up ith the natives, including natives, the ones living in squalor because of thier chief and councils. There is no way in hell we sholud have the poverty we do on reserves with all the billions poured in. I can't for the life of me understand people like jacee, that for some reason keep ignoring that fact. The chiefs have learnt well from the white man on stealing money from the taxpayer.

Most of the billions poured in go to 'white men' working at the Department of Indian Affairs.

Warriors in some of the nations where I live have talked about renewing the old practice of 'taking care' of their corrupt chiefs if they need to. I'd like to know more about this aspect of aboriginal self-governance and how we might apply it to our own.

The PIK's of the world apparently notwithstanding, people of most stripes are getting fed up with corruption, whatever shade or colour it comes in.

[hitops]

Most of the billions poured in go to 'white men' working at the Department of Indian Affairs.

Warriors in some of the nations where I live have talked about renewing the old practice of 'taking care' of their corrupt chiefs if they need to. I'd like to know more about this aspect of aboriginal self-governance and how we might apply it to our own.

The PIK's of the world apparently notwithstanding, people of most stripes are getting fed up with corruption, whatever shade or colour it comes in.

All the more reason to get rid of the dept Indian affairs. Whether local chiefs or politicians are eating the money, it's my tax money and don't want it wasted.

[eyeball]

I'm quite sure there's some other Department of fill-in-blank-here that will find something else to waste your tax money on, like negotiating trade agreements and facilitating some corporation's relocation to Cheapestan.

[Accountability Now]

It's just such a bizarre situation. The native trusts which are funded by us, are somehow proof that we aren't paying for it? .

I have often heard natives or people arguing on their behalf use the this line saying the 'trust' pays for it. However if you looks on the Indian Affairs website it shows an audit done in 2009 or 2010 that clearly shows the trust to be around $2billion. I can't remember what the interest earned from this account but obviously this account isn't paying for much considering the government dishes out $11billion per year.

[g_bambino]

If there wasn't any ambiguity then why is there now?

Well, English is only so good as a language. Hence, we often rely on context. In this context, the "nation" in "First Nation" pretty evidently doesn't mean sovereign state, despite how much some people want it to. The latter can only rely on those who're unfamiliar with the context to deliberately confuse definitions and skew opinions in thier favour.

[jacee]

I clearly said it applied to anyone who acts that way, not an entire people group.

Clearly, you repeatedly generalized unsubstantiated negative statements to the entire population of Indigenous people.

Would you reword any of this if you were writing it now?

We pour literally billions into reserves every year, above and beyond the usual benefits Canadians get including natives. Natives get all the benefits of being Canadian that everyone else does.

Simply not true.

In addition, 7.5B is spent through the department of indian and northern affairs, that the rest of us do not benefit from.

Simply not true.

Your arguments are the same old argument that will guarantee another generation of natives will remain an underclass, forever the victims, and passing on that reality to their children.

Also not true.

My arguments are that our governments should stop wasting our money on lawyers and negotiators paid billions to prevent any real progress toward autonomy for First Nations.

There is and always will be a very significant difference between Indigenous Peoples of Canada and all of the rest of us: We never held Aboriginal Rights on the land.

Indigenous Peoples will always be entitled to shares of the revenues from their respective traditional territories. That's not 'us' (taxpayers) paying them: It's all of the corporate users of the land paying them and paying us.

The confusion arises in the minds of some Canadians only because our government acts as their 'trustee' (fiduciary), collecting their revenues and distributing it to them for services.

Just because their money goes through our government accounts does not make it our money.

And it certainly is not our tax money.

Does your property manager 'own' the money collected from your property assets?

Mine sure as hell doesn't!

[eyeball]

Well, English is only so good as a language. Hence, we often rely on context. In this context, the "nation" in "First Nation" pretty evidently doesn't mean sovereign state, despite how much some people want it to. The latter can only rely on those who're unfamiliar with the context to deliberately confuse definitions and skew opinions in thier favour.

Yes, English is just a thing, and it's how it's used that matters. In virtually every other case involving the relationship between people and the government, we and especially you, rarely rely on or espouse anything less than very precise language and terms and definitions. It all seems a little too convenient to be a coincidence that in this particular instance it's suddenly all about context.

What skin do you have in this issue anyway? Are you a fisherman who lost an industry who is now watching a new generation of native fisherman replace him on the water? Do you live in Caledonia, are you related to the Queen or just a disgruntled taxpayer with an axe to grind?

[shortlived]

Wow so Elder Grand Chief Raymond's hunger strike without water consumption is now at the week mark. Statistically he will die some time before this time nextweek. Kidney damage or failure is an increasing possibility at this point.

[g_bambino]

It all seems a little too convenient to be a coincidence that in this particular instance it's suddenly all about context.

Suddenly? Hardly. I just said we often have to resort to context to understand the meaning of words, especially those that the rules of English have left with more than one meaning.

Despite the fact that the Scots comprise a nation, nobody runs around claiming Scotland is a sovereign state. People get the context there.

[shortlived]

Suddenly? Hardly. I just said we often have to resort to context to understand the meaning of words, especially those that the rules of English have left with more than one meaning.

Despite the fact that the Scots comprise a nation, nobody runs around claiming Scotland is a sovereign state. People get the context there.

Not entirely true, the Scottish sovereignty movement is actually quite strong, and the leadership in Scotland is moving toward a referendum on that point... Currently they control their domestic policy, and are very close to seperating from the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Now Welsh sovereignty that is another matter.

Edited April 9, 2013 by shortlived

[eyeball]

Suddenly? Hardly. I just said we often have to resort to context to understand the meaning of words, especially those that the rules of English have left with more than one meaning.

Maybe when you want to skew an opinion but not when it comes to how our nation is constituted and our peoples' relationship to it. Every rule about that is defined down to the last dot and cross. It's pedantic to a tee as you well know.

[Accountability Now]

Wow so Elder Grand Chief Raymond's hunger strike without water consumption is now at the week mark. Statistically he will die some time before this time nextweek. Kidney damage or failure is an increasing possibility at this point.

The hunger strike is over. I guess these real hunger strikes are much harder than the fake ones Spence did. I don't think there are any nation to nation talks yet...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/04/20130409-132709.html

[shortlived]

The hunger strike is over. I guess these real hunger strikes are much harder than the fake ones Spence did. I don't think there are any nation to nation talks yet...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/04/20130409-132709.html

Thanks for the info.

[shortlived]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/family-fears-for-life-of-74-year-old-aboriginal-hunger-striker-in-n-l-1.1231514

Another elder in his 6th day now.. in Labrador.

[g_bambino]

[T]he Scottish sovereignty movement is actually quite strong...

And? I said nobody pretends Scotland is a sovereign state, despite it being known that the Scots comprise a nation. Aiming to become a sovereign state only hightlights the fact that Scotland is not a nation in the sense of an independent country.

[g_bambino]

Maybe when you want to skew an opinion but not when it comes to how our nation is constituted and our peoples' relationship to it. Every rule about that is defined down to the last dot and cross. It's pedantic to a tee as you well know.

Then, perhaps what you mean to say is that some people will keep certain facts hidden of hazy so the appropriate context is never widely or fully understood, allowing them to freely use certain words that require context in the manner that benefits them or their preferred cause. Quebec sovereigntists have done that with the word "soveregnty" and "nation".

[shortlived]

And? I said nobody pretends Scotland is a sovereign state, despite it being known that the Scots comprise a nation. Aiming to become a sovereign state only hightlights the fact that Scotland is not a nation in the sense of an independent country.

gooblygook.

The Declaration of Arbroath (1320)

sovereignty rests with the people.

The Declaration of Arbroath 1320 — English Translation

To the most Holy Father and Lord in Christ, the Lord John, by divine providence Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman and Universal Church, his humble and devout sons Duncan, Earl of Fife, Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, Lord of Man and of Annandale, Patrick Dunbar, Earl of March, Malise, Earl of Strathearn, Malcolm, Earl of Lennox, William, Earl of Ross, Magnus, Earl of Caithness and Orkney, and William, Earl of Sutherland; Walter, Steward of Scotland, William Soules, Butler of Scotland, James, Lord of Douglas, Roger Mowbray, David, Lord of Brechin, David Graham, Ingram Umfraville, John Menteith, guardian of the earldom of Menteith, Alexander Fraser, Gilbert Hay, Constable of Scotland, Robert Keith, Marischal of Scotland, Henry St Clair, John Graham, David Lindsay, William Oliphant, Patrick Graham, John Fenton, William Abernethy, David Wemyss, William Mushet, Fergus of Ardrossan, Eustace Maxwell, William Ramsay, William Mowat, Alan Murray, Donald Campbell, John Cameron, Reginald Cheyne, Alexander Seton, Andrew Leslie, and Alexander Straiton, and the other barons and freeholders and the whole community of the realm of Scotland send all manner of filial reverence, with devout kisses of his blessed feet.

Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner. The high qualities and deserts of these people, were they not otherwise manifest, gain glory enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy faith. Nor would He have them confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles — by calling, though second or third in rank — the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter's brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron forever.

The Most Holy Fathers your predecessors gave careful heed to these things and bestowed many favours and numerous privileges on this same kingdom and people, as being the special charge of the Blessed Peter's brother. Thus our nation under their protection did indeed live in freedom and peace up to the time when that mighty prince the King of the English, Edward, the father of the one who reigns today, when our kingdom had no head and our people harboured no malice or treachery and were then unused to wars or invasions, came in the guise of a friend and ally to harass them as an enemy. The deeds of cruelty, massacre, violence, pillage, arson, imprisoning prelates, burning down monasteries, robbing and killing monks and nuns, and yet other outrages without number which he committed against our people, sparing neither age nor sex, religion nor rank, no one could describe nor fully imagine unless he had seen them with his own eyes.

But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Therefore it is, Reverend Father and Lord, that we beseech your Holiness with our most earnest prayers and suppliant hearts, inasmuch as you will in your sincerity and goodness consider all this, that, since with Him Whose vice-gerent on earth you are there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman, you will look with the eyes of a father on the troubles and privation brought by the English upon us and upon the Church of God. May it please you to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought to be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling-place at all, and covet nothing but our own. We are sincerely willing to do anything for him, having regard to our condition, that we can, to win peace for ourselves. This truly concerns you, Holy Father, since you see the savagery of the heathen raging against the Christians, as the sins of Christians have indeed deserved, and the frontiers of Christendom being pressed inward every day; and how much it will tarnish your Holiness's memory if (which God forbid) the Church suffers eclipse or scandal in any branch of it during your time, you must perceive. Then rouse the Christian princes who for false reasons pretend that they cannot go to help of the Holy Land because of wars they have on hand with their neighbours. The real reason that prevents them is that in making war on their smaller neighbours they find quicker profit and weaker resistance. But how cheerfully our Lord the King and we too would go there if the King of the English would leave us in peace, He from Whom nothing is hidden well knows; and we profess and declare it to you as the Vicar of Christ and to all Christendom. But if your Holiness puts too much faith in the tales the English tell and will not give sincere belief to all this, nor refrain from favouring them to our prejudice, then the slaughter of bodies, the perdition of souls, and all the other misfortunes that will follow, inflicted by them on us and by us on them, will, we believe, be surely laid by the Most High to your charge.

To conclude, we are and shall ever be, as far as duty calls us, ready to do your will in all things, as obedient sons to you as His Vicar; and to Him as the Supreme King and Judge we commit the maintenance of our cause, casting our cares upon Him and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to nought. May the Most High preserve you to his Holy Church in holiness and health and grant you length of days.

Given at the monastery of Arbroath in Scotland on the sixth day of the month of April in the year of grace thirteen hundred and twenty and the fifteenth year of the reign of our King aforesaid.

Endorsed: Letter directed to our Lord the Supreme Pontiff by the community of Scotland.

Edited April 10, 2013 by shortlived