Six Nations occupation at Caledonia

[Michael Hardner]

River:

The difference tells me that addressing the problem of racism directed at Natives requires more thought about what it causing it and cannot be simply written off as 'people being afraid of people who are different'.

Something strikes me as odd about this logic.

Effectively, it's the same as saying "White people are more prejudiced against blacks than Jews. What are the blacks doing wrong ? Hmmmmm."

You should always be able to ask 'why' something happens, but it's up to both groups to resolve the issue. And as we can tell from this dialogue, discussions - even with intelligent people - become emotionally charged. Treading lightly and basing arguments on facts are absolutely required.

Racism comes from somewhere. Maybe you can start by exploring your side of the racial fence: What causes certain whites to get angry about these things ?

I'll give it a shot.

I'm white, and I don't care about native Canadians not paying GST, getting free university tuition and so forth. I do think there's a certain tendency in white culture to get very touchy about 'fairness', and it seems to me to be more common in those people who have worked hard for (fought for ?) success.

I'm not going to weigh my opinion down with values by saying this trait is good or bad, but I will say that I find that trait personally unattractive. Likewise, people of this ilk get irked by overly generous and naive bleeding heart liberal types (like me, I'll admit) who want to solve every social problem by cutting a cheque.

So, here we find ourselves in trouble. The bleeding heart type of white people hold political sway, and as long as there's no social stife in the news they feel good about the status quo and themselves. The fairness-minded white people are annoyed that there is unfair amount of attention and extra rights given to Indians.

And while all of this ferments, problems in the Indian community aren't really being solved and resentment on that side of the cultural fence starts to build.

That's roughly an emotional map of this conflict. I have put no blame on any group, nor have I gone into depth on these issues to any degree. But I think it outlines the patterns of political interaction that have been happening, and will probably continue after this crisis has been solved.

[scribblet]

River:

The difference tells me that addressing the problem of racism directed at Natives requires more thought about what it causing it and cannot be simply written off as 'people being afraid of people who are different'.

And while all of this ferments, problems in the Indian community aren't really being solved and resentment on that side of the cultural fence starts to build.

That's roughly an emotional map of this conflict. I have put no blame on any group, nor have I gone into depth on these issues to any degree. But I think it outlines the patterns of political interaction that have been happening, and will probably continue after this crisis has been solved.

Resentment will always build when any political culture or system allows the overthrow of common sense and defines peoples rights, identity, lands and entitlements based on collective groups or on raciallybased concepts. It will always end in division and anger.

Not only that, but our official multiculturalism Canadians hold so dear, embraces equality for all, that all cultures are treated equally, all are of the same value.

[cybercoma]

The land belongs to them by order of the British crown and was repossessed by the .gov. They've filed many complaints over the years but to no avail. Here is a short article on the subject.

The question is not whether they have a valid claim on the land. It's up to the courts to decide if they do or not. The question is that they have taken enforcement of that claim into their own hands.

If I think I have a valid claim on my neighbour's land, and I find that the court process is too slow to resolve it, should society tolerate my unilateral occupation of my neighbours house? Apparently the answer is yes but only if I'm a native.

The problem is that the native people of canada were here first, with their own society and forms of government. The english and french came over here and setup their governments and the natives just sat back and watched, never once being consulted by these groups who decided they were going to claim the land. It's likely that the natives at the time had no idea the political consequences of what was going on.

Now several decades later, we have a group of people that were living in Canada to begin with, had not agreed to our governments or constitution being told how to act and what to do. They're the ones that should, "integrate into our society," or pay the price.

What if they don't want to? Why should we force them? Although I suppose you could say we should then cut them off from all government benefits, but our constitution doesn't allow for that. They must be treated at the very least equally. They're recognized as Canadian citizens by our own laws and we have to treat them as such.

Problem is we consider Canada English and French, no one ever considers the First Nations or the Inuit. They were here first and never agreed to our society or government. Now we're telling them they have to....I'm sorry, but no they don't.

[Renegade]

The problem is that the native people of canada were here first, with their own society and forms of government. The english and french came over here and setup their governments and the natives just sat back and watched, never once being consulted by these groups who decided they were going to claim the land. It's likely that the natives at the time had no idea the political consequences of what was going on.

Now several decades later, we have a group of people that were living in Canada to begin with, had not agreed to our governments or constitution being told how to act and what to do. They're the ones that should, "integrate into our society," or pay the price.

What if they don't want to? Why should we force them? Although I suppose you could say we should then cut them off from all government benefits, but our constitution doesn't allow for that. They must be treated at the very least equally. They're recognized as Canadian citizens by our own laws and we have to treat them as such.

Problem is we consider Canada English and French, no one ever considers the First Nations or the Inuit. They were here first and never agreed to our society or government. Now we're telling them they have to....I'm sorry, but no they don't.

cybercoma, the "they were first argument" has been addressed several times in this thread.

Even assuming you suscribe to that argument, lets look at the facts in this particular case shall we?

The land in question was not originally occupied by Six Nations. Six Nations were given the land, for services rendered against the Americans, by the Crown. Yes, by the Crown. The very same government that by your reasoning, has no authority over the Native group or the land. So tell me, if Six Nations does not agree that the Crown has the authority, what are they doing accepting land from an authority who has no authority to give them the land.

Six Nations themselves filed suit in Canadian Court in the late nintes over the disputed land. If we follow your argument, the Six Nations don't need to follow the rules of Canadian law, so tell me, why are they filing suits in a court which in their view has no authority.

You say we should treat them at least equally. I think we should treat them exactly equally. Again the reasons have been previously mentioned in this thread.

[cybercoma]

The problem is that the native people of canada were here first, with their own society and forms of government. The english and french came over here and setup their governments and the natives just sat back and watched, never once being consulted by these groups who decided they were going to claim the land. It's likely that the natives at the time had no idea the political consequences of what was going on.

Now several decades later, we have a group of people that were living in Canada to begin with, had not agreed to our governments or constitution being told how to act and what to do. They're the ones that should, "integrate into our society," or pay the price.

What if they don't want to? Why should we force them? Although I suppose you could say we should then cut them off from all government benefits, but our constitution doesn't allow for that. They must be treated at the very least equally. They're recognized as Canadian citizens by our own laws and we have to treat them as such.

Problem is we consider Canada English and French, no one ever considers the First Nations or the Inuit. They were here first and never agreed to our society or government. Now we're telling them they have to....I'm sorry, but no they don't.

cybercoma, the "they were first argument" has been addressed several times in this thread.

Even assuming you suscribe to that argument, lets look at the facts in this particular case shall we?

The land in question was not originally occupied by Six Nations. Six Nations were given the land, for services rendered against the Americans, by the Crown. Yes, by the Crown. The very same government that by your reasoning, has no authority over the Native group or the land. So tell me, if Six Nations does not agree that the Crown has the authority, what are they doing accepting land from an authority who has no authority to give them the land.

Six Nations themselves filed suit in Canadian Court in the late nintes over the disputed land. If we follow your argument, the Six Nations don't need to follow the rules of Canadian law, so tell me, why are they filing suits in a court which in their view has no authority.

You say we should treat them at least equally. I think we should treat them exactly equally. Again the reasons have been previously mentioned in this thread.

You're looking at it in black and white terms. It's not black and white at all and that's what I was trying to get at. We can't just allow the native people to run free without following the current laws, but then on the other hand they never agreed to our occupation, but then they never stopped the occupation. It's a complete grey area.

If you want my personal opinion, I think they unfortunately waived their rights to their land when they allowed us to squat on their land. I'm sorry, it's sad and unfortunate...but shows over. This land has been claimed by the Queen and there's not a hell of a lot they can do about it now, save hold up trains and stop construction workers from doing their jobs.

PS: Sorry I didn't wade through 14 pages of text before posting. With the limited time I have these days, I didn't really feel like reading everyone's posts.

[Renegade]

You're looking at it in black and white terms. It's not black and white at all and that's what I was trying to get at. We can't just allow the native people to run free without following the current laws, but then on the other hand they never agreed to our occupation, but then they never stopped the occupation. It's a complete grey area.

Actually, I'm trying not to look at it in black and white terms. I have already stated that Six Nations may have a valid claim on the land. What should be beyond question is that due process should be followed in order to resolve disputes.

You say they never agreed to our occupation. What is a treaty then, but an agreement of terms of the occupation. Even TS acknowledges as much.

If you want my personal opinion, I think they unfortunately waived their rights to their land when they allowed us to squat on their land. I'm sorry, it's sad and unfortunate...but shows over. This land has been claimed by the Queen and there's not a hell of a lot they can do about it now, save hold up trains and stop construction workers from doing their jobs.

Even if you consider the Six Nations dispute, as a dispute between "nations", historicaly nations which didn't want to end up at war used mediating mechanisms to resolve disputes. If Canada ever unilaterally occupied disputed land and evicted another nations residents, it would be considered an act of war.

If what Six Nations is looking to do is esclate a dispute to the point of provocation for the use of force, they are doing a good job.

PS: Sorry I didn't wade through 14 pages of text before posting. With the limited time I have these days, I didn't really feel like reading everyone's posts.

Not a problem. It is a long thread so I don't blame you. I just didn't want to rehash arguments which have already been made.

[Temagami Scourge]

Nothing like having the last word....

Anyhoo, I received a copy of an excellent letter to the Hamilton Spectator on the Caledonia issue. The letter emanated from an area lawyer, and I'm sure that his perspective would make many a racist Caledonian spin and decry him for being a traitor to Canada, but the man actually knows what he is talking about. Almost brings back some respect for lawyers:

Re: 'Natives are subject to the law' (Letter, Brent Whetstone May 9,2005)

Indeed. But there is much more to "the law" applicable in Caledonia

than traffic laws or the terms of an injunction arising out of a

one-sided ("ex parte") quickie hearing. And while governments know

this, it appears that they aren't telling people in Caledonia.

The Crown's Treaties with the Iroquois, including those of Albany and

Montreal in 1701, the Silver Covenant Chain and the Two Row Wampum are

part of applicable Law. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is part of the

Canadian Constitution. So is Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982,

which recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.

These laws bind the governments of Canada and Ontario, and the rest of

us. Our own Supreme Court repeats that they MUST be upheld, because

"the honour of the Crown is at stake".

The Haldimand Grant is part of this law. Its "surrender" or "sale" in

whole or part by the Iroquois may well be non-existent, fraudulent or

invalid (even according to non-native Canadian law). I suspect the

federal Crown knows this, but had simply planned over the intervening

160 years that the Iroquois would be assimilated and disappear.

The Iroquois Confederacy is centuries or millennia old. Its leaders,

clan mothers and members (all reasserting their nation in Caledonia) are

still telling us that in their view their own Iroquois structures and

laws have never been legitimately displaced by Euro-Canadian ones. They

are reminding us of solemn nation-to-nation Treaties that are no older

or less important than the Treaty of Paris between England and France of

1763 (the ongoing basis for Quebec being part of Canada).

It is far from clear that the Iroquois Confederacy members re-occupying

their lands are legally in the wrong.

If they are, why has the federal government spent the last 20 years or

so frantically evading having to account to the Six Nations Band Council

in Court for the Crown's (mis)handling of the vast Haldimand Grant that

it holds in trust for the Iroquois people?

It is time that Canadians remind themselves of ALL of the applicable

law, not just the bits that seem to justify our occupation and takings

of others' lands.

The only alternative is the use of overwhelming military force against

the Iroquois, to conquer them. But Canada's legitimacy and reputation

would take a severe beating if the colonial and oppressive nature of its

relationship with aboriginal peoples was thus laid bare.

Respect for the law is not a one-way, natives-only street. Non-natives

and their governments must respect the law too, and all of it.

Andrew Orkin

Barrister and Solicitor

Hamilton

Renegade; Please make a point of taking this to heart. You are one of the posters that insists on the rule of law -which is fair- but then turns around and consistently denies the need for Canadians to obey their own laws ie. maintaining treaty rights don't exist, saying that treaties are old and should be overridden, implying that Canada should overturn their own laws to the satisfaction of non-Native Canadians etc.

hope you folks learned something.

[Riverwind]

maintaining treaty rights don't exist, saying that treaties are old and should be overridden, implying that Canada should overturn their own laws to the satisfaction of non-Native Canadians etc.

Laws that are unjust should be overturned. Slave owners in the 1800s had legal documents that proved they legally purchased the slaves they owned. The fact these legal documents exist do not mean the descendents of slave owners should have their slaves returned to them. Native lands claims are a racist institution from the past that should stay in the past like slavery.

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

"Slave owners in the 1800s had legal documents that proved they legally purchased the slaves they owned. The fact these legal documents exist do not mean the descendents of slave owners should have their slaves returned to them"

Slaves were legally emancipated under British law, therefore there already was an override in place. The same cannot be said about Native treaties here, nor, for that matter, are Canadians dumb enough to call for the overturn of the Treaty of Paris, thus returning Quebec to France.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it....however, that idea is a normal Anglo-Saxon practice, so you might just be used to getting your way.

[Riverwind]

Slaves were legally emancipated under British law, therefore there already was an override in place.

My point exactly. Legal rights are overturned by new laws whenever society decides that the existing laws are wrong. If the rights of slaveowners can be unilaterally existinguished because society decides that slavery is morally wrong then the rights of natives have be unilaterally existinguished for the same reason.

And this is not about money - I know it is going to take billions to help natives build viable self sustaining communities and the solution could include transfer of crown land to band councils. However, any "solution" that perpetuates the racist concept of native treaty rights is wrong.

[Temagami Scourge]

river:

"My point exactly"

not quite. In fact, far from. What you are arguing is that slave laws are relic laws, and Canadian laws pertaining to Aboriginal people also happen to be old, ergo they are also relic laws and therefore should be abolished.

However, you miss the crucial point that olde time British laws recognized the fact that there were already Aboriginal laws in place and had to be dealt with. There is no such issue with slavery laws. The British created them and abandoned them. The British did not create Native laws, but recognized them, and have tried to incorporate them under their own law, which has created half-ass job ever since.

Regardless, the bottom line is that you simply do not want to pay for your fair share of Canada.

I understand that. You want free land, water and all kinds of goodies by ignoring any Native rights or ownership. Most people of European stock want free stuff. That's pretty much why they came here.

However, the reality is that nothing is for free, and the courts recognize the fact that the Crown has created terms for the perpetual use of "Canada", and as the Crown, they must continue to pay.

From my perspective, your Crown has not been living up to its obligations, and so they must pay more, or return the land if they no longer wish to pay. Ergo, why are the people from Six Nations grumbling about a relatively small piece of land that even the government has stalled in court for over 20 years. Why is Kashechewan flown our every few months? why were untold numbers of children raped in Canadian schools? Why are there so many addiction issues?

Where is the protection the Crown offered? Where is the safety? Why is it better to blame the Natives for their problems when successive generations of governments tried to use the Indians a guinea pigs for their social experiments?

No...your government has not kept up its end of the bargain, and natives recognize this fact. Some don't want to be bought off anymore, and it is at this point that you figure "they" should abide by your laws.

So far, your argument has not shown much in the way of coherence, but that's only my backwards, native view.

[Riverwind]

There is no such issue with slavery laws. The British created them and abandoned them.

Slavery has been praticed in many societies for 1000s of years and is still practiced in parts of Africa. The British abolished slavery and imposed that abolition on all cultures living in the British Empire whether they wanted it or not. The British did not ask cultures that praticed slavery for permission first - they just did it because that was the ethical thing to do.

I understand that. You want free land, water and all kinds of goodies by ignoring any Native rights or ownership. Most people of European stock want free stuff. That's pretty much why they came here.

Give me break. North America would be a hopeless basketcase like Africa today if the British/Americans had not overrun the continent. The Natives deserve credit for their contribution and our society today would not likely be as successful as it is without that contribution. However, it is rediculous to pretend that native society had the social institutions necessary to build the sophisticated modern economy that exists today. At this point in time, the only reasonable resolution to historical wrongs is to forget about who is decended from whom and provide temporary assistance to those who need help.

Why is Kashechewan flown our every few months?

Because the band council hands responsibility for monitoring the water system to unqualified people who don't take their job seriously.

why were untold numbers of children raped in Canadian schools?

Gross exagerration and you know it. The native 'victim' industry is really milking the residential school issue.

Why are there so many addiction issues?

Take a few hundred white people. Put them on a plot a land in the middle of nowhere with no economic base and pay them to stay there. You would see exactly the same social problems that you see among natives. The solution is: stop wasting time with native treaties and the native 'victim' industry and make it clear that integration into the mainstream economy on equal terms with everyone else is the best long term strategy.

[Temagami Scourge]

Life according to Riverend:

Riverend sentence: "Give me break. North America would be a hopeless basketcase like Africa today if the British/Americans had not overrun the continent."

What's really in Riverend's mind: of course, because it would only be through the intuitive hard work of advanced Europeans that anything ever gets done...history proves me right! Uh,oh...but I don't want to sound like a bigot, so I'll add a contradictory sop so people won't notice what I really mean.

Riverend sentence: "The Natives deserve credit for their contribution and our society today would not likely be as successful as it is without that contribution."

What's really in Riverend's mind: Geez, I really don't know anything that Natives did, other than they want my land after we beat them at Custer's last stand or something. It's just not right. Natives have been so unfair to us since we came here and made this continent productive!

Riverend sentence: "However, it is rediculous to pretend that native society had the social institutions necessary to build the sophisticated modern economy that exists today."

What's really in Riverend's mind: Damn...I can never remember how to spell ridiculous! Well, it doesn't matter anyway, because even though some Natives can spell ridiculous properly, they never would have been able to do it without getting a European education! Besides, i've read enough literature that I know that Natives would never have amounted to anything because they didn't have real social insitutions like us advanced Europeans did. and i've got many Europeans that would back me up on that! I mean. look how they run their reserves!

Riverend sentence: "At this point in time, the only reasonable resolution to historical wrongs is to forget about who is decended from whom and provide temporary assistance to those who need help."

What's really in Riverend's mind: Ok...I've got to end this point , but I don't know how. Oh...wait a minute, I'll say that we need to ignore the Natives today because...well...well we'll help those Natives who are in trouble today....Yeah...that sounds good, i'll try that...

[Temagami Scourge]

TS: Why is Kashechewan flown out every few months?

River: Because the band council hands responsibility for monitoring the water system to unqualified people who don't take their job seriously.

TS: Oh...and here I thought that the Feds building the initial waterplant downstream from the sewage outlet was the problem. However, I thought that they were flown out lately because of the ice damn creating a flood problem. I guess the best thing is to just blame those backwards Indians!

TS: If the government was supposed to protect Native people through the treaties, then why were untold numbers of children raped in Canadian schools?

River: Gross exagerration and you know it. It was what...only $1.9 billion worth of rape! that's all! Pipelines cost more! The native 'victim' industry is really milking the residential school issue.

TS: Wow...if that's what you think of the Natives, I wonder what you think of the Jewish "victim" industry?

TS: Why are there so many addiction issues?

River: Take a few hundred white people. Put them on a plot a land in the middle of nowhere with no economic base and pay them to stay there. You would see exactly the same social problems that you see among natives. The solution is: stop wasting time with native treaties and the native 'victim' industry and make it clear that integration into the mainstream economy on equal terms with everyone else is the best long term strategy.

TS: how come the Natives never had those problems in the old days, when they went out on the land hunting and trapping?

River: Uh....well, if you'd have given them more time they would have had those problems!

TS: Really? here I thought all the craziness began when the Natives were made to stay in one place by the Feds for better administrative purposes?

River: They were never made to stay in one place!

TS: Hunh? I thought it was law that you had to go to school? If the Native roamed their homeland, then they were breaking the law and the parents could be arrested, and the children taken by Children's Aid (and probably for a darn good raping, when you think about it)? River, my buddy, do you know anything about Canadian history (not John Wayne movies...we didn't have murderous Apaches running around up here)?

[Renegade]

Renegade; Please make a point of taking this to heart. You are one of the posters that insists on the rule of law -which is fair- but then turns around and consistently denies the need for Canadians to obey their own laws ie. maintaining treaty rights don't exist, saying that treaties are old and should be overridden, implying that Canada should overturn their own laws to the satisfaction of non-Native Canadians etc.

TS, I have said more than once that I support the Canadian government living up to Treaties which they have signed. I agree that if I expect that Native peoples respect the law, I expect the Canadian government to do so as well.

I would agree with Riverwind that if the law is unfair and immoral it should be revoked. However, while it is still in place it should be respected.

Respect for the law is not a one-way, natives-only street. Non-natives

and their governments must respect the law too, and all of it.

TS, in all of your posts, I have not once heard you state that it is your position that Six Nations should follow Canadian law just as you are expecting the government to. Is that something you can unequivocially state?

[Riverwind]

Natives have been so unfair to us since we came here and made this continent productive!

TS, if you took the time to analyze your own prejudices you would find that they are at least as rediculous as anything I said. You are trying to get everyone to believe that Natives would be living a wonderful life today if only those nasty Europeans had not moved in and stole all the land. It is a wonderful fairy tale that is not backed up by historical fact.

The pre-european native society was considerably more sophisticated than the picture presented in cowboy movies, however, it still did not have most of the features that would be required to move into the industrial age. That said, I don't think that there was anything particularily special about European culture either other than it was lucky enough to be close to a continent that was recently depopulated by the small pox virus. The rapid expansion into Americas provided the wealth and some key agricultural technologies that fueled industrial revolution in Europe. The entire world likely still be stuck in the pre-industrial age today without that unexpected wealth pouring suddenly into Europe

In short, it is a waste of time to go back and try to correct historical wrongs because if those wrongs had never occurred the world would likely be a completely different place. That is why I think historial justifications for native treaties are irrelevant and that the only question is what is best for society as we move forward from today. I believe that a society where everyone is equal and their ancentry is of no importance is the ideal we should work towards. Native treaties are the exact opposite of that ideal and are serious step back for our society.

[Riverwind]

TS: Oh...and here I thought that the Feds building the initial waterplant downstream from the sewage outlet was the problem. However, I thought that they were flown out lately because of the ice damn creating a flood problem. I guess the best thing is to just blame those backwards Indians!

The location of the waterplant was not a problem as long as the band had kept the beaver dams under control. The band was told to do break up any dams but they could not be bothered.

It was what...only $1.9 billion worth of rape! that's all!

There is no evidence that a large number of kids were raped in these schools. It happened to a few kids, just like it happened to white kids at schools like Mount Cashel. The trouble is we will never know the truth since making up about stories about being raped is a great way to get cash from the gov't and to make excuses for a drinking problem. By the way, making up stories to get easy money from the gov't is something white people do too.

TS: how come the Natives never had those problems in the old days, when they went out on the land hunting and trapping?

How many natives want to go back to a stone age existance with no guns, no cars or snow mobiles and no health care? The traditional lifestyle sounds romantic to those of us that are used to the comforts of modern technology but it was pretty brutal. I don't have any stats handy but it would not be surprised to find out that the life expectancy on a native reservation today is actually higher than it was when natives 'lived off the land'.

[gc1765]

It was what...only $1.9 billion worth of rape! that's all!

There is no evidence that a large number of kids were raped in these schools. It happened to a few kids, just like it happened to white kids at schools like Mount Cashel. The trouble is we will never know the truth since making up about stories about being raped is a great way to get cash from the gov't and to make excuses for a drinking problem. By the way, making up stories to get easy money from the gov't is something white people do too.

Actually, there is evidence of rape, abuse and even murder at residential schools, like bodies that had been buried with no explanation, as well as testimony from non-natives working at these schools. And most of those people didn't get a penny for it. I suggest you do a little more research on topics before you post your opinions.

TS: how come the Natives never had those problems in the old days, when they went out on the land hunting and trapping?

How many natives want to go back to a stone age existance with no guns, no cars or snow mobiles and no health care? The traditional lifestyle sounds romantic to those of us that are used to the comforts of modern technology but it was pretty brutal. I don't have any stats handy but it would not be surprised to find out that the life expectancy on a native reservation today is actually higher than it was when natives 'lived off the land'.

....and no crack, meth or alcohol either? I bet lots of people would be happy for that kind of life. And how do you know how bad it was, have you ever "lived off the land"?

[Riverwind]

I suggest you do a little more research on topics before you post your opinions.

I suggest you read what I wrote: I said "There is no evidence that a large number of kids...". Kids were abused in those schools and I don't dispute that, however, supporters of the native victim industry want us to believe that virtually every kid that went to the school was abused.

....and no crack, meth or alcohol either? I bet lots of people would be happy for that kind of life. And how do you know how bad it was, have you ever "lived off the land"?

Just look at the life expectancies. Today, even with all of the social problems, the life expectancies for natives today are well over 60. In the 1800s, life expectancies were well below 40. In other words, when natives were 'living off the land' life may have been free of those substances but it was much shorter.

[gc1765]

It happened to a few kids, just like it happened to white kids at schools like Mount Cashel...

I am reading exactly what you wrote, you said that it happened to a few kids...well I can tell you that it happened to a hell of a lot more than a few kids, try tens of thousands. I have never heard of tens of thousands of white kids being abused to the extent that natives were, if you can prove me wrong then I'm all ears.

P.S. It is sad that not many people in Canada know much about the history of residential schools.

[Riverwind]

I am reading exactly what you wrote, you said that it happened to a few kids...well I can tell you that it happened to a hell of a lot more than a few kids, try tens of thousands. I have never heard of tens of thousands of white kids being abused to the extent that natives were, if you can prove me wrong then I'm all ears.

It depends on how you are defining abuse. That number probably includes every kid which was given the strap - something that was an accepted form of discipline at the time even in white schools. TS, on the other hand, was claiming that huge numbers of children were raped. I feel that is a gross exageration and that is what I was refering to when I said 'a few kids'.

[geoffrey]

Agreed Riverwind, common sense must prevail. Why would there be that significant of an increase in these rapings in aboriginal religiously run schools?

Doesn't follow a logical line of thought.

Using that concept, all people that have been raped in a school should be entitled to government compensation... whereas I say the guilty party should go to jail.

[gc1765]

My mistake, I should have been more clear...I mean there have been literally tens of thousands of cases of rape and murder since the beginning of residential schools in Canada. If you add physical abuse that was used as punishment in those days, obviously that number gets much, much larger. Not to mention all of the people who witnessed these atrocities.

It is amazing how much people underestimate how severe the abuse in residential schools was.

[geoffrey]

My mistake, I should have been more clear...I mean there have been literally tens of thousands of cases of rape and murder since the beginning of residential schools in Canada. If you add physical abuse that was used as punishment in those days, obviously that number gets much, much larger. Not to mention all of the people who witnessed these atrocities.

It is amazing how much people underestimate how severe the abuse in residential schools was.

I've never seen any convincing evidence, show me the proof and I'll believe you.

I don't take peoples' word at face value when there is a cheque waiting for them depending on what they say.

[Temagami Scourge]

Geoffrey:

"I've never seen any convincing evidence, show me the proof and I'll believe you. I don't take peoples' word at face value when there is a cheque waiting for them depending on what they say."

I realize this attitude Geoff. This is typical of people like you, and this attitude makes it easier for serial killers to operate among the poorer classes because -you know- them poor folks just want money anyway, so they'll say anything.

I guess even serial killers and pedophiles need friends too.

Anyway, we could put up all manner of numbers, and folks like you or the goofs in KKKaledonia wouldn't believe it one way or the other.

So, here is a portion of Dr. Jennifer Wades' address on Vancouver pedophile rings from '98. She makes some comparisons to Native residential schools. I'm sure you'll love it...

"Dr. Jennifer Wade is a founder of Amnesty International in Vancouver; An Excerpt from her Keynote Address on April 30, 1999:

More and more in recent years we have been learning that one does not need to go far field to hear of the sexual exploitation of children and youth. It is a very, very serious problem right here in Vancouver. In March 1997, no less a paper than the Christian Science Monitor highlighted the flourishing sex trade with children, right here in Vancouver, referring to the city as "a pedophile's paradise," a place known for its "notorious sex trade," and saying that Vancouver has gained an international reputation "as a city where it is easy to find a child for sex."

In January of this year, the Vancouver Courier published an article entitled "Coming on to our Children" (January 31, 1999). For many, it was no doubt a wake-up call first of all to read that this was happening in their neighbourhoods, and secondly, to find out what people working in the court systems have known for a long time: that many of the people involved were churchmen, lawyers, businessmen, and possibly neighbours whom they probably know. They would also perhaps be surprised to read that children as young as 12 were being lured into the sex trade in such places as upscale shopping malls and schoolyards. The article also made another important point. It indicated that once children are drawn into a grotesque, deviant subculture with a language and, yes, even a sense of community of its own, it becomes increasingly difficult to escape.....

...But the sex trade in children, especially young Native children, goes back much further than the time of Renate Andres-Auger. This became a very real fact to me, unthinkable as it was, last June 12 to 14 when I happened to attend a Tribunal arranged by a UN affiliate group here in Vancouver to hear testimonies of Native people who had attended the church-run residential schools. Although I have been associated with Amnesty International since its beginnings in 1961, I must admit that what I heard at that Tribunal was horribly disturbing and shattering. I am still haunted by the disturbing accounts given of little children, aged 5 and 6, being taken from their parents and grandparents by police who took them in gunboats to schools, some of them never to see their homes or their villages again.....

....Not only were tales recounted of unfathomable cruelty and torture to little children dragged away from their homes and put under the legal guardianship of church-run schools, but even worse were the accounts given of pedophile groups consisting of church men and women administering what were called "white vitamins" to little children of 9 and 10 who were taken one by one to the so-called infirmary at night. Few of them recalled what happened next except that when they came to, they often saw blood on a sheet and remembered experiencing great pain.....

....Harriet Nahanee, a Native elder, has given the police her story of hearing a young child called Maisie Williams crying on Christmas Eve for her mother after being with one of the alleged pedophiles at the Port Alberni School. And then Ms. Nahanee testified that this child was pushed down the basement steps to where Harriet Nahanee was herself hiding. This young girl is reported by Ms. Nahanee to have died, and this is confirmed in a copy of the school records I have seen. Ms. Nahanee herself alleges she was molested time and time again by the principal of the school, a Rev. Caldwell, who has since died. And the police therefore claim they can take no action on her story. Other women at the Tribunal testified to "being cleaned up" on a Saturday night and being taken often by Native people themselves to clients. One person mentioned the Vancouver Club......

....At this same Tribunal, a Native man spoke abut being taken home by a teacher at Christmas and then being given alcohol before being sexually molested. The names of many Reverends, Sisters, Fathers, and Brothers were given as story after story of terrifying sexual exploitation and cruelty was told. To run away was to risk merciless beatings with electrical wires and horse harnesses - perhaps even death in the barns, one man said. All of this is on record. How prevalent such cases were, one can only guess.....

...Certainly everyone here tonight should think carefully upon the figures given in the Royal Commission Report on Aboriginals that 125,000 children went into those schools and 50,000 never came out. We can only guess what those children, both boys and girls, were subjected to. Undoubtedly, only part of the anguish was sexual exploitation, but it was a very horrible part that has remained an enduring nightmare for many of the victims. Certainly, as one listened amid the sobbing and the anguish at that Tribunal to stories being told of all kinds of sexual predators and perverts, one realized that these schools, often in remote places with inaccessible transportation, must have been havens for sexual perverts and pedophiles...."

Man...50,000 of the 125,000 that went in never came out. What a bonus for the Canadian government that must be! They only have to pay $1.9 Billion because many other prospective victims are already dead...many of them likely murdered too, but that little tidbit is meaningless in "Geoffrey-Land"!

Heck, no. we need to see some "proof" first? Why listen to liars?