Six Nations occupation at Caledonia

[scribblet]

P.S.

In a nutshell, the natives sold the land 1841, no question there, but one faction disagreed with sale; and for this we have to put up with illegal barricades, sabotage and violence.

By the way, I sure hope that the gov't compensates the Caledonians for their loss of work over the hydro sabotage - and rightly deducts it from payments to natives.

Speaking of the gov't where is McGuinty, its about time he stepped in and put a stop to these illegal activities, once and for all.

[geoffrey]

Temagami,

I can't believe that you would even suggest that the Indians aren't doing anything wrong and its all the white Caledonians that are the trouble with the violence. There is photographic evidence that the Indians destroyed a road, burnt down a bridge and knocked out power lines. There is photographic evidence of an O.P.P. officer getting hit in the face with a bag of bricks by a crazed Indian.

They think they are above the law and I think its time we send a strong armed message. Negotiations should have ended with the first violence by the Indians, now its time to bring in the Army and clean them up.

[Temagami Scourge]

machinations:

Most of your posts are characterized by your antagonism and your seeming refusal to accept lines of argument which contradict your own position.

Please, enlighten me as to where my contradictions lie. I also have people on here calling me racist, but they haven't bothered to provide examples of my supposed "racism", so I'm taking the time to ask for clarification.

I hope what you saw in that shameful video today, as I did, was the beginning of a sea change in Canadian policy vis-a-vis the aboriginal population.

what...how to beat Indians with your bare hands better? To me, I saw the failure of Canadian society, and after having pooh-poohed Jane Jacob's latest offering on why we are advancing into another dark age, i now know that it is likely she is right. I also saw the failure of the current federal government to get involved and possibly tame the errant Kaledonians.

I noticed you neglected to report the use of a backhoe which has not only ruined the road, but also knocked out the power to the city of Caledonia.

Look at the time of the post and you'll note that I put it up before the backhoe event.

nice try though. Am I racist yet?

All acceptable actions, no doubt, to you - against the racist monolith that is the Canadian government. If a few innocents were inconvenienced, who cares - I mean, clearly their ancestors were evil racist oppressors as well, and therefore, this is karma.

Yes...and never a better example of karma than the poor people of Caledonia who exalted that the blockade was down, only to have their own neighbours boo them and start calling them "Indian-lovers" and other names. I mean, I can understand racial epithets between different races, but Euro-Canadians trying to be racist towards each other!? that is the worst possilbe case of karma.

I would appreciate if you could expound on what exactly you would like to see the future hold for the Six Nations people.

given the treatment from some Kaledonians, I'd like to see Six Nations get its land back, and become an associate of Canada, but certainly not a part of. I've been to the blockade innumerable times, and the last thing Kaledonians call me and other Six nations people is Canadian. Actually, they never call us Canadians, so i can't see a compelling reason to remain so.

Should Canada continue to maintain what is, essentially, a two-tier society? I think your vision of the future is vague, at best, only seeing some sort of permanent relationship that involves, what, a seperate state?

I'd simply prefer Canada leaving us to our own devices. Just return the land and we'll give up all the "treaty benefits" that canadians whine about ad infinitum. Unless you feel that the land shouldn't be returned, then I see no reason for us to give up what we originally exchanged for our land.

What aggravates most right-minded individuals about this the most is the double standard. No ordinary citizen could hold a protest which involved the destruction of public property (the road and the hydro lines) and not be held accountable.

That is right, however, after having been told by the Federal government in 1995 that all remaining land claims would be put on hold, and a moratorium put on the lands in question (which happens to involve the Douglas Creek area), and then 10 years later a developer shows up and begins building on land that is supposed to be on hold....welll, you explain to me the legalities, machina?

This is the single, unalienable fact - there is a rule of law in this country, and it should apply to all humans equally.

Sounds absolutely utopian! However, why am I impacted by the Indian Act and you aren't? Why does your government get to decide who is and isn't an Indian? Where is this one law you speak of, machination? I know that none of my forebears wrote the Indian Act, so why do you expect me to answer for your government's decisions? I know from treaty negotiations that we never gave the Crown the right to our self-determination, nor did we give them the right to remove our children to residential schools, nor the right to determine how much money was invested in housing, So why is this now my problem? I think it's yours, if it's anyone's.

I would just like to see your government maintain it's end of the agreement and leave us alone.

If the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty occupied a road and denied its use to ordinary citizens, they would be arrested faster than you could shout 'discrimination'. In fact, Ill cite for you:

That is probably because OCAP doesn't share a treaty relationship with the Crown in Canada.

What I'd like to know is why you want to compare a group of anti-poverty activists to a distinct society that is made up of Six Nations, has traditions, languages and teachings that extend back before the beginning of time, a social code, its own laws until usurped by the Federal government in 1924 and in ownership of a plot of land by deeded agreement?

TS

(ps; sorry if I've been antagonistic, but i've answered the same questions time and time again, and it appears that no one has bothered to actually read the answers..hence my "ramblin'")

[Temagami Scourge]

Machina Partie Deux:

You try to spin the argument into various tangents about historical wrongs - all of which are irrelevant.

Prove they are irrelevant. If you want to make such statements, then cite fact, not "machinafiction"

The fact is, the protesters are breaking the law. Ergo, they should be arrested.

Then where are the paddy-wagons full of Kaledonians? don't you think that maybe the Kaledonians and the Six Nations people are treated equally? both broke the law as you maintain, but none do the time.

As an aside, one tangent does intrest me - your declaration that the Indian Act is somehow a treaty between the Six Nations and the Canadian government. As I believe has been pointed out to you repeatedly, this is not the case - it is in fact a piece of Canadian law that made political concessions to Six Nations leaders - however, it can and most certainly will be changed unilaterally.

Hunh? The Indian Act is a Six Nations treaty? Buddy...I never said that anywhere. I have said that the original agreements were usurped by the act, but that covers administration. It is the agreements themselves that are the basis for the legal relationship. i'm not fond of the act, but your government has now tied the treaty benefits to it, so we are stuck at the whim of the government.

Further, concerning those treaties undertaken by both the English and the French governments which present courts have accepted as binding - I presume you are aware that the foundation of that decision is based on Canada being part of the Commonwealth. Were Canada to abolish (as many smart people propose) the link to the Crown, we would in one fell swoop lose the useless office of the Governor-General and the rubberstamp authority of the British Monarchy AND the outdated treaties signed hundreds of years ago by foreign governments. Imagine.

Well, I don't mean to burst your bubble, nor defend treaties, but your government already made due provision for the treaties in the Constitution, so the treaty relationship still wouldn't disappear, but the Queen and GG would.

Sorry.

The current confrontational attitude we are seeing in Caledonia and from Teragami's posts will only inflame the resentment amongst ordinary, non-racist, help-your-neighbour Canadians. You can only tolerate this kind of lawlessness for so long. Say what you will about the past, but we live in the present and for the future. This kind of action, as we're seeing, reminds me of the precept: 'An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.'

Cool! I'm like my own blockade in your estimation? Hey....no need for the compliments machina, I'm just a simple man doing his best for what he believes in. And I'll be sure to remember the "racist" comment when i'm giving directions to lost boaters this summer, or chasing after a teen canoe group from down south and inviting them back to my place to wait out crossing the lake in a windstorm!

silly ol' racist me.

[philosophy of a nobody]

To. Geoffry... post #3

You sir are disgusting human being. Take one second out of your profit driven waste of a life an imagine that you had something sacred that was given to you as an offering after great turmoil and ignorance only to have some comapny who cares nothing about you or your family or your rights as a human being to walk on your gift with ignorance like some bully. Would you just walk away? Would you stand up for a moment then decide "Oh wait! I'm getting in the way of somebody else's life, well I guess I should just sacrifice my rights for that persons comfort." That my silly friend is not what would happen. I don't disagree with everything you have said. It is not fair for anyone to simply rely on welfare to feed a lazy nature. The way you attacked this issue is giving an impression that all natives do not understand the meaningof work. I happen to work for a company who hires young natives who have been shunned and labeled "lazy" by people like you and they are eager to make a name for themselves. To shed this rainy cloud over their identity. I'm pretty sure you yourself would not have great outlook on life if your family history consisted of people who had been removed form their land brought to cold dark schools as children, stripped of their identity then raped and beaten by an organization sanctioned by the government and church, leaving them disillisioned to life and turning to alchohol and drugs to hide their pain. We do owe these people something. We owe them patience. We owe them space to grow and regain their identitiy. We owe them acceptance of their problems so they can rectify themsleves instead of always knowing that our society is looking at them as lazy welfare driven bums. It is this attitude that we beleive is giving us the right to walk into their land and take it without any care of their hertiage. We need to take the time to learn about their heritage so they can see they are being accepted for the beauty of their ancestors. So, before you go and just think about your tax dollars and think about poor over-occupied people being detoured on their way to work. Remeber that we are dealing with a culture that was stripped of its identity and most of its original land and now we are trying to take more just to continue our ignorant urban sprawl.

[Temagami Scourge]

Gooffy:

Temagami,

I can't believe that you would even suggest that the Indians aren't doing anything wrong and its all the white Caledonians that are the trouble with the violence.

I never said that at all, mein freund. I said that the Kaledonians started it after the Natives offered to open things up again. But then again, I'm often finding that I have to explain things slower to you so you get it.

There is photographic evidence that the Indians destroyed a road, burnt down a bridge and knocked out power lines.

...and photographic evidence of a Native woman being assaulted in her car by Kaledonians, kaledonians hitting natives and then running away, Kaledonians yelling racist insults at Natives, Kaledonians throwing cheese (ok...that was funny) at Natives. although i've seen pictures of a burnt old bridge, I haven't seen any pictoral evidence of who did it, and the same goes for knocked out power lines...I've not seen anyone actally doing that, but if you feel you need to blame without any supportive evidence, then you may as well move to Kaledonia! you'd fit in beautifully!

There is photographic evidence of an O.P.P. officer getting hit in the face with a bag of bricks by a crazed Indian.

...and photographis evidence of two OPP officers holding a young native while a young Kaledonian punches the young native in the face. I even saw the pepper spray go off, but I can't tell who did it in the general melee as the bodies were thronged together.

I guess I just don't jump to conclusions as quickly as say....you?

They think they are above the law and I think its time we send a strong armed message. Negotiations should have ended with the first violence by the Indians, now its time to bring in the Army and clean them up.

Well mein Fuhrer! time to call the brownshirts in because der juden-Indiener are acting pissed at having land they were told was on perpetual moratorium -before the courts, mind you- sold to Henco for a housing development. Bring in der Panzers! vere ist der Luftwaffe? 40 hectares or fight! down with the Native Indian cabal secretly seeking to rule the world! jawohl! Das ist Kanada!

Ok...enough of the Sargeant Rock...but Laddie...i have an idea. Go back a few posts to a couple of posts I directed towards Scrib and Argos and read what I wrote about the Hennings and Henco, and you'll see a whole new layer of intrigue has been added to this imbroglio.

Makes for a good read.

Heil geoffrey...Seig Heil!.....Sieg Heil!

[Temagami Scourge]

Philosophy: re: geoffrey

You sir are disgusting human being.

Gooffy isn't disgusting....he's only the web-equivalent of Rainman. Although I can see how you'd come by the error.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Like you said - YOU WERE NOT THERE - but you are awfully trusting of what is broadcast over the tv

ever hear of selective editing Argus? Its what makes good TV....... and proliferates the stereotyping you and your brotheres on here spout.

Using racial slurs and stereotypes of Native people only proves to me that the issue for you is purely racial.

You use these words becasue you have no other recourse - all the Native people i know just laugh at you when you throw insults. Racism is pointless , it goes nowhere and is ultimately self defeating. If people like you put more effort into understanding the plight of your NEIGHBOURS instead of trying to incite, this situation wouldnt exist or at least not the point where violence erupted.

You rely on the tv for your information - try talking to the people directly and give the same amount of respect you expect to recieve - the recpetion you get may surprise you. If you speak with respect you will get it back - if you provide an intelligent argument thats what youll get in return.

From all accounts ive heard and seen - the people of the protest are being self - defensive - meaning they arnt the ones picking the fight wiht the locals. They have no beef wiht the local residents unless they make it that way.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Like you said - YOU WERE NOT THERE - but you are awfully trusting of what is broadcast over the tv

ever hear of selective editing Argus? Its what makes good TV....... and proliferates the stereotyping you and your brotheres on here spout.

Using racial slurs and stereotypes of Native people only proves to me that the issue for you is purely racial.

You use these words becasue you have no other recourse - all the Native people i know just laugh at you when you throw insults. Racism is pointless , it goes nowhere and is ultimately self defeating. If people like you put more effort into understanding the plight of your NEIGHBOURS instead of trying to incite, this situation wouldnt exist or at least not the point where violence erupted.

You rely on the tv for your information - try talking to the people directly and give the same amount of respect you expect to recieve - the recpetion you get may surprise you. If you speak with respect you will get it back - if you provide an intelligent argument thats what youll get in return.

From all accounts ive heard and seen - the people of the protest are being self - defensive - meaning they arnt the ones picking the fight wiht the locals. They have no beef wiht the local residents unless they make it that way.

[seabee]

- try talking to the people directly and give the same amount of respect you expect to recieve - the recpetion you get may surprise you.

Indeed!

Several times I had the opportunity, in Montréal and in Québec (the city), to talk at length with First Nations people. We did not talk about conflictual issues; just about the characteristics of our respective nations.

I was impressed in all cases by the warmth of these people, their kindness, their intelligence.

They are definitely different nations, with different languages and hence different cultures, with different perspectives and values, different but no better and no worse than ours.

They are friendly people, but they don't like being abused.

Trying to assimilate them, for their own good, some say, is a crime against humanity.

One would think that a country that boast being multicultural would know that.

[Argus]

What gave the Colonial powers the right to arrive here - put up their flags and suddenly ownership of the land was instantaneously transferred from the people who have undeniably occupied it for countless years.

The same thing which gave the natives the right to take it when they came, or to take it off each other through war. The same thing which brought about the borders in Europe after centuries of warfare. He who has the most muscle takes the most cake. That's the way it always was, and the natives played the same game before the Europeans arrived.

I have read a post regarding the time frame of the land disputes. Some people feel since it happened centuries ago those injustices are unimportnat or have been somehow swept away because our ancestors perpetrated them. ( no one wants to be responsible for the sins of the father ).

We're not. In fact, most of the people here don't even have ancestors who were present at the time. Hell, my ancestors had their land stolen by the English. Am I supposed to start blocking roads in Dundee? That's just the way the world worked. Get over it. Everyone else has.

Isnt it the law that states you have to prove you paid for something in order to prove ownership?

Not when you've had it in your posession for a century or so. But if the natives have a legitimate title to that land then by all means let them take it to court. The Canadian courts have been fairly sympathetic to them before. Why is there no court case over this? Why haven't the natives sued if they have such clear treaty rights to the land?

Regarding, The Brant Treaty - It clearly states that 6 miles from either side of the grand river and ( if i remember correctly ) that tract of land would run from beginning to end of the river - one heck of a huge peice of land.

The argument, as I understand it, is that he never said all that land, but that they could choose the land they wanted from that area.

From what I understand Joseph Brant leased sections of this land for a set period of time. Upon which no payments were made, and no one left at the termination of the lease.

Well then, that's a fairly basic legal matter and ought to be easily settled in court. Why no court case?

I think ive gone on long enough - but in closing, id like to put forth a scenario ....

You are the owner of a 100 acre farm - one day the government knocks on your door to inform you that your land has been seized - your property now consists of 1 acre surrounding your house - you dont get a say or a cent from the rest of the land you used to live on.

Question is - How would you feel about that? And what could you do about it?

You might have a look at what the English did to the Irish some day. You might also have a look at some of the local indian vs indian wars, and what happened to the losers. Hint: They didn't get to keep an acre of land.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

In a nutshell, the natives sold the land 1841, no question there, but one faction disagreed with sale; and for this we have to put up with illegal barricades, sabotage and violence.

>>> Provide me proof of this - id love to read it becsue its not inline with my own personal research

By the way, I sure hope that the gov't compensates the Caledonians for their loss of work over the hydro sabotage - and rightly deducts it from payments to natives.

>>> Lots of public protests inconvenience people and they dont have to reimburse anyone - Whjy SHould the Native poele be any diffenet?

Speaking of the gov't where is McGuinty, its about time he stepped in and put a stop to these illegal activities, once and for all.

>>> I agree - lets start with getting rid of the locals uttering threats!

[philosophy of a nobody]

Gooffy isn't disgusting....he's only the web-equivalent of Rainman. Although I can see how you'd come by the error.

Dear Mr. Temagami.

Unfortuently I was quite an upset man after reading the words of Goofy. You are right in saying he is not a disgusting man. I cannot see man or hu"man"ity as disgusting. It is our actions that can be disgusting. I also agree with your rainman comment. He does seem to be a disabled mind. My name is Anawtic. I am an observer. A maple tree does not lash out but observe and nurture. Thank you for this mini revelation. I am intrigued by your boldness and the peacefull knowledge you give to these poor blind souls.

[geoffrey]

You sir are disgusting human being.

Ok. Clear personal attack, do you not have anything material to add to the conservation besides these attempts at character assassination?

Take one second out of your profit driven waste of a life an imagine that you had something sacred that was given to you as an offering after great turmoil and ignorance only to have some comapny who cares nothing about you or your family or your rights as a human being to walk on your gift with ignorance like some bully. Would you just walk away? Would you stand up for a moment then decide "Oh wait! I'm getting in the way of somebody else's life, well I guess I should just sacrifice my rights for that persons comfort."

There is a difference between blockading a roadway and digging a trench in the road, razing bridges and beating police officers. These are unacceptable and those that condone such activities should be arrested and jailed. If the Six Nations just wanted to hold an information session, or even block the road for a few hours to get their word out ok. But destroying property I've paid for with my taxes is wrong and people need to be jailed.

Law and order used to be a priority of Canadians but now its political correctness it seems.

Gooffy isn't disgusting....he's only the web-equivalent of Rainman. Although I can see how you'd come by the error.

Again, you've realised that your argument condoning criminal activity holds no water and instead resort to personal attacks.

I have yet to ever use a personal attack against you, I've merely discussed the relevant factual talking points on the issue. I expect that you would extend to me the same respect I've extended to your character as well.

Dear Mr. Temagami.

Unfortuently I was quite an upset man after reading the words of Goofy. You are right in saying he is not a disgusting man. I cannot see man or hu"man"ity as disgusting. It is our actions that can be disgusting. I also agree with your rainman comment. He does seem to be a disabled mind. My name is Anawtic. I am an observer. A maple tree does not lash out but observe and nurture. Thank you for this mini revelation. I am intrigued by your boldness and the peacefull knowledge you give to these poor blind souls.

I'm not impressed with someone just joining a message board to attack long-standing members. I backed up all my statements with factual proof, those that I haven't, I'd be happy to reference you to some very credible sources if you wish to challenge them. My arguments are along lines of common sense and equality of right, I have no right to dig up roadways, assault cops and raze bridges so why do Indians?

That's too bad that you seem to think I have some kind of mental disability. I actually have an IQ in the genius range, am University educated and have been highly successful at a young age in business. Hardly a blind soul. As for 'nature' minded things, as you seem to value these more than practical things, I've done a handful of expeditions deep into wilderness, have climbed many peaks, up to 13,000ft., and am a regular hunter and fisherman. I have a respect for nature.

This has nothing to do with nature as you seem to think it does, this has to do with criminals in our society that are encouraged by the governments at hand to hold society hostage for their material gain.

I've offered a couple of solutions to the 'Indian problem'. Self-government is my perfered method, with absolutely no financial or any other support from the Canadian government. Have them set up their nations, and fund them internally. I have no obligation to pay for people that don't want to be Canadian or follow Canadian laws like I do.

Otherwise, Indians can lose their prefered ethnic status, be only offered traditional welfare available to all Canadians and end this apartheid. Adapt to society.

There is no in between solution that is at all reasonable, either govern and finance yourselves, or adapt to our way of life.

End of story. I will not respond to any further attacks on my character and I've reported your posts to the forum owner in hope that disciplinary action is taken.

[philosophy of a nobody]

I'd also like to see the Six Nations branded as a criminal organization and have every last one of them locked up, or kept in their reservation. They obviously don't understand what peaceful society is. The amount of property damage is just astonishing, yet no one has gone to jail. Their Chiefs are ordering this violence, and like any leader that represents the group, must take responsibility. All the Chiefs should be jailed as well.

I'm so sick of this conflict, bring in the army and deal with this bandits and petty shit disturbers.

This Mr. Geoffry is ignorance. Your post at the beginning of this board. #3 was so full of lame ignorance that it outraged me. I have admitted I acted out of anger and this is an ignorance that is fueling this entire situation.

But destroying property I've paid for with my taxes is wrong and people need to be jailed.

This is correct. Although the native people that were having their property destroyed by a couple of rich business men who sold it unlawfully are angry after being ignored. They made an effort to lift their block but only to met with ignorant people fuel by more anger. Sir it is known that 2 wrongs don't make a right, neither does 3, 4, 5 or even 100. People are angry and are allowing their anger to blind them. This is a continuos pile of wrongs that are not making any rights. The base of the problem is their land was stolen and they were ignored by rich business men who have a history of putting profits over people. This is what needs to be settled first. It is the first wrong that is at the bottom of the pile. Once these evil profiteers are brought to justice I can pretty much gaurantee that the native people will be happy to go back to a "peaceful" existance. And the people, Native and Caledonian who have assaulted others and destroyed property should be brought to justice as well. As long as the original issue is dealt with then the protest and pain is not in vain. This does not justify the violence. Unfortunelty there are wrongs on all sides this mess. You just seem to looking at one side.

[Argus]

Argy:

I know that this was intended for Gerald, but he's not here right now, so I'll take a crack at it.

I have to question this. Given the times when most treaties were signed, European health care was not particularly impressive, and many, many whites had little or no education to speak of. That a bunch of natives in the forests would demand white doctors and schools in all their treaties seems remarkably unlikely. Cows and blankets, maybe, but books? Hmmmm.

To be a bit more precise -as well as emphasize how little knowledge you have with respect to the subject at hand- The treaties refer to "access to the medicine chest" which used to translate the concept of health care. You are mistaken about your inference regarding white doctors, but I understand why you'd come to the conclusion you jumped to. I hope this info helps.

Secondly, they didn't demand schools, but education. Fortunately, my ancestors did realize that the world was changing, and they wanted to ensure that future generations could take part in these changes, so they ensured that education was included.

Uh huh, yeah, sure. I'd like to see these treaties, on something other than a native web site. I can believe that the natives might have occasionally asked for such things, but not all of them. If such things are in all the treaties it's because the Europeans put them there, hoping to educate the savages, as it were.

They saw the importance of education among their neighbours, and responded appropriately. That is part of the reason why you, River, canuck et al. get so darn incensed by today's Natives, because we are at a far more sophisticated level and don't jump for trinkets and baubles like you feel we should.

I'd be content if they had work, instead of wasting their lives sniffing glue and getting drunk.

Jeepers, we are even better writes and spellers than many of you.

Yeah, okay, sure. You go boy.

When they don't require taxpayer money for every bite they eat, every drop of water they drink, the clothes on their back and the homes they live in, you can get back to us on that nation to nation business. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the natives, by and large, are welfare lifers, not "nations".

Oh here we go again...the minute Gerald explains the plausibility of acting as partners, you run down the "whining Canadian" route. "Oh...they get our money, they get our Tim Horton's wah, wah"

Very mature, it's become your mark around here. It's why everyone respects you so much.

Additionally, I've also noted that both Gerald and myself have made it quite plain that we really don't want anything from you.

Nothing at all.

Just our money.

In my case, and I'll say it again because no one bothers to read it anyway, but I would gladly rip up the treaties and forget everything about education, housing or health care as long as the land is returned.

Whining is so unattractive. You lost. You were beaten in battle, beaten in negotiations, and then just slicked out of your land for a few baubles. Sucks to be you, but hey, not everyone's ancestors were winners. So give up this hunter-gatherer crap that you romantacise, go into the cities we built, and get a job. Welcome to the twenty first century, there's no going back.

[Argus]

Like you said - YOU WERE NOT THERE - but you are awfully trusting of what is broadcast over the tv

ever hear of selective editing Argus? Its what makes good TV....... and proliferates the stereotyping you and your brotheres on here spout.

Are you suggesting the mass media, generally very liberal and very sympathetic to natives, deliberately edited their video so as to make the natives look like the attackers when they were not? Do you have any evidence to support this startling assertation?

Using racial slurs and stereotypes of Native people only proves to me that the issue for you is purely racial.

Nah, purely logical, and I haven't used any racial slurs, though I do admit to the steroetypes, but then, the people I'm discussing this with are not particularly interested in honest discussion anyway.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

FYI Argus my background has Irish, Scottish and Native in it.

The first and most important argument is that the Haldimand Treaty granted the land rights for loyal miitary service - and through all this time the government has not lived up to the word of this agreement. Both Native and displaced white soldiers were granted the same deal - how do you rationalize them not having their land taked from them as well?

I expect vey few people commenting in this section of the board to sympathise with the Native people - most just say suck it up and move on - or you lost the land in spoils of war - or that they uinderstand a treaty was signed but that was ancient history - uhmm NO! A signed legal document is just that, and is still binding regardless of the fact that a previous administration signed it - the burden of proof should be on the government to prove that the land was given away or sold - try and read a copy of the wording of the document - it is quite clear that the land in ite entirety was given to the Natives of Six Nations

What is everyone so afraid of? That they will win their legally based court case?( another FYI Argus - this isnt the first legal proceding initiated by Six Nations people - do Your research )

What is the basis of this fear the residents have, if not entirely racially based? Id honestly like to know.

The biggest change would be where your tax dollars would go - to the government or to support the newly created municipality

talking with a few of you bigots on here is only further cementing my support of the occupation becasue you are obviously not interested in rational debate - youre only here to create friction and incite further distrust.

The local people are fearing the change that may happen but by opening up a mutually respectful dialogue may do wonders to allay your worries.

Try asking what they seek to gain for starters.

[Argus]

FYI Argus my background has Irish, Scottish and Native in it.

The first and most important argument is that the Haldimand Treaty granted the land rights for loyal miitary service - and through all this time the government has not lived up to the word of this agreement. Both Native and displaced white soldiers were granted the same deal - how do you rationalize them not having their land taked from them as well?

How do you know some of them weren't swindled out of their lands? Of course, it's much more profitable to steal from those who have a lot of land, like the natives.

I don't know all the details of the Haldimand treaty, not its real name, or the Simcoe Treaty, which is, I believe. I have looked, but there does not appear to be any unbiased, legitimate, knowledgeable site out there with sufficient information to make a decision. Some years passed between when Haldimand made the deal and when it was ratified by Simcoe, and the amount of land was greatly reduced when the maps were drawn. Swindle? Correction? Misunderstanding? Dunno. There also seems to be evidence the natives gave up much of the land for sale in 1841. Were they properly paid? Were they swindled? Dunno. Have natives been swindled out of their land in the past? Unquestionably. Anyone with valuable posessions but no real degree of sophistication, knowledge and education is prey to those who want to take it from them. That's always the way it's been. That's the way it still is. That's the way it will likely always be. Did that happen in this case? Dunno. Should we make some kind of correction all these years later if it did? Yes, I think so. I don't think making them all billionnaires is an option, though.

I expect vey few people commenting in this section of the board to sympathise with the Native people - most just say suck it up and move on - or you lost the land in spoils of war - or that they uinderstand a treaty was signed but that was ancient history - uhmm NO! A signed legal document is just that, and is still binding regardless of the fact that a previous administration signed it - the burden of proof should be on the government to prove that the land was given away or sold - try and read a copy of the wording of the document - it is quite clear that the land in ite entirety was given to the Natives of Six Nations

Oh please. No legal document is ever beyond interpretation, especially one written a couple of centuries ago. And it's more complicated than that, too, as there was definitely agreement at various times, by various chiefs to sell some of that land. So all of those agreements have to be entered into discussion, too, with all the interpretations possible by all the lawyers concerned. The land in question, as I understand it, was sold to some settler a hundred and fifty years ago for about 50 pounds stirling. Why are we still arguing about it now?

What is everyone so afraid of? That they will win their legally based court case?( another FYI Argus - this isnt the first legal proceding initiated by Six Nations people - do Your research )

What is the basis of this fear the residents have, if not entirely racially based? Id honestly like to know.

People aren't afraid of natives. They simply don't like those who break the law. And they get angry when the police stand around and watch because those breaking the law are natives. That's the only racial element to that. Canadians have a reflex dislike of people being treated differently because of their race. They don't like that natives get treated differently than others, and no damnfool legal document from a century back is going to change that feeling.

The biggest change would be where your tax dollars would go - to the government or to support the newly created municipality

If you really think the native communities would be satisfied with just the amount of money they get now you're not paying attention. Besides, you can't be an independant nation while living on welfare.

talking with a few of you bigots on here is only further cementing my support of the occupation becasue you are obviously not interested in rational debate - youre only here to create friction and incite further distrust.

I think in order to have a rational debate I'd need someone rational, and knowledgeable, and mature. You appear to be none of those things. Shallow and callow just don't cut it around here, respect-wise. Which is why you're convincing no one.

[seabee]

If treaties signed in the 19th century are no longer valid, than, obviously those in the 18th century are even less valid.

So, the 1763 Treaty of Paris in no longer valid; Canada still belongs to France, and the 1867 Constitutional act is no longer the law of the land.

Learn french now.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Laughs out Loud - You only want to talk to someone who will agre with everything you say.

and if you think im irrational, unknowledgeable and immature becaue i dont blow sunshine up your ass ----

Im OK with that!!!!! * HUGE SMILE *

some things we can agree upon some things we cant - what is totally true is that you become abusive when people dont agree wiht your view point - but by all means find someone of like mind to volley posts with.

And BTW it was the Haldimand Treaty of 1784 which outlines the land grant - not Simcoe like you said. SO perhaps its YOU who need to brush up on his knowledge.

Heres the link ----> http://www.mohawkchapel.ca/history.html

Regarding the Simcoe Treaty here are the basic details ---

22 May 1798 [Penetanguishene Harbour]

Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe, after visiting the Georgian Bay area in 1793, was interested in establishing a harbour at present-day Penetanguishene. At this location, he wished to build a British military naval presence on Lake Huron. Negotiations with the Chippewas of the Lake Simcoe-Matchedash Bay were quickly initiated.

On May 19, 1795, Simcoe met with the Chippewas at York, where they agreed to "relinquish the northern tip of the peninsula at Penetanguishene, including the island in Penetanguishene Harbour, in return for goods valued at 101 pounds in Quebec currency." The formal treaty was signed 22 May 1798, after Simcoe had left Canada.

And yes no legal document with questionable wording is beyond argument - this treaty is VERY clear.

What laws have they broken? assaults have occured on both sides - most beginning with racial slurs coming from the Caledonia side. other than those occurances what laws have they broken?

Regarding your biggoted comment about natives on welfare.... I dont know a single native on welfare they all work - and work hard to support ther families. Im goign to assume there are some familes that need welfare but no more than families off the reserve - if youre going to compare by per capita ill wager the numbers come out near even with non-native familes

Im the one saying we need to find a peacable solution without race entering into - it seems that is the cornerstone of your viewpoint becasue you cant make a single post wihtout saying something derogatory to someone - so whos shallow? and callow? As far as respect goes - if thats what you seek try showing a little yourself. ( the respect you give people before earning true respect is called courtesy ) If you dont respect yourself you will never be able to give it. What i do respect is the centuries of discrimination and segregation the Native peoples have endured.

Hypothetically speaking - If all the land from the Haldimand Treaty were returned what do you honestly think would happen?

I realise convincing you is a lost cause, but if one person read this and actually finds out for themselves what happened way back when...... in my books thats a GOOD thing.

Have a nice Life.

0---------------------

FYI Argus my background has Irish, Scottish and Native in it.

The first and most important argument is that the Haldimand Treaty granted the land rights for loyal miitary service - and through all this time the government has not lived up to the word of this agreement. Both Native and displaced white soldiers were granted the same deal - how do you rationalize them not having their land taked from them as well?

How do you know some of them weren't swindled out of their lands? Of course, it's much more profitable to steal from those who have a lot of land, like the natives.

I don't know all the details of the Haldimand treaty, not its real name, or the Simcoe Treaty, which is, I believe. I have looked, but there does not appear to be any unbiased, legitimate, knowledgeable site out there with sufficient information to make a decision. Some years passed between when Haldimand made the deal and when it was ratified by Simcoe, and the amount of land was greatly reduced when the maps were drawn. Swindle? Correction? Misunderstanding? Dunno. There also seems to be evidence the natives gave up much of the land for sale in 1841. Were they properly paid? Were they swindled? Dunno. Have natives been swindled out of their land in the past? Unquestionably. Anyone with valuable posessions but no real degree of sophistication, knowledge and education is prey to those who want to take it from them. That's always the way it's been. That's the way it still is. That's the way it will likely always be. Did that happen in this case? Dunno. Should we make some kind of correction all these years later if it did? Yes, I think so. I don't think making them all billionnaires is an option, though.

I expect vey few people commenting in this section of the board to sympathise with the Native people - most just say suck it up and move on - or you lost the land in spoils of war - or that they uinderstand a treaty was signed but that was ancient history - uhmm NO! A signed legal document is just that, and is still binding regardless of the fact that a previous administration signed it - the burden of proof should be on the government to prove that the land was given away or sold - try and read a copy of the wording of the document - it is quite clear that the land in ite entirety was given to the Natives of Six Nations

Oh please. No legal document is ever beyond interpretation, especially one written a couple of centuries ago. And it's more complicated than that, too, as there was definitely agreement at various times, by various chiefs to sell some of that land. So all of those agreements have to be entered into discussion, too, with all the interpretations possible by all the lawyers concerned. The land in question, as I understand it, was sold to some settler a hundred and fifty years ago for about 50 pounds stirling. Why are we still arguing about it now?

What is everyone so afraid of? That they will win their legally based court case?( another FYI Argus - this isnt the first legal proceding initiated by Six Nations people - do Your research )

What is the basis of this fear the residents have, if not entirely racially based? Id honestly like to know.

People aren't afraid of natives. They simply don't like those who break the law. And they get angry when the police stand around and watch because those breaking the law are natives. That's the only racial element to that. Canadians have a reflex dislike of people being treated differently because of their race. They don't like that natives get treated differently than others, and no damnfool legal document from a century back is going to change that feeling.

The biggest change would be where your tax dollars would go - to the government or to support the newly created municipality

If you really think the native communities would be satisfied with just the amount of money they get now you're not paying attention. Besides, you can't be an independant nation while living on welfare.

talking with a few of you bigots on here is only further cementing my support of the occupation becasue you are obviously not interested in rational debate - youre only here to create friction and incite further distrust.

I think in order to have a rational debate I'd need someone rational, and knowledgeable, and mature. You appear to be none of those things. Shallow and callow just don't cut it around here, respect-wise. Which is why you're convincing no one.

[Riverwind]

If treaties signed in the 19th century are no longer valid, than, obviously those in the 18th century are even less valid. So, the 1763 Treaty of Paris in no longer valid; Canada still belongs to France, and the 1867 Constitutional act is no longer the law of the land. Learn french now.

If a sufficient majority of the people in Quebec voted to rejoin France (or create another country) then it would happen no matter what was written in the treaties and the constutution. The same option is available to natives living in northern regions where they form a majority. However, native groups are generally too small to make a viable independent country so the try to use irrelevant treaties to extort money and property from other Canadians.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Posted by Geoffrey :

I will not respond to any further attacks on my character and I've reported your posts to the forum owner in hope that disciplinary action is taken.

----------------------------

What about the slurs and stereotypes against Natives in general proliferating this forum? Will those posts be dealt with as well? Id like to see this forum free from all derogatory language period - just debate

but i wont hold my breath - it doesnt seem that a peaceful or civil dialogue is the aim of the majority of the people on here.

[geoffrey]

Posted by Geoffrey :

I will not respond to any further attacks on my character and I've reported your posts to the forum owner in hope that disciplinary action is taken.

----------------------------

What about the slurs and stereotypes against Natives in general proliferating this forum? Will those posts be dealt with as well? Id like to see this forum free from all derogatory language period - just debate

but i wont hold my breath - it doesnt seem that a peaceful or civil dialogue is the aim of the majority of the people on here.

You'll find my language directed at social patterns in various legal arrangements. I never use racist comments.

Using the legal word 'Indian' means I'm talking about those with Indian status in Canada, not First Immigrant populations as a race. I have no belief that any one race is substandard compared to another, though many segements of our population, white, black, blue, purple, Indian, are substandard and need improvement in many ways.

You won't find me calling all first immigrants drunks or criminals or things like that. You will find me calling things as they are, like a drunken protestor attacking a cop or a council of chiefs that support criminal actions (leadership represents a group, if 5 or 6 Hell's Angels openly promoted illegal activity, the organization would be quickly legally dismantled).

I have no problems with the so called "Natives" as an ethnic group. I have major issues with their superior status in front of our courts and in our schools and in the workplace. I have major issues with the amount of money we are spending on welfare with no results. These are legitimate concerns I have.

Some others might have sunk to that level where they spoke with racial slurs, but I haven't, and I didn't appreciate previous posters saying I was likely mentally defective and disgusting.

[Machinations]

1. Most of your posts are characterized by your antagonism and your seeming refusal to accept lines of argument which contradict your own position.

"Please, enlighten me as to where my contradictions lie. I also have people on here calling me racist, but they haven't bothered to provide examples of my supposed "racism", so I'm taking the time to ask for clarification."

TG, it's not that you are self-contradicting - you are beating out a steady message, if nothing else. It is that it would seem you discard opposing arguments out of hand, without giving them any real consideration. I'll agree it could be better worded.

2. I hope what you saw in that shameful video today, as I did, was the beginning of a sea change in Canadian policy vis-a-vis the aboriginal population.

what...how to beat Indians with your bare hands better? To me, I saw the failure of Canadian society, and after having pooh-poohed Jane Jacob's latest offering on why we are advancing into another dark age, i now know that it is likely she is right. I also saw the failure of the current federal government to get involved and possibly tame the errant Kaledonians.

The videos I have seen certainly don't show one-sided violence. The Indians and the Caledonians seemed to both have an equal share of angry people, what I did not see was organized violence. I also saw policemen placed in a role they should not be in - one of peacekeepers.

I never implied only the Indian protestors should be jailed - of course equally, the Caledonians - as soon as we cross the line into violence, property damage, etc.

There are plenty of people living in the community, I have no doubt, that want nothing to do with the situation but are greatly impacted by it. According to your logic, these people, regardless of who they are or what their history is, are inconsequential. I disagree.

3. I noticed you neglected to report the use of a backhoe which has not only ruined the road, but also knocked out the power to the city of Caledonia.

Look at the time of the post and you'll note that I put it up before the backhoe event.

nice try though. Am I racist yet?

Although much of your discussion may degenerate into pointless name-calling with others - you might have noted that I made no such implication. I did suggest that you, yourself, broadly paint huge sectors of society as 'racist' - the assumptions you make are staggering and yes, antagonistic.

There is no excuse for knocking out power to the town. Like I said, I don't care who did it, arrest them. You know? Am I racist yet?

4. All acceptable actions, no doubt, to you - against the racist monolith that is the Canadian government. If a few innocents were inconvenienced, who cares - I mean, clearly their ancestors were evil racist oppressors as well, and therefore, this is karma.

Yes...and never a better example of karma than the poor people of Caledonia who exalted that the blockade was down, only to have their own neighbours boo them and start calling them "Indian-lovers" and other names. I mean, I can understand racial epithets between different races, but Euro-Canadians trying to be racist towards each other!? that is the worst possilbe case of karma.

You know as well as I that there will always be people in the crowd that are - let's say, not reflective of the attitudes of the population as a whole. I could easily take the behaviour of one Indian, by your logic, and extrapolate it to the entire Six Nations. Is that correct? There's always gonna be some opinionated idiot out there.

5. I would appreciate if you could expound on what exactly you would like to see the future hold for the Six Nations people.

given the treatment from some Kaledonians, I'd like to see Six Nations get its land back, and become an associate of Canada, but certainly not a part of. I've been to the blockade innumerable times, and the last thing Kaledonians call me and other Six nations people is Canadian. Actually, they never call us Canadians, so i can't see a compelling reason to remain so.

What does that mean exactly, leave Canada? You mean draw some more lines, right? This kind of thing causes upheaval, and generally leads to problems down the road. However, if it were a permanent solution that led to the end of Canada being responsible, seemingly, for every woe affecting Indian society, I would support it. I find that the blame for internal societial discord at the average reservation - say Tyendinaga - where, mind you, I have friends - tends to be thrown around at everything other than the Indians themselves. Thats not to say that the council is not effective at working through problems - they are. The Six Nations leadership, however, uses the precarious situation of some reserves as political leverage. The question is, how much is Canads responsible for what happens on reserves? Are they daycares, or semi-independent areas?

6. Should Canada continue to maintain what is, essentially, a two-tier society? I think your vision of the future is vague, at best, only seeing some sort of permanent relationship that involves, what, a seperate state?

I'd simply prefer Canada leaving us to our own devices. Just return the land and we'll give up all the "treaty benefits" that canadians whine about ad infinitum. Unless you feel that the land shouldn't be returned, then I see no reason for us to give up what we originally exchanged for our land.

What Canadians whine about? See, sweeping generalizations are for populist politicians or when you're rallying the troops. Since we're doing neither, how about ditching the rhetoric. You might notice I take great pains to clearify what I am saying. It is, often, more difficult to communicate ideas clearly in type.

I see your point, but I could make my own generalization about Indians complaining about land title. Also, each individual land title we're talking about here has it's own status. You can't say 'the land' as though all the land was handed over in a single signature. Thats disingenious. Some of these transfers were clearly cut and dried - others perhaps not so much. So while claims may be laid to all of 'the land', much of it was and remains a legal transaction, supported by the courts.

Further, this is still, as I earlier characterized it, a vague idea at best. If you could provide more specifics, exactly in what concrete things are done and how the relationship is set-up, in terms of say, what currency is used, defense policy, borders (where are they, basically) and a multitude of other issues. Its a pandoras box.

7. What aggravates most right-minded individuals about this the most is the double standard. No ordinary citizen could hold a protest which involved the destruction of public property (the road and the hydro lines) and not be held accountable.

That is right, however, after having been told by the Federal government in 1995 that all remaining land claims would be put on hold, and a moratorium put on the lands in question (which happens to involve the Douglas Creek area), and then 10 years later a developer shows up and begins building on land that is supposed to be on hold....welll, you explain to me the legalities, machina?

Thank you for conceding my point. If a cop busts me for smoking a joint, he better bust the mayor's son too, capiche? THAT is the point I am trying to make. And knocking out power to a town - inexcusable.

8. This is the single, unalienable fact - there is a rule of law in this country, and it should apply to all humans equally.

Sounds absolutely utopian! However, why am I impacted by the Indian Act and you aren't? Why does your government get to decide who is and isn't an Indian? Where is this one law you speak of, machination? I know that none of my forebears wrote the Indian Act, so why do you expect me to answer for your government's decisions? I know from treaty negotiations that we never gave the Crown the right to our self-determination, nor did we give them the right to remove our children to residential schools, nor the right to determine how much money was invested in housing, So why is this now my problem? I think it's yours, if it's anyone's.

I would just like to see your government maintain it's end of the agreement and leave us alone.

I'm not talking about damn treaty rights or land titles. I'm talking about CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR. The Criminal Code should cover all equally, no? The idea that somehow because you object to the Indian Act you are exempt from criminal law seems a stretch. People sniff a double standard and they don't like the smell.

9. If the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty occupied a road and denied its use to ordinary citizens, they would be arrested faster than you could shout 'discrimination'. In fact, Ill cite for you:

That is probably because OCAP doesn't share a treaty relationship with the Crown in Canada.

What I'd like to know is why you want to compare a group of anti-poverty activists to a distinct society that is made up of Six Nations, has traditions, languages and teachings that extend back before the beginning of time, a social code, its own laws until usurped by the Federal government in 1924 and in ownership of a plot of land by deeded agreement?

Because we are all governed under the same laws. No-one should be exempt from them, regardless of special 'designations'. I object to the idea that the Six Nations activists - the ones breaking the law - should somehow be exempt from all rules governing normal behaviour. You want to protest, fine, you want to convince others - go for it. You want to knock out power to a town - go to jail.

(ps; sorry if I've been antagonistic, but i've answered the same questions time and time again, and it appears that no one has bothered to actually read the answers..hence my "ramblin'")

You're not really sorry here - to be fair, most other posts are aggressive in tone also. Perhaps in the future we can refrain from hyperbole and insinuation, and instead honestly debate what the hell to do - I think you should realize, in fact, that most people want to find a solution that works - instead of a band-aid. Choosing to paint me as your ideological enemy you infact miss an opportunity, because there must be some room for compromise and agreement.

However, as I said, throwing bread and cheese, burning things, digging up roads, and shouting epithets is embarassing and condemnable no matter WHO is doing it. The point is, justice should be blind - while this might sound utopian to you it is only through scrutiny, debate and oversight that we ensure it - and I'm not such a cynic as to concede the whole works just yet.

I cannot stand the quote system, hence the above.