Six Nations occupation at Caledonia

[scribblet]

they were here first. no they were not, entitlements are based on race - and your welcome.

But it doesn't matter, every country had someone who was there before - so what. Its about now, and being full and equal citizens, taking responsiblity, working and paying taxes ho hum - you know, like the rest of us.

Who said anything about anyone having a 'peculiar look', I probably look peculiar to some folks, but hey, I don't want any preferential treatment.

Have a great day

[Temagami Scourge]

Taxpayer Criblet:

a) "they were here first." no they were not

Ok...who was here before Leif Ericksson? Please, let me know.

"entitlements are based on race"

I say the matter resides with who was already here, and by proxy, who had a recognized ownership of the land. I don't believe the Crown was overcome with wonder at the lovely shades of brown skin found here, and just decided to favour these people on that basis. In essence, even the Treaties talk about the land and the exchange herein, not on the colour of the land exchangers.

But it doesn't matter, every country had someone who was there before - so what.

Yes, but not every country has Canadian law in effect, like we have here. That is what makes us special. We are Canadian...except of course, the Indians, who are only Canadian when it suits mainstream's argument, and Ben johnson, who is Canadian right up to the moment he tests positive, and then he becomes Jamaican...but that's another argument.

Its about now, and being full and equal citizens, taking responsiblity, working and paying taxes ho hum - you know, like the rest of us.

Hey...get mad at the government, they make the rules. I just live by them, like you do. In fact, I even pay taxes and work like you do too! Jeepers...and here you'd think all indians were the same if we sat back and listened to Taxpayer Criblet.

Who said anything about anyone having a 'peculiar look', I probably look peculiar to some folks, but hey, I don't want any preferential treatment.

Preferential treatment? Like what those "fortunate" Native kids got at residential school? That was preferential....so do you want to be raped by a Christian teacher?

I've heard of walking a mile in another's moccasins, but....

[Renegade]

..snip..

If I sign a contract with you Renegade and then turn around and modify the contract to my benefit, would you be pissed off?

Yep, I sure would, but then it wouldn't be an agreement would it? It takes two parties to sign an agreement.

So how about we live up ot the original wording of the treaty which says we make perodic payments of 500 pounds a year?

[Renegade]

Rene:

Unfortunately TS, much to my disappointment you have provided anything. The references you provided do not back any of your claims. And your only answer is to say that I can find proof if I only look hard enough. Not to worry, I know what that means.

If I'm so wrong, then why are there treaty benefits? It is your task to prove that there aren't (as you maintain). so far, you haven't proven anything, and yet the benefits are still there. I told you where you can look for them, i've offered you other sources who can verify what i'm saying, i've pointed out that you can verify through your MP...even your MPP.

I already told you what the treaty benefits were. Go hunt and fish to your heart's content, and we'll pay you a yearly sum as specified in the treaty.

It's not my task to prove as YOU were the one who made the claim of a "land for benefits" deal, not I.

...and the best you can come up with is to say that there are no treaty benefits?

Geez, I wish that I knew more than the Federal government! Maybe you should call them quickly and let them know that, through your extensive research, you've found that Canada doesn't owe Status Indians any treaty benefits, and the Treaties are meaningless.

hurry, before it's too late!!!!!

Apparently this government is already figuring it out without even my prompting. Tories shunt aside $5B Kelowna deal

[Renegade]

Rene:

You'd better have your research ready. Here is an article from today's Toronto Star, by Sue Bailey:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116467

She has this particular sentence: "Ottawa spent $9.1 billion last year for education, social services, health and other programs for native people, many of whom are owed that support under historic, mutually agreed upon treaties."

You'd better set her straight on the fact that you've found absolutely no reference to Treaty benefits owed to natives in all your vast research. She must not know what she is talking about.

So TS, is it your hypothesis that just because a reporter prints it in a paper it must be true? Maybe you should take her newspaper to Six Nations and have them use that in their court battles as a legal opinion.

When Sue Bailey shows me her credentials as a authority on treaties, I might give her opinion credibility. Until then it is just the opinion of a reporter working for a left-wing paper.

[Temagami Scourge]

Rene:

"It's not my task to prove as YOU were the one who made the claim of a "land for benefits" deal, not I."

Nope. I already know the answer about land for benefits. If you maintain that there are no benefits beyond hunting and fishing, then you better let the government know because they are providing housing, medical care and education to status indians.

It is up to you to stop them from making these payments, not me.

however, seeing how you've been a wonderful individual, did you see these links on INAC's site?

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/ywtk/index_e.html#wtr

Can I draw your attention to the link that says "What Are Treaty Rights". It even tells you how you can go about finding them....you are about half done already.

[Argus]

The problem is you've got a gutless liberal government in Ontario, and a minority government in Ottawa. No one wants to risk being accused of treating the poor little natives badly, so they fidget and do nothing. What's needed is for the cops to go in, boot their arses out, and arrest the ringleaders. If they have a claim on the land - and I have seen no evidence they actually do - they can make it in court.

[Riverwind]

Treaty rights are not based on race, but on being here first, ie. exercising authority, having established laws etc.

The people who were here 'first' are long since dead and there priviledges died with them. What you are saying is anyone living today who can claim a genetic link back to those people should also be entitled to those same benefits. Using genetics as a basis for determining who qualifies and who does not qualify for certain rights is pure racism - no matter how much you try to deny it.

[politika]

I'm sick of being a second class citizen, when will we stand up for our rights?

I don't understand why you think you're a second class citizen. If you're white, chances are you're doing far better than the average Indian - healthier, richer and more secure. Why are you the second class citizen ?

Is it because you're bothered by, or you feel guilty about images you see on TV ?

Indians are doing very badly in this country, and most people feel bad about that even if they don't feel guilty. Governments from both sides are unable to solve these embedded problems, and because of politics they don't wash their hands of it either. So we limp along with half solutions that don't work.

But this second-class citizen business seems to me to have something to do with your identity as a Canadian. In Toronto, an Indian is more often treated like a second class citizen than a white person.

THey are living richer than any of the white people, No Tax with their treaty card, indian card whatever the hell you call it, while the whit epeople get the crap taxed out of them and the indians collect a big check every month, like geofry says. They want us to think they are poor by buying crap and complaining but really the crap they buy is cheap and makes them richer than any of us. Im glad Harpers cuting the funding to reserves.

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

"The people who were here 'first' are long since dead and there priviledges died with them. What you are saying is anyone living today who can claim a genetic link back to those people should also be entitled to those same benefits. Using genetics as a basis for determining who qualifies and who does not qualify for certain rights is pure racism - no matter how much you try to deny it."

One of the neat things about these sites is that you get to point out the senseless thought in people's statements and arguments. Check this out:

River, if we to use your reasoning about how things were in the past, then, by your same reasoning, I and any other Status Indian would be well within our rights as Canadians to deport you because your ancestors recently moved here.

Personally, I don't think you want to be deported, and from my standpoint, i don't want to deport you because I'm counting on you to pay your fair share of taxes.

Secondly, if we used the "riverend" school of thought to argue, then could you explain to me what right anyone has who didn't sign the treaty to remain here, enjoying the fruits of the land? In essence, you are saying that Native people of today should have no rights or treaty benefits because we weren't original signatories, but that this doesn't apply to you or the white original signers because you are...well, what?

What makes the non-Native signers so markedly different than the Native ones? Can I dare say that you are the one who is thinking racially, my taxpaying friend? Even Rene pointed out that there are two parties to an agreement, but in your fuzzy world, only the white ones count.

Am I reading you right?

To reiterate my original point: The treaties were signed because there were people here that already owned the land, and that the Crown (in all it's forms) recognized this fact, and undertook legal (by the Crown's standards)means to extinguish this original ownership by offering a series of perpetual benefits and rights as a form of payment, which the Indians accepted on behalf of themselves and future generations. This enabled the crown to open up the land in perpetuity for their subjects (because Indians weren't "people" until the 1960's).

There. That should spell it out clearly. Anyone want to pointlessly digress?

[Temagami Scourge]

Politika:

"THey are living richer than any of the white people, No Tax with their treaty card, indian card whatever the hell you call it, while the whit epeople get the crap taxed out of them and the indians collect a big check every month, like geofry says. They want us to think they are poor by buying crap and complaining but really the crap they buy is cheap and makes them richer than any of us. Im glad Harpers cuting the funding to reserves"

Geez. As a Native person, I wouldn't say I'm poor compared to you. I'd say I was infinitely smarter, far more refined and intelligent, and obviously much more creative and exacting at perfecting the use of your native language than you, but poor?

Naaaa.

[politika]

Politika:

"THey are living richer than any of the white people, No Tax with their treaty card, indian card whatever the hell you call it, while the whit epeople get the crap taxed out of them and the indians collect a big check every month, like geofry says. They want us to think they are poor by buying crap and complaining but really the crap they buy is cheap and makes them richer than any of us. Im glad Harpers cuting the funding to reserves"

Geez. As a Native person, I wouldn't say I'm poor compared to you. I'd say I was infinitely smarter, far more refined and intelligent, and obviously much more creative and exacting at perfecting the use of your native language than you, but poor?

Naaaa.

Well you sit on your ass saying your poor because you blow it all on booze

[Temagami Scourge]

Poliwog:

"Well you sit on your ass saying your poor because you blow it all on booze"

As my dear friend Rene would say, prove it.

Besides, you sound too ill-educated to actually be a taxpayer. Are you on welfare? Ever been to Caledonia? Do you have a sister whose child looks remarkably like you? (I'm assuming you are male)

[Riverwind]

River, if we to use your reasoning about how things were in the past, then, by your same reasoning, I and any other Status Indian would be well within our rights as Canadians to deport you because your ancestors recently moved here.

What does that have to do with anything? Canadian society does not discriminate between people based on when they arrived - a citizen who arrived yesterday is equal in every way to a citizen whose ancestors come over on the boat with Champlain. However, you seem to think a certain group of Canadian citizens defined only by their race - should have special status because they immigrated here 10,000 years ago instead of 500 years ago. That is racism.

Personally, I don't think you want to be deported, and from my standpoint, i don't want to deport you because I'm counting on you to pay your fair share of taxes.

Your arrogant statement proves how much of a scam 'native rights' are. The more natives push - the bigger the backlash from the people who have to pay for the freeloaders.

to extinguish this original ownership by offering a series of perpetual benefits and rights as a form of payment, which the Indians accepted on behalf of themselves and future generations.

You make too many presumptions about what these treaties included. In most cases, these treaties include a tax exemption but at the same time there was an expection that natives would be 100% responsible for paying for their own 'social programs'. In addition, natives were not allowed to vote. Moreover, many native groups never had a treaty and can make no such legal claims yet they demand the same benefits as if they had a treaty.

[Temagami Scourge]

Riverend:

What does that have to do with anything? Canadian society does not discriminate between people based on when they arrived - a citizen who arrived yesterday is equal in every way to a citizen whose ancestors come over on the boat with Champlain.

You lie like a rug! Natives certainly aren't treated equally. We have an Act of parliament that prevents me from enjoying aadvantages like you get ie. using my on-reserve house as collateral for a business start-up loan. Give me a break! Your grandparents got to vote while mine were still not citizens by definition.

However, you seem to think a certain group of Canadian citizens defined only by their race - should have special status because they immigrated here 10,000 years ago instead of 500 years ago. That is racism.

No I didn't. See my previous posts.

Your arrogant statement proves how much of a scam 'native rights' are. The more natives push - the bigger the backlash from the people who have to pay for the freeloaders.

Not really. my arrogant statement was only a ploy to piss you off, which succeeded quite well. The painful part is that you still will have to pay taxes to me.

In fact, let's cut to the chase, my taxpaying, whiny friend. Why not pay your taxes direct to me? Let's cut out the government middleman and you can pay me directly for living here? Who needs a government?

You make too many presumptions about what these treaties included.

Prove it, taxpayer. Show me the money!

In most cases, these treaties include a tax exemption but at the same time there was an expection that natives would be 100% responsible for paying for their own 'social programs'.

I suggest you and Rene get together and figure out your arguments. Rene doesn't believe the government owes Natives anything other than some hunting and fishing rights, and you argue that the government owes Natives some far more specific items.

Which one of you is right?

In addition, natives were not allowed to vote. Moreover, many native groups never had a treaty and can make no such legal claims yet they demand the same benefits as if they had a treaty.

Oh my...where is my violin? Poor Riverend feels all oppressed. Maybe we could collectively write a song called the "Taxpayer's Lament", which has line after line of how tough it is to live here in Canada under the oppressive moccasins of Native Canada!

Nah...too dramatic.

[Riverwind]

I suggest you and Rene get together and figure out your arguments. Rene doesn't believe the government owes Natives anything other than some hunting and fishing rights, and you argue that the government owes Natives some far more specific items.

Depends on the treaty. But no treaty entitles the natives to anything close to what they are demanding today.

In any case, you have made it clear that you don't particularily care about the rights or wrongs of treaties - you see them simply as legal tool that you can use to extort money from fellow Canadians. On some level I don't blame you for trying. What I find sad are the the non-natives that have been duped into supporting this appalling state of affairs. Eventually, Canadians will clue into the scam and put an end to it by just saying no more.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Oh my...where is my violin? Poor Riverend feels all oppressed. Maybe we could collectively write a song called the "Taxpayer's Lament", which has line after line of how tough it is to live here in Canada under the oppressive moccasins of Native Canada!

Nah...too dramatic.

We should release a song called The Ethnocentricity of [certain]Canadians.

[Temagami Scourge]

Riverend:

In any case, you have made it clear that you don't particularily care about the rights or wrongs of treaties - .

Nah, not really. I'm just messin' with you because you argue like you are sitting on the pointy end of a hockey stick.

The reality is that I'd much rather see the government live up to the promises they made in the first place, or give the land back and we'll look after ourselves. Although you like to focus on tax-exemption and piddly stuff like that, I like to focus on who gave the Crown the authority to determine the make-up of aboriginal government? Who gave the Crown the authority to determine who is and is not an Indian? Just these two items alone have created undue in-fighting in all First Nations for decades.

That is why you have funky situations like in Caledonia, where the supposedly "underground" confederacy council is negotiating on behalf of the reserve, while the legal Band Council divested its authority to negotiate.

In essence, your government is negotiating with a "banned" authority.

Yet the people at Six Nations still have greater faith in their traditional council, and only a few hundred ever vote for Band Chief.

Thank you Canada.

[Riverwind]

We should release a song called The Ethnocentricity of [certain]Canadians.

The only ethnocentric Canadians are the natives who demand special status and their non-native apologists.

[Riverwind]

I like to focus on who gave the Crown the authority to determine the make-up of aboriginal government?

The crown is paying money to native governments so the crown cares who is running them. Natives are at least as corrupt as any non-native and handing natives wads of cash without the basic set of checks and balances that other governments have is just dumb.

Who gave the Crown the authority to determine who is and is not an Indian?

Well if the crown has obligations to the descendents of the original signatories of these treaties then the crown has a right to exclude people that it feels do not qualify as 'descendents'.

[Renegade]

Rene:

"It's not my task to prove as YOU were the one who made the claim of a "land for benefits" deal, not I."

Nope. I already know the answer about land for benefits. If you maintain that there are no benefits beyond hunting and fishing, then you better let the government know because they are providing housing, medical care and education to status indians.

Yes, I too know the answer. and actually no, I think there are a few more benefits beyond hunting and fishing. Your ancestors got a one time payment. Go ask them what they did with it. You are entitled to an annuity as specified in the treaty, and you get reservations.

I'll be sure to let the government know come election time. As I said, the CPC is already seeming to catch on. With the non-native population at large, there is still work to do.

It is up to you to stop them from making these payments, not me.

You're right there and I agree with that. I never assumed or stated you should be stopping these payments. If it were my people getting a wack of benefits which they wern't entitled to, I'd sit back and enjoy it, and wouldn't do anythign about it either.

however, seeing how you've been a wonderful individual, did you see these links on INAC's site?

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/ywtk/index_e.html#wtr

Can I draw your attention to the link that says "What Are Treaty Rights". It even tells you how you can go about finding them....you are about half done already.

Interesting, here's what it says:

First Nations signed treaties with British and, later, Canadian governments before and after Confederation in 1867. Although these treaties differed, they usually provided for certain rights and payments. Some of the older treaties, for example, included payments for ammunition, annuities, triennial clothing allowances (for Chiefs and Councillors), hunting, fishing and other benefits.

Your rights as an individual treaty Indian depend on the precise terms and conditions of your First Nation's treaty. Your First Nation council or DIAND office is the best place to learn more about the rights and benefits to which you may be entitled. You should know, however, that if you live in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, your right to hunt, trap and fish, except for commercial purposes, is guaranteed by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, 1930.

Other rights are guaranteed by the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as by treaties. Registered Indians who live in the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are free to fish and hunt in all seasons throughout the territories. For further information, contact the Yukon Regional Manager of Lands and Trust Services, DIAND or the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) - Department of Renewable Resources.

Funny, it never said anything about treaty rights having to include perpetual welfare, housing, and medicare as benefits. You would think they would have explicitly mentioned important benefits like that if they were included in the treties wouldn't they?

It does say the rights vary by treaty but if you live in the praries, you can trap, hunt , and fish. So happy hunting, my native friend. But preserve your game, because one day your people will be kissing their unearned welfare benefits goodbye.

[politika]

Poliwog:

"Well you sit on your ass saying your poor because you blow it all on booze"

As my dear friend Rene would say, prove it.

Besides, you sound too ill-educated to actually be a taxpayer. Are you on welfare? Ever been to Caledonia? Do you have a sister whose child looks remarkably like you? (I'm assuming you are male)

I'm hardly un-educated, but as for age wise I am a grade 12 student going to university next year, I don't pay taxes except for my job as I still live with my parants until I go away, so yes I do pay some tax, I don't even need to ask if you pay taxes . Why are you under mining my inteligence that is on a debate about indians and whites and fair treatment? This thread itself is hardly inteligent itself except for the fact their is truth in here that the indian lives richer than the white man. Now if you really want me to prove to you my inteligence start a thread about, General Wolfe and the plains of Abraham, or Sir Issac Brock and his victorious but sad death at Queenston Heights, or somthing that better fits the topic of this forum, the Conservatives vs the NDP Ideologies.

[politika]

Riverend:

You guys always whine about how you want self government and how you are not given enough by the government, my mother a former banker has even told me how huge an indian check is and I would not doubt it, every month you guys get a big fat check from the government than you go back and say you want more, Canadians will say enough is enough once they relize this is all bull.

As for your self government go right a head and elect your big bear chiefs or whatever you want to call them, but when you are an independant nation you should not be geting support checks from the government, you are on your own. Than Canadians will party as you guys dance around a fire and we can put those billions of dollars that we gave to your people to better use!

[Temagami Scourge]

Riverend:

The crown is paying money to native governments so the crown cares who is running them. . .

Aw dude...give me a break. You complain about paying money to Natives but happily defend the practice as long as it is the Natives who are negatively impacted. No, buddy, that is racism.

"Natives are at least as corrupt as any non-native and handing natives wads of cash without the basic set of checks and balances that other governments have is just dumb ."

What? did you not read the Auditor General's report when she criticized the government for forcing First Nations to provide at least 138 reports to INAC annually to account for all expenditures? She made the point that the government is losing money through inefficient practices. ie. the Indians were so busy prepring reports that it took away from actual service delivery.

Additonally, why do you assume that Natives are as corrupt as the average Canadian? What facts support this?

"Well if the crown has obligations to the descendents of the original signatories of these treaties then the crown has a right to exclude people that it feels do not qualify as 'descendents' ."

whoa...this is a cool flip-flop! It was only a few posts ago that you maintained that the descendents had no inherent rights!

are you sure you have a clue as to what we are discussing, buddy?

[Temagami Scourge]

Rene:

Go check out collections Canada : http://collections.ic.gc.ca/aboriginaldocs/stat/statmain.htm

They have many of the amendments that go into the treaties. I suggest you try reading through this stuff this time, instead of giving it a quick skim.

"Yes, I too know the answer. and actually no, I think there are a few more benefits beyond hunting and fishing."

Finally...you get it!

QUOTE

First Nations signed treaties with British and, later, Canadian governments before and after Confederation in 1867. Although these treaties differed, they usually provided for certain rights and payments. Some of the older treaties, for example, included payments for ammunition, annuities, triennial clothing allowances (for Chiefs and Councillors), hunting, fishing and other benefits.

Your rights as an individual treaty Indian depend on the precise terms and conditions of your First Nation's treaty. Your First Nation council or DIAND office is the best place to learn more about the rights and benefits to which you may be entitled. You should know, however, that if you live in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, your right to hunt, trap and fish, except for commercial purposes, is guaranteed by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, 1930.

Other rights are guaranteed by the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as by treaties. Registered Indians who live in the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are free to fish and hunt in all seasons throughout the territories. For further information, contact the Yukon Regional Manager of Lands and Trust Services, DIAND or the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) - Department of Renewable Resources.

Funny, it never said anything about treaty rights including perpetual welfare, housing, and medicare.

Perpetual welfare isn't a treaty right, but on the other hand, its also doesn't say that housing, medical assistance and education are not included.

I guess you are incorrect again, because the government keeps maintaining those aspects of the treaties -albeit at the barest minimum.

""You would think they would have explicitly mentioned important benefits like that if they were included in the treties wouldn't they?" ?"

Not necessarily. They didn't include info that some treaties pay four dollars a year, others 5 dollars a year, and others nothing. Speaking of which, I'm somewhat surprised that you missed the four dollars per year in the Robinson-Huron Treaty.