Six Nations occupation at Caledonia

[Renegade]

Rene:

Don't say I never do anything for you.

In fact, you can extend that sentiment to all my people.

TS, while I thank you for posting the links, I don't ascribe the laziness or hard-work of one individual to his entire race.

This link goes into the treaty research behind each treaty. The one that impacts me is the Robinson treaty. Go nuts.

I've looked at both the text of the Robinson treaty and the research. There were 3 main things given as part of the arrangement:

1. Payment

2. Hunting, fishing and occupance rights.

3. Reserve lands (reservations)

In no case can I find, that medical or other welfare benefits were promised in perpetiuty to the Natives.

I'm not trying to be obstinate. I think if a deal was made with the natives and there was an agreement for those benefits, it should be honoured, but I can't find any wording which such such an arrangement was made.

This is the treaty texts. You'll see that there is no mention of the natives giving the government the right to determine their style of government, nor determine who is or isn't an indian.

I never claimed taht the government had the right to determine Native government or who was or wasn't an Indian.

Regarding who is or isn't an Indian, who do you think has that right? The canadian govt, the native govt, or do people self-declare?

You're welcome.

Thank you. I look forward to a continued dialog.

[Michael Hardner]

But I don't expect Indians to distinguish and instead of calling me 'white-man' call me 'white person of possibly French and Irish descent, born in Canada."

Right. But they won't call you "white boy" either, because it's not polite. It's respectful to refer to people in the way to which they'd like to be referred. (Grammar ?)

I don't think political correctness is really valid in any situation, I don't see what difference a name has, as long as its not hateful.

Maybe you have a tougher skin than most, so you don't mind being called "redneck", "white trash", or anything else. But a common trait of civilised dialogue is that the parties refer to each other in respectful terms.

[Argus]

TS:

Thanks for your posts. You're providing a great perspective on this issue.

Funny how perspectives differ.

All I read from him is smug, snide, and snotty.

[Argus]

OOC:

The problem Temagami is that most Canadians don't want to learn new things nor understand what's going on outside their little world.

Yes, that's why I'm grateful I'm not from Alberta or Quebec.

Would you care to expand upon that?

[Argus]

I'm surprised no one here is aware of how drunk the Caledonians have been during their rallies. It appears that the anti-protest protests bring out the underbelly of Caledonia, and all the white welfare bums get a belly-full of liquid courage before going down to the barricades to call the Natives "wagon-burners" and "timber-niggers" from a distance.

The funny part is that I see other posters like Scribblet try to elicit support from John and Jane Canuck like the Caledonians are upstanding citizens!

Hell...they are an unending embarrassment to the province and all taxpayers like myself!

If you make no distinction between drunks shouting insults, and ordinary citizens angry at having a road blocked, indeed, between drunks shouting insults and the entire town, then how do you justify your indignation when people typecast natives as drunken welfare bums?

[scribblet]

TS:

Thanks for your posts. You're providing a great perspective on this issue.

Funny how perspectives differ.

All I read from him is smug, snide, and snotty.

Well, he's giving his perspective which is of course - biased, he obviously subscribes to the idea that all 'natives' should be supported by the taxpayers in perpetuity. I doubt that at any time did the signers of these treatys ever envision this to be so. When you treat a group of people differently because of the race I believe that it causes resentment, contempt and possibly hatred. So if you think people are hostile now give it a few more years of violent 'protests' and see how the average person feels then about one group having more rights, responsibilities and opportunity because of race .

If Canada grows through more immigration and becomes even more diverse and the government changes over the generations , which will bring in even more immigrants - watch out. I doubt that future governments will be so generous.

[Argus]

Although many have been under the assumption that the Six Nations protestors are welfare recipients with all the time in the world to protest, the fact is rather the opposite. The tobacco companies at Six Nations are financially supporting many of the protstors.

What tobacco companies at Six Nations are you referring to? Does Benson and Hedges have a plant there, or are you referring to tobacco smugglers?

there are a number of steelworkers and craftsmen between jobs who have been hired on to man the blockade. These guys are pretty good with heavy equipment and the like, so that is why when the blockade was extended to include hwy 6, it was done with remarkable aplomb.

You are nevertheless, whether you are all welfare bums, or just part of you are welfare bums, or none of you are welfare bums, illegally blocking roads and a highway bypass people need to use.

The funniest (ironic-funny) thing about the blockade is that the cigarette traffic from Caledonia to Six Nations hasn't stopped in the least. I watched it all the last couple of weekends. Caledonians are flooded up Hwy. 54 and patronizing the tobacco shops on the east side of the Grand. Some of that money finds its way to supporting the blockade.

I find this is sweet. Even Native private industry has a vested interest in reclaiming reserve land. So there appears to be far more than meets the eye in this endeavour. doubly sweet is the fact that there are Caledonians who work in the cigarette plant as well. they are contributing to their own misery, but they need they work.

That is the true beauty of our economy...you can make people do anything if they need the work. Caledonians might protest the blocking of a highway, but they sure don't mind buying and making cigarettes for the Six Nations!

Them Indians, they always whine and bitch, but they sure is happy to cash their welfare cheques and rush off to buy up the booze, eh?!

[Argus]

I for one have no "overall" name for Native people in general. I use Indians, Natives, Aboriginals etc. It depends on audience. In Caledonia, I'm a wagon burner or a timber nigger.

Good thing you're above that kind of sneering generalization, eh?

[Argus]

I digress. If you or any of your ancestors voted federally in the past 150 years, and the party you voted for won, then -as a voter- you aided and abetted the governments' policy on residential schools, and therfore, you and your ancestors enabled pedophiles to do their dirty work on Native children.

Cry me a river. There were a lot of odd ideas about how to raise children in the past. I understand some natives had some pretty strange ideas themselves. But that's neither here nor there.

I know that many Canadians take offense to these suggestions, but that is how the system is designed to work. We vote for a government to make decisions on our behalf, so we have to be accountable for our choices. however, we also have a tendency to "Eichmann-ize" ourselves so that the blame is shifted squarely to the pedophiles and the bureaucrats that didn't do their jobs properly. This is a cop-out, which I can see that you stand firmly behind, scriblet.

I'm not saying you or yours are pedophiles, but I am saying that you enabled them.

That presupposes knowledge, or that the knowledge would have been attainable by ordinary citizens. It wasn't and wouldn't have been. And this side-trip into an effort at guilt tripping people is going nowhere.

I have yet to see even a half-hearted effort at explaining why natives supposedly own the land around there, and if so why they don't go to court on it, courts being rather friendly to natives these days, and why we should tolerate a bunch of people blocking roads and highways for weeks on end because they've got a chip on their shoulders. And no, I'm not going to accept a one-sided citation from a native rights website or its simpering liberal sympathisers.

If you own the land then take it to court. Until then get off the road.

[Temagami Scourge]

Rene:

I've looked at both the text of the Robinson treaty and the research....In no case can I find, that medical or other welfare benefits were promised in perpetiuty to the Natives. .

I know. That is why you need to go through the Constitution Act and the Indian Act, and that is some serious research, but doable. There are numerous sites that go over all the varied amendments. I just pointed you in the right direction.

I'm not trying to be obstinate. I think if a deal was made with the natives and there was an agreement for those benefits, it should be honoured, but I can't find any wording which such such an arrangement was made. .

If you believe this, then why the need for research? Just write your MP for clarification. I have to admit that I have a tough time believing this statement. When I asked you before about why you thought the government allowed all these "free" rights to the Indians, you said it was because they were sorry for them. Forgive me, but I don't think the government gives away free anything for almost two-hundred years or so because they feel "sorry". You plain old don't believe that there is an Indian Act.

That's cool Rene, you appear to be in good company judging from this web.

Regarding who is or isn't an Indian, who do you think has that right? The canadian govt, the native govt, or do people self-declare? ?

The First Nation(s) where their roots are from.

[Temagami Scourge]

Scrib:

Well, he's giving his perspective which is of course - biased, he obviously subscribes to the idea that all 'natives' should be supported by the taxpayers in perpetuity. .

As my grandpa used to say, "one mans tax is another man's legally-binding document". Personally, I'd prefer foregoing the treaty rights and just taking the land back. You can kick things odd Scrib!

I doubt that at any time did the signers of these treatys ever envision this to be so. .

Which ones, the White ones or the Red ones? I think the white ones expected us to disappear, but I know the Red ones expected the white ones to live up to their agreements. Neither has happened, so far.

When you treat a group of people differently because of the race I believe that it causes resentment, contempt and possibly hatred. .

No kidding! Have you seen how those crazy, drunken whites have reacted to the peaceful Native protestors at Six Nations and Caledonia? They scream racial statements and threats at the natives while the Natives are protecting their heritage. nothing more fearsome than a drunken Caledonian with a brown paper bag in one hand, and his pack of Native cigarettes in his other hand!

So if you think people are hostile now give it a few more years of violent 'protests' and see how the average person feels then about one group having more rights, responsibilities and opportunity because of race . .

I agree. That's why i'm proud of the six Nations youth who invited some screaming young white lads behind the barricades to show them there were no guns at the occupation site two Thursday nights ago. I was proud that our kids didn't sit back and trade insults with their Caledonian counterparts. The only unfortunate thing is that those same Caledonian kids were back during the riot night all drunk and cursing Native people again.

Who knows...that might be on of the effects of in-breeding.

If Canada grows through more immigration and becomes even more diverse and the government changes over the generations , which will bring in even more immigrants - watch out. I doubt that future governments will be so generous. .

I totally agree. I always share a good laugh about British imperialism with toronto cab drivers, since nearly everyone comes from a former British colony. Sometimes we can't help but chuckle about how similar our experiences were, and how we still get the second-class treatment every now and then.

I'm waiting for that change to occur as soon as possible.

[Renegade]

Rene:

I've looked at both the text of the Robinson treaty and the research....In no case can I find, that medical or other welfare benefits were promised in perpetiuty to the Natives. .

I know. That is why you need to go through the Constitution Act and the Indian Act, and that is some serious research, but doable. There are numerous sites that go over all the varied amendments. I just pointed you in the right direction.

So you agree none of the treaties specifiy any promise for permanant benefits to Natives.

The fact that neither the Indian Act nor the Constitution are agreements between Natives and the government. They are unilateral acts of the government which can be unilaterally changed without any agreement from Natives.

Because Parliament is supreme in Canada, it can therefore change the Act without consultation with Indians.

link

I'm not trying to be obstinate. I think if a deal was made with the natives and there was an agreement for those benefits, it should be honoured, but I can't find any wording which such such an arrangement was made. .

If you believe this, then why the need for research? Just write your MP for clarification. I have to admit that I have a tough time believing this statement. When I asked you before about why you thought the government allowed all these "free" rights to the Indians, you said it was because they were sorry for them. Forgive me, but I don't think the government gives away free anything for almost two-hundred years or so because they feel "sorry". You plain old don't believe that there is an Indian Act.

Oh yes, I do believe there is an Indian Act, but it is an act which needs revision and replacement. As I said, the Indian act is not an agreement between two peoples. It can be changed by a simple Act of parilament as many native websites admit.

[scribblet]

IMO the reaction by some Caledonian citizens is because they are fed up with the official approach to Native problems which is an absolute farce. It is driven by an absolute of fear of causing unrest and having to stand up to that unrest, and of overly-romanticised images of Natives.

In the past, we have seen governments bend to or ignore illegal activities conducted by natives. These include smuggling across the border and blockading private and public roads. We are fed noble images of a people 'at one with Mother Earth' only to read of uncontrolled logging, hunting, the creation of bingo-lovers' paradises and extreme fighting events etc. Life on Reserves is often characterised by slothfullness, lack of care for property, drinking problems, unemployment, failure to persue educational opportunities, and high incidences of assault against women and children. Naturally, the blame for this is placed everywhere except on the Natives themselves.

Despite the obvious ineffectiveness of current policies - i.e. throwing more money at the problem, holding Royal Commissions, and all kinds of incentives by giving Natives preferential treatment - governments show no sign of sorting out this mess. A mess where people are brought down by an over-dependency on others.

What is really needed is an honest debate about why the billions of dollars the gov't spends are not mproving aboriginal people's lives; that along with less rhetoric and a more positive plan from native leaders. It is time fears of the racist label are put to rest, and we demand some ccountability.

[Temagami Scourge]

Geoff: "Now they have their own names depending on their nations and stuff like that, which is fine. But I don't expect Indians to distinguish and instead of calling me 'white-man' call me 'white person of possibly French and Irish descent, born in Canada ."

and

Mike: ""Maybe you have a tougher skin than most, so you don't mind being called "redneck", "white trash", or anything else. But a common trait of civilised dialogue is that the parties refer to each other in respectful terms." ."

Personally, I like it when you folks refer to each other by the term "Taxpayer". I like it so much that I use it myself.

[Temagami Scourge]

Rene:

So you agree none of the treaties specifiy any promise for permanant benefits to Natives. .

No. most of the Commissionaires wrote down the additional terms and these were put into the Act.

The fact that neither the Indian Act nor the Constitution are agreements between Natives and the government. They are unilateral acts of the government which can be unilaterally changed without any agreement from Natives. .

Neither document is an agreement. They are Canadian statutes. They resulted from the treaties, which are the legal, binding agreements. I think you are confused, buddy.

Because Parliament is supreme in Canada, it can therefore change the Act without consultation with Indians. .

Yes, that's one of the main things that bothers me is that our agreements are subject to change at the behest of the government, but the Natives have no say, nor can change the Act to their taste. This was a good set-up to perpetuate racism. Essentially, the Government is saying that I'm incapable of taking care of myself or my business, and that only the non-Native government has that ability.

I say just give us back the land, we'll drop the tax exemptions, medical care, housing etc, and pay for these services out of pocket.

Oh yes, I do believe there is an Indian Act, but it is an act which needs revision and replacement. As I said, the Indian act is not an agreement between two peoples. It can be changed by a simple Act of parilament as many native websites admit. .

Yep. I agree, but is this a broken record now?

[Renegade]

Rene:

I just read your last post, and all I can say is that you need to quit being lazy and look for the proof yourself at INAC. They are your government, they are giving me "special" entitlements, and if this disturbs you so deeply, then do something about it, and don't wait for others to do it for you.

I am. I'm actively supporting governments which will cut entitlements.

Hmm, it appears my vote is making a differnce. Tories shunt aside $5B Kelowna deal

[Renegade]

Rene:

So you agree none of the treaties specifiy any promise for permanant benefits to Natives. .

No. most of the Commissionaires wrote down the additional terms and these were put into the Act.

Again, who signed the Act?

Neither document is an agreement. They are Canadian statutes. They resulted from the treaties, which are the legal, binding agreements. I think you are confused, buddy.

No bud, I think it is you who are confused. You've already admitted the the treaties which are "legal, binding agreements", contain no provision to entitle the Natives to medical or welfare benefits. Anything else is a Canadian Government regulations, subject to change by the Canadian Government and still be legal and binding.

Because Parliament is supreme in Canada, it can therefore change the Act without consultation with Indians. .

Yes, that's one of the main things that bothers me is that our agreements are subject to change at the behest of the government, but the Natives have no say, nor can change the Act to their taste. This was a good set-up to perpetuate racism. Essentially, the Government is saying that I'm incapable of taking care of myself or my business, and that only the non-Native government has that ability.

Actually its not your agreements (treaties) which are subject to change, its the Indian Act which you have already admitted is not an agreement.

I say just give us back the land, we'll drop the tax exemptions, medical care, housing etc, and pay for these services out of pocket.

No doubt you would say that. I say change the Act, drop the benefits and it is all perfectly legal and doesn't violate any agreements and your objections would not have a legal leg to stand on.

Yep. I agree, but is this a broken record now?

Probably, but you keep avoiding the fact that there is no agreement between the canadian governmetn and Native peoples which give them the benefits we discussed, so it bears repeating.

[Temagami Scourge]

Taxpayer Scriblet:

IMO the reaction by some Caledonian citizens is because they are fed up with the official approach to Native problems which is an absolute farce. It is driven by an absolute of fear of causing unrest and having to stand up to that unrest, and of overly-romanticised images of Natives. .

I disagree. Just going on what I've seen with my own eyes, these people are a tiny minority. The vast majority are drunken hooligans using the protest as an excuse to raise Cain, and nothing more. Ask them any question and the answer is "because the Indians took over"

Where? Tim Horton's?

In the past, we have seen governments bend to or ignore illegal activities conducted by natives. .

I guess you don't care about when government conducted illegal activites against the indians, eh?, or is there just a Statute of limitations on how far back you can go if its just the Indians complaining?

These include smuggling across the border and blockading private and public roads. We are fed noble images of a people 'at one with Mother Earth' only to read of uncontrolled logging, hunting, the creation of bingo-lovers' paradises and extreme fighting events etc .

Of course, we tend to ignore the white folks buying all the goods and attending all the events for creating the demand. All i can say is ignore stereotypes, my Taxpaying friend. I ignore the stereotype that all white people are intelligent, and that has served me well for many years.

Life on Reserves is often characterised by slothfullness, lack of care for property, drinking problems, unemployment, failure to persue educational opportunities, and high incidences of assault against women and children. .

Looks like another person who hasn't visited a reserve before...or went to one house on a reserve and now knows all about Native people. What is the key difference? I can point at the media reportage from Caledonia and the Indians are calm and talk about not surrendering that plot of land, while the Whites whine about different laws and that Natives should be picking up their monthly check.

On the other hand, Six Nations is doing great business selling tobacco now. Sago cigrattes are now in every province, tax-free. the Sago plant has expanded to market about five other brands...and some of this is going to support the blockade to boot!

Darn lazy Indians....

Naturally, the blame for this is placed everywhere except on the Natives themselves. .

Which is probably why some folks are upset by the government helping to build treatment centres., when those darn Natives are never the problem HAHA!

Despite the obvious ineffectiveness of current policies - i.e. throwing more money at the problem, holding Royal Commissions, and all kinds of incentives by giving Natives preferential treatment - governments show no sign of sorting out this mess. A mess where people are brought down by an over-dependency on others. .

There...a coherent statement! At last i can see the thinking taxpayer shine through! Either get the government to live up to their agreements, or give back the land and we'll give up the tax exemptions, medical assistance etc.

Despite the obvious ineffectiveness of current policies - i.e. throwing more money at the problem, holding Royal Commissions, and all kinds of incentives by giving Natives preferential treatment - governments show no sign of sorting out this mess. A mess where people are brought down by an over-dependency on others. .

All right! no you are talking sense taxpayer criblet! excellent. This is exactly what's need...an actual commitment from the Feds to straighten things out, and not just dictate terms! The AFN, CAP, ITK and other representative groups are ready to talk any time the Feds are. i'm totally behind you, my taxpaying buddy!

[Temagami Scourge]

Talk about reading your fellow Canadian like a comic book....

Rene, I've given you all the tools you need that will explains treaty rights, now you can use them.

What I do want to point out is your sentence from your last post: "No doubt you would say that. I say change the Act, drop the benefits and it is all perfectly legal and doesn't violate any agreements and your objections would not have a legal leg to stand on .

Did I get it right or what?

an hour ago, I wrote this to you:

If you believe this, then why the need for research? Just write your MP for clarification. I have to admit that I have a tough time believing this statement. When I asked you before about why you thought the government allowed all these "free" rights to the Indians, you said it was because they were sorry for them. Forgive me, but I don't think the government gives away free anything for almost two-hundred years or so because they feel "sorry". You plain old don't believe that there is an Indian Act. ."

I was referring to the fact that I knew you were feeding me a line of crap about you caring about equal rights! the last thing you care about is any form of equality, just ensuring that the white way is the only way.

Where's my Bingo prize?

[Renegade]

Talk about reading your fellow Canadian like a comic book....

Rene, I've given you all the tools you need that will explains treaty rights, now you can use them.

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.

What I do want to point out is your sentence from your last post: "No doubt you would say that. I say change the Act, drop the benefits and it is all perfectly legal and doesn't violate any agreements and your objections would not have a legal leg to stand on .

Did I get it right or what?

an hour ago, I wrote this to you:

If you believe this, then why the need for research? Just write your MP for clarification. I have to admit that I have a tough time believing this statement. When I asked you before about why you thought the government allowed all these "free" rights to the Indians, you said it was because they were sorry for them. Forgive me, but I don't think the government gives away free anything for almost two-hundred years or so because they feel "sorry". You plain old don't believe that there is an Indian Act. ."

I was referring to the fact that I knew you were feeding me a line of crap about you caring about equal rights! the last thing you care about is any form of equality, just ensuring that the white way is the only way.

Where's my Bingo prize?

Equal rights? Where did I say anything about equal rights? What I said if you read it, is I cared about living up to agreements. Your version of "equal rights" is assigning benefits and privlildges based upon race. As abhorent as that is, I could accept it if it was a binding and legal agreement between parties.

If you cared about equal rights, you would advocate no special status or benefits for Natives. Your version of "equal rights" is neither equal nor are the rights uniformly assigned.

Now, where's my prize?

[lost&outofcontrol]

..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?

[Temagami Scourge]

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.

...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!!!!!

[Temagami Scourge]

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.

[scribblet]

Equal rights? Where did I say anything about equal rights? What I said if you read it, is I cared about living up to agreements. Your version of "equal rights" is assigning benefits and privlildges based upon race. As abhorent as that is, I could accept it if it was a binding and legal agreement between parties.

If you cared about equal rights, you would advocate no special status or benefits for Natives. Your version of "equal rights" is neither equal nor are the rights uniformly assigned.

Now, where's my prize?

I agree, with full and equal rights comes equal responsiblity to work, pay taxes and respect property.

The liberals are wrong for agreeing to terms in the Nisga Treaty which made apartheid legal in Canada, and established Native homelands with laws that supersede provincial and federal laws enshrined it in the

constitution and segregeted the population by defining rights based on racial anchestry. The gov't lost an opportunity to enpower the individual native to better their lives.

What would happen if the Government made a law that granted rights, resources and economic opportunity to a visible minority group say ( fill in the blank ) and denied it to other groups ( fill in the blank ) using the racial anchestry of that group as the qualification for those rights. ?

Do you think they would get a free ride on this issue if it were any other group but 'native'.

This is what is happening with these treaties and the sooner Canadians wake up the better.

[Temagami Scourge]

Taxpayer criblet:

I agree, with full and equal rights comes equal responsiblity to work, pay taxes and respect property.

The liberals are wrong for agreeing to terms in the Nisga Treaty which made apartheid legal in Canada, and established Native homelands with laws that supersede provincial and federal laws enshrined it in the

constitution

I wouldn't necessarily say they are wrong, i'd say that you have a tough time accepting the idea of Aboriginal leadership. For you, "white" leadership vis-a-vis British institutions like federal and provincial parliaments, are in the realm of "normalcy", whereas Native leadership over non-natives is not only "abhorrent", but somehow "not quite right".

However, when you had a succession of federal governments whose policies resulted in the generational rape of untold numbers of Native children, and you have provinces selling land that was already before the court to determine ownership, like at Caledonia, then I can't really see how bad an Aboriginal government can be.

In your case Taxpayer Criblet, if you feel all oppressed, then feel free to move somewhere that seems more suitable to your hopes and desires. Texas is nice.

"...and segregeted the population by defining rights based on racial anchestry. The gov't lost an opportunity to enpower the individual native to better their lives."

Again Taxpayer Criblet, you are a tad off-base. Treaty rights are not based on race, but on being here first, ie. exercising authority, having established laws etc. If one-eyed, one-horned Flying Purple People Eaters were here first, then you would be whining about what makes "People-eaters" so special, and it would be the same thing.

they were here first.

Because the folks who were first here happen to have a peculiar look about them that makes it easier to point your finger at and say "they are the problem", doesn't mean that their physical appearance garners any rights. It means...

they were here first.

You're Welcome