Caledonia problem didnt arise overnight

[lost&outofcontrol]

I did not have time to read through the last few pages of this thread and so I apologies in advance .

Here is a little history of our state school system (taken from my class notes)

1844

• Egerton Ryerson is appointed superintendent of the Canadas
  

1845

• Egerton Ryerson's European tour of school systems
  
• The creation of the "normal" school (teacher's college) to standardize teaching
  
• Teachers are prohibited from discussing conflict between Canadians
  

1846

• The "well-to-do"(people with power and authority are used as examples) are made into common school visitors.
  

1850's

• School regulations are passed stressing punctuality (remember the first thing you learn is how to read a clock), orderly conduct to train and habituate students to working in factories.
  

Basically, our school system is a socializing process put in place to make children think of themselves as middle class and Canada as a classless society believing that no conflict happens hence our warped view on historical facts.

"An educated people are always a loyal people to good government; and the first object of a wise government should be the education of its people." Egerton Ryerson

[Riverwind]

Non-natives repeatedly attack native claims as being race claims but they are not based on race. Stop doing that!

Native claims are based on inheritance.

Land claims are not a legitimate 'inheritance'. In come cases (like Caledonia) we are talking a tangible asset that can be divided among all 'heirs'. However, in most cases the are not demanding a tangible asset - they are demanding unlimited and ever expanding entitlements that have to be paid for by non-natives. That is why is it not reasonable to say natives are simply asking for their legitimate inheritance.

People who think that it is possible to have a fair and equitable society where a minority are given special rights should look at countries like South Africa. There is absolutely no difference between what natives are demanding and what whites and South Africa expected under apartheid: special privileges based on their ancestry. I don't want to live in a country like South Africa and I don't think most Canadians do.

Unfortunately, there are too many naive Canadians who think that we can discard all of our egalitarian principles when it comes to natives because they don't look beyond the immediate social problems in native society today. Few people seems to think ahead and consider whether the would be happy paying taxes to subsidize the lifestyle of people richer than them. Nobody seems to consider the implications of allowing Natives to 'tax' non natives living on their land without giving them the right to vote for the gov't that sets those taxes.

That said, there could be room for a negotiated settlement that exchanges some cash and land up front in return for a complete end to all race based entitlements (a.k.a extinguishment). Unfortunately, our gov'ts have found it politically convenient to cave in on this point and create all kinds of time bombs which future generations will have to pay for.

[geoffrey]

From your UN thingy on indigenous rights:

"Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin, racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust."

Excellent, they proved my point for me. Special treatment based on race is all things, legally invalid, racist, and morally condemnable.

Well, I now morally condemn our policy on Indians under the system that the UN made to 'defend' them. Any special privleges because of race is completely unjust. I thought we lived in the 21st century?

[Charles Anthony]

However, in most cases the are not demanding a tangible asset - they are demanding unlimited and ever expanding entitlements that have to be paid for by non-natives. That is why is it not reasonable to say natives are simply asking for their legitimate inheritance.

The demands are based on treaties -- which we strategically tear up.

From the great UN quote-thingy on indigenous rights:

based on or advocating superiority

Superiority and race are not part of native claims. The claims are based on inheritance. Our objection to their claims are based on diversion tactics and redifining words like "treaty" and "race" and "inheritance" and "society" to suit our side of the argument.

[Riverwind]

That is why is it not reasonable to say natives are simply asking for their legitimate inheritance.

The demands are based on treaties -- which we strategically tear up.

That is a false statement. Some native groups have treaties that they can point to. Many native groups have no such treaties but demand similar treatment because their race.

Superiority and race are not part of native claims. The claims are based on inheritance.

An inheritance granted to an entire ethnic group is, in practice, no different a claim of ethnic superiority. In the native case, natives claim to be entitled to more than all other Canadians because they were here first. This is no different than a claim of racial superiority.

[Temagami Scourge]

That is a false statement. Some native groups have treaties that they can point to. Many native groups have no such treaties but demand similar treatment because their race.

No river, yours is the false statement. All of Canada is covered by treaty now. Only some bands are technically not under treaty because they missed treaty signings, and FN's in central Quebec don't have a treaty agreement, but everyone else does.

Secondly, Charles is correct in that the Treaties are based on the fact that the Natives were here first, and were perceived to have an interest (according to the British) in the land that needed to be extinguished. The fact that we happen to have darker skin and black hair had nothing to do with the rationale behind the signings. As I've often said, I don't believe the Crown took one look at us and thought "gee, such a handsome people, why don't we sign agreements with them promising free health, housing and education, and tax exempt status because they look so darn sweet."

However, that is the point you are arguing.

I, on the other hand, believe that the Crown wanted control of the land without resorting to bloodshed, and signed agreements with those who had an interest in the land.

now, if we compare views, who sounds more plausible?

Lastly, and this too I've already told you repeatedly, but don't try to say that we should be Canadian when you keep distinguishing myself and other Aboriginal posters as Indians or Native Canadians. For someone who says that agreements were signed based on race, it makes me wonder why you always separate us by referring to yourself as a Canadian, while I am reerred to as an Indian, or Native, or Aboriginal, or Terrorist, or Welfare bum blah, blah, blah.

...and you wonder why I question your intellect.

your bud;

TS

[Temagami Scourge]

Now this is funny:

The government much prefers businesses which contribute to the nation's productivity growth, which build things, if you will, which export things

Yes....and that's why our political leaders are always handing out soap stone carvings and Aboriginal paintings to visiting popes and foreign dignitaries.

I often wonder why it is that Canada always uses Native culture to promote this country around the world, and yet they turn around and maintain that natives aren't good for anytthing.

Hummmm?

[Riverwind]

No river, yours is the false statement. All of Canada is covered by treaty now.

Recent supreme court rulings have made the ridiculous presumption that all native groups have an implicit treaty with the crown even if they don't have a specific piece of paper. That is not the same as saying that all native groups have treaty.

The fact that we happen to have darker skin and black hair had nothing to do with the rationale behind the signings.

You are correct to say that at the time the treaties were strictly a deal over property that had nothing to with race, however, what makes the treaties racist is how they are being applied in society today. My arguments are not based on what happened in the past. My argument are based on what will happen in the future if don't do something to eliminate the racist aspects of the treaties.

Lastly, and this too I've already told you repeatedly, but don't try to say that we should be Canadian when you keep distinguishing us as Indians.

You can be quite tiresome. Referring native-Canadians or aboriginal-Canadians in every post I write is quite tedious. It should be clear that my ultimate desire to see one definition of 'Canadian' that includes native and non-native and makes non distinction between the two.

[Temagami Scourge]

Anyway...back to topic.

When I was cruising through Caledonia last Sunday night, I couldn't believe that the group of Caledonian thugs by the Tim Hortons and Canadian Tire were openly drinking liquor. I was stopped at the first light coming into town and all these young Caledonais were boozing it up on a Sunday night!

I wish I had my digital, because I would've loved to have taken a picture to send to the Aboriginal media illustrating how poorly the Caledonians are acting. It's pointless going to the mainstream because they are too busy focussing on the activities of the Natives.

The one underlying issue is that these people are threatening any native person that comes into town. Typical of the Canadian experience, they think that all Indians are from Six Nations, and all Indians live on reserve, when in fact there are quite a number of Aboriginal people living in the town.

I feel badly for these people, as they and their children are still threatened and intimidated by drunken crowds of rowdy caucasian youth.

My son probably put it best when he said, after we drove through town, that the young Caucasian gangs wandering around Argyle Street looked like old pictures of Nazi youth persecuting Jews that he saw on History channel.

I can't help but agree.

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

Recent supreme court rulings have made the ridiculous presumption that all native groups have an implicit treaty with the crown even if they don't have a specific piece of paper. That is not the same as saying that all native groups have treaty."

Recent supreme Court rulings my beige butt. All bands are under the Indian Act, which rolled the treaty terms into one piece of legislation applicable to all, whether negotiated or not. Are you trying to tell me, after all that has been posted on this site about Indian Affairs, that you didn't know this most basic legal fact? Additionally, the Crown has to make such claims because of cases like the Lubicon and Temagami, where it was determined that they never signed Treaties, but they were put under them anyway to avoid legal issues with having taken unsigned land.

"You are correct to say that at the time the treaties were strictly a deal over property that had nothing to with race, however, what makes the treaties racist is how they are being applied in society today. My arguments are not based on what happened in the past. My argument are based on what will happen in the future if don't do something to eliminate the racist aspects of the treaties."

Buddy, these treaties are being interpreted and ruled on by your fellow Canadians (politicians) and your legal system. If they bring race into play, like you always do, then take it up with them and don't leave the blame at my door. I know why they were signed and for what....I can't help it if your government never bothered to inform you of basic legal fact.

This garbage about what will happen in the future is a strawman argument. Just come clean and simply say that you don't feel the need for the Crown to honour the legal agreements they made, in particular those done with Natives. Give me a break...all you want is something for nothing, which has pretty much been the standard in Canadian/Aboriginal relations for over 500 years. All you are doing, as an old buddy of mine used to so colorfully put it, is putting a new dress on a new whore. Don't give me thie "aggrieved white man" routine that Native Canada is bending over backwards to oppress you. That is beneath your style.

"You can be quite tiresome.

Why, thank you. It tells me that you are unable to overcome my arguments, so you are stuck making the same contradictory points over and over again.

Referring native-Canadians or aboriginal-Canadians in every post I write is quite tedious. It should be clear that my ultimate desire to see one definition of 'Canadian' that includes native and non-native and makes non distinction between the two."

Geez...look who's talking about being tiresome. Why can't you just refer to us as fellow Canadians, like you say we should be. Talk to me like a human, not some mindless savage.

[gc1765]

Recent supreme court rulings have made the ridiculous presumption that all native groups have an implicit treaty with the crown even if they don't have a specific piece of paper. That is not the same as saying that all native groups have treaty.

All those bands which fall within the Royal Proclamation of 1763 do have ownership over the land, unless purchased by the crown through a treaty.

See here for a map of the Royal Proclamation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_Of_1763

[Riverwind]

Recent supreme Court rulings my beige butt. All bands are under the Indian Act, which rolled the treaty terms into one piece of legislation applicable to all, whether negotiated or not. Are you trying to tell me, after all that has been posted on this site about Indian Affairs, that you didn't know this most basic legal fact?

When most people refer to treaties they referring to documents that could represent binding contracts between nations were change must be negotiated. What you are taking about are Canadian laws which can be changed at any time without the consent of native groups. There is a huge difference.

Buddy, these treaties are being interpreted and ruled on by your fellow Canadians (politicians) and your legal system.

Again the fact that native entitlements are being recognized by the courts today does not make the just or necessary. In any case, there will come a time when most Canadians realize how they are being scammed by native groups and there will be political support to make the necessary legal and constitutional changes.

This garbage about what will happen in the future is a strawman argument. Just come clean and simply say that you don't feel the need for the Crown to honour the legal agreements they made, in particular those done with Natives.

I have said that several times. Canada has no obligation not honour fundamentally racist agreements made hundreds of years ago with nations that no longer exist as distinct political entities. The US gov't is not obliged to recognize a bill of sale for a slaves from 200 years ago - native treaties are no different.

That said, I would rather see a negotiated end to the legal ambiguity that exists today and that likely will require some concessions on this point. However, any compromise must trade cash and land and in return for complete elimination of all special rights for people based on their race.

Geez...look who's talking about being tiresome. Why can't you just refer to us as fellow Canadians, like you say we should be. Talk to me like a human, not some mindless savage.

You have this obsession with painting yourself as a victim even when there is no evidence to support that position. Your comments about the residents of Caledonia show the same thing.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Geoffrey - you and River share the same brain on this one.

You guys just cant wrap your head around the fact that the Haldimand Deed is a legally binding document. The terms of the agreement were " forever " , so unless BOTH parties agreed to alter it - it still stands. The argument that this document is based on race is ludicris - the recorded and accepted history of this document is very clear. The land was granted because the Nations fought alongside the British. Not because of their racial background, but because they were loyal allies to the Crown. The Crown, unlike the Canadian Government - valued its allies and made provisions for them as any Honourable government would for its ALLIES.

Also, You morally condemn the UN charter which supports Native Rights....

Do you also MORALLY condemn the Indian Act? which clearly discriminated against Native peoples - and facilitated their children being taken away to schools which have been compared to concentration camps.

Notes on the Indian Act

The Indian Act seems out of step with the bulk of Canadian law. It singles out a segment of society -- largely on the basis of race -- removes much of their land and property from the commercial mainstream and gives the Minister of Indian & Northern Affairs, and other government officials, a degree of discretion that is not only intrusive but frequently offensive. The Act has been roundly criticized on all sides: many want it abolished because it violates normative standards of equality, and these critics tend to be non-Aboriginal; others want First Nations to be able to make their own decisions as self-governing polities and see the Act as inhibiting that freedom. Even within its provisions, others see unfair treatment as between, for example, Indians who live on reserve and those who reside elsewhere. In short, this is a statute of which few speak well.

Link to article --> http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/sindact.htm

From your UN thingy on indigenous rights:

"Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin, racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust."

Excellent, they proved my point for me. Special treatment based on race is all things, legally invalid, racist, and morally condemnable.

Well, I now morally condemn our policy on Indians under the system that the UN made to 'defend' them. Any special privleges because of race is completely unjust. I thought we lived in the 21st century?

[betsy]

Well the latest news today, the government bought the land in dispute from the realtor in Caledonia....but I don't know if they intend to give it to Six Nations.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

We also received word tonight at The Kanenhstaton ( pronounced - Ga Noon Sta do ) Benefit Concert, that the Burtch Correction Facility lands have been returned to Six Nations, and crops have already been planted on the land

A step in the right direction.

Well the latest news today, the government bought the land in dispute from the realtor in Caledonia....but I don't know if they intend to give it to Six Nations.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Just heard that the Caledonia area is receiving a third cash infusion from the government to the tune of 1 Million dollars.

As i said in the previous post - I dont think having the bypass blocked hurt business in the town - the additional traffick funneled through town would only increase the number of potential customers.

I think the economic downfall in the area is a direct result of having the Six Nations demographic being made to feel unwelcome to patronise the town. For those made to feel unwelcome, it is easy enough just to drive through to Hamilton, or the other direction into Brantford.

This situation should be put under some careful scrutiny. I support fully any individual who can make a claim to recoup legitimate losses, any business turning away a paying customer for any reason shouldnt receive a single penny.

Just a quick point to bring up.

Caledonia has received more money from the provincial government to offset the hardships brought about by the blockade.

Since the protest began some businesses have refused Native customers, ive also heard of OPP being refused service. Six Nations represents 10,000 plus people who have been told they are no longer welcome to shop in Caledonia from a number of sources.

Why should people who turn customers away be rewarded with subsidies?

IMO - Anybody who turns away business has no right to receive any monies.

Another thing is that since the main road through Caledonia is open ( Argyle ) and the primary road from Brantford Hwy 54 is open.... residents and travellers can access the town fully.

How is blocking the bypass seriously restricting people from patronising businesses in Caledonia?

In fact, wouldnt blocking the hwy6 bypass force more people and potential business through Caledonia?

What about people who run business on Six Nations? they run their business and have no real involvement with the protest. They have suffered financially as well !

When will they be receiving a balancing subsidy?

Before someone on here says it yet again *sigh* Here goes :

Not all Native people receive a monthly government cheque - the rate for welfare usage on the reserves are on par with their non-native counterparts.

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey - you and River share the same brain on this one.

You guys just cant wrap your head around the fact that the Haldimand Deed is a legally binding document. The terms of the agreement were " forever " , so unless BOTH parties agreed to alter it - it still stands. The argument that this document is based on race is ludicris - the recorded and accepted history of this document is very clear. The land was granted because the Nations fought alongside the British. Not because of their racial background, but because they were loyal allies to the Crown. The Crown, unlike the Canadian Government - valued its allies and made provisions for them as any Honourable government would for its ALLIES.

So where the apartheid laws in South Africa... it was legal.

[Ahni]

It's probably in the best interest of everyone that the "system" of dishing out money to the aboriginals

Take all the money that goes to band councils today and issue checks to each individual band member and then tell the band council that they need to fund themselves by taxing their band members. I am willing to bet the system will get cleaned up so fast that the band councils wouldn't know what hit them.

An even better Idea: dissolve all (Government-Installed ) Band Councils, abolish Indian Affairs and the AFN, and let the many Indigenous Nations of the land Select their own Leaders, by their own customs and traditions...

Scrib - insisting that the word of an agreement be lived up to has nothing to do with race.

Enskat, you probably have noticed this by now, but there is no point in going tit-for-tat with these folks. It's a nice exercise for the brain, but a waste of time because these people are not interested in sharing, learning, or correcting themselves for their absurd assumptions that they insist are fact.

Well, I guess there is one point, and it's for the benefit of others who many end up believing these fallacies. So then:

The treaties are invalid because the original Signatories are dead? Your thought is a theory and nothing more, Riverwind -- Further, one that has no basis in reality.

The fact is, as Charles said, the titles to the treaties are inherited by someone from the next generation (I even know one of the Signatories) They are valid. You are welcome to think or beleive otherwise, but you'll always be wrong.

As for the race thing - well, if you want to talk about fact, then it's your responsibility to properly include the past too. It doesn't serve any of us to exclude facts because they're inconvenient to our arguement!

As I said before, and as someone else here pointed out, the treaties were not orignally about Race. They haven't even really been made into a racial matter - race is only used as a qualifier by the Government of Canada so they can decide who benefits from the treaties. This is a minor problem created by the Government of Canada (and agreed to by many of the Band Councils, not The People), not grounds for dissolving every treaty on this land.

Again, you are free to disagree or say "how absurd!!" but just because you say something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong.

Respectfully,

Tjurrara Ahniwanika

[betsy]

I've got the June 19 issue of Western Standard in my hand right now...and unfortunately, I cannot find the same article online to give as a link. Here is an excerpt from the article.

The title of the article is "Crashing It In Caledonia" by Kevin Steel.

"How a hodge-podge of radical Toronto groups ended up hijacking the land-claims stand-off - and the Six Nations message."

On Sunday, May 21, as the Six Nations leadership agreed to take down the barricade in a gesture of goodwill, six buses filled with 300 angry protesters rolled into Caledonia. Word spread around town that they were reinforcements for the natives.

From the start, it was clear they came for a fight and the situation escalated as the newcomers began physically confronting theCaledonia residents.

What was unusual about the 300 arrivals is that they were representatives of eight Toronto groups, all almost entirely disconnected from anything to do with native issues.

The pilgrimage to Caledonia was organized by the Al-Awda Palestine Right To Return Coalition, the University of Toronto's Arab Students Collective, the "anti-capitalist" (their term) Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, Ryerson University's CKLN community radio, the CUPE Local 3903, and the pro-immigration group No One Is Illegal. Explaining the varied groups' interest, Zainab Amadahy, speaking for the eight group, the Coalition in Support of Indigenous Sovereignty-Indigenous Caucus, says all parties share "a commitment to support the Six Nation land reclamation...They support in a general way social justice, and [also] in a global way."

Janice Switlo, a Vancouver native lawyer advising the council of hereditary chiefs of the Six Nations says the groups came at the behest of radicals within the community. Native journalist Kahentinetha Horn, a reporter for Mohawk Nation News, had been issuing what Switlo calls "very provocative press releases and statements on the Internet" about the stand-off, encouraging a broader conflict, though she hadn't been asked by Six Nations leaders to speak on their behalf. "The language that she used was quite inciting and inflammatory, and appeared in my professional judgment to be encouraging a confrontation," Switlo says.

-----

The plot thickens.

[Riverwind]

The fact is, as Charles said, the titles to the treaties are inherited by someone from the next generation (I even know one of the Signatories) They are valid. You are welcome to think or believe otherwise, but you'll always be wrong.

Only tangible assets that can be divided among heirs are legitimate inheritance. Privileges such as tax exemptions or preferential access to shared resources are not tangible assets. These privileges are what make native treaties a fundamentally racist concept that has no place an pluralistic, egalitarian society.

[betsy]

.... the gov't allowed native groups to repeatedly break the law because they were native. This has created resentment among the non-native population that will poison the community for years to come.

The numbers of charges laid against Native people country wide does not support the assumption that they repeatedly break the laws and got away with it.

Posters in your camp say the numers of Native people in jail are disproportionate, then go right into the argument that Natives are getting away with crime?

So............... Which is it?

Blockades have been done repeatedly in years. This Caledonia blockade is against the law.....except that the law enforcers are not enforcing it.

[betsy]

Just heard that the Caledonia area is receiving a third cash infusion from the government to the tune of 1 Million dollars.

As i said in the previous post - I dont think having the bypass blocked hurt business in the town - the additional traffick funneled through town would only increase the number of potential customers.

But it sure did hurt the tax-payers' coffers. Like as if we just pick money off trees!

How many travellers avoided going anywhere near Caledonia just for the sheer inconvenience of it, I wonder....not to mention trying to steer clear of getting caught in any form of violence.

I can't help whining as a taxpayer when I see money going to waste for what - paying for DAMAGES. That cool tune of 1 million dollars could've gone to infuse some deserving and struggling social program - perhaps, even Alcoholics Anonymous - which can then treat both Natives and Caledonians.

Sorry, but I find the tone of nonchalance quite infuriating.

[betsy]

Now I hear somebody's threatening to block train tracks. Anybody heard about this? Is this true?

[scribblet]

I did read something about that as this group is getting away with a violent illegal blockade, therefore similar tactics could spread.

[NativeCharm]

Either way, this is an interesting sandbox!!!