Caledonia problem didnt arise overnight

[betsy]

If you dont have anything new to bring to this topsy turvy thread then dont post.

Thanks

Your previous post implied that the issue had been settled as regarding the ownership of the land in dispute.

This statement you've made on post #324.

"The basis of the removal order was that Six Nations people were tresspassing on the land, since it has been recognised that they indeed have a legitimate claim to the land in question - doesnt that make the order invalid?

Let me put it another way - Someone is charged with tresspassing - they later prove the land they are accused of tresspassing on is theirs - and they are still going to be charged???"

To which I've replied....

"When did it get recognised by the government that they have a legitimate claim? I assume you meant "the government or the law" by "they". You got a link? At least it's informative if true....

If the law had recognised that the natives have a legitimate claim, then the law had revoked the order?" Post #325

This statement you made to Riverwind was misleading:

"Actually Riv-ahhh - They have been recliamed - they are being held " in trust " by the provincial government.

I believe the reason for this is to avoid complicating the issue further than it already is. Instead of seperate agreements, the lands will stay in limbo until such time as a solution is negotiated and a single document can de drafted.

Granted, given the way our federal governemt has handled land claims, this may take some time as they are prone to dragging their heels. But hopefully the provincial governeent will be able to move swiftly, so i will give them the benefit of the doubt. "

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

If you go back as far as post # 324 and review the exchange of discussion we had to this day, you'll understand why we're back...or sort of...back to this.

Further more this article that I've brought up only expalins why the judge was asking how come his order was not followed.

The natives have not been declared the legal owner of this land, nor has the developers either....and in that regard, you have been right in saying "the matter is in limbo." Because the legality of ownership has not yet been established.

You may think you have a legal claim, same as the developer may think he has a legal claim. But thinking that you do (developer and Natives) is quite different than being legally declared that you are the owner.

And we ended up arguing about the word "in-trust".

As far as I know, my questions are legitimate. You've made misleading statements or impressions (whether innocently or not), still misleading nevertheless.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

You see Betsy - I have agreed to disagree with you on the defintion of " in trust " and to whom it is being held in trust for. Doenst make sense to me that Henco would accept payment for the land, plus further compensation for loss of profit, and they still hold the deed to the land. And as you reiterated, ive said the lands are in limbo, ( whats misleading? ) so our difference of opinion on this one is directly whom the land is in trust for. You cannot sell property and still have the deed to the property held in trust for you - that is contradictory. The one fact that we should be able to agree upon is that Henco no longer owns the property since theyve accepted payment on it. However, the federal government is still holding monies and land held " in trust " to Six Nations which they have not received from the Grand River Navigation Company. So well see how their provincial counterparts live up to agreements made.

Backgrounder on the Claims of Six Nations - see Grand River Navigation Company reference

At at least three seperate occasions, ive stated the Declaration of Indigenous rights does not directly correlate to the situation at Douglas Creek. It has to do with the bigger issue of Indigenous Rights worldwide. And the growing worldwide support of Indigenous Rights. This was an attempt to move the discussion forward.... which you missed.

In regards to the legitamacy of the Land Claims - if they were not legit, the province wouldnt be negotiating for them would they? Another point myself and others have made is the fact that the case was before the courts, but the government requested the move to negotiations. In the legal arena that is like an admittance of responsibility, and the case has been moved to settle damages.

Officailly obtained Land Claim status in 1987 ( read it all Betsy, but dont miss the fourth paragraph )

Of note is that when a property is recognised as a land claim, it is usually restricted from sale and development - Land Claim Staus was received 1987 - Henco purchased the land in 1991.

Regarding the judges order - I beleive ive asked this question before - and you ignored it.

If the judges order for the " removal " is carried out,

THEN the land title is fully in control of Six Nations - recognising that the Haldimand Deed was indeed correct, and the title of the land never legally left Six Nations.

Shouldnt the people removed by force be entitled to legal action, since the Haldimand Deed confirms it was their land all along?

You probably wont respond to the above question or recognise any possibility of new discussions brought up - only question is how many points made by other posters are you going to dredge up in order for us to rehash those issues again - let it go!

Im beginning to think youre more concerned with increasing your post count than any real discussion - i find myself answering 2 or 3 of your posts in one response - but hey GIVVER!!!!

[Temagami Scourge]

Betsy:

I have to agree with Enskat. Your argument has been going in a circle for the last two weeks. You make the same points to Enskat that you did with me awhile back, and you receive the same answers.

you know what the old saying is about crazy people; they do the same thing over and over even though they know the outcome every time.

Now, I don't see you as crazy, and I understand that you are opposed to Native rights and ideas, but you must admit that the entire Haldimand tract issue is not going away, nor is there any evidence to support the notion that if the land reverted to it's original owners, then there would be a line of non-Natives marching off the tract to seek new homes elsewhere.

But how about this idea: Six Nations is well aware of particular tracts that were legally sold throughout the tract. Some are in Brantford, and I saw the map once where the band has been tracking lots throughout the tract to see which ones are legal and which ones were the result of shady deals etc.

Obviously, some people's land will remain untouched, as it recognized by Six Nations. Now, I know the government well enough to know that there is no way that they could allow non-Native Ontarians to lose property under a land claim, so they will offer to buy various sections ie. all of Brantford, Cambridge etc.

This may prove to be a very expensive undertaking -an outright sale- so what if the government:

a) Paid a monthly or annual "lease" to Six Nations or;

The Crown espands on current treay promises, and instead of money, recognizes the applicability of the great Law over Six Nations reserve land, recognizes Six Nations right to determine its citizenship without interference from the Crown, pays an annual stipend and ensures that all treaty rights currently recognized by Canadian law remain recognized in perpetuity, and that current, regular band funding is topped up so that anyone can get education monies, housing and medical care provided on demand. To top this off, all Six Nations citizens (as recognized by the governing body at Six Nations) also get the best medications available, instead of the cheapest generic which is current NIHB policy.

Oh, the NIHB means Non-Insured Health Benefits section of INAC.

[Hawk]

What needs to happen is

1) Treaties are recognized as is, since they are indeed legally binding under Canadian law.. however it is convenient for inflation to be taken into consideration. If we are truly going to follow the treaties 'to the letter' lets give them their $1050 per YEAR (to quote an agreement with the Five Nations).

2) Canada needs to dissolve and either a) reform with all treaties no longer applying to the new government body or stay split up or reform borders based on regional political preferences

3) Natives truly 'concerned' about their culture should truly preserve it, and be encouraged to preserve it. Cut off all power, oil, everything to the reserves, drag off housing, infrastructure, schools (since they are so very terrible at teaching native studies this shouldn't hurt at all), take away their guns, clothing, and so on. Throw some buffalo onto the reserve, build a high fence around it so nobody can interfere, and let them live a few winters like that.

Then go to them, and offer them the choice of continuing in 'their culture' or coming back to ours.

Realistically, they are killing their own culture, and realistically they deserve the 'situation' they got themselves into. Prove to me why I should take the blame for 200 year old crimes, and also prove to me how it is so one-sided because the native studies I did do proved there was atrocities on both sides of the fence.

Then once you've done all that, prove to me how throwing more money, or giving them all they ask for, is going to make anything better. You can't. It won't. Because native people are too comfortable at blaming everyone else for the problems of their society, and I say 'their' society because indeed, thanks to the Indian Act and decades of pampering, it is indeed a seperate society from ours. That is one of the biggest problems I have with the entire situation.

We aren't an equal society and the very people that supposedly advocate 'equality' seem to think it a good thing to make different ethnic groups 'more equal' than others. That isn't discrimination? Use your mind, use your logic, use SOMETHING other than your heart for the sake of Canada and all our futures.

[betsy]

You see Betsy - I have agreed to disagree with you on the defintion of " in trust " and to whom it is being held in trust for. Doenst make sense to me that Henco would accept payment for the land, plus further compensation for loss of profit, and they still hold the deed to the land. And as you reiterated, ive said the lands are in limbo, ( whats misleading? ) so our difference of opinion on this one is directly whom the land is in trust for. You cannot sell property and still have the deed to the property held in trust for you - that is contradictory. The one fact that we should be able to agree upon is that Henco no longer owns the property since theyve accepted payment on it.

Okay, my mistake. The government bought it back from Henco since they (developers) are caught in the middle of the land dispute. So now it’s just between the government and the Six Nation.

However, it is clear that the issue of ownership has not been resolved.

CanWest News Service

Published: Friday, June 16, 2006

CAYUGA, Ont. — The Ontario government has reached a tentative agreement to buy back the plot of land that ignited the Caledonia, Ont. native blockade.

Lawyer Donald Brown said the provincial government would buy the property from the developer who was seeking to build more than 600 homes. “The land will be held in trust until the issues of ownership and use are resolved,” he told a hearing before Justice T. David Marshall of Ontario Superior Court. “The ultimate use of the land has not yet been decided.”

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...bc24dbe&k=81060

[betsy]

Officailly obtained Land Claim status in 1987 ( read it all Betsy, but dont miss the fourth paragraph )

Of note is that when a property is recognised as a land claim, it is usually restricted from sale and development - Land Claim Staus was received 1987 - Henco purchased the land in 1991.

Sorry, but I have skepticism over this opinions of this site you've given. Here is what they've got to say about themselves:

"Political Affairs - A Marxist Monthly

Political Affairs is a monthly magazine of ideology, politics, and culture. Our mission is to go beyond simply giving an account of events to providing analysis and investigating what is new and changing in our world -- from a working-class point of view.

In the pages of PA we start from the most basic fact of life: the ongoing struggle between the working class and the capitalist class. This conflict happens in the workplace, in the government, the courts, on the streets, but also in the realm of ideas. We publish stories on the struggle to defeat George W. Bush and his gang of far-right thugs, the labor movement, the battle for racial justice, the end to war and imperialism, women's equality, the fight against homophobia, and working-class views of popular culture and mass media.

While we are partisan, Marxism is not the private property of any person or group. We print a wide variety of views in our quest for truth. Discussion and debate are the only ways to develop better and more useful ideas to defeat the far right, strengthen working people, and build democracy. Political Affairs is a publication of the Communist Party, USA. "

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/static/17/1/3/

[betsy]

Here is what I found about Plank Road Tract.

"Protesters say that land, known as the Plank Road Tract, is part of the much larger Haldimand Deed, granted by the Crown to Six Nations in 1784 in recognition of their support of the British Crown during the American War of Independence. The deed included land stretching six miles on either side of the Grand River, from Lake Erie to Dundalk (midway between Owen Sound and Fergus), about 210 kilometres.

That initial 950,000 acres was later downgraded by Lieutenant-Governor John Simcoe in 1795 to 275,000 acres. The Haldimand Tract now ends near present-day Elora in Nicol Township.

History of the claim: The Plank Road Tract was registered as a land claim in 1987. The claim is based on the argument that the land is part of the Haldimand Tract. The Six Nations band council, in its submissions to Ottawa, claimed the reserve was never properly compensated for land sold to non-natives and land that was taken to build the Hamilton to Port Dover Plank Road (now Highway 6).

The protesters: The group says the land is part of Six Nations territory and was never to be sold to non-natives. They charge Douglas Creek Estates is being built on stolen land. They say the dispute has to be settled on a nation-to-nation basis with Ottawa or through some international court.

Six Nations Band Council: The elected council is opposed to the protest, but has included the Plank Road Tract as one of 29 land claims registered with Ottawa.

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs...l=1014656511815

I don't know anything about Caledonia, so I assume Douglas Creek land is not within the CURRENT recognised Haldimand Tract near Elora?

It's also said how the Band Council is opposed to the protest.

[Kindred]

I have to agree with Enskat. Your argument has been going in a circle for the last two weeks. You make the same points to Enskat that you did with me awhile back, and you receive the same answers.

you know what the old saying is about crazy people; they do the same thing over and over even though they know the outcome every time.

Its really quite simple, if you dont agree with the land claims, no matter what kind of "evidence" you can produce to support your point of view, you must be crazy.

They say they followed every step of the planning process, including notifying the Six Nations elected band council, and nobody objected during the three years that it took to bring the project to this stage. They have appealed to the federal government to intervene, saying they are being held hostage by a "splinter group" of protesters and Ottawa.

One thing I have noticed is that Indian "Land Claims" seem to spring up AFTER someone has developed the property and invested huge amounts of money in it, then the Indians step up and demand it be turned over to them so they can reap the financial rewards, kind of a ransom thing in my opinion.

Its always so much BS that the indians always claim they were never paid, or the money just somehow dissapeared, or I didnt sign the sale agreement my Grandfather did and he didnt know what he was doing ..

The Six Nations band council, in its submissions to Ottawa, claimed the reserve was never properly compensated for land sold to non-natives and land that was taken to build the Hamilton to Port Dover Plank Road (now Highway 6).

The protesters: The group says the land is part of Six Nations territory and was never to be sold to non-natives. They charge Douglas Creek Estates is being built on stolen land. They say the dispute has to be settled on a nation-to-nation basis with Ottawa or through some international court.

If there is a lesson to be learned here, its one many people in BC have learned, do NOT ever lease land from Indians or enter into any agreement with them - Land sold in 1985 is worth more today and so the bands werent "properly compensated" because everytime the value increases they expect to be compensated in some way

Wouldnt that be great if that was the way it worked for all of us? The house I sold in 2004 is now worth at least $170,000.00 more then I sold it for, I should go back to the purchasers and demand I be compensated for the increased property value ......

[NativeCharm]

Kindred, seems to me as though you have a problem with any Natives experiencing any level of economical benefit. So much so that you will paint any situation any colour so not to blind your eyes with reality. Typical anglo. Please stop fabricating our business history and tactics which you already have a strong misinterpretation of. Purchase and absorb some authentic Native history and enlighten yourself before making any more absurd comments, unless you don't mind being laughed at.

[Canuck E Stan]

Typical anglo. Please stop fabricating our business history and tactics which you already have a strong misinterpretation of. Purchase and absorb some authentic Native history and enlighten yourself before making any more absurd comments, unless you don't mind being laughed at.

NativeCharm,

To you, everyone is a typical anglo. Why don't you educate us?

Tell us why what we see isn't true.

We are here to learn.

[Kindred]

Its really quite simple, if you dont agree with the land claims, no matter what kind of "evidence" you can produce to support your point of view, you must be crazy.

If you dont agree with the Indian spin you dont know anything, and need to be "enlightened".

How many years of anthropology, and history have you studied Native Charm? How many digs have you been on? You dont seem to know a lot about history, or what is happening outside your own neighbourhood.

What makes you an expert? I am very interested in knowing this ... and dont say being an indian makes you an expert.

How many sources have you spoken with, how much research have you done? Do you have relatives and friends who are both native and non-native? Have you worked with native and non-natives in social services or youth services?

you have a problem with Natives experiencing any level of economical benefit

I have a problem with an apartheid system that benefits any person because of their race. You dont want equality you want supremecy - there's a helluva difference. And that is something I and the majority of Canadians will NEVER agree to.

authentic Native history and enlighten yourself before making any more absurd comments, unless you don't mind being laughed at.

Authentic native history isnt published by fanatical internet sites promoting Native Rights anymore than it is on White Supremecy sites. You really ought to follow your own advise ..........

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Betsy,

Just a quick point about whom the Douglas Creek lands are being held for. Weve agreed that Henco has sold the property, leaving only the Provincial Government and Six Nations. The government would not use the term " in trust " for a purchase they intend to retain the deed on, they would simply state they purchesed the property. So, logically the third party would be the group the land is being held in trust for.

I glad you are taking the time to do a little research on your own regarding the Plank Road land claim, and the larger Haldimand Treaty of 1784. Im going to repost some articles from this thread as well as previous threads :

Two Row Wampum Belt

The Two Row Wampum Belt outlines the relationship agreed upon by The Six Nations Confederacy and The British Crown.

One purple row of beads represents the path of the natives' canoe which contains their customs and laws. The other row represents the path of the Whiteman's vessel, the sailing ship, which contains his customs and laws. The meaning of the parallel paths is that neither boat should out pace the other, and the paths should remain separate and parallel forever, that is, as long as the grass grows, the rivers flow, the sun shines, and will be everlasting, and they shall always renew their treaties.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 - basicially states that all Native lands must be sold directly to the Crown, and recorded publicly in the form of treaties. Then the Crown sells/grants the land to third parties.

The Haldimand Deed of 1784 - a tract of land 6 miles from both sides of the Grand River from source to termination. ( approx 950,000 acres ) After the American Revolutionary War, the Nations could not return to their homeland - now on American soil. In Honour of their military service and loyalty to the Crown - they were granted this new tract of land.

The Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road Agreement of 1841 - the agreement outlines a lease of land to allows a road to be built from Hamilton to Port Dover to facilitate shipping between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. The land covered in the lease was the road from Hamilton to Port Dover, running one half mile from either side of the road. The terms of the lease were 21 years, renewed every 7 years. It is important to note that no payment was ever received on this lease, and the fact that the Crown sold lands adjacent to this tract, when they had no legal right to these lands.

Here are some supporting lnks :

Two Row Wampum Belt ---> http://www.hometown.aol.com/miketben/miketben.htm

Royal Proclamation of 1763 ---> http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm

Background of the Haldimand Deed ---> http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/j-a2006/snjsbk_e.html

Map of lands granted in the Haldimand Deed ---> http://www.reclamationinfo.com/images/hald...tract%20map.jpg

Background of the Plank Road Agreement ---> http://www.sixnations.ca/Plank%20Road.pdf ( note : PDF )

Further, In 1987 this Plank Road Tract was officially placed as a land claim by the Six Nations.

link ---> http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3219/1/32

Heres another link stating the facts since Betsy mistrusts the Marxists

http://ocap.ca/1stnations/sixnations/courtorder - third article from the top

- this one from OCAP - Socialists

and another ---> http://mostlywater.org/node/4486

and another ---> https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/mobglob-d...ril/001698.html

Here is what I found about Plank Road Tract.

I don't know anything about Caledonia, so I assume Douglas Creek land is not within the CURRENT recognised Haldimand Tract near Elora?

It's also said how the Band Council is opposed to the protest.

The short paragraph i wrote, and the links to articles about the Plank Road agreement - as well the link to the map of the lands outlined in the Haldimand Tract - should answer the first half of your question above.

The second half regarding the band council isnt really as straightforward as you might think. Consider that the band council was forceably put into power in 1924 by the RCMP using the Indian Act as justification. They violently removed The Confederacy system and replaced it with one of their own making. A lot of Native people do not vote ( municipal, provincial and federal levels) because they consider that a breach of the agreement specified in The Two Row Wampum, therefore the elected coucil does not represent the majority of the people.

but such evidence as there is indicates conclusively not only that the system

imposed by the Indian Act is not supported by more than a small

fraction of the population of the lands in question but that certain

of the plaintiffs were elected by a very small fraction of those

eligible... Their representative character is therefore seriously in

doubt. In my view, the defendants as representing the Council of

Hereditary Chiefs have by far the better claim to the management

of the premises in question.

THE SIX NATIONS: A NEGLECTED ASPECT OF CANADIAN HISTORY ( note : PDF )

This article above goes over the subject in good detail.

1995 Court case Six Natins VS Government - Outline of case brought before the courts in 1995

In the above article - Item one also refers to the lands illegally revoked my Simcoe. Also Lord Simcoe did not follow the Royal Proclomation of 1763 which outlines the law in regards to buying and leasing lands.

A couple of questions to be researched :

(1) What authority did Lord Simcoe have to arbitrarily reduce the lands granted to Six Nations in the Haldimand agreement?

(2) Where is the money held " in trust " for Six Nations via the Grand River Navigation Company?

In closing i just have to amke a statement about HeeHawkS post - lol

You started off great with section one, it all goes downhill from there. All your talk about how they did this to themsleves and they " deserve " it is absolutely amazing. It was the crown and governmental wrangling that left them with 5% of the lands outlined in the Haldimand deed - since i dont think youve read any of the history involved - click a few if the links ive provided above.

Also heres one about the Indian Act - read all the restrictions in this document, the hostile takeover of the traditional government, and the kidnapping of children so they can fall victim to sexual abuse and other assaults to their person and culture. Do a search on the Indian Act im sure youll come accross some useful information.

The Indian Act - Serious Internal Error: Discontinue use

BACKGROUNDER - Residential School System

[NativeCharm]

Please forgive me but I have yet to master the art of “quoting” in this forum.

So I’ll just make a general statement.

I have never proclaimed myself as an expert. However, I do have the honor of walking and living in 3 worlds. I have been employed to conduct and lead research for government and Natives on a variety of subjects (mostly civilization/ treaty interpretation/water/residential schools). I am most familiar with Treaty 6, 7, and 8 as well I am extremely well versed on our nations Metis people, most particularly Alberta.

I have been a mentored student of many chiefs (and grand chiefs), Canadian political leaders (Native and non-native) and I currently own my own business that delivers educational and youth services in Native and non-Native rural and remote communities. My educational (text book) background is Native studies and business commerce. As well, I have been an active part of the mainstream and Native media since I was knee high to a grasshopper.

Yes, I do have a unique perspective on today’s Canadian issues with the Native people. Arguably, I am far from being an expert, but many can agree that I am a worthy contributor to assisting in the education of our Native and non- Native peoples of Canada.

Equality is dream chasing and it’s surreal. Our people have been fighting for basic civilian rights and have only been recognized (barely) in the past 30 years or so. Equality is far off and anyone who thinks it is near, is clearly delusional. There are far more pressing and realistic issues with practical solutions than preaching the far-fetched reality of “equality”. Equality for whom? Humans will never be equal. We are all too different. If you want equality then basically you are saying you want one almighty race of the planet. Which seems quite boring to me, as I am an individualist. If you mean “Equality” as a citizen of the country, then I personally feel the government (and the majesty) should honor the land claims/ issues/ entitlements to the country’s Indigenous people and perhaps negotiate a gradual dissemination of the treaty rights (for the sake of other “equal” citizens). Then, perhaps we will feel more equal in our own country that is home to our ancestors and historical artifacts. The treaty rights are here and recognized because they are a legitimate piece of our history.

I believe in human evolution above all and I feel it’s imperative to preserve traditional societies for the sake of ‘authentic’ global colors. I also believe in EQUALITY to COMMERCE. I will debate anytime, anywhere with anyone on these issues where I can provide more than a plethora of cases that demonstrate the government chokehold on our Native people and their drive for economical strength and fiscal identity.

The land issues really have nothing to do with race (it’s not our fault, we’re Native, its our blessing), although some may argue- if we were “non-Natives” than perhaps the “deals” would have been honored a long time ago. Our societal intellect was grossly underestimated when we were/ are regarded as a ‘savage’ race with no sense of the legal or business system of which our country is currently governed. The difference today, is that many of our people are more educated (text book) and more legally astute and are insisting that our history be not only recognized but also respected.

This entire thread was initiated for the speculation of Native/ authentic Canadian history in the educational system. It’s true that the educational system has failed all Canadians and new citizens by not including a LARGE portion of our country’s FACTS. Subliminal programming I guess. I mean heck, our home economics books were teaching the young woman to practically worship men right up until the late 50’s. So it doesn’t surprise me that this great country of ours conveniently left out the little “Indian problem” when they were educating citizens.

The treaties are very much a large part of our history and I think it’s wonderful that the Native people have been a major contributor to the global identity of our country. It’s OUR art and “Indian faces” that are promoted globally as representative tokens of this country. Yet, seldom are real Native artists even employed for this tourist marketing strategy. I constantly have to explain to tourists and my friends from other parts of the world that we do not live in teepees or igloos. It’s a crying shame that a majority of the non-Native civilization of Canada does not even know the difference between Iroquois, Haida and Inuit.

Let the education commence.

[Kindred]

As a non-native Canadian I am also asked if I live in an igloo - the ignorance is global when it comes to knowledge of other countries, it doesnt matter what race you are. The majority of Americans think we dont have electricity or paved roads, or television or "real houses".

There is an exhibition of two centuries of native art in the Vancouver Art Gallery, I am hoping to be able to take it in - the Haida art is a favourite of mine.

I dont suppose most people know the difference between Cree and Metis, or Haida or whatever but then we are called "white people", no recognition of whether we are Norwegian, Swiss, English, French, Swedish, whatever .. when you think of it my ancestors were the aboriginal people in their own country - the Vikings. No consideration has ever been given to that.

I believe in human evolution above all and I feel it’s imperative to preserve traditional societies for the sake of ‘authentic’ global colors.

That should apply to all people and all cultures.

[NativeCharm]

No consideration has ever been given to that.

THAT..my dear is your own fault for not using your voice. How can one consider something they do not know? We should all be proud of our heritage, but this discussion is about Canada's Native peoples, not the vikings. Some say the Vikings (fascinating culture I know little of) were here before the Europeans. My gramma's gramma was a European princess (lol).

[betsy]

I believe in human evolution above all and I feel it’s imperative to preserve traditional societies for the sake of ‘authentic’ global colors.

That should apply to all people and all cultures.

I now long for old traditions, the same ones that I took for granted or even criticized with scorn when I was younger. I guess it's one of the follies of youth.

It is ideal to preserve one's traditions, not only for the sake of "authentic global colors"...but more so for the sake of one's identity. Hence I had once commented in one of these threads that the "white " folks ought to have the right to preserve theirs too.

[NativeCharm]

Of course the "white folks" want the "RIGHT" to preserve their own culture. There are children in Holland that speak Dutch and children in France that speak French, there are children all over the world that speak their language in their country...and yet in Canada (our home and Native land) the Native peoples DO NOT have this. Our language and culture was taken from us. Banned. Outlawed. Rights? Are we really going to discuss rights again? what the colonial government has done to our people IS NOT RIGHT. They took our language, culture and customs, why not take our land?

What is right , is when people take the time and make the effort to educate themselves on our issues and in the very least if they can't help make a difference...then help share understanding.

[Kindred]

Again that is something that happened in the past. I dont believe a law was ever passed forbidding Indians from speaking their own language.

The purpose of Residential Schools was originally to ensure the survival of Indian children and however unfortunate the outcome, the original intent was based on the extremely high infant death rate of Indian children. So some people who initially meant well, decided they should step in and ensure the survival of indian children. Somehow, somewhere along the line they decided it would be a good idea to "whitewash" the indian children, forbid the Indian children to speak their own language or keep their own culture.

It was very wrong - as was the abuse of some children. To suggest it was a diabolical plot by "white people" is wrong, pedophiles manage to find their way into every organization or institution where they can find child victims, from residential schools to public schools, boy scouts, the church, Big Brothers and Big Sisters.

This residential school mentality is not that different from what non-native children suffered in orphanages, and church run boarding schools. The abuse IMO arose from the assumed superiority of the church and its teachings - look at what happened to Doukhobor children in Canada. They were taken from their homes and placed in residential schools, foster homes and orphanages and not allowed to speak their own language or maintain their culture -

It was wrong, all of it was wrong, people were ignorant.

Its from this kind of history that Canada has not copied the US "melting pot" expectation for immigrants and visible minorities etc.

A number of provisions in the Charter, and other provisions in the Constitution, specifically provide for the protection of the rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada who are defined as including Indian, Inuit and Metis. The purpose of these provisions is twofold: first, to recognize and protect the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples and, secondly, to help Aboriginal peoples preserve their cultures, identities, customs, traditions and languages. For instance, no provision in the Charter can be used to take away any rights that Aboriginal peoples now have or may acquire in the future from, for example, the settlement of land claims.

It also provides for freedoms of religion and all cultures in Canada. And it also says :

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice

I think reservations were wrong, I think that ANY plan that divides indians and non-indians along geographical lines is wrong. I dont believe that turning land over to the indians will solve anything, it will just increase the problems, increase the separation, and foster resentment and hatred and racism.

The drug and alcohol problems on reserves prove this, we CANT be isolated from each other. The only solution that will work is education - and integration - and respect for each other cultures - but we have to live TOGETHER as one community - no privilige, no isolation.

Does the Government apologize for what its ancestors did? It does. BUT we cannot keep on repeating the mistakes of the past, and that is what land claims will do - it only increases the gulf -

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

Again that is something that happened in the past. I dont believe a law was ever passed forbidding Indians from speaking their own language.

It was very wrong - as was the abuse of some children. To suggest it was a diabolical plot by "white people" is wrong, pedophiles manage to find their way into every organization or institution where they can find child victims, from residential schools to public schools, boy scouts, the church, Big Brothers and Big Sisters.

In regards to Language -

During the second half of the nineteenth century, epidemics in Western North America and what was to become British Columbia decimated the Aboriginal population by 25% - 90%. Thousands of aboriginal people who knew and spoke their languages, their histories, and their cultures, died. These people were parents and grandparents, or they were children or youth who spoke their language and by dying young never had a chance to pass the language on to succeeding generations.

Since the late eighteen hundreds, a major assault on Aboriginal culture and languages has taken place through Canadian government legislation and policies. The Canadian government denied the rights and interests of the Aboriginal peoples of the country and put into place policies that aimed to assimilate Native peoples by oppressing their way of life and languages. Much of this began after the first federal Indian Act was passed in 1876. By 1884, the so-called anti-potlatch amendments to the Indian Act prohibited the Potlatch and similar ceremonies. Further amendments to the Act were made in 1918 under Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott, who sponsored a crusade against Aboriginal ceremonies and institutions and gave Indian Agents the power to prosecute. The prohibition against ceremonies, dances, and in particular the potlatch, was in effect until 1951, when it was dropped from the revised Indian Act.

"It was through language that children received their cultural heritage from parents and community. It was the vital connection that civilizers knew had to be cut if progress was to be made... Aboriginal languages could not carry the burden of civilization ... without the English language, the Aboriginal person was seen as 'permanently disabled:' As long as he keeps his native tongue, so long will he remain a community apart."

(RCAP, 1996, p. 341)

In the recollection of Aboriginal elders and adults throughout Canada, Residential Schools set to stamp out Aboriginal languages; children had their Aboriginal languages literally beaten out of them. Many elders remember being strapped, put in solitary confinement, convicted to do physical labour, and being humiliated, chastised, and shamed by their teachers and principals for speaking their language in the School

A kick with a police riding boot administered by a 175-pound man upon the person of an eight-year-old boy for uttering the language of a savage left its pain for days and its bruise upon the spirit for life. A boy once kicked was not likely to risk a second or third. A slap in the face or a punch to the back of the head delivered even by a small man upon the person of a small boy left its sting and a humiliation not soon forgotten. And if a boot or a fist were not administered, then a lash or a yardstick was plied until the 'Indian' language was beaten out. To boot and fist and lash was added ridicule. Both speaker and his language were assailed. "What's the use of that language? It isn't polite to speak another language in the presence of other people. Learn English! That's the only way you're going to get ahead. How can you learn two languages at the same time? No wonder kids can't learn anything else. It's a primitive language; hasn't the vocabulary to express abstract ideas, poor. Say 'ugh'. Say something in your language! ... How can you get your tongue around those sounds?' On and on the comments were made, disparaging, until in too many the language was shamed into silence and disuse."

Historical Overview - Aboriginal Culture and Language

One aspect of our relationship with Aboriginal people over this period that requires particular attention is the Residential School system. This system separated many children from their families and communities and prevented them from speaking their own languages and from learning about their heritage and cultures.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada - Residential School System

Indian Act - ( inherently racist legislation )

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.

Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian department

Notes on the Indian Act

All sounds like a plot to me.

[Kindred]

Can you show me the exact laws and not second hand quotes from books on History please?

I am interested because I have searched and cannot find this information anywhere. I have searched law articles, legislation etc and have come up blank on actual enactment of law prohibiting use of Aboriginal langugage and cultural practises.

I dont say this to argue, if you have a source, please post it because I want to know FACTS whether they support my argument or contradict it --

Legislation, Court Cases, etc would be appreciated

[gc1765]

Can you show me the exact laws and not second hand quotes from books on History please?

I am interested because I have searched and cannot find this information anywhere. I have searched law articles, legislation etc and have come up blank on actual enactment of law prohibiting use of Aboriginal langugage and cultural practises.

I dont say this to argue, if you have a source, please post it because I want to know FACTS whether they support my argument or contradict it --

Legislation, Court Cases, etc would be appreciated

I don't think there were any federal laws against using Native language, but it was the law that Natives had to attend residential schools, and Native languages were forbidden at these schools:

Link

Read more into residential schools (as opposed to Canadian law) and you will find more information.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

The link i provided from Indian and Northern Affairs in my previous post is hardly second hand.

GC said "I don't think there were any federal laws against using Native language, but it was the law that Natives had to attend residential schools, and Native languages were forbidden at these schools "

GC is correct. And as he suggested you should research for yourself. DO a search cross referencing the Indian Act with ; residiential schools, Band council, Confederacy Chiefs, sterilisation and language.

Here is a link to some text from the Indian Act - more along the lines of what you were refering to. As GC alluded to - the acts commited against the Native People may not necessarily be legislated in the act - but it was used as authority to administer them.

Indian Act - text

[NativeCharm]

Hello Everyone.

Due to the rampant success of this thread (WTG Enskat )I felt it necessary to start a new subject in the FEDERAL heading as often this thread subject went off topic and there is obviously some underlying issues to the Caledonia situtation and the average Canadian's opinion of Natives and the government debt to the Idigenous people.

Six Nations Crisis- "Canada's Pandora's Box?"

I welcome those of you with open minds to the discussion. I have invited many of my Native and Non-Native associates to participate in hopes of increasing the national awareness of Canadian Native people and gain more understanding of the opinions of other fellow Canadians.

[betsy]

Of course the "white folks" want the "RIGHT" to preserve their own culture. There are children in Holland that speak Dutch and children in France that speak French, there are children all over the world that speak their language in their country...and yet in Canada (our home and Native land) the Native peoples DO NOT have this. Our language and culture was taken from us. Banned. Outlawed. Rights? Are we really going to discuss rights again? what the colonial government has done to our people IS NOT RIGHT. They took our language, culture and customs,

This is all history...in the past...!

If we have to dig up history, then the blame cannot solely be placed on the colonials' doorstep. Your ancestors did not fight for your language and culture....and if they did, it was a fight not hard enough.

Remember what you've just replied to Kindred above, "That...my dear is your own fault for not using your voice."

Your language, culture and customs were not taken from you. Actually, by the sound of it...they've been bartered away by your ancestors through treatise and agreements.

Both sides obviously saw something beneficial and positive about it at the time hence those treatise were signed.

The colonial government and your ancestors (well-intentioned perhaps in their moves), had both unwittingly done something to your people that WAS not right.

[gc1765]

Your language, culture and customs were not taken from you.

This is exactly what the purpose of residential schools was.