What do natives want?

[Riverwind]

So I hear you and this I say truly from the bottom of my heart to you..I hope if you have been treated unfairly, just as I do with the aboriginals, I hope somehow you can be fairly compensated.

This is no longer simply an issue of few cottage owners having property expropriated. The cost of compensating people for the the fair market value of the Grand River lands is in the order of a trillion dollars. A similar amount would be theoretically required to compensate the land owners in Mississauga. It is simply not possible for society to pay out those kinds of sums which leaves society with two choices. It can either screw the existing land owners or it can offer symbolic compensation to aboriginals.

I understand that you are trying to take a middle of the road position here, however, I feel that the middle of the road position has shifted over the years because the political and legal victories for aboriginals in the recent past have led to ever increasing demands on the part of aboriginals. For that reason, I feel the middle of the road position today requires that aboriginal activists be told that there is a limit and that they have no business demanding things that society cannot afford.

[Rue]

Wrong. We cross the border in an Indian "fastlane" that only needs us declare ourselves as Six Nations. We cross the border (and will continue to do so) without the need for a passport protected from harassament, or delay by Jay Treaty 1794 and every year we exercise that right by crossing the border enmasse.

Wrong again. The Jay Treaty only applies to people that can prove they have 50% aboriginal blood quantum. Anyone who shows up at the US border with a Haudenosaunne passport will be denied entry if they don't also have proof of the required blood quantum. You can play games where you issue 'passports' that the US also accepts as proof of the blood quantum, however, if a Haudenosaunne does not have the required blood quantum (as decided by the US gov't) they cannot get access.

Well again let me be my usual annoying self and say both posters have equally valid legal points and that is precisely the problem-we have two sets of conflicting laws that need to be straightened out.

I think all that is happening is we have laws and rules and some of you feel aboriginals wrongfully feel they can break them and it gives them unfair rights you do not have.

Well the thing is legally, and again you must understand this is all still to be determined by superior courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, it could very well be possible that aboriginals end up with rights

that are different then non aboriginals based on earlier legal rights that will be deemed to supercede existing laws. So please do not label it as racism. It is not based solely because they are aboriginals. If aboriginals are deemed to be exempt from certain laws or to have superceding rights it is because legally they can prove we entered into agreements with them that allowed this.

Aboriginals are merely trying to enforce legal rights as we are now.

Here is the thing. If I go up to a business-man now and say, I am taking all your land because aboriginals have a superior right to that land, yes I understand that business-man will feel it is unfair. However it would not be unfair if I properly compensated that business-man.

So what I am saying is, the busines-man gets mad at the aboriginal people for exercising their rights, when in fact his beef is with the government for not properly compensating him.

I am simplifying things but I do believe for example, with mineral rights in many areas of Northern Ontario, aboriginals were not fairly compensated and now there is a responsibility for our governments to address such legal issues.

I personally, hate the idea that aboriginals have to turn to cigarette sales or casinoes for commerce.I personally would refer they are able to engage in other businesses. But until we straighten this out,

aboriginals will try to make money no different then non natives.

I again keep steering this back to being a workable conflict.

Let me give you one simple example.

We all agree, native and non native, that we do not want the Americans or Europeans claiming Northern Canada as open to all nations of the world for exploitation.

To stop that and guarantee Canadian sovereignty over those lands, we have to establish continuous use.

So here is an example of an interest we both share. Surely we can find a method where aboriginals who are unemployed are allowed to be part of government run programs to exercise our sovereignty over the lands.

How hard would it be to employ our natives as unarmed government officials patrolling and protecting these lands?

I mean it is just one idea. But all I am saying is, we always look at our country as being in two solitudes, one native and one non native.

The fact is when Canada broke away from the US our history with natives was NOT the same. Our North West Mounted Police did not carry guns. Yes we have our legal injustice, but the fact is unlike the US much of our legal system is deeply influenced and borrows from aboriginal concepts unlike American law.

We are a nation like most other nations where movements have people come from other countries escaping famine, political violence and injustice seeking a better way of life. Most waves of immigrants who came here did not come here to intentionally commit genocide on natives.

Most Canadians want to find ways to resolve competing laws and experiences.

Now that the Catholic Chuch has diminished in influence, and our social institutions are now more open to

avoiding assuming one way of life is superior to another's there is chance for that dialogue.

There is absolutely no reason both natives and non natives can share the planet or part of it we call Canada.

The major legal conflict we see with property comes from the aboriginal concept that we all share the planet and no one owns it, with our Western based laws which define private property rights and people owning land for personal use. The two notions are different and do conflict but this does not mean they both

can't co-exist. It means finding a formula where both competing rights can exist.

Let me put it to you using a very simple analogy. The big oil companies wanted to build oil pipe-lines to send oil from Alaska down South. Building those oil pipe-lines meant cutting throug migratory patterns of

reindeer and dooming them to extinction. So the pipe-lines were built so the migratory movement could still continue and the reindeer could walk under the pipelines or over them.

How hard is it to co-exist?

I mean think about it. In the Middle East there is a hopeless conflict going on over a tiny piece of sand that is causing millions of deaths and seems to be at the centre of many terrorist attacks and our dependency on oil. It comes down to people with equal legal rights fighting over land.

What is it about humans, we prefer to kill each other or insult each other rather then simply find ways to share?

You really truly think by saying its mine mine mine that it solves anything?

Are we just children fighting over a toy?

No I refuse to believe that as a lawyer and trained to be a mediator and see both sides of this arguement equally.

Caledonia is not the start of a race war. It is simply a conflict, one of many as we try to find ways to

reconcile conflicting legal rights.

We are not destined to a war.

Bleeding heart liberals such as myself are not going anywhere and as you extremists heat up and yell at each other, we shall keep working to try find peaceful solutions.

O.k. maybe Mr. Dalton blew it on this one by being afraid to lead and take ownership and control. But believe this, what-ever way this comes out, our country will find a peaceful solution.

[skyclad]

The Jay Treaty can be repudiated tomorrow by both the Parliment and Congress if they wish

[Borg]

snip - How hard would it be to employ our natives as unarmed government officials patrolling and protecting these lands? - snip

We already do this. Only we arm them and they patrol the arctic.

They are called Rangers.

Borg

[Gayogoho]

The Jay Treaty can be repudiated tomorrow by both the Parliment and Congress if they wish

You and Riverspin continue to state this.Let me ask you what are they waiting for they have had almost 200 years why have they not done so yet?

[mister_v]

This is precisely the kind of tone in this debate that I referred to before and do not understand. This Tsi certainly does not need me defending him but lowering his comments to an insult only reinforcer his warrior stance when he communicates back with you.

Take a closer look at Tsi's postings, not only on this board but on other boards on the web (he uses the same name). The man is a native supremacist and a provocateur. He even freaks out and alienates his fellow natives with his hard core attitude. He is not deserving of any form of common decency.

You will notice that from my comment he immediately insinuated violence. A real tough guy. On another board he hinted that he and his merry band of delinquents had broken into homes in Caledonia while the owners were away.

Defend that animal if you must. But if you hop into bed with pigs, you'll end up dirty too.

Concerning the Jay Treaty, I believe that Canada does not recognize it but does permit passage across the border as an aboriginal right with some restrictions. For example, crossing from the United States into Canada is site specific, ie. the claimant must be crossing at a point for which there is evidence that the claimant's band historically would traverse that general geographical area (for Six Nations that would be in New York State).

[Riverwind]

The Jay Treaty can be repudiated tomorrow by both the Parliment and Congress if they wish

You and Riverspin continue to state this.Let me ask you what are they waiting for they have had almost 200 years why have they not done so yet?

Because the treaty does not currently undermine any US or Canadian national interests. The treaty would have been repudiated long ago if it allowed Mexican aboriginals similar access to the US.

[yam]

Rue

It is well and good you support six nations (as i do).

And you are a very considerate person.

However, in supporting the settlers also, as you claim to do for peace and to live side by side, do you not think there is a flaw in your support of anything?

in other words HOW can you support both positions when they are each at the opposite side?

Its a nihilistic position since each one seeks to eliminate the other.

To take a 'middle of the road' position is damaging. It equates in physical land claim terms to allowing only SOME fns or sns getting their land back. While for the canadian residents it implies that they will have to pay half of the trillion` dollars owed which im thinking they will still contest.

This is the nature of liberal peace`deals. They serve to keep peace for a little while but do not solve the problem. Invariably, due more often than not the unsorted problems will flair up again - dezspite whatever reformed/halved compensation either party recieved to "brush it all under the carpet' for peace sake.

[Riverwind]

To take a 'middle of the road' position is damaging. It equates in physical land claim terms to allowing only SOME fns or sns getting their land back. While for the canadian residents it implies that they will have to pay half of the trillion` dollars owed which im thinking they will still contest.

Indeed. There are times when taking a 'middle of the road' position is as useful as King Solomon's proposal to saw the baby in half. A good mediator must be willing to take sides when one side is taking a clearly absurd position.

[skyclad]

To take a 'middle of the road' position is damaging. It equates in physical land claim terms to allowing only SOME fns or sns getting their land back. While for the canadian residents it implies that they will have to pay half of the trillion` dollars owed which im thinking they will still contest.

Indeed. There are times when taking a 'middle of the road' position is as useful as King Solomon's proposal to saw the baby in half. A good mediator must be willing to take sides when one side is taking a clearly absurd position.

Some times the middle road is the only way, however Solomon had no access to conclusive evidence therefore, he choose that method. If DNA was available, the threat of sawing in half would not be necessary.

The evidence in the Claim 406/95 which pertains to the Grand River issue, it is quite specific. Hence the SN, went to Specific Claims Resolution, even there they have stalled.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Off topic a bit but your exaples prove another point I make from time to time. That even though some of you may denouce religion and Christianity as being an influence in soceity, your thinking is dominated by it. That futher suggests that the autrocities commited by the Church in the name of assimilation and integration of Native children are equally possible under the thinking of many of you that continue on in their legacy.

Someone was complaining that there is no reason you should feel guilty at the treatment of children in residential schools yet you don't even understand the reasons it happend. And by fact that you are equally as capable of attacking and harming children in the same way is evidence why you can't feel ~anything~ and can only justify the behavior out of some skewed sense of moral superiority.

Just so that you put this all in context, Christians practice ritualized cannibalism. They would be ppor examples in my opnion......

O:nen

[yam]

I still think the middle road position is damaging to everything f/ns have been fighting for. The peace that is spoken about may sound `nice but i think that in reality it becomes a measure of assimilation/even cultural genocide of f/ns. Peace=conform with government reform. it is a PC way/tactic that eventually will lead to total anihilation. Therefore sides and real stands have to be taken.

[Rue]

She:kon!

Off topic a bit but your exaples prove another point I make from time to time. That even though some of you may denouce religion and Christianity as being an influence in soceity, your thinking is dominated by it. That futher suggests that the autrocities commited by the Church in the name of assimilation and integration of Native children are equally possible under the thinking of many of you that continue on in their legacy.

Someone was complaining that there is no reason you should feel guilty at the treatment of children in residential schools yet you don't even understand the reasons it happend. And by fact that you are equally as capable of attacking and harming children in the same way is evidence why you can't feel ~anything~ and can only justify the behavior out of some skewed sense of moral superiority.

Just so that you put this all in context, Christians practice ritualized cannibalism. They would be ppor examples in my opnion......

O:nen

Tsi people will misunderestand your comment. I believe you are referring to the Catholic ritual when the Priest gives a follower what my Catholic colleagues liked to tell me were delicious wafer cookies.

I think most Christians would agree with me when I say, don't actually promote the practice of cannabilism or eat people unless of course its after a few drinks and a friendly date.

[Who's Doing What?]

This joker says Catholics practice canabalism and he says Riverwind spins tales. LMAO

Tsi, I sure hope for the Natives sake you aren't the cream of the crop.

[yam]

Yes you archaic bastids. You are and do practise cannabalism. You drink the wine believing it is blood, you eat the bread believing it is flesh. You stink believing it is holiness. You are revolting and living in the fourteenth century - grow up! The 21st century awaits you idiots.

Waiting & watching you are a redneck. You cannot spell or write a sentence. If i were you id hide in shame never mind attacking anybody - you have to be worth something to do that. Go and join the sad sheep shagger . . .he may be able to teach you how to seduce a chicken.

[yam]

i suppose you are the same . . .but just in case not 'who is doing what' to be more precise. This is the first time iv ever had a prob with names. The reason is because you are all ther same = christian rednecks!

[Who's Doing What?]

Yes you archaic bastids. You are and do practise cannabalism. You drink the wine believing it is blood, you eat the bread believing it is flesh. You stink believing it is holiness. You are revolting and living in the fourteenth century - grow up! The 21st century awaits you idiots.

Waiting & watching you are a redneck. You cannot spell or write a sentence. If i were you id hide in shame never mind attacking anybody - you have to be worth something to do that. Go and join the sad sheep shagger . . .he may be able to teach you how to seduce a chicken.

You assume I belive in that BS.

You are almost as pathetic as Tsi.

[Rue]

I believe the point was people who ridicule other peoples' faiths and traditional beliefs believing they are superior should look at the blood on their hands in the name of their God(s) before they ridicule others.

Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

[M.Dancer]

Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

Are you criticizing Native Royal Hawaiian tradition? Or ancient Egyptian Royal custom?

For shame..........

[Gayogoho]

Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

Are you criticizing Native Royal Hawaiian tradition? Or ancient Egyptian Royal custom?

For shame..........

I think he is saying incest is for shame.

Does that offend you?

[Rue]

Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

Are you criticizing Native Royal Hawaiian tradition? Or ancient Egyptian Royal custom?

For shame..........

Lol. I just watched the old movie Hawaii with Max Van Syndow last night.

[Rue]

Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

Are you criticizing Native Royal Hawaiian tradition? Or ancient Egyptian Royal custom?

For shame..........

I think he is saying incest is for shame.

Does that offend you?

..him maybe not..his sister..you never know.

[Who's Doing What?]

I believe the point was people who ridicule other peoples' faiths and traditional beliefs believing they are superior should look at the blood on their hands in the name of their God(s) before they ridicule others.

Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

I ridicule all faiths. I find all are tailor made to control the weak minded, the scared and the ignorant masses.

How much blood has been shed in the name of your god Rueful one?

[yam]

I believe the point was people who ridicule other peoples' faiths and traditional beliefs believing they are superior should look at the blood on their hands in the name of their God(s) before they ridicule others.

Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

I ridicule all faiths. I find all are tailor made to control the weak minded, the scared and the ignorant masses.

How much blood has been shed in the name of your god Rueful one?

OMG - we have found one commonality/opinion that we share. And you managed to remember to type it out - in two sentences You that hates the role of memory. . . .congratulations! one step at a time!

However, neither you or I know if Rue is religous. Somehow i doubt it.

[Who's Doing What?]

I believe the point was people who ridicule other peoples' faiths and traditional beliefs believing they are superior should look at the blood on their hands in the name of their God(s) before they ridicule others.

Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

I ridicule all faiths. I find all are tailor made to control the weak minded, the scared and the ignorant masses.

How much blood has been shed in the name of your god Rueful one?

OMG - we have found one commonality/opinion that we share. And you managed to remember to type it out - in two sentences You that hates the role of memory. . . .congratulations! one step at a time!

However, neither you or I know if Rue is religous. Somehow i doubt it.

Where did I ever say I hated the role of memory?

If you insist on fabricating things people have said, do it to someone else.

I've played broken telephone. I know how bad things can get messed up. Then there is the issue passing the knowledge. An early or untimely death can create gaps in the history. Gaps which must be filled by the next generations best guess. I believe I pointed out several areas in the bible where simple translation errors, have had dramatic impact on the story. The city of Atlantis is another mystery that wasn't as much a mystery as it was two errors in translation which in turn perpetuated a myth that had people looking from the carribean to the middle of the Pacific for a lost continent. The point is, if such errors can occur when there is already written text, how bad is it going to be when nothing has been written down?

I would say human memory is flawed, unreliable, impressionable, and easily manipulated. But I do not hate it, or it's role.

You see...

"I remember Buffalo, It would seem to me, I remember every single ******* thing I know." Tragically Hip, 100th Meridian