Jump to content

What do natives want?


Recommended Posts

Thankyou for this!

So it would seem that help is needed from the government in the protection of the sioux nations sacred mountain. Or rather, and importantly to ask the government to restrain its own biker gangs that attend biker rallies and abuse the site with sales of alcohol etc. All in all disrespecting the sacred site/mountain.

I suppose its rather like the non-native population in a particular town having a bunch of drunk bikers (the article mentioned mobile alcho stands) partying in the local graveyard - peeing against headstones and vomiting behind the church etc.

I guess we would have to lobby government if the police failed to cooperate against hooliganism and vandalisation. . . .

Still, im wondering what your major point was anyway.

Are you questioning the right for the sioux leader to do this in view of previous posts concerning the use of social services ie afterall they do not pay taxes? Or were you posting it to show the incompetancy of Indian Affairs INAC etc as a protection? Not that many would disagree with you or the artical there - For such institutions are really branches off of government rule and leadership as opposed to indigenous autonomous structures of negotiation.

Again, thanks for sending artical.

I

It is incompetency of the U.S. Indian Affairs secretary. The poorest people in all of the U.S. live in South Dakota and the poorest of the poor are Indians. It doesn't seem like much they're asking for in this case and the government is brushing them off.

I don't think that was the case when in Canada when the provinces and the federal government came to an agreement on the First Nations. Hopefully, Harper will ratify that agreement.

Yes indeed to your first point.

But what are you hoping Harper will ratify concerning all of canada's first nations?

I must say any hope in Harper doing something hopeful for f/ns is rather dubious unless you mean dissolve or re - organise the corrupt bureaus of canadian Indian Affairs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes indeed to your first point.

But what are you hoping Harper will ratify concerning all of canada's first nations?

I must say any hope in Harper doing something hopeful for f/ns is rather dubious unless you mean dissolve or re - organise the corrupt bureaus of canadian Indian Affairs

The provinces and the native groups are pressing him to carry out the agreement made by the previous Liberal government. It's a first step to be sure but one he has dragged his feet on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A casino, Ken Hill who is wanted for assault has attempted 5 years ago to set up a casino in PA. The number of native run casnios in the states is over 500

Three key protestors on the site and what near or distant relatives are up to are:

Allen NacNaughton

www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1994/sin-tax-failure4.htm

Micheal Laughing

www.iroquois.net/pages/badwater.htm

.nocasinoerie.org/other/cwi.doc

Clyde Powless

www.easterndoor.com/archives/VOL.7/7-05.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and the Haudenosaunee are a SOVEREIGN NATION because that is their lawful agreement with Canada.

Wrong.

By virtue of the wording in both the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Deed, which state that the Six Nations that are settling on the Haldimand Tract are under the protection of the Crown, the Six Nations are therefore subjects of the Crown. As a side note, the Royal Proclamation also extended the Crown's sovereignty over Indian lands.

But don't take my word for it.

Logan v. Styres, Ontario High Court 1959:

The purpose of the Simcoe Deed would seem to be to confirm the grant already made by the Haldimand Deed. In each of these deeds it is made clear that those of the Six Nations Indians settling on the lands therein described do so under the protection of the Crown. In my opinion, those of the Six Nations Indians so settling on such lands, together with their posterity, by accepting the protection of the Crown then owed allegiance to the Crown and thus became subjects of the Crown. Thus, the said Six Nations Indians from having been the faithful allies of the Crown became, instead, loyal subjects of the Crown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and the Haudenosaunee are a SOVEREIGN NATION because that is their lawful agreement with Canada.

Wrong.

By virtue of the wording in both the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Deed, which state that the Six Nations that are settling on the Haldimand Tract are under the protection of the Crown, the Six Nations are therefore subjects of the Crown. As a side note, the Royal Proclamation also extended the Crown's sovereignty over Indian lands.

But don't take my word for it.

Logan v. Styres, Ontario High Court 1959:

The purpose of the Simcoe Deed would seem to be to confirm the grant already made by the Haldimand Deed. In each of these deeds it is made clear that those of the Six Nations Indians settling on the lands therein described do so under the protection of the Crown. In my opinion, those of the Six Nations Indians so settling on such lands, together with their posterity, by accepting the protection of the Crown then owed allegiance to the Crown and thus became subjects of the Crown. Thus, the said Six Nations Indians from having been the faithful allies of the Crown became, instead, loyal subjects of the Crown.

Who are Proclamations addressed to, the Subects of the Crown or the Rotinonshonni?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed!

The whole of the above is vague as it itself stipulates/confesses within!

"The purpose of the Simcoe Deed would SEEM to BE to confirm . . . ."

Further,

"that those of the SNS settling on the lands therein described do so under the protection of the crown"

protection does not here imply 'being ruled over'. It simply implies the crown as a guarantor - by way of extension over the geography against those wishing to take the land away. It is a guarantee against appropriation.

"In MY OPINION . . ."

This is not legal and holds no validity whatsoever

As the sentence further goes on to say in the context of his opinion and deals made:-

thus they "owed allegiance to the crown and thus became subjects of the crown . . ."

Again from HIS OPINION of what he THOUGHT was APPROPRIATE, but certainly, this is NOT LEGALLY defined.

The last sentense then speaks of his opinions as a concluding fact! Quite the audacity really! Regardless, it could never stand up to scrutiny or evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed!

The whole of the above is vague as it itself stipulates/confesses within!

"The purpose of the Simcoe Deed would SEEM to BE to confirm . . . ."

Further,

"that those of the SNS settling on the lands therein described do so under the protection of the crown"

protection does not here imply 'being ruled over'. It simply implies the crown as a guarantor - by way of extension over the geography against those wishing to take the land away. It is a guarantee against appropriation.

"In MY OPINION . . ."

This is not legal and holds no validity whatsoever

As the sentence further goes on to say in the context of his opinion and deals made:-

thus they "owed allegiance to the crown and thus became subjects of the crown . . ."

Again from HIS OPINION of what he THOUGHT was APPROPRIATE, but certainly, this is NOT LEGALLY defined.

The last sentense then speaks of his opinions as a concluding fact! Quite the audacity really! Regardless, it could never stand up to scrutiny or evidence.

Twist, twist,twist! The Royal Proclamation 1763 ending French-Indian war, The Haldimand Proclamtion 1784 end of the American Revolutionary war, The Jay Treaty between the Crown and the United States 1794 end of the American Revolutionary War states three separate and sovereign peoples: It is agreed that it shall at all Times be free to His Majesty's Subjects, and to the Citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said Boundary Line. Treaty Of Ghent Nineth Article 1814 end of The War Of 1812 again three separate and sovereign peoples: The United States of America engage to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom they may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against the United States of America, their Citizens, and Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And His Britannic Majesty engages on his part to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom He may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against His Britannic Majesty and His Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly.

Subjects of the Crown? Not a chance!!! It is quite clear in the treaties following the Royal Proclamtion that we are neither Subjects of the Crown nor American Citizens!!! I keep repeating myself but, go and learn your history to understand the relationship we have always had with Europeans and has been consistantly passed down from the Crown to its Subjects and citizens. The evidence is overwhelmingly on our side!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed!

The whole of the above is vague as it itself stipulates/confesses within!

...

This is not legal and holds no validity whatsoever

...

Again from HIS OPINION of what he THOUGHT was APPROPRIATE, but certainly, this is NOT LEGALLY defined.

...

The last sentense then speaks of his opinions as a concluding fact! Quite the audacity really! Regardless, it could never stand up to scrutiny or evidence.

Your opinion is meaningless. The opinion of the court is a legal ruling based on the information at hand. This ruling has been cited in other court proceedings involving the Six Nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed!

The whole of the above is vague as it itself stipulates/confesses within!

...

This is not legal and holds no validity whatsoever

...

Again from HIS OPINION of what he THOUGHT was APPROPRIATE, but certainly, this is NOT LEGALLY defined.

...

The last sentense then speaks of his opinions as a concluding fact! Quite the audacity really! Regardless, it could never stand up to scrutiny or evidence.

Your opinion is meaningless. The opinion of the court is a legal ruling based on the information at hand. This ruling has been cited in other court proceedings involving the Six Nations.

Watch what happens this time around!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flipant, vague opinions are NOT legal.

The whole premise of the adversarial court system is to prove without doubt. The document i pulled apart is riddled with doubt and non fact. It is more of a personal epistle written to his greaty auntie Jones than written as a 'burden' of proof to a court of law. It does not meet the legal requirements for proof.

The words should speak for themselves and the words are speaking only for and about his vague opinion concerning these lands. Again he says "THE PURPOSE OF THE SIMCOE DEED WOULD SEEMS TO BE TO CONFIRM THE GRANT ALREADY MADE TO THE HALDIMAND TRACT . . . ."

The expression "seem to be . . ." does not back up 'what is'. It should either back up the treatise or not.

Besides this the orginal treatise should be enough to confirm ownership. As i understand it, it then belongs to the six nations. It does not stipulate 'stewardship of these lands by the GG' but by sNs as extended by the crown. A deal - win win scenario = SN + crown as autonomous as opposed to subjects doing the 'bidding' of the higher authority which runs into the 'care and jurisdiction' of the gg

However; six nations sovereignty was granted by the crown. They do have a 'different deal' from other Canadians under the GG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flipant, vague opinions are NOT legal.

....

However; six nations sovereignty was granted by the crown. They do have a 'different deal' from other Canadians under the GG.

Again, your opinion is meaningless. The opinion/ruling of a high court judge in a case is (and in this particular instance has been) used in other court proceedings. The court's opinion has weight, yours doesn't.

As for Six Nations sovereignty, that has been proven to not exist. Six Nations sovereignty is only in your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subjects of the Crown? Not a chance!!! It is quite clear in the treaties following the Royal Proclamtion that we are neither Subjects of the Crown nor American Citizens!!! I keep repeating myself but, go and learn your history to understand the relationship we have always had with Europeans and has been consistantly passed down from the Crown to its Subjects and citizens. The evidence is overwhelmingly on our side!

Okwaho, if First Nations are sovereign entities that exist in a more concrete form, apparantly, than Canada itself, then what is the locus of their power? Where are their constitutions? Who are the heads of state? Where are the parliaments? Where are the taxes? Where are the laws, lawyers and judges? Where are the passports? Where are they represented at the UN? Where are their military? Where are their ambassadors? Where are the embassies? Where are the trade agreements? Etc. ad infinitum... Because, it's my understanding, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that First Nations must bear passports issued by the Queen to travel beyond Canada's borders. They must adhere to the laws of the Crown, even on reserve land. They must face judges in the Queen's courts should they break those laws and be charged. They are represented in other nations by Canadian ambassadors and high commissioners, all appointed by the GG on the Queen's behalf, just like all other Canadians. They are funded by Canadian tax dollars, collected by the Crown for redistribution.

That would display to anyone with any sense that First Nations peoples are subjects of the Crown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She:kon!

All of your questions have already been answered....5 or six times already. You must have been asleep during the history lessons.

The Babino wrote:

"Okwaho, if First Nations are sovereign entities that exist in a more concrete form, apparantly, than Canada itself, then what is the locus of their power? "

The Haudenosaunee are a distinct sovereign confederacy of nations. We're not speaking for other First nations. We are empowered through us as people.

"Where are their constitutions?"

The Kayenera'ko:wa - The Great Law - our Constitution is over 1000 years old and was used as the model for the American Constitution.

Who are the heads of state?Where are the parliaments?

There are 50 Royaner positions who represent the clans of the individual nations who meet on a regular basis. Within each Nation the Royaner lead the people to consensus on every issue. The real authority is in the minds of the people who decide what is best for them. Consensus is then sought at the Confederacy Council among the nations and their suggestions are returned to the people for ratification.

"Where are the taxes? Where are the laws, lawyers and judges?"

We have no need for these things. Carefully managed our nations do not need to steal from us to support their obscessive spending habits. Outside of the Great Law which deals primarily with national issues, their is no need for prescriptive or pre-emptive laws in our society. Rather, our general belief is that people are inherently good and when they do something that cause harm, then there is a problem in their thinking. We have processe under which the individual, their families and the community will go in order to restore the good thinking. Where it is decided (on a case by case basis) some restoration is desirable, it will be factored into the result.

"Where are their ambassadors? Where are the embassies? Where are the trade agreements?"

We have trade agreements with many countries, primarily with Central and South America, as we have had for centuries - long before the Americans formed their governments. We also have nation to nation trade across the Americas. We the people are our own ambassadors. We have no need for embassies because YOU are living on OUR land.

Because, it's my understanding, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that First Nations must bear passports issued by the Queen to travel beyond Canada's borders. They must adhere to the laws of the Crown, even on reserve land. They must face judges in the Queen's courts should they break those laws and be charged. They are represented in other nations by Canadian ambassadors and high commissioners, all appointed by the GG on the Queen's behalf, just like all other Canadians. They are funded by Canadian tax dollars, collected by the Crown for redistribution.

Your understanding is wrong and it is based on the many myths Canadians tell themselves and each other. You have no basis in law or reality for those myths. Continuing to tell yourself these lies and believing them after the facts have been presented to you indicates a psychosis that you really should have a professional look into.

We are NOT subjects of the Crown and have maintained our way (dispite the armed removal of our Council in the early 1900s) of democracy for the last 1000 years. Our passports are valid in over 36 countries (there are more countries where we have not yet travelled) and they do not include the Crown's authority or insignias. They are issued by the Confederacy Council and they are identified under the Haudenosaunee Confederacy authority. That's what sovereign nations do.

BTW show me a Canadian passport that also does not bear the Crown as your sovereign ruler.......

O:nen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

diedre, I know you are wasting your time asking this question! I/we asked this in another native issues thread. Several times in fact. Actually, I just asked for the names of a few countries. My guess is you will NOT get an answer on this thread that will actually show you the 36 countries that accept such a passport. You MAY get a reference to a book but you will get nothing more (and you may also get, "I've given you the book, you go look it up!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She:kon!

That is the difference between western-anglo-european Christian worldview and my indigeneous worldview. You have to find a winner and a loser. You define yourself by it and set every interaction with the same goal.

On the other hand those of us who subscribe to an indigeneous worldview are here to discuss. We have no need in winning. We're just interested in getting to the truth.

I'm here for discussion and you'll never win a debate as long as my goals are different.

O:nen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She:kon!

That is the difference between western-anglo-european Christian worldview and my indigeneous worldview. You have to find a winner and a loser. You define yourself by it and set every interaction with the same goal.

On the other hand those of us who subscribe to an indigeneous worldview are here to discuss. We have no need in winning. We're just interested in getting to the truth.

I'm here for discussion and you'll never win a debate as long as my goals are different.

O:nen

In your indigenous worldview is presenting a statement without evidence acceptable?

Does all your oral history or statements presented without evidence considered the truth because you and you alone say it is?

Is making unsubstantiated claims to and about indigenous people or others the way your people debate issues?

Making false claims or statements seems to be personally your proudest debating attribute.

Somehow I don't think this is the aboriginal way.

"Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains."

— Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,818
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nibu
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Experienced
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Contributor
    • nibu earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...