Six Nations Crisis- “Canada’s Pandora’s Box?”

[jdobbin]

Thanks for your reply Tsi. I was only asking because hypothetically they could view it as being cheaper to remove us from the equation. Of course it's not possible and most certainly "may" not even be considerable. However, I'm sure they will consider every other option other than breaking the bank.

I don't know that talk of war is going to be helpful in the long run.

The Oneida in New York have taken a different stance on not harming the people of central New York and have won their case with far reaching support.

If it does come to violence, I don't think anyone can forecast what type of response might happen or if it can be controlled.

The bravado of "our warriors are better than your warriors" will mean nothing when people are dead in the streets.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

The bravado of "our warriors are better than your warriors" will mean nothing when people are dead in the streets.

It will mean that we were right and willing to die to defend our position.

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."- George Washington, First Annual Address, January 8, 1790.

Now where would George Washington get an idea like this.......after all he was a student of the Iroquois Confederacy.....

O:nen

[jdobbin]

It also means that you are willing to kill for your position.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

We would be willing to kill to defend our position. There would be no outward act of aggression on our part. We are sworn to uphold the peace. But like policeman and reservists sometimes it is necessary to remove a direct threat.

However, should military invasion be contemplated by your leaders, then they would be fair targets....and your cities and towns become the battlefields. That is what happens when one becomes the aggressor against us. We strike back with venomous tenacity.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

So basically you would kill.

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is difficult to put it back in.

And once the killing starts happening, the shock value of it is quickly lost. The well disciplined soldier on either side can justify the killing of civilians by saying that they were a threat. Then they become undisciplined.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Hey Tsi,

A couple things to ask you.

In one post above you claimed:

At my own reserve, people were banned from shopping for material goods, and food off reserve and imports into the reserve were controlled by the Indian Agent.

Yet at the same time you claim that the Six Nations are a sovereign state.

If you are sovereign and seperate from Canada, doesn't Canada have every right to prevent non-citizens from coming onto Canadian soil? If you want to be sovereign, despite any past agreements, then maybe we should cut off any money going to the Six Nations, no more tax free status, no more health care, and no more leaving your reserve onto true Canadian soil. Fair enough?

Sounds like you want your cake (sovereignty) and eat it too (tax free benefits, education, health care, roads, etc. all from a seperate nation)

Now about racism...

Years ago I was friends with a native man from somewhere near Brantford. He was living in Stratford working at a factory, and most of his friends were white people.

This guy once told me that he was no longer welcome on his reserve because he was adopted and raised by whites, and lived and worked among whites. He said he was called 'a white man in red man skin'. I know that one piece of anecdotal evidence cannot imply that natives are racist, but this anecdote certainly sounds racist to me.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Nope. We defend. The level of that defense will depend on the level of the aggression against us.

We are aware that you and the rest of Canadians are willing to kill however. Dudley George would agree with me, I'm sure. So our preparations for our defense must include the inevitiblty that killing might be necessary.

Never underestimate a Mohawk Warrior. They train US Special Forces and Navy Seals because they have an exceptional level of self-discipline. Your only fear should be for the lack of discipline your pimply-faced society misfit armed forces personel. At Oka, just the sight of a warrior had them crapping their pants. Even with only 25 warriors holding against 3000 troops we still had the misfits outnumbered.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

A military acting with restraint in a difficult situation sounds like tremendous courage actually. Acting like they had to come to fight a ground war is disengenous.

The "you'll kiss my ass and like it" is a unique style of negotiating.

Hopefully, the people actually at the table aren't thumping their chests and that a resolution that is good for all involved comes about.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Asking that all people be treated equally no matter what their ethnic background is the exact opposite of racism.

Actually it is not. The equality movement (you should already know this being a Conservative invention) was created in order to throw people of all backgrounds and origins into a melting pot of minorities (this includes women, as well). The idea was that the majority - the anglo-saxon Christian male - could over rule the petitions of the minority and when they did make amends on the basis of fairness they could say that they treated everyone "equally" merely because they address a micro-segment of the minority issues. However, true equality does not come without equity. An equality movement that is built on the rule of the majority (the majority cannot be trusted to care for the interests of the minority) without equity is actually racist and unequal.

An equitible society, however, MUST also be an equal society where justice and human rights are not controlled by the majority but but the equtible rights of the minority. Such rights when recognizing them, do not infract the rights of the majority, but in fact enhance the rights of all people, equally.

Your society is so unequal and inequitible it isn't funny. When one group - such as gays and lesbians as example - must fight the majority for their inalienable rights as human beings then there is nothing equal about it. And even though the charter guarantees Canadian rights, the approach of the majority has been for the one whose rights have been trampled on to prove that he was infringed. That is hardly a just or equal society but one that is disparagingly racist and biased.

On Freedom

And an orator said, "Speak to us of Freedom."

And he answered:

At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,

Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.

Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.

And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.

You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,

But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.

And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?

In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes.

And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free?

If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead.

You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.

And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.

For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride?

And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.

And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.

Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape.

These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling.

And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light.

And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.

The Prophet, Kahlil Gibran

[Riverwind]

An equitable society, however, MUST also be an equal society where justice and human rights are not controlled by the majority but but the equitable rights of the minority.

The problem with your definition is there is no way to decide what "equitable" rights for a minority should be. It cannot be left to the minority to decide what rights they should have because the minority would simply make up as many rights as possible to get a much benefit as possible. At some point the majority has a right to place limits on minority rights. That is why we need some fundamental principals that can be used to judge the 'fairness' of any imposition on others whether it is the majority imposing on the minority or whether it is minority imposing on the majority.

The principal that everyone should have equal rights under the law no matter what their background is one of those fundamental principles that must exist before you can have an equitable society. Most often this principal is used to defend the rights of minorities against the majority. The debate over SSM is a good example. However, this principal is also necessary to protect the rights of the majority from minorities. This side of the coin has been forgotten in the debate over aboriginal rights.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Still waiting on your answer on this one Tsi,

A couple things to ask you.

In one post above you claimed:

At my own reserve, people were banned from shopping for material goods, and food off reserve and imports into the reserve were controlled by the Indian Agent.

Yet at the same time you claim that the Six Nations are a sovereign state.

If you are sovereign and seperate from Canada, doesn't Canada have every right to prevent non-citizens from coming onto Canadian soil? If you want to be sovereign, despite any past agreements, then maybe we should cut off any money going to the Six Nations, no more tax free status, no more health care, and no more leaving your reserve onto true Canadian soil. Fair enough?

Sounds like you want your cake (sovereignty) and eat it too (tax free benefits, education, health care, roads, etc. all from a seperate nation)

Now about racism...

Years ago I was friends with a native man from somewhere near Brantford. He was living in Stratford working at a factory, and most of his friends were white people.

This guy once told me that he was no longer welcome on his reserve because he was adopted and raised by whites, and lived and worked among whites. He said he was called 'a white man in red man skin'. I know that one piece of anecdotal evidence cannot imply that natives are racist, but this anecdote certainly sounds racist to me.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

One of our largest tradiing partners has always been the British and Canadians. We buy, we grow and we sell products in exchange for other goods and services as a sovereign state. Granted sovereign states can trade with whomever they want and they are within their rights to impose trade embargos, this was a deliberate attempt to further the genocide against our people by starving them and impoverishing them until they submitted to the greedy agendas of the government. However, the act did not break us and we managed. It actually enhanced our concept of nationhood and sovereignty. Now instead of relying only upon Canada for trade goods we have diversified and enjoy trade agreements with many countries around the world.

The problem with your preposition is that the money coming into any of our territories doesn't belong to you. Canada holds a trust account worth in excess today of $30 billion the $50 or so million that Canada funnels to us doesn't even dent the interest rate on that trust. So essentially based on a minimal 5% interest the trust is growing by $100,000,000 per year (...every 7 years another $1 billion is added to the trust). Our health care, our educational funds, our infrastructure and adminstration are all paid out of the trust interest. Certainly we could take the whole $30 billion and invest it ours and divest ourselves of Canada. However, your country cannot afford a lump sum payment. They even have trouble paying us the full interest every year. You could cut us off bu not without vacating Kitchener-Waterloo and all the other occupied cities and towns in the Haldimand Tract and paying off your $30 billion debt.

The issue of taxation is a another funny but useless crack, since we don't have or need to tax our citizens. On the other hand taxation is completely your debt to yourself.

There are very few racists among Haudenosaunee. Our society is based on the principles of equtiy and equality and so it is unlikely that your friend interpreted his rejection the way you relate it. However, as onkwehon:we we are cpable of recognizing the vast difference in thinking. Your societal world view is based on violence and destruction. It is more likely that the thinking system was rejected and not the person......

__________________________________________________________________

The principal that everyone should have equal rights under the law no matter what their background is one of those fundamental principles that must exist before you can have an equitable society.

That's a good observation. However, justice in Canada isn't equitible and therefore by default you just reinforced my point that it is also inequal. There are thousands of examples - from the disproportionate populations of your prisons to the gates of Bre-ex that demonstrate just how unequally weighted your justice system is. And so your fundedmental principles of equality collapse because justice is inequitible.

At some point the majority has a right to place limits on minority rights.

That's absurd! The purpose of rights is that they are beyond control! They are guarantees that the basic human precepts will be preserved and protected inspite of the majority. And the more a society truly becomes equal and equitible by recognizing all foundational rights the more the majority begins to disappear as a source of authority. It is no wonder this concept scares you because no doubt you consider yourself as one of the majority!

O:nen

[Who's Doing What?]

Transfer Payments

Any Math wizzards care to do some figuring?

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Six Nations 2003 Annual Budget

The total transfer to Six Nations from the federal and provincial governments in 2003 was about $39,000,000

Divide that by about 22,000 residents it comes out to about $1772 for every man women child and old person, to cover health, housing, education and social services, roads, and administration. On the other hand, a medium city like Waterloo receives about $8,000 per capita in transfers.

Given that our trust fund is over $30 billion the amount is hardly equitible.

BTW the INAC budget covers programes and services that benefit INAC employees and should not be used as raw data to calculate Indian benefit. That would be like saying that if we add in the $120 billion civil service budget to the calculation for non-natives, the net benefit would be well over $400,000 per capita in government transfers....

O:nen

[Chuck U. Farlie]

A couple more questions.....

why is your website www.sixnations.ca ???? the .ca extension is for Canadian entities. Can't you come up with your own internet extension? Every other country has one.

Next, from that website:

Six Nations is the largest populated First Nation in Canada with a population of 21,875 as of December 31, 2003.

from the public report and audit pdf (provided by Tsi)

Statistics for the Welfare Department

in 2002-2003 the total caseload was 4,788;

From the same PDF:

Discretionary benefits are also provided to individuals

who qualify under the Ontario Works Act and

Regulations.

What this tells me is that 22% of your population in 2003 was on welfare (hardly self-sufficient).

It tells me you are obviously not a sovereign nation based on the language used. First Nation in Canada implies that it is part of Canada. In comparison, we do not say that Monaco is the biggest country in France because it doesn't make sense. Monaco cannot be in France, but it can be surrounded by France. Just like San Marino can be surrounded by Italy, but is not 'in' Italy - its it's own country.

Finally there is the line about those who qualify for Ontario Works... if someone can qualify for Ontario Works then they must be an Ontario citizen or a permanent resident with an address in Ontario... another example of how your claims of sovereignty are baseless.

[Canuck E Stan]

She:kon!

One of our largest tradiing partners has always been the British and Canadians. We buy, we grow and we sell products in exchange for other goods and services as a sovereign state.

Outside of cigarettes,what other products do you grow and sell to the British and Canadians?

[mister_v]

She:kon!

We would be willing to kill to defend our position. There would be no outward act of aggression on our part. We are sworn to uphold the peace. But like policeman and reservists sometimes it is necessary to remove a direct threat.

However, should military invasion be contemplated by your leaders, then they would be fair targets....and your cities and towns become the battlefields. That is what happens when one becomes the aggressor against us. We strike back with venomous tenacity.

O:nen

Well done Tsi, another example of Orwellian doublespeak. "Defending" it is not. All land surrenders in the Tract were by the book, the documents readily available for you and yours to educate yourselves.

Any acts by the Six Nations such as what is happening in Caledonia, are acts of aggression, well beyond the norms of civil disobedience. And such aggression must be met head on.

Though I think you'd rather go down in flames wrapped in the cloak of your fake sovereignty. Such is the calling card of all fanatics.

[betsy]

Now about racism...

Years ago I was friends with a native man from somewhere near Brantford. He was living in Stratford working at a factory, and most of his friends were white people.

This guy once told me that he was no longer welcome on his reserve because he was adopted and raised by whites, and lived and worked among whites. He said he was called 'a white man in red man skin'. I know that one piece of anecdotal evidence cannot imply that natives are racist, but this anecdote certainly sounds racist to me.

Well, native children being raised or fostered by non-natives have been taken....simply because they were non-natives. Her own father was dismayed and surprised when he found out that the child was taken from her foster home (for he admits that she is better off with her foster parents). She died while in the reserve. She'd been gone for several months...and yet no one reported it. It was the foster mother who raised a lot of question and pressured the agency to find her. She's been tortured. Her own mother is a suspect.

And this happened in the reserve, a population of only a few thousands.

Apparently, she's not the only one victimized by the special childcare program for natives.

[Who's Doing What?]

She:kon!

Six Nations 2003 Annual Budget

The total transfer to Six Nations from the federal and provincial governments in 2003 was about $39,000,000

Divide that by about 22,000 residents it comes out to about $1772 for every man women child and old person, to cover health, housing, education and social services, roads, and administration. On the other hand, a medium city like Waterloo receives about $8,000 per capita in transfers.

Given that our trust fund is over $30 billion the amount is hardly equitible.

BTW the INAC budget covers programes and services that benefit INAC employees and should not be used as raw data to calculate Indian benefit. That would be like saying that if we add in the $120 billion civil service budget to the calculation for non-natives, the net benefit would be well over $400,000 per capita in government transfers....

O:nen

Just a rough estimate of those numbers in the transfer payments I posted, suggests over $5 billion given to, or otherwise spent on the natives of Canada in fiscal 2005-2006.

[skyclad]

The Haldimand Tract was given by the King to J. Brant and those Brant invited to live there. The grant only gave the right to live there at the king's pleasure and subject to change. The SN did hold deed to the land. The power over the SN area was given by the crown to the Dominion of Canada by the BNA act.

The SN are not sovereign, their original homeland was Upper New York, they are immigrants here.

[daddyhominum]

Give them self government. Give them elected representatives in the Commons. Stop giving them money and grant them the right of self determination. Let them act in their own best interests.

I note that you do not call for the settlement of native land claims and other issues by negotiation but by declaring what settlement you wish Canada to impose on the aboriginal nations within Canada.

Hopefully that arises out of frustration over the 100 year plus failure of Canada to include the native peoples in the larger polity without leaving them as economically damaged as they are today.

I believe the nut of this problem is that the current, (and evolving), system of land-holding and resources management of Canada and all successful modern economies is unadaptable to the traditional, static system of land use and resource management central to traditional native culture.

Many readers will recall the book by Hernando de Soto of a few years ago entitled "The Mystery of Capital" in which the professor explains how a failure to organize a successfull system of land tenure and resource management has doomed most of the world's poor countries to continual poverty.

(Those of you unfamiliar can get a good idea of the book by reading the first chapter at:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/desoto-capital.html)

As I understand the current discussions between Canada, federal and provincial) concerning the settlement of issues between the the Crown and the tribal governments, they hinge on negotiating settlements that secure the traditional, static land tenure scheme with additional resources in cash and rights that can create an income that will support the culture for an indefinite period of time.

However, if de Soto is correct, the traditional methods of land tenure and resource management that are so central to the aboriginal position are those very methods that will guarantee poverty forever to those communities.

The setttlement that you have proposed to whitewash all native peoples into Canadians is unacceptable to natives and most Canadians who respect the cultures at risk. On the other hand, insisting on retaining land tenure and resource management in the traditional form is uneconomic in the long term and will destroy the cultures eventually.

In my opinion, discussions and negotiations must produce outcomes that are economically viable over a long term or the cultures are doomed. I believe that a new model for land tenure on reserves and corporate structure for other native-owned resource management that might include limitations on ownership to tribal members according to a geneaological registry would have the potential to bring aboriginal nations the success of the capitalistic culture that surrounds them.

Dennis

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

All land surrenders in the Tract were by the book, the documents readily available for you and yours to educate yourselves.

OH please educate me! - Professor V!!

Maybe some links to these source documents would be an excellent start....

In your online class regarding Land Claim issues will it include references and proof of payment on leases or sales of land? A basic concept in contract law is ' consideration ' - meaning, that a contract is null and void if you cannot prove you paid for the sale or lease of property.

Also, Will there be mention of the ' in trust ' monies lost through the mismanagement of The Grand River Navigation Company?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It seems that there is a great deal of confusion regarding these land claims. The thing to keep in mind is that the available documentation is very old and its authenticity is questionable in some cases. Who can say for sure what the intent was upon which the contracts were formalized so long ago. The only certain thing is that the natives were a conquered people who surrendered their land through legal means according to the victorious governments who signed into agreements with them. Now some of these claims are in dispute.

I can readily understand the sentiments of natives who believed they were wronged. They used to dominate the landscape and are now marginalized, their cultural heritage is endangered and their very languages are becoming extinct. This is the lot of the vanquished in history. This is the reality we live in. The victors write the history books, so to be fair we cannot realistically expect the authors to be portraying events in the light of the peoples who were deemed to have lost the engagement. There is no doubt in my mind that the true history of events was written to glorify the victors and demoralize what remains of the vanquished.

To come to the point, thats the way things are. When one tribe goes to battle and defeats another they take the possesions of the other in victory. This is the true heritage of the natives in North America is it not? If the dispute is about culture, then by all means apply their own cultural standards to them. If the dispute is about land, then the arguement becomes a legal one since the issue is one of property. In a legal battle both sides are required to respect the ruling of the courts. In this case of native land claims I would suggest the only proper venue is that of the Supreme Court of Canada where no appeal is possible.

Now to address the silly verbalizations of violent threats to persons in this land, I would advise folks here that any such incursions would be found to be detrimental to advancing the cause of favourable settlements in the courts for issues in dispute.

With all due respect to folks here, rights must be applicable to all citizens. Any "special rights" detract from the equitable disposition of the law and actually subvert from the inate right of a person. No citizens should have more right than another, nor should any privilege be extended to any individual that is not available to another. If our society does not support these principals it is abdicating its democratic authority over the government and in such case no longer serves the best interests of the citizens.

[scribblet]

She:kon!

Six Nations 2003 Annual Budget

Just a rough estimate of those numbers in the transfer payments I posted, suggests over $5 billion given to, or otherwise spent on the natives of Canada in fiscal 2005-2006.

According to this, it is way more than this, there was a report a few years ago pegging total payments at close to double that. Maybe someone could explain where all of that goes.

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=45684

According to the budget documents, the government spends $9.1-billion each year on programs for aboriginal people.

The additional $450-million over two years will be spent on improving "education outcomes," improving access to clean drinking water and building and renovating housing on reserves.

The budget also sets aside $2.2-billion for compensation for native people who suffered abuses in the residential-school system.

Source: Globe and Mail, Jeff Gray

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...iginal/&c=1

Federal Spending on Aboriginal People: Budget Document

The government spends approximately $9.1-billion each year to fund programs directed towards aboriginal people.

* Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provides about $6.1-billion, of which about 80 per cent is for basic, province-type services for First Nations on reserve (e.g. education, social services, income assistance), where the government has primary responsibility.

* Fifteen other federal departments and agencies, the largest of which is Health Canada, also provide about $3-billion for a wide variety of programs for First Nations on reserve, Inuit, Métis and off-reserve aboriginal people.

* Over the last five years, spending has grown by about 4.3 per cent or $350-million per year.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon! Jerry,

Did you wake up a little more groggy than usual today? Or is it just a genetic flaw?

Who can say for sure what the intent was upon which the contracts were formalized so long ago.

I suppose you don't wouldn't know any better, not having good listening skills and all. However, we have not only a precise recollection of the transaction but the intent as well, in our oral history. It has been established in your Supreme Court that our oral history has as much legitimacy as any possible written history (which has been determined by the SCC to be inherently biased on many occasions). We can tell you the intent and the nuance and disputes of every agreement ever made.

The only certain thing is that the natives were a conquered people....

This quote is about as moronic as they come. Native people were never "conquered". I suggest you ~prove~ your point, or retract it.

Native people do not have any "special" rights. We have fundemental rights that all human beings are entitled to. However, YOUR rights have been seriously restricted because the government believes that you are incapable of self-regulating yourselves. And from what I have read about your violent history, tortuous past and inhumane present generally speaking, I would tend to agree with them. Even in your latest post, given the full reign by the adminstrators to use your right to free speech and freedom of thought, you abuse it by making deliberately inciteful statements that have no basis in truth and either stem from a very ignorant and hick-like mentality or one of hate and advancement of racism. You fool no one except yourself

The rest of your post is absolute bunk.

On another note, Canada should amend the Charter to ban stupid people from the internet. They represent the worst scourge to the information superhighway since road kill became an Alberta renecks favourite delicacy......

O:nen