Freedom Of Speech,An Iroquoian Tradition

[skyclad]

Elusive? no, the onus is upon you (Yam) to check the historical facts before presenting a rebuttal,

As this subject has been discussed for a lengthy time, I would suggest you review previous posts to bring youself up to date on the context relating to any conditions applied.

Oral tradition, while accepted in a court of law as a factor, is not a determining factor, but just a factor. This means the FN have to back the statements up with collaborating oral evidence that proves that the statement is correct. Oral evidence as: specific names, dates, boundaries, all of which is a central weakness of oral tradition, as it is based on generalities, and condensing of fact given by a one sided perspective.

In reality, allowing oral tradition by the SCC, makes it tougher for the FN to prove it's case. If any elder/sachem/recordholder, deviates to any degree on the trail stand, it will mean the oral tradition is suspect and no longer is acceptable as evidence. Therefore all FN defense witnesses have to repeat the oral tradition and oral evidence verbatium and exactly !! the same, otherwise it will be ruled inadmissable.

[g_bambino]

Bamboozled bambi

This type of behaviour greatly undermines your credibilty.

We are not on the Caladonia specific thread!!!

We are on the thread that engages 'Freedom of Speech, An Iroquoian Tradition!!!

Hence what i addressed in the post that you challenge IS the problem of Written history and ITS consequences to FREEDOM let alone freedom of SPEECH per se!

So when you point out to me that the Haudenosaunee tradition of protecting the truth is IRRELEVANT to what is at issue, it may be for you but not to the topic at hand!! For YOU the issue is of CALADONIA, for the thread topic it is the issue of the tradition of freedom of speech - you can see how not only have you misinterpreted my point but also the entire thread.

Don't imagine that I've been speaking to myself in a vacuum here.

As you're clearly (purposefully?) missing a lot of information, let me spell it out for you: Gay and Tsi have used the Haldimand Tract as an example of their imaginary sovereignty, which they brought up in this thread. Allow me to quote Tsi from August 28 (back on pg 3):

Six Nations is not like all other First Nations. WE are soveriegn... Our sovereignty and our governance system are intact and functioning. YOUR government recognizes both, since it is attempting to negotiate a deal for people living on the Haldimand Tract... As a separate and independent nation we are dealing with these issues pretty successfully... The fact is that we are no longer going to allow you or your Canadian rapists and developers to contaminate our land with your demon seed. And to do it we have changed the Land Claims process to what it ought to be. We take and occupy our lands and let you prove you ever had a claim to it in the first place.

And the discussion ensued from there.

So, perhaps you're the one who's misinterpreted the thread.

Now YOU are speaking of an external law to the six nations. A Canadian law belonging to the new arrivals, that was imposed years after the six nations occupation, but nonetheless imposed by the new sqatters to take ownership and title deeds away from the original occupiers of the land. An act of changing history yet again...

Wrong. The Haldimand Proclamation was a law that designated an area of the Crown's land for the Six Nations to settle on after the land they used to occupy was taken into the United States. For all your ranting about how bad some people are at interpreting history, you sure seem to have some difficulty with it yourself.

We are essentially speaking of a "con job" and lies to the six nations. Which would be proved by them SIGNING something to their disadvantage and would`NOT sign if they knew the meaning. Besides, the treaty should have been written and spoken in the Mohawk language ALSO for a start. . . .You only think this assertion is absurd because you doff ya little cap to colonialism.

Now you are guilty of creating a history based on assumption - you have no idea in what language the talks between the Six Nations chiefs and the Crown were held. Because of your pro-Native bias you automatically assume that they were the victims and the bad whiteys the victimisers. Well, that may have been the case, but you can't say anything definitively either way unless you have the proof.

Further, I don't think there's any disadvantage to a group of people being told they could settle on specially reserved land after a new government under which they did not want to live absorbed their old territory.

By the way Evidence does not lie but its misinterpretation does.

And, as I said, in the case of the Haldimand Tract, this seems to be the case - though the wording of the Proclamation it clear enough (its English isn't so archaic as to be incomprehensible), the Six Nations obviously misinterpreted the intent of the treaty in terms of sovereignty. And here's where the Caledonia situation intersects with a discussion on the writing of history. Tsi, Gay and you assert that the stupid whiteys have created a fictional history that denies Six Nations their sovereignty. But, when we look at the evidence, it's clear that sovereignty over their land was not a part of the deal between them and the Crown that saw them gain a new home along the Grand River. So, in this case, the fallibility of Six Nations history is revealed - they've willingly accepted erroneous points just to maintain a story that favours themselves; in a way that seems strangely similar to what you state the European "squatters" have done.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

....you have no idea in what language the talks between the Six Nations chiefs and the Crown were held.

That's where your whole legal argument falls apart. We not only know the language but we also know what was said. That is the beauty of oral tradition. We know exactly why certain things were agreed upon...and why many other things were not.

O:nen

[skyclad]

Joseph Brant, his followers and others of the SN whom he extended an invitation to join him, came of their freewill. Their lands after Rev war were still theirs, and lived upon. As Brant believed himself to be friend of the British, wanted to live in a British colony.

They (SN) accepted the agreement. And were aware the agreement did not allow land ownership. Which Joseph B, and his son John Brant fought later to change.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Wrong!

Brant came here because of the encroachment of the colonies on Haudenosaunee territory and the fact that anti-native Americans had begun to burn their villages. By coming up here to our north shore territory it was hoped he could secure the British commitment to prevent expansion.

The greedy British never live up to an agreement. Same thing with you greedy Canadians. However you will live up to this agreement and the resulting Proclamation. We're taking back the land one parcel at a time and there isn't a thing that you can do about....except perhaps....whine like you are now....

O:nen

[yam]

A gift is a gift. You never said in the first instance that it was conditional now you do.

The issue is not whether the land was granted to six nations - the issue is whether it was subsequently sold back to the gov't.

Yes and some of it was and as iv been following, is it not also the size of land tract allegedly sold that is in dispute? However, iv found that what was sold off in general were small portions of land and not great strips of it. These plots though were not all sold back to the government but were apparently sold off to some of the trading establishements along the River. Which accordingly gets complicated because of what and how payments were made.

RWind

There is overwhelming documented evidence that the land was, in fact, sold back to the gov't. The only way that Six Nations can claim the land today is if they can show that the people who authorized the sales were not authorized to do so. This is a difficult thing to do since much of the land was sold by Brant himself.

me

Are you certain that this evidence is overwhelming. The reason why i ask is simply due to the continual stalwarting of the process which often is linked to a problem with evidence in general.

me

Ok yes Brant. I have read that this fella was a bit of a loose canon concerning the sale of small parcels of land. . . .yet this can be/has been linked to economic pressures since owed money from leased lands was not paid. Thus he had no choice but to sell to cater for the comminity.

me

Again though, i have also read that Brant "leased' land to companies and did not sell these tracts to the government per se because he knew they were valuable and useful to sns. The reason why it was leased was because they were of benefit to the people though they were not occupying it yet. So it makes sense that he would choose to lease out land that was not being or going to be occupied for this while (I do not know how long the lease was for. I also read that when Brant and sns returned, the leasee's had sold tracts of land without permission to the government ( id assume the lease then was over a long period of time for them to feel they could get away with or forget).

me

So we are perhaps having to look up a lot of transactions with traders who leased off of sns territory as well as some of Brant's more direct transactions he may have done without the consent of the wider community. IF the trading companies or traders alone did sell some of the land to the government then one has to face the prospect that the government was involved in illegal transactions. And it is at this point something any government would not wish to be called upon. Especially if it does involve huge tracts of land.

R Wind

That said, Brant was not involved in the final 1841 transfer so there _could_ be an argument that the 6 people who authorized the transfer did so fraudulently.

me

Could be, rather should be, but will it be if it was a fraud made with the canadian government?

RWind

However, even here the Six Nation's case is far from a slam dunk and depends entirely on how the SCC would interpret various legal precedents.

The SCC upheld a land sale by the Ipperwash band in 1924 even though there was evidence that some band members opposed the sale - in other words, the SCC could decide that those 6 people did have the authority to sell the land even if the the oral tradition evidence shows some Six Nations chiefs opposed the sale.

Me

For me your last paragraph is the most worrying. It is the influence of the external law saying 'ok we acknowledge the oral tradition and will take it into consideration, but will not respect it as the system of law and order it is'. So this would complicate the whole process in a Canadian, or should i say greedy brit system. . . yet another spanner in the works. As you said even though SOME of the chiefs opposed the sale the 6 people were making, the SCC leaned to the six that MAY have been out of line. Importantly we would have to know how many opposed this because IF it was NOT a majority, the sns system (as iv read and pieced together) would go ahead based on a majority consensus (higher than 51% from my understanding of clan mother system) Verification or otherwise anybody?

RWind

In short, the Six Nations claims on the land are tenuous at best and depends on complicated legal arguments that can only be properly evaluted by judges and lawyers with expertise in these issues.

me

See this is why iv been "ranting" (not to mention that a complete philosophical tradition has been . . . ermmm "ranting")according to Spambumbino anyway, about the problems of interpretation (which he believes is irrelevent). Im hoping that at least you can see the concern here and how it can shape consequences. That was all i was originally speaking about anyway. . . though it is relevant here concerning KEY intentions

As follows:

me

evaluated by judges and lawyers with the expertise . . . The thing here is that these experts are drawn from an adversarial legal system that does not represent sns system of governance. For a TRUE fair trial it would be imperative to have clan mothers present sns with equal weighting or more in power and status. The whole process would have to be monitored because in the last instance a final decision by a judge, an external judge at that, who is importantly only hearing the case from beginning to end in one go as opposed to 100s of time over as witnessed by the oral tradition. A judges power and final decision does not have to be based on evidence simply power, status and self interest (we have had a recent occurance of that already - judge owning some of the disputed land the mind boggles).

In view of that then

me

It would seem that the evidence presented would have to be overwhelming, perhaps even more than usual to "corner" the judge out of empowered choice decision but into an honest, selfless verdict drawn from evidence. In other words to have a court filled with experts but not awarded titled experts the commoners you and I and are . . .which they extend to the sns people, are forced to assume are!!!

RWind

One final comment: the 1841 transfer explicitly excluded some lands around Brantford so Six Nations likely has a strong case for the return of those lands if those lands have been expropriated by the gov't (I am not sure because the 1841 legalese is hard to understand). However, those lands represent a small fraction of the Haldimand tract and would probably be a suitable basis for a compromise.

me

Well that's something i suppose but the negative thing here is, is that the required evidence from other sns land claims will be more than likely "moulded" upon the more clear cut evidence of this case.

[yam]

Elusive? no, the onus is upon you (Yam) to check the historical facts before presenting a rebuttal,

No it is NOT. I was presenting a hypothetical situation of IF and if only. What i replied can hardly be considered a reubuttal. In fact it was extremely polite. . . .What a waste. I wont make that error again.

Talking of polite -

Spambumbino - I am not looking to EARN credibility with you or anybody else. Keep your 'bargain bucket PC' away from me. And again whether you are speaking in a vacuum or not is of no relevance to the post topic. Which is 'Freedom of Speech, An Iroquoian Tradition'. The discussion does not have any bearing with that quote you blithely pulled from TSi Aug 8th!!

All you are doing is creating spam, spam and more spam . . .

Its ok - im sure all of your peers see you as the good little canadian boy you really are in your quest to defend "self rightousness". Afterall, this is the nature of history -just keep that ball rolling boy.

[g_bambino]

Spambumbino - I am not looking to EARN credibility with you or anybody else. Keep your 'bargain bucket PC' away from me. And again whether you are speaking in a vacuum or not is of no relevance to the post topic. Which is 'Freedom of Speech, An Iroquoian Tradition'. The discussion does not have any bearing with that quote you blithely pulled from TSi Aug 8th!!

All you are doing is creating spam, spam and more spam . . .

Its ok - im sure all of your peers see you as the good little canadian boy you really are in your quest to defend "self rightousness". Afterall, this is the nature of history -just keep that ball rolling boy.

Thanks for your time, Yam.

[yam]

Since the post is all over the place im going to add and ask about mediating roles . . . .afterall we are speaking of freedom and tradition - let alone the past

Role playing is all well and good.

However; HOW can anybody be a 'mediater' between those that want to commit cultural genocide and those that dont?

Afterall, you cannot evenly distribute genocide because it means complete anihilation.

So you need to ask what is it that you are politely supporting here - six of one and half a dozen of the other does not cut it - There are many cases of land and cultural appropriation in reality - globally.

Equality at this point in time is not symmetrical. We can only talk of symmetry when ALL stand in an equal social position concerning rights and justice. It is unfair to give the majority a head start and call it symmetrical and of equal opportunities when it is quite obvious there is a law for one group and a law for another.

I wonder what your position would be as a 'mediator' between the catholic priests and those people that endured abuse. What would you say to the abused by way of councilling or 'compensation'. How would you explain to a victim why there molester is happily still offering up hail Mary's while in all probabilities bending over yet another vitim for the count? Afterall, this is precisely what mediators do.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

We're not interested in equality per se. We need equity and that is a stumbling block for most Canadians - in fact the government has a problem with it too because it means that they MUST restore all the lost lands and repair the damge done through oppression and neglect. We are already equal but our relationship with Canada is inequitible.

Once that occurs then we'll decide if we want to continue the relationship with Canada, or choose to ally ourselves with some other country......say like any South American country that is more sympathetic towards indigeneous people. We can even look to the US for trade, independent of Canada, since I'm sure they would value the resources and goods that are produced within our territories.

O:nen

[yam]

Indeed! Equity is the key - however -

Id say this. Despite the issues that we have been debating, id hope that the six nations are sorting out something much larger outside of canada NOW (before waiting 10 yrs on some fat ol judge to make a favourable decision to himself or the others).. It is not impossible. Im sure they are. We know sns have allies that want to support each other economically outside the British and canadian context. . . .im guessing within the next ten years or so from what im reading about natural resources this will simply fall into place. Who knows - i maybe completely wrong but it is worth (for me) and much more for you - a cautious bet at least, especially when we consider geography, forget politics and focus on need! You could come up trumps! Ohhh if only we could speak freely. Nevermind common sense will suffice.

[Riverwind]

Equality at this point in time is not symmetrical. We can only talk of symmetry when ALL stand in an equal social position concerning rights and justice. It is unfair to give the majority a head start and call it symmetrical and of equal opportunities when it is quite obvious there is a law for one group and a law for another.

It is rather pointless to even use the word 'equality' if you want to twist the definition to mean 'if I like it then it is equality - if I don't like it then it is not equality'. In fact, abusing the term like that simply encourages others to adopt similar self serving definitions of equality and makes it even more difficult to build any sort of social concensus.

[jbg]

Spambumbino - I am not looking to EARN credibility with you or anybody else. Keep your 'bargain bucket PC' away from me. And again whether you are speaking in a vacuum or not is of no relevance to the post topic. Which is 'Freedom of Speech, An Iroquoian Tradition'. The discussion does not have any bearing with that quote you blithely pulled from TSi Aug 8th!!

All you are doing is creating spam, spam and more spam . . .

Its ok - im sure all of your peers see you as the good little canadian boy you really are in your quest to defend "self rightousness". Afterall, this is the nature of history -just keep that ball rolling boy.

Thanks for your time, Yam.

That was a very scholarly post you are being sarcastic about!!! Quite cerebral if I may say.

[yam]

Equality at this point in time is not symmetrical. We can only talk of symmetry when ALL stand in an equal social position concerning rights and justice. It is unfair to give the majority a head start and call it symmetrical and of equal opportunities when it is quite obvious there is a law for one group and a law for another.

It is rather pointless to even use the word 'equality' if you want to twist the definition to mean 'if I like it then it is equality - if I don't like it then it is not equality'. In fact, abusing the term like that simply encourages others to adopt similar self serving definitions of equality and makes it even more difficult to build any sort of social concensus.

Riverwind

Nobody was speaking of like/dislike. Rather we are speaking of equality. Equal opportunity and more.

Now you cannot say that for example a woman earning $7.00 an hour while doing the same job as a man that earns $12.00 an hour under the same employer, same conditions etc is Equal. What is so twisted about that is people support this and believe canada is for equality. It is not. Why pretend. Its no skin off of my nose.

Besides this canadian tradition - you have in your country those that live with equality and social consensus. This is the Clan Mother System that could work thoroughly if freed from the government. Thus canadians get to live how they like and sns do too. Now that is equality of life choices. In fact canadians could learn a lot from the clan mother system here concerning government accountability and equality.

However; if you want to haggle canadian taxation issue here dont bother there are plenty of other spaces for that. We are rather speaking/asking/or debating and learning about the Iroquois freedom of speech, equality and consensus in their tradition.

[Riverwind]

Now you cannot say that for example a woman earning $7.00 an hour while doing the same job as a man that earns $12.00 an hour under the same employer, same conditions etc is Equal.

Almost nobody would consider such a situation 'equal'. People who oppose pay equity only do so when advocates insist that someone doing a different job under different conditions deserves the same pay because some statistician decides that the jobs are somehow equivalent. If a women working as a phone operator wants the same pay as a man working as a technician in the field then she should learn to do the technicians job. If she is not allowed to do that job because of gender discrimination then she can take that issue to court - demanding that her pay as a phone operator be increased is a complete perversion of the concept of 'equity'.