Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Brad (2) One clear difference is my example was a government sanctioned and highly publicized event with a large amount of media coverage. Yes, and the other clear difference is that my THREE examples all speak to the fact you’re your people have a penchant for breaking the law, and then whining about Native rights. There is a difference using an example like that and using examples of a bunch of idiots in their private time. What is the difference? Natives are exercising their rights in the public domain, while Cauco-canadians go around breaking the law with impunity? What kind of argument is that, Mr. Spin-a-rama? There is a difference in some redneck breaking fishing laws and the government sanctioning natives to fish in an environmentally irresponsible way (those fish should have been allowed to spawn to replenish fish stocks for everyones economic benefit) What….one spoiled fish constitutes environmental waste? Listen brad, how about you come with me and take a drink straight from the Grand River. Given its current despoliation at the hands of Cauco-Canadians through the years (farmers, chemical companies etc), I’d think you’d enjoy it’s thick, rich consistency, and its lovely aroma. The issue is special privledges to native fisheries not the businesses themselves. Well, one Cauco-canadian’s “special privileges” is another Native Canadian’s constitutionally-recognized treaty rights. However, please realize that I, for one, would gladly trade back any treaty rights and benefits in exchange for the land originally agreed upon. You can take all the infrastructure, rip up the roadways, take the houses and anything else you deem “yours” as well. However, don’t come crawling back to me looking for a contract to rebuild anything. I’ll find other investors….like China! Natives are clearly given special fishing rights so Id ask why they feel like they cant compete in a fair environment. Of course your going to interpret this as arguing that natives should not have fishing businesses cause your dishonest. Funny…there are Native-owned businesses in downtown Toronto who are operating in a fair environment, or do you to just prefer to ignore them…or better yet, you had no idea these businesses even existed? I’ve seen these businesses in every major city in Canada, and they do quite fine. All you are concerned about is Canada taking away any treaty rights without giving the land back that those rights were traded for. I know that this “something for nothing” principle has long been a facet of your people, but I’m sorry, that is not how reality works. At least find comfort in the fact that neither of us are satisfied by the current arrangement. I was complaining about their special privledges and environmentally irreresponsible practises. A group that requires special privledges either cant, or refuses to compete. Probably refuses competition because they prefer the extra economic benefits. Environmentally irresponsible (that’s the proper way to spell it in your language, btw) practices?...buddy, you are setting yourself up if you want to get into that argument. If I just started on recent oil spills in Cauco-Canadian owned businesses in Alberta alone, I’d have so many fine examples that we’d have to start a separate thread. For some reason, equating one spoiled fish and neglectfully allowing for 1200 gallons of industrial waste to overflow a coffer and get into the Great Slave river just isn’t comparable. That would be akin to your earlier demand that we should thank you for raping us at residential school. And I live in BC so I know too. You live in B.C? Well, you should know better than questioning an Ontarian like myself. You know damn well that you can’t even fart without an OK from head office in Toronto. In fact, you should be thanking me for all the Ontarians that we send out there to run your government for you. Most complaints come from the unequal treatment of native and non-native fisheries. I disagree. Most complaints come from Cauco-Canadians who don’t like the fact that they don’t get their own way anymore, and that they have to put up with a Native fishing industry that was never previously allowed. One of your Chiefs put it to me this way: The white folk don’t have a problem with Natives in the fishing industry as long as the Natives are crewmen…but when the Natives start captaining boats, then the whites feel that that is just not natural. Having been on the East coast and having seen the same thing there, I’m inclined to agree with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Brad (3): Not that that excuses their actions but behaving legally, I would imagine, is tough when your way of making a living and feeding your family is taken away while another group still demands and receives extra benefits.Yes…but if it wasn’t for the manner in which the Cauco-canadians cared for the resource in the first place, then there would be enough fish to go around? Your people’s idea that natural resources are infinite is not only foolish, but irresponsible. That’s why this country ranks fourth in the world at using resources…because you think that everything grows on trees. Look at the fishers and how well they cared for the East coast fishery…and I’ll tell you that it wasn’t Native policies that made the cod disappear. And you look more like that poor native homeless man I flipped some change to on my way home than I do. And yes I know thats an absolutly ridiculous comment. I only use it to illustrate how dumb what you said is. But hey its typical of the rest of your post as well. In the grand scheme of things, I’d prefer to look like a homeless person than a serial killer, mass murderer and a rapist. That doesn’t sound too dumb to me, now does it. All 30 million people that make up the rest of Canada? I love how you criticize me for speaking for the rest of Canada and then claim you do on the grounds that a few hundred odd people came to your dinner. All I know is that I hear many people here talking about what “Canadians” feel, and it became obvious at the racist march that the “Canadians” that share your feelings happen to be entirely Cauco-Canadian, whereas the “Canadians” at the potluck were a mix of many races found in Canada. This tells me that your views represent a small portion of the population, whereas mine are far broader than I thought previously. Either way I stand by my argument that as natives continue to ask for more extravigant demands and make threats such as booting people out of their houses (as you have said) then Canadian public opinion will turn. Correction…Cauco-canadian public opinion may turn. I’d like to see a bit more representation of people of colour in your ranks before you get all “Canadian” on me. Of course, playing the race card when you don’t get your way at a strip mall because of the “nasty Koreans” doesn’t help your cause, but at least you get to feel all indignant, eh? Thats a pretty rational hypothesis. One that you have interpreted dishonestly to mean that I am somehow against natives. Buddy; you have only told me that natives need to be steamrolled into submission. You’ve offered no argument on changes to laws (unless it helps steamroll Natives), or changes to policy (unless it helps steamroll Natives), you tell me that you want negotiations when your own government tries to sell the land in question before negotiations are even complete, you expect me to thank you for allowing my ancestors to be raped as children, and to top that off, you tell me that whites breaking the law with impunity is OK, while Natives using their treaty rights are bad, and that one spoiled fish is the moral equivalent of the damage done to our lakes and rivers and our natural resources by Cauco-canadians since your ancestors first arrived. What kind of fool do you take me for? Yes cause I would call people hyphenated Canadians where exactly. You have now gone from misinterpreting to just blatantly making things up. Congratulations on becoming even more dishonest in your postings. The only person here that keeps referring to hyphenated Canadians is you. You’re damn right I’m using hyphenated-Canadians. For years I’ve heard Cauco-Canadians refer to themselves as “Canadians”, while they refer to Afro-Canadians as “Jamaicans”, and to Native Canadians as “Indians” or “first Nations”. The day I hear one of you say “Oh…did you hear about Dudley George, that poor Canadian fellow killed by the OPP at Ipperwash?” is the day I’m Canadian. Again I stress that day they did. The point I have argued is not that there isnt support for natives. In fact I have argued the exact opposite...that Canadians do support natives. I only said that public opinion will change as native demands increase and natives come across as you do in this thread, talking about "evicting" people. What…you dare call me a liar and dishonest, and then say that I preach the removal of non-Natives from the land!? Show me where –on any post I’ve made- I’ve said non-natives should be driven off the land! I have never once said that or even implied that. Now we get to see who the real liar is. In fact, you have yet to tell me what war the Indians lost that led to the surrender of Canada. What is the name of that war? Why don’t you answer me? I take the time to go through your material and answer your points, but you lie about me and refuse to answer my questions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 brad: Shocking is your complete lack of understanding that some money must go to fund bureacracy and departments that are necessary to run a country. The government doesnt transfer every dime it gets back to people. There are other expenditures such as debt payments that they have to deal with. Try factoring those in. Then again you will argue that the natives shouldnt have to pay for any of that, even though they receive benefits from it. What is your definition of freeloader? What kind of fool do you take me for? I've oft-said to those who are disturbed about Natives getting" 8 billion dollars" that the vast majority of that money goes to fund the INAC bureaucracy and pay for infratstructure, not to mention payment of municipal utilities on abutting reserve lands, like in regina and Vancouver, where reserves are in the downtown core. I've already proven your penchant for lying by showing you up on your claim that I want to drive people off the land, so I guess that you can't stop there with the lies and innuendo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 White men's jobs: Nice joke calling me the racist, when it is you who thinks he is entitled to something because of his race. It's no joke. you clearly said that my relations were doing "white men's jobs", which tells anyone with half a brain that professorships, mechanics, pilots or any other work belong's to "white men'.Hence, you are a vile, pathetic, disgusting racist. That ain't no joke, bro. I'm not laughing you freak of nature. You are the biggest Racist here Buckwheat. The fact you are apparently too self absorbed and deluded to realize it, is the biggest joke on these boards. Why don't you get a job and hire some of your unemployed relatives to help drag your communities out of poverty. I can't...because all those jobs are reserved for white men, as per your desire. Bullsh*t. Spin another lie oh scourageous one. Instead you would rather ruin other peoples lives and put other people out of work while you do some stupid terrorist activity you call a protest. Hey...the natives weren't the one's who brought the Race holy War crowd to their protest in caledonia. That was the "Canadian" contingent. However, I can't help it if hundreds of people scream about being oppressed by 15 or so people living in a muddy field. I call it overreaction, but that's the kind of thing you get when you aren't eligible for "white men's jobs". No the First Immigrants just bring the issue of race when they want to benifit from it. Pathetic. You talk about $40 million not being enough, I hear this terrorist occupation of Caledonia has already cost the Ontario govt. $25 million. Ok...How about the $140 million GRE pays to the Feds as being too much. Plus, if the government did bother to sell land that had an active land claim on it for the past 30 years, then they wouldn't of had to pay so much. Had the Crown bothered to sit down and actually solve the issues involving the Haldimand tract, then this would not have hapened in the first place, you disgusting racist trash. Maybe if your ancestors had thought of their future generations instead of getting rid of land to suit their own immediate needs you would have some land left. But hey if my great grandfather had held onto his farm in Richmond hill I would be a millionaire. My claim to that property is about as valid as your land claim. How many times do you need to be told. You are the racist. It is you who says his people deserve something because of their race. Do you put crack in yuor peace pipe or what? Because you sound like a crackhead. How about they take that money out what your reserve is supposed to get? Go ahead...they already hand out over $140 million to the Crown each year. In return, why aren't some of the drunken Cauco-canadians charged for coming onto the property and harrassing the protestors. That happens every other night now that it's colder (Apparently, the Cauco-canadians prefer drinking nightly during the warm months), you disgusting in-breed. Yes and they are one of the biggest Native employers around. Why don't we just take the company off the reserve and then all your friends can go back on the Welfare or leave the reserve to find a job. I'm and inbred? As opposed to a group of islolated people living in a small community like on a reserve? How much more land would you occupy then? Whatever land hasn't been surrendered and purchased properly, which affects a considerable area within the Haldimand tract. But I'm sure it will be phased over time. It's only when someone tries to build or alter land that is under claim do the warnings start, you retarded racist meat puppet. So you agree that you would continue and expand your militant activities anytime the govt removes one of its feeding tubes from your bloated gullet. "Retarded racists meat puppet"? You really should quit looking in the mirror when you post. You are mixing me up with you. You are nothing more than a hog that has been fattened at the Govt's teat for decades, and can find no way to satisfy the greed that has been born out of some idiotic perception that you are owed something. Funny, you appear to suck from the same teats. I guess the only difference is that it takes Natives decades before anything is done, but the Cauco-Canadians in Caledonia only needed to whine a hundred days before the province showered them with money. Oh yeah...I found out from some Caledonians that the free money even went out to people who aren't even close to DCE, and that people next to DCE didn't get a dime, while the neighbours across town took the Crown's cash. Even that the Crown couldn't get right...and you are trying to tell me that the "white mans' system" is superior, you filthy, mentally-challenged bigot. Suck from the same teats? Please, tell me where to sign up to get tax exemptions and free hunting and fishing. How about dumping millions into my community? Get off the crack. "you filthy, mentally-challenged bigot" again you are talking more about yourself than anyone else on these boards. Most people here only want EQUALITY. Cand you understand? E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y, meaning everyone is treated equal. Not where one race is given special rights and freedoms not granted to everyone. Like holy F*ck man, get a clue. You seem to take pleasure pissing people off. Good. Keep it up, because we need this whole country to get pissed off. Keep pissing Canadians off. The faster you do, the quicker you will be dealt with. No...I take pleasure pissing off vile racist scum like you. If anyone else gets pissed, then that's because of their own hang-ups, you perverse ethnocentrist. Sorry but you aren't pissing me off, with your lame excuse for an argument. Again it is you who is the racist, demanding that your race should be treated differently from all others. You seem to like the term "white-man's". Well you should, I heard it from a drunk First Immigrant racist. Infact I heard it so many times in one weekend, I got to like it. It is a First Immigrants term for anything non-First Immigrant. I think the name "white men's jobs" defines you quite wonderfully. Additionally, I also remember the Cauco-Canadians calling me a "wagon-burner", a "timber nigger", and the usual slew of rants involving umemployment and taxes, so I know you are in good company you pathetic waste of skin. So because people used rascist slurs against you in the past makes it OK for you to be a racist now? Well that about explains it all doesn't it. Your too shallow to get over it. " White-man's" schools, "white-mans" laws, "white-mans" govt. Well enjoy your "white-man's" house, and your "white-mans" computer, and your "white-mans" clothes. Can you prove to me that any of these things were created by white men? Jamaicans built my house...in fact, all the houses in the subdivision. Does that mean they aren't as good as a "white man's house".Besides, the bottom line is that all our homes are built on land the Natives exchanged for treaty rights and benefits, so I'd say things are square, you vomitous, racist slug. It is the perception of all things "white", the term european could be used just as easily, but since you want to be racist, we can use the term "white". You really are too dumb to grasp this aren't you? "vomitous, racist slug" Wow, I was called a racist by a racist. So if the racist disagrees with my point of view I guess it can't be that racist, since it conflicts with the beliefs of an obvious racist. You b*tch and moan about your lost culture and yet embrace almost everything the "white-man" has to offer. Including rape, serial killing and mass murder. No...you can have those things. I'll keep the computer, you disgusting racist vermin. Ofcousre First immigrants never killed or raped or did any of those things before the "white man" showed up in North America. You are so full of crap, I'm surprised the nurses let you out of your padded room. Typical FI attitude, take what suits you and leave the rest. Your time of picking and choosing what Canadian laws to obey is coming to an end. Enjoy it while you can. Soon you will be equal. I don't see First Immigrants hunting with 300yr old First Immigrant technology. Or living in 300yr old First Immigrant housing. So until you go back to your tipi's, long houses and stone tipped spears why don't you just quietly go away and be happy you've got what you have. Contrary to what you seem to believe it can be taken away. Gladly, as long as you keep paying your rent for Canada you wretched, decrepit racist moron. Get it through your head. You are the one saying one race is deserving of something simply because of its race. I'm saying everyone should be treated equal. Who is the racist? Hell I bet your even part white. hahahaha That's a funny thought. Don't worry there is a precident for those kind of racists. Hitler was apparently part jewish so your in elite company. Unfortunately on the wrong end of the spectrum, but in elite company all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 I'm still waiting to hear why a sovereign nation would bother to pay the Canadian government 'tax' on the cigarettes they produce and sell and why they would consent to allow a Canadian police officer to monitor their business...If you are sovereign, like you claim, then why are you being push-overs to the Canadian Government.... come on guys, stand up for yourselves. chuck...they don't consent to a mountie being stationed there, they have no choice in the matter. The Mounties play tough guy and force these demands on the company. I've explained that all earlier. I just don't get why you feel the need to promote violence as a course of action. Our first intent may be confrontational, but it is always peaceful confrontation. As far as Caledonia goes, it has been the police and certain drunken townies that started the violence. we just happened to finish it. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 I'm still waiting to hear why a sovereign nation would bother to pay the Canadian government 'tax' on the cigarettes they produce and sell and why they would consent to allow a Canadian police officer to monitor their business... If you are sovereign, like you claim, then why are you being push-overs to the Canadian Government.... come on guys, stand up for yourselves. chuck...they don't consent to a mountie being stationed there, they have no choice in the matter. The Mounties play tough guy and force these demands on the company. I've explained that all earlier. I just don't get why you feel the need to promote violence as a course of action. Our first intent may be confrontational, but it is always peaceful confrontation. As far as Caledonia goes, it has been the police and certain drunken townies that started the violence. we just happened to finish it. Sorry. Wow allowing your entire "Nation" to be told how to opperate by a foreign Govt, and even allowing some of the foreign police on your sovereign land. Sounds like the FI's only stand up when they want to make a land grab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 White mens jobs: You are the biggest Racist here Buckwheat. The fact you are apparently too self absorbed and deluded to realize it, is the biggest joke on these boards. If I’m such a joke you vile, racist in-breed, then why aren’t you ignoring me? Do you know that “buckwheat” is a term used mainly on black people? Heck…if you are looking at jokes, I’d have to say you are because you can’t even get your racial epithets right, you disgusting piece of hog vomit. Bullsh*t. Spin another lie oh scourageous one. Speaking of garnering credibility, it would help yours if you didn’t resort to using foul language in your sentences. It tells us that you’ve likely just stepped out of your trailer. Try using your Native language like I do, you pathetic racist fool. No the First Immigrants just bring the issue of race when they want to benifit from it. Pathetic. I’m not the one going on and on about special privileges based on race. That seems to be you, Brad and river. I defend treaty rights based on the rationale that we were here to greet your ancestors. We could be polka-dot and that wouldn’t change that fact you filthy racist sycophant. Maybe if your ancestors had thought of their future generations instead of getting rid of land to suit their own immediate needs you would have some land left. They did, but they didn’t think that eventual generations of Cauco-Canadians would violate the agreements. I can’t point to one treaty violation made on the part of Aboriginal people, but we don’t have enough Gigs to list the treaty violations committed by your people. But hey if my greeat grandfather had held ointo his farm in Richmond hill I would be a millionaire. My claim to that property is about as valid as you claim. What? Your Grandfather was a treaty signator? Not bloody likely, so things aren’t as you assume them to be you disgusting racist. How many times do you need to be told. You are the racist. It is you who says his people deserve something because of their race. Do you put crack in yuor peace pipe or what? Because you sound like a crackhead. Personal insults highlight a lack of ability to argue or otherwise state a case. In my case, my personal insults are specifically the result of you making overtly racist statements, so the most you can accuse me of is pissing you off, you vile bigot. Yes and they are one of the biggest Native employers around. Why don't we just take the company off the reserve and then all your friends can go back on the Welfare or leave the reserve to find a job. The company is owned by Native people from Six Nations. You are so racist that you actually thought GRE was run by whites? You are not only a filthy, disgusting bigot, but also a semi-literate retard. Oh…btw, I mean no offence to any mentally-challenged people who may be reading this. I did not mean to insult you by including you in the same company as White Mens Jobs. My apologies. I'm and inbred? If you say so. As opposed to a group of islolated people living in a small community like on a reserve? Possibly. I wouldn’t call you an isolated people though. So you agree that you would continue and expand your militant activities anytime the govt removes one of its feeding tubes from your bloated gullet. No. I would agree that we would do everything in our power to work through the system, provided you live up to your side of the agreements you disgusting piece of trash. Retarded racists meat puppet"? You really should quit looking in the mirror when you post. You are mixing me up with you. I’d have to crawl over my dying mother to do my sister before I could hope to match you on your level. Suck from the same teats? Please, tell me where to sign up to get tax exemptions and free hunting and fishing. How about dumping millions into my community? Get off the crack. "you filthy, mentally-challenged bigot" again you are talking more about yourself than anyone else on these boards. . You show me where I said anything about “native-only” jobs , or houses, or cars, or trailerparks and you can include me in your ranks, you vile racist. Most people here only want EQUALITY. Cand you understand? E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y, meaning everyone is treated equal. Not where one race is given special rights and freedoms not granted to everyone. Like holy F*ck man, get a clue. Yeah…E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y. So…where is the “White Act” that determines how you live and breathe? Why weren’t Natives allowed to vote until the 1950’s, so they could have had some input into policies and laws that impact exclusively on us? After your government set things up so the Natives were behind the eight-ball for a hundred plus years, thus allowing your people to benefit from the fat of the land, You telling me that we are equal is like challenging me to a 100-yard dash, with you having a 95-yard headstart. If we were so “equal”, then why do you refer to me as a native and not a Canadian? I doubt you’d want successive generations of your family getting raped by priests and reverends just so you could call yourselves our “equal”. Give me a break…your equality means taking away our rights and letting us remain impoverished and without access to our land, you disgusting bigot. Sorry but you aren't pissing me off, with your lame excuse for an argument. Again it is you who is the racist, demanding that your race should be treated differently from all others. Yes I am pissing you off, otherwise you’d be ignoring my lame arguments. So because people used rascist slurs against you in the past makes it OK for you to be a racist now? Well that about explains it all doesn't it. Your too shallow to get over it.. Show me one post where I make a racist statement about Cauco-canadians….just one! Until that moment, the only racist person remains you, you filthy, disgusting racist. It is the perception of all things "white" the term european could be used just as easily, but since you want to be racist, we can use the term "white". You really are too dumb to grasp this aren't you? No it couldn’t. There are black Europeans, brown Europeans, Asian Europeans, so the term “European” in now way applies solely to white people. Only a vile, filthy racist would think that way. Get it through your head. You are the one saying one race is deserving of something simply because of its race. I'm saying everyone should be treated equal. Who is the racist?. No, I’m the one saying that the people who were here since time immemorial have certain rights and restrictions not shared by newcomers like yourself. You make the claim that this is a race issue. I make the claim that this is a “who was here first” issue, you pathetic racist trash. Hell I bet your even part white. hahahaha That's a funny thought. Don't worry there is a precident for those kind of racists. Hitler was apparently part jewish so your in elite company. Unfortunately on the wrong end of the spectrum, but in elite company all the same. Wow..look at Mr. “I’m-not-a-racist” saying that I’m part white. What is it with racists like yourself? You always have to infer race, you disgusting, perverse bigot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 White mens jobs:You are the biggest Racist here Buckwheat. The fact you are apparently too self absorbed and deluded to realize it, is the biggest joke on these boards. If I’m such a joke you vile, racist in-breed, then why aren’t you ignoring me? Do you know that “buckwheat” is a term used mainly on black people? Heck…if you are looking at jokes, I’d have to say you are because you can’t even get your racial epithets right, you disgusting piece of hog vomit. Bullsh*t. Spin another lie oh scourageous one. Speaking of garnering credibility, it would help yours if you didn’t resort to using foul language in your sentences. It tells us that you’ve likely just stepped out of your trailer. Try using your Native language like I do, you pathetic racist fool. No the First Immigrants just bring the issue of race when they want to benifit from it. Pathetic. I’m not the one going on and on about special privileges based on race. That seems to be you, Brad and river. I defend treaty rights based on the rationale that we were here to greet your ancestors. We could be polka-dot and that wouldn’t change that fact you filthy racist sycophant. Maybe if your ancestors had thought of their future generations instead of getting rid of land to suit their own immediate needs you would have some land left. They did, but they didn’t think that eventual generations of Cauco-Canadians would violate the agreements. I can’t point to one treaty violation made on the part of Aboriginal people, but we don’t have enough Gigs to list the treaty violations committed by your people. But hey if my greeat grandfather had held ointo his farm in Richmond hill I would be a millionaire. My claim to that property is about as valid as you claim. What? Your Grandfather was a treaty signator? Not bloody likely, so things aren’t as you assume them to be you disgusting racist. How many times do you need to be told. You are the racist. It is you who says his people deserve something because of their race. Do you put crack in yuor peace pipe or what? Because you sound like a crackhead. Personal insults highlight a lack of ability to argue or otherwise state a case. In my case, my personal insults are specifically the result of you making overtly racist statements, so the most you can accuse me of is pissing you off, you vile bigot. Yes and they are one of the biggest Native employers around. Why don't we just take the company off the reserve and then all your friends can go back on the Welfare or leave the reserve to find a job. The company is owned by Native people from Six Nations. You are so racist that you actually thought GRE was run by whites? You are not only a filthy, disgusting bigot, but also a semi-literate retard. Oh…btw, I mean no offence to any mentally-challenged people who may be reading this. I did not mean to insult you by including you in the same company as White Mens Jobs. My apologies. I'm and inbred? If you say so. As opposed to a group of islolated people living in a small community like on a reserve? possibly. I wouldn’t call you an isolated people though. So you agree that you would continue and expand your militant activities anytime the govt removes one of its feeding tubes from your bloated gullet. No. I would agree that we would do everything in our power to work through the system, provided you live up to your side of the agreements you disgusting piece of trash. Retarded racists meat puppet"? You really should quit looking in the mirror when you post. You are mixing me up with you. I’d have to crawl over my dying mother to do my sister before I could hope to match you on your level. Suck from the same teats? Please, tell me where to sign up to get tax exemptions and free hunting and fishing. How about dumping millions into my community? Get off the crack."you filthy, mentally-challenged bigot" again you are talking more about yourself than anyone else on these boards. You show me where I said anything about “native-only” jobs , or houses, or cars, or trailerparks and you can include me in your ranks, you vile racist. Most people here only want EQUALITY. Cand you understand? E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y, meaning everyone is treated equal. Not where one race is given special rights and freedoms not granted to everyone. Like holy F*ck man, get a clue. Yeah…E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y. So…where is the “White Act” that determines how you live and breathe? Why weren’t Natives allowed to vote until the 1950’s, so they could have had some input into policies and laws that impact exclusively on us? After your government set things up so the Natives were behind the eight-ball for a hundred plus years, thus allowing your people to benefit from the fat of the land, You telling me that we are equal is like challenging me to a 100-yard dash, with you having a 95-yard headstart. If we were so “equal”, then why do you refer to me as a native and not a Canadian? I doubt you’d want successive generations of your family getting raped by priests and reverends just so you could call yourselves our “equal”. Give me a break…your equality means taking away our rights and letting us remain impoverished and without access to our land, you disgusting bigot. Sorry but you aren't pissing me off, with your lame excuse for an argument. Again it is you who is the racist, demanding that your race should be treated differently from all others. Yes I am pissing you off, otherwise you’d be ignoring my lame arguments. So because people used rascist slurs against you in the past makes it OK for you to be a racist now? Well that about explains it all doesn't it. Your too shallow to get over it. Show me one post where I make a racist statement about Cauco-canadians….just one! Until that moment, the only racist person remains you, you filthy, disgusting racist. It is the perception of all things "white" the term european could be used just as easily, but since you want to be racist, we can use the term "white". You really are too dumb to grasp this aren't you? No it couldn’t. There are black Europeans, brown Europeans, Asian Europeans, so the term “European” in now way applies solely to white people. Only a vile, filthy racist would think that way. Get it through your head. You are the one saying one race is deserving of something simply because of its race. I'm saying everyone should be treated equal. Who is the racist? No, I’m the one saying that the people who were here since time immemorial have certain rights and restrictions not shared by newcomers like yourself. You make the claim that this is a race issue. I make the claim that this is a “who was here first” issue, you pathetic racist trash. Hell I bet your even part white. hahahaha That's a funny thought. Don't worry there is a precident for those kind of racists. Hitler was apparently part jewish so your in elite company. Unfortunately on the wrong end of the spectrum, but in elite company all the same. Wow..look at Mr. “I’m-not-a-racist” saying that I’m part white. What is it with racists like yourself? You always have to infer race, you disgusting, perverse bigot. Seriously, How much Crack do you smoke in a day? You gvie me sh*t for saying words like F*ck, and Sh*t, and then you say sh*t like : you vile, racist in-breedyou disgusting piece of hog vomit. You are not only a filthy, disgusting bigot, but also a semi-literate retard. you pathetic racist fool you disgusting piece of trash you vile racist you, you filthy, disgusting racist a vile, filthy racist you pathetic racist trash you disgusting, perverse bigot LMAO You are calling me a racist when I am saying everyone should be treated equally. All that crap you posted is about yourself. You are the one claiming ownership based on race. You are the one who wants tax exempt status becasue of your race. You are the one who wants special hunting and fishing rights becasuse of your race. You are the one who thinks you are owed something because of your race. Bottom line is it is you who is racist. That must fit in nicely with your hypocracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradco Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 This will be my final post in here because talking with you is not only like beating me head against the wall but it also affirms negative sterotypes of natives that I do not wish to believe true. Im going to leave and assume you are only an exception. "Besides, creating policies that allowed for Native children to be raped for decades at residential schools, and then purposefully taking them away and scattering them across north America in adoptive homes doesn’t give me the impression that Canada is nicer." Im talking present and you bring up the past. I never denied that there haven't been regrettable policies in place in the past. Im talking about the now. These things are awful but were done well before I and most Canadians were born so your comment saying we supported them by electing that government is rubbish. I could go and look up all sorts of stuff that natives have done in the past and say you support that kind of stuff. But I wont because I refuse to debate on your level of ridiculousness. "No, you only imply it. Give me a break. Why don't you speak of Native successes? Where are those posts Mr. "Oh-I-care-about-Natives-my-heart-bleeds-for-them." Besides, I clearly explained that your country has not lived up to its treaty obligations, and the policies and laws they set (without Native input, btw) have put my people in a hole that yours never had to deal with." Native successes are implied as well. At least I think it is implied that their are of course successful native people. Do you care to argue otherwise,and be careful what it means if you argue it isnt implied. Im only making an observation that on AVERAGE natives have a lower standard of lving and lower levels of employment. That is nothing more than a statistical fact. I suggest you look up the word average. I said,""desperatly want to see natives better off and support land claims in the hopes that it might help the native populations ". I realize that there were policies that put natives at a lower starting position but there also policies now that allow them extra benefits to climb out of that hole. Some of these are warranted some less so. Your unwillignness to even recognize the facts of the preferential benefits that are in place to try to right the wrongs of the past is dishonest. "Oh, I see. I disagree with you, ergo, I'm ridiculous." Your ridiculous because you assume my beliefs align with your preconceived notions of how "white" canadians are just because I question the extent of preferential policies. "Yes, and the other clear difference is that my THREE examples all speak to the fact you’re your people have a penchant for breaking the law, and then whining about Native rights." You cant use three examples and say that that is now the entire population of 30 million. Now if we want to talk about law breaking we can bring in crime statistics. I wonder which group has the highest crime rate? "What is the difference? Natives are exercising their rights in the public domain, while Cauco-canadians go around breaking the law with impunity? What kind of argument is that, Mr. Spin-a-rama?" One is government sanctioned! Its a point I make right in that post. Since you cant comprehend the meaning Ill explain. The government is sanctioning , making legal, allowing, promoting irreresponsible behaviour. It would be like your exmaples except adding on that the government sanctioned them. "What….one spoiled fish constitutes environmental waste?" First of all it wasn't one it was numerous and their dead bodies littered the river and banks. So yes that is environmental waste and irreresponsible that is completely UNNECESSARY. It isnt waste that is a necessary byproduct of the industry rather an avoidable waste. The main issues, however, is that it was during spawning. All the environmental groups had warned of the negative effects of not letting those fish spawn but apparanetly constitutional rights include the right to fish even when doing so will have a negative effects on the stocks. The thing is if I had gone and killed one of those fish I would have been arrested yet the antives were allowed to masacre the whole river. And then after this you have the balls to argue that natives are discriminated against in fishing policies? "Funny…there are Native-owned businesses in downtown Toronto who are operating in a fair environment, or do you to just prefer to ignore them…or better yet, you had no idea these businesses even existed? I’ve seen these businesses in every major city in Canada, and they do quite fine." I dont deny their existance I am arguing about the fishing industry specifically. That I am doing so would be recognized by anyone with half a brain. Yet you choose to ignore that fact and start talking about businesses in cities that have nothing to do with fishing. "All you are concerned about is Canada taking away any treaty rights without giving the land back that those rights were traded for. I know that this “something for nothing” principle has long been a facet of your people, but I’m sorry, that is not how reality works. At least find comfort in the fact that neither of us are satisfied by the current arrangement." Really its a desire for native people to live in Canadian society alongside other Canadians acting in a fair and equitable way. I believe the native population is completely capable of doing so. Do you deny that they are? Do they need preferential rights to succeed? I argue that they dont yet I am the racist. "If I just started on recent oil spills in Cauco-Canadian owned businesses in Alberta alone, I’d have so many fine examples that we’d have to start a separate thread." You cant see the difference between intentionally being irresponsible and accidents. Obviously accidents will happen and those companies pay for clean up when it does. Intentional practises, such as fishing during spawning season, are avoidable. "You live in B.C? Well, you should know better than questioning an Ontarian like myself. You know damn well that you can’t even fart without an OK from head office in Toronto. In fact, you should be thanking me for all the Ontarians that we send out there to run your government for you." lol what? Which ontarian runs our government? I cant fart without an ok from the Head office in Toronto? You mean government in Toronto? How does the provincial goverment of Ontario have any power over me? "I disagree. Most complaints come from Cauco-Canadians who don’t like the fact that they don’t get their own way anymore" None of the complaints put to the government of BC took this as their argument. It was based on unequal and unfair rules. Im not going to deny that racism probably played apart in some peoples opinion on native fisheries but no native rights today would ever be revoked on racist arguments in this country. "Your people’s idea that natural resources are infinite is not only foolish, but irresponsible." Well I provided a good example that it is apparently not only "my people". The only ones left with these beliefs are the hardline crazy conservatives. "it wasn’t Native policies that made the cod disappear" But would native policies have been different. Doubtful. The cod fisheries was a classic tragedy of the commons example which the government didnt have the balls to regulate effectively. "In the grand scheme of things, I’d prefer to look like a homeless person than a serial killer, mass murderer and a rapist. That doesn’t sound too dumb to me, now does it." You really missed the point. The point is I dont look like a serial killer, mass murderer or a rapist just as you dont look like a homeless person. The higher percentage or likely prevalence of something in a group doesnt make everyone else automatically like that. If that were true all natives would look like they were unemployed which I hope you agree is not true. Im starting to think the problem is you just dont like "white" people. "All I know is that I hear many people here talking about what “Canadians” feel, and it became obvious at the racist march that the “Canadians” that share your feelings happen to be entirely Cauco-Canadian, whereas the “Canadians” at the potluck were a mix of many races found in Canada. This tells me that your views represent a small portion of the population, whereas mine are far broader than I thought previously." Well Id point out that you have incorrectly interpreted my views so you dont have a clue about what I believe. But I cant convince you otherwise because its easier for you to just assume falsehoods then come to grips with reality. "Correction…Cauco-canadian public opinion may turn. I’d like to see a bit more representation of people of colour in your ranks before you get all “Canadian” on me" In my ranks? There are lots of "people of colour" in all sorts of positions of power. My MP was born in China. How many non-natives have positions in native governance on reserves? The Korean strip mall to the extent that peoples leases were voided on the grounds of their race was actually the Korean owner with racist policies. Either way I never played any race card so what are you talking about? You generalize so much about "white"people. A few white people were upset that they lost their leases because of their race so Brad must also feel the same way. "Buddy; you have only told me that natives need to be steamrolled into submission." No I said if they increase their demands the government ought to say no because this country belongs to everyone. "You’ve offered no argument on changes to laws (unless it helps steamroll Natives), or changes to policy (unless it helps steamroll Natives)," Policies are already in place to help the native population and they shouldnt need anymore. If they cant do it with the hand being held out as is then there is something wrong we need to address. I for one believe they can make it without any additional preferential programs. "you tell me that you want negotiations when your own government tries to sell the land in question before negotiations are even complete" When there are natives who refuse to negotiate fairly and refuse to recognize the governments efforts to help them then what can the government do? In negotiation, unfortunatly, it is necessary to show your power if the other side refuses to recognize it. That just the way things are. "you expect me to thank you for allowing my ancestors to be raped as children" Yes because I said that. Dont be stupid. "and to top that off, you tell me that whites breaking the law with impunity is OK, while Natives using their treaty rights are bad" I didnt say that their breaking the law was alright but of course Id expect no other comment from you as you have proven yourself to be utterly dishonest. Please see my point above on the difference between illegal/irreposible behaviour and that behaviour being encouraged by the government. "and that one spoiled fish is the moral equivalent of the damage done to our lakes and rivers and our natural resources by Cauco-canadians since your ancestors first arrived." No. Polution is an evil of industrialization for an increase in standard of living. It is different when the pollution or waste is completely avoidable. You have no problem with enjoying the benefits of industrialization that the "evil white man" brought though. "The day I hear one of you say “Oh…did you hear about Dudley George, that poor Canadian fellow killed by the OPP at Ipperwash?” is the day I’m Canadian." I thought you didnt want to be Canadian? "say that I preach the removal of non-Natives from the land" I apologize for this it was actually Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne' who said it and you responded to a post that I made in reply to his comments. My bad. Doesnt refute the fact that you dishoenstly interpret everything I say. Its either you do it dishoenstly or lack the intelligence to understand it properly. Take your pick which it is. Good day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Response to Brad's very last post on this thread ever: This will be my final post in here because talking with you is not only like beating me head against the wall but it also affirms negative sterotypes of natives that I do not wish to believe true. Im going to leave and assume you are only an exception. Look, Brad, you come up with this “we won, so you do as we say” crap that has no basis in reality, other than to indicate that Cauco-Canadians should be thanked for not steamrolling natives into abject submission. You have no clue as to history, and make judgements on that clueless base. Feed me crap, and I’ll give it right back. Additionally, what war were we beaten in the led to the surrender of Canada? You implied that we lost, so what war is it, or is that baseless imagination at work too? You are non-plussed because I resort to historical facts and current realities that render your arguments as baseless and feeble, and that upsets you. Well, that’s your problem. You are not an exception in any way, other than the type of person that I constantly run into online who thinks that the world owes white people a debt of gratitude, and when I say who do we thank for getting raped, then you get upset because you forgot that was part of your legacy, as much as building roads are. Im talking present and you bring up the past. I never denied that there haven't been regrettable policies in place in the past. Im talking about the now. OK Brad…let’s talk about the now. What do you think happens to people who were raped as kids? If they don’t kill themselves, then the chances that they do the same thing to their kids or other’s kids increases. The victims in turn become abusers, and this goes on and on and on because of the policies the Crown sets for Natives. That means that, although great,great,great grandpa was raped by a priest, the ongoing effect means that people in the current generation are negatively impacted by their predecessor. Hence, I’m left to deal with the detritus of a circumstance that occurred long ago, and still reverberates in my community, while you try to tell me to forget about it and thank you. Do you see my point? These things are awful but were done well before I and most Canadians were born so your comment saying we supported them by electing that government is rubbish. I could go and look up all sorts of stuff that natives have done in the past and say you support that kind of stuff. But I wont because I refuse to debate on your level of ridiculousness. Then go look for stuff Natives did in the past. Show me where we subjected your people to untold abuse as a matter of policy, and don’t bring up wartime stuff because things that occur in war are the result of reactions. No, I’m talking peacetime. Secondly, why do you feel that I need an Indian Act to abide by? That is in the past too, but it is still very much in the books. Therefore, this crap about “talking about the here and now” is yet another attempt to ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room. Native successes are implied as well. At least I think it is implied that their are of course successful native people. Do you care to argue otherwise,and be careful what it means if you argue it isnt implied. Im only making an observation that on AVERAGE natives have a lower standard of lving and lower levels of employment. Brad….you did not make your statement that way when you first posted it. In fact, this is how you put it: “Really what the natives have in their favour is public opinion. It is a black mark on our country to have a group, on average, completely unable to rescue itself from poverty despite the extra help already provided. I think most Canadians desperatly want to see natives better off and support land claims in the hopes that it might help the native populations and remove this blackmark on Canada.” Boy…you say we are incapable, and then want to help us, instead of being considered an equal. Why don’t you consider us equals Brad? Here, let me refresh your memory with your own words: "I wonder if they would be singing the same tune if we cut them off from all the benefits of being Canadian and all the extra goodies we give out to the native population." Or this one: "I think being the victorious power over a conquered group actually gives us the upper hand in negotiation. We dont really have to negotiate anything. Its only because of our benevolence that anything goes the other way." Victorious? What war Brad? I’ve asked and asked and asked, and yet you’ve said nothing except to confer “victory” on yourself. Even later in your recent post, you say this: No I said if they increase their demands the government ought to say no because this country belongs to everyone. How can you say that now when we were a conquered people only a few pages ago? You flit from position to position faster than George Michael looking for the men’s room. No Brad…It doesn’t appear that I’m the problem. The problem is you don’t know what you are talking about, or that your history comes from cowboy movies. I’m not responding to the rest of this post because it is another fine example of useless and repetitive hyperbole. Good riddance. Next time you want to match wits with me, remember to bring your brains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Good riddance. Next time you want to match wits with me, remember to bring your brains. You mean leave his brain at the door because your illogical hate filled arguments are childish and groundless. Wits? What wits do you speak of? Surely not yours? I would think someone with such a limited supply as you, would want to hold onto them and not risk them in a battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 White mens jobs: Here is a sampling of what I said (taken from your own post): you vile, racist in-breed you disgusting piece of hog vomit. You are not only a filthy, disgusting bigot, but also a semi-literate retard. you pathetic racist fool you disgusting piece of trash you vile racist you, you filthy, disgusting racist a vile, filthy racist you pathetic racist trash you disgusting, perverse bigot I freely admit that I wrote this. I was writing replies to White Men's jobs aka Who's doing what White mens Jobs (aka Who's doing what) has written this: Hell I bet your even part white. It is the perception of all things "white", the term european could be used just as easily, First Immigrants just bring the issue of race when they want to benifit from it. You are the biggest Racist here Buckwheat. question is what the f*ck are these supposed proud First Immigrants who want to protect their culture and whatever other bullshit you want to throw in there, doing working a "white-mans" job? Why did they bother with getting a "white-man's" education? Well enjoy your "white-man's" house, and your "white-mans" computer, and your "white-mans" clothes You b*tch go back to your tipi's, long houses and stone tipped spears why don't you From my perspective, I see nothing in my words that insults or belittles anyone's race. The only thing that has anything even remotely to do with race is the term "racist". However, reviewing White mens' jobs quips gives us a clear indication of how he regards Native Canadians. Does anyone disagree? River? Brad? (oops...brad got mad and left) Chuck? Scriblett? anyone? P.S. does anyone know what a first Immigrant is? That is new to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 White mens jobs:Here is a sampling of what I said (taken from your own post): you vile, racist in-breed you disgusting piece of hog vomit. You are not only a filthy, disgusting bigot, but also a semi-literate retard. you pathetic racist fool you disgusting piece of trash you vile racist you, you filthy, disgusting racist a vile, filthy racist you pathetic racist trash you disgusting, perverse bigot I freely admit that I wrote this. I was writing replies to White Men's jobs aka Who's doing what White mens Jobs (aka Who's doing what) has written this: Hell I bet your even part white. It is the perception of all things "white", the term european could be used just as easily, First Immigrants just bring the issue of race when they want to benifit from it. You are the biggest Racist here Buckwheat. question is what the f*ck are these supposed proud First Immigrants who want to protect their culture and whatever other bullshit you want to throw in there, doing working a "white-mans" job? Why did they bother with getting a "white-man's" education? Well enjoy your "white-man's" house, and your "white-mans" computer, and your "white-mans" clothes You b*tch go back to your tipi's, long houses and stone tipped spears why don't you From my perspective, I see nothing in my words that insults or belittles anyone's race. The only thing that has anything even remotely to do with race is the term "racist". However, reviewing White mens' jobs quips gives us a clear indication of how he regards Native Canadians. Does anyone disagree? River? Brad? (oops...brad got mad and left) Chuck? Scriblett? anyone? Like any good crack addict you missed the fact that the term "white-man's" is a First Immigrant term. It comes from your people. For you to turn it around and now say it is racist only proves my point that it is you who are racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Does anyone disagree? River? Brad? (oops...brad got mad and left) Chuck? Scriblett? anyone?I have been skipping over the exchanges because the amount of trash talk made it next to impossible to find any intelligent discourse (assuming there was any). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Does anyone disagree? River? Brad? (oops...brad got mad and left) Chuck? Scriblett? anyone?I have been skipping over the exchanges because the amount of trash talk made it next to impossible to find any intelligent discourse (assuming there was any). Well, the important thing is that Truth and Justice are still standing rock solid, while baseless invective has begun to decline...and in at least one case, leave altogether. On the positive side River, at least you're coherent. Still tiresome, but at least coherent. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Does anyone disagree? River? Brad? (oops...brad got mad and left) Chuck? Scriblett? anyone?I have been skipping over the exchanges because the amount of trash talk made it next to impossible to find any intelligent discourse (assuming there was any). Well, the important thing is that Truth and Justice are still standing rock solid, while baseless invective has begun to decline...and in at least one case, leave altogether. On the positive side River, at least you're coherent. Still tiresome, but at least coherent. You're welcome. WTF would you know about "Truth and Justice"? As Bradco pointed out you just fabricate Bullsh*t to suit your needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Yup the bad thing about all of this is that ALL of us are having to pay for mistakes that were made 50-400 yrs. ago. As far as I'm concerned everyone back then was a bunch of retards. Those treaties and incompentant fools back in the day have caused one hell of a mess. The people of Canada having to pay 9 billion dollars to Department of Indian affairs and the large amount of those on reserves living in squalor, both suck. This is nothing but a hindrance on the economy, 9 billion dollars that could be spend on something constructive to all canadians and a large workforce that is unused, wasteful. Yes, the land was expropriated, but we also live in the greatest country in the world because of it (the land should only have been expropriated and they should have had a crack at the 1/4 section like everyone else and a cheque to go with it, that's it, no residential schools, no b.s., and NO TREATY, just left as they were to do what they wanted with it, but hey the government flubbed that one, I can dream can't I?) and no, I don't approve of what happened in the residential schools and the rasict policies of previous governments, the country as a whole has suffered because of it. Nobody in our society today should be held accountable because of the utter stupidity of people 100 yrs. ago. That being said a person is going to have a hard time going forward if they keep looking back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Yup the bad thing about all of this is that ALL of us are having to pay for mistakes that were made 50-400 yrs. ago. As far as I'm concerned everyone back then was a bunch of retards. Those treaties and incompentant fools back in the day have caused one hell of a mess. The people of Canada having to pay 9 billion dollars to Department of Indian affairs and the large amount of those on reserves living in squalor, both suck. This is nothing but a hindrance on the economy, 9 billion dollars that could be spend on something constructive to all canadians and a large workforce that is unused, wasteful. Yes, the land was expropriated, but we also live in the greatest country in the world because of it (the land should only have been expropriated and they should have had a crack at the 1/4 section like everyone else and a cheque to go with it, that's it, no residential schools, no b.s., and NO TREATY, just left as they were to do what they wanted with it, but hey the government flubbed that one, I can dream can't I?) and no, I don't approve of what happened in the residential schools and the rasict policies of previous governments, the country as a whole has suffered because of it. Nobody in our society today should be held accountable because of the utter stupidity of people 100 yrs. ago. That being said a person is going to have a hard time going forward if they keep looking back. Blue: Thanks for providing a breath of fresh air on this thread. Although I may not agree entirely with what you say, you're one of the first people to come here and not spout off about how Natives were beaten (in some non-existent war) or that we need to thank Cauco-Canadians for "everything they've given us" or whine about taxes or lack thereof. That is appreciated. I would prefer to see a form of sovreignty association vaguely similar to what the last PQ government was proposing, but for Aboriginal people. I know that there is much that all Canadians can offer each other, and this has contributed to Canadian success over the years. My main opposition is the idea that Canada "gives" natives people anything. Everything we are "given" has been paid for (many times over) through trading the land. However, when the treaties were signed, those negotiations focussed exclusively on the land and the rights and benefits accruing from it in perpetuity. THe right to govern ourselves, and to determine who is a member of our Nation was never signed away, nor discussed. That is all after-the-fact legislation incorporated into the Indian Act. Secondly, when I talk sovereignty, I'm not talking about creating a series of independant mini-states across Canada. Although the first thing you hear from some people is that "Native land" will turn into a refuge for criminals and a base for other criminal activity, put the shoe on the other foot and think that Natives don't want that either. We don't want hordes of criminals running onto our land to escape Canadian law, and criminal activity would be curtailed by our own police forces (one of the normal duties of a warrior). these police can train alongside non-native police forces, and I don't believe that the laws will differ as much as people believe they would. Likewise, we don't want to see criminals from our communities escape justice by running to the nearest city, just as you would prefer not to see them there, hiding from the law. The main problem is that the Canadian ethos seems to demand that Cauco-canadian intervention is needed at every level, instead of actually asking the native people if any assistance is desired. Once that bugaboo is overcome, then we can rise or fall on our own volition. Removal of the Indian Act is pertinent. The Indian Act violates many native laws. For instance, under the Act, I'm allowed to hunt anywhere within a vast treaty area with no restriction. However, under traditional law, I am only allowed to hunt within my family grounds (about 300 to 400 sq. miles), and I'm responsible for the maintenance of that area. I cannot hunt anywhere else without the express permission of an adjoining family, and I certainly couldn't hunt on another Nation's territory without the same permission. However, the Indian Act violates that, and leaves Natives powerless to punish their people who take too much, or are wasteful. Additionally, I'd want to see land management changed. The European manner of creating square townships might work wonderfully on flat land, but nature does not operate according to large squares. Watersheds are crucial, and boundaries created should follow watershed lines for ease of land management. However, following the European model of putting boundaries down the middle of bodies of water is senseless in this land. That is why Ottawa gets to drink Hull's dung, and Toronto gets to draw water from the filthy effluent the Yankess put into the Niagara river. Land management based on watershed may not look neat on a map, but it would serve to better manage what goes in the water, where the sources are, and force accountability on the local population. I'd like to go on, but my kid needs my computer. Later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 I would prefer to see a form of sovereignty association vaguely similar to what the last PQ government was proposing, but for Aboriginal people.When the PQ talks about sovereignty association they bend over backwards to explain how they want to build a multi-cultural french speaking nation. Any Canadian that moves into the territory of 'soveriegn' Quebec would have all of the rights of someone who was born and raised in Quebec after living there for only a few months. There would be no test of ancestry nor even a test of their ability to speak french although they would be expected to send their kids to french schools.Aboriginal sovereignty is nothing like that. Aboriginal groups are demanding sovereignty over territory and fully intended to deny basic democratic rights to people that happen to live on that territory if they don't meet the citizenship requirements for the aboriginal nation in question. You can correctly argue that this is no different than what countries like Japan and China already do, however, I do not believe that model is an acceptable model for the multi-ethnic democratic society that already exists on this continent. Additionally, I'd want to see land management changed. The European manner of creating square townships might work wonderfully on flat land, but nature does not operate according to large squares. Watersheds are crucial, and boundaries created should follow watershed lines for ease of land management.Your arguments make sense but I would also argue that all people living within a watershed should have a say in how those resources are managed. Therefore, handing management of a watershed to a small group of people identified by their ancestry is not an acceptable solution unless that small group of people also happens to be the only people living in the watershed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 River: Aboriginal sovereignty is nothing like that. Aboriginal groups are demanding sovereignty over territory and fully intended to deny basic democratic rights to people that happen to live on that territory if they don't meet the citizenship requirements for the aboriginal nation in question. River, don't lump me in with other Native "sovreignists". I want to see a sovreign association similar to Quebec's plan. As far as democratic rights are concerned, you could very well be right. I prefer the Confederacy model, where everyone was taken in as an Onkwehonwe regardless of skin colour, and everyone was able to participate in the body politic. Unlike other natives, I have no problem adopting any people from anywhere who wish to become part of the Confederacy. That is a historical norm. The Confederacy long adopted white and Black people...and many rose to positions of prominence, which was absolutely not the case in their's neighbour's society, where women weren't allowed to vote, and black people were slaves. New confederacy members would sit with the clan that adopted them. They would select clan mothers whose role would be to condole the Clan Chiefs. Any citizen can approach their clan mother and tell them their concerns, or complain about an impotent clan Chief. If an adoptee is communally noted for being a kind and thoughful person, they could themselves assume the roles of clan mothers or clan Chiefs. In this case, majority rules becomes moot as the clan mothers are forced to accept the will of the majority, or they are removed themselves. Geez....canada could learn something from this. ..and the funny thing is that there would be no voting. None at all. no votes for candidates. No ideology to wave like a flag. No democracy as you thinly define it. But all would have a voice, all could become leaders, and all would be responsible to the community they serve. Irresponsible leaders would be removed by the clan mothers, and another put in their place. If that is such a bad system (and unfortunately I'm not going into greater detail to save time), then i'm sorry that it doesn't match the current greek-originated system that you prefer. You can correctly argue that this is no different than what countries like Japan and China already do, however, I do not believe that model is an acceptable model for the multi-ethnic democratic society that already exists on this continent. This point becomes rather moot considering my take on things. I would like to point out that, having increased our numbers substantially, we would institute our own tax system and not worry about transfer payments and the like. You and the rest of Canada can keep your money. Although it would be funny (haha) talking about Cauco-Iroquois, or Afro-Iroquois, and Sino-Iroquois. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 River: Your arguments make sense but I would also argue that all people living within a watershed should have a say in how those resources are managed. Therefore, handing management of a watershed to a small group of people identified by their ancestry is not an acceptable solution unless that small group of people also happens to be the only people living in the watershed. Again, this point is moot too, if people decide to accept citizenship in an Aboriginal Nation. the important thing is that we would all have to live by the same laws, and the unique point is that the people themselves would define those laws. Language issues would also be moot. The Confederacy brought together Nations with different languages anyway, so we would still use a common language for business, and use whatever language we want at home or in the communities. I'd even suggest english as the common language because it is already. But no one would be forced to adhere to a particular language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 River: On a related note, I found a reference to the time back in 1924 when the Feds and Mounties came onto Six Nations and dissolved the Confederacy government and insituted their own. You will find this historical tidbit of interest. This comes from A.C. Parkers The Constitution Of The Five Nations or The Iroquios Book Of The Great Law. , and it is the minutes recorded by Hereditary Coucil Secretary Arthur Anderson .Mohawk they are kept in part from Oct 7, 1924 - Feb 4 1941 (The editor's footnotes are included to provide some insight into that time.) Agricultural Hall (3) Oct 7th 1924 General Council of the Chiefs of the Six Nations was held at the Agrl Hall, the Council House being under repairs, opened in due form by Chief Ger. Davis one of the Fire Keepers. Present Col.CE Morgan Supt. (Indian Agent) Mr HM Hill Clerk Indian Office Chief JC Hill Acting Speaker Chief C Garlow Deputy Speaker DS Hill Secretary and 19 Chiefs with about a score of RCMP accompanying Agent Morgan. The Agent read a lengthy proclamation desolving the Six Nations Council of Chiefs and appointing a day for an election day under a clause of the Indian Act. (1) Re late Wm Johnson's estate The secretary read letter from the Indian Office,brantford, notifying the chiefs of its disapproval of a decision in reference to the disposition of the estate. The Council re-affirmed its decision of 2nd Sept last and instructed the Secretary to make out a full report giving reasons upon which the Chiefs decided to dispose of the property. (4) The Council decided to approve of a Lease entered into between Jacob Lewis and Ellen Jamieson Lessors and Sahag Balia Lessee of the 5 1/2 Lot,No. 29. Con 1 Tuscarora, for 5 years, rent payable in advance. Mrs. Susan Hill's application for the gaurdianship of the infant children of Ida Gibson, deceased so that she may recieve the rents from the property of the orphan children for their benefit. The Council decided to appoint the grandmother Susan Hill, gaurdian of the infant children of Ida Gibson. Mrs Wm Maracle, widow, to be notified to pay Mrs.Nicholas Maracle with-in 30 days, otherwise the estate will be held liable according to a former decision and agreement entered into by her husband Wm Maracle, deceased. Re Alex. Joseph loan The Council decided to procure a full statement of the loan from the Indian Office in reference to the loans of Joseph and Wilson Butler for consideration at the next General Council. The Quit Claim of Chas Green was held over for further consideration. (5) The account of H Percy Green $44.76 for extras on his contract repairing the Doctor's Stables was ordered paid. The Account of Harry Martin $4.00 for putting down a drain from the conductors on the Council House,passed. The Council decided to pass the account of the Secretary for services for two years at $500.00 per annum as agreed upon at the time of his engagement in October 1922. In the meantime the Council's Treasurer, Chief Chancy garlow to advance him what money he may have to be refunded by the Secretary when the Dpartment issue a cheque in his favor, as the Chiefs fullt understand that the Secretary cannot carry on without some advance. Repairs to No 9 School The Council decided to instruct the Inspector of Works to make an inspection and if found necessary to have repairs made at once. Will of the late Peter Newhouse The Council reaffirmed its former decision in approving the Will. The Council Then adjourned to the 21st inst at the UCL House (2) at 10 AM. DS Hill Secy. (6) Editors Footnotes (1)--- Although their council had just been dissolved by superintendent Morgan's reading of the proclamation the Chiefs took no notice and continued session. Not only did they continue regular business (approvals of a lease to a non-indian, a gaurdianship, an estate settlement, and payment of bills, as well as an order for possible school repairs), they also decided to request the Indian Office for information on loans by two Band members.All this activity was now beyond their authority, that had passed into history.However, the new situation was soon manifest as is reflected in the minutes. Council business quickly shifts from that of a government tending its jurisdiction, to one occupied with little else than matters addressing its reinstatement ; petitions, delegations, lawyers. After 67 years and a complete replacement of individuals, regular Councils continue. Community guidelines on matters of the day are printed in the reserve newspaper, native rights and interests at both Six Nations and other iroquios territories are monitored; the Chiefs remain as a shadow government which will not be ignored. A committee established to evaluate community opinion regarding the re-establishment of local control of elementary education recently announced that its final recommendations will "be submitted to both Councils at Six Nations"; this is new behaviour. The 1990 crisis among the Kanesatake Mohawks at Oka Quebec promoted a request for the Chiefs intervention from Canadian Government officials. This was significant to the Chiefs faction which saw it as an important recognition of their system's survival and authority. Under the six-year leadership of Chief Councillor Wm Montour (resigned three months before the end of his third two-year term,Septmember 9 1991) efforts at reconciliation were made by the elected council. The Chiefs, however, interpreting various recent signals and approaches to them, anticipate an imminent restoration and an end to the imposed elected system. (2) UCL House = Upper Cayuga Longhouse also known as " Sour Springs Longhouse" (see January 20, 1925) (3) This was also the date of the first Indian Act election at Six Nations, protested further in the entry. (4) Two in a succession of attorneys retained by the Chiefs. Also mentioned are J R O Johnson and George Decker (an American who worked with the New York State Iroquios); contact with a Wm Johnson in England is also recorded. (5) In my files is the record of a late 19th Century introduction by the Chiefs of dog licensing,no longer in effect.The Chiefs appear to have accepted the concept of raising money in the community through direct and indirect taxation.It would be informative to review the pre-1924 Minute books to determine to what degree this subject, now taboo at Six Nations, had been advocated and applied.Weaver has interesting material on the degree to which council (by then predominantly Christian) was willing to integrate the Reserve into the Canadian system: The Conservative Party under Sir John A. Macdonald gave indians the right to vote in federal elections in 1885. Although council officially urged residents not to exercise their franchise, individual chiefs of the upper tribes (Mohawk,Oneida,Tuscarora) became heavily involved in local campaining....In 1898 when the liberals withdrew the franchise,because the indians had supported the Conservative party, the council unsuccessfully petitioned to have it returned (sally Weaver: Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario" ,p 532 IN Handbook of North American Indians, Vol, 15, 1978,pp 525-536: WGS). A Photo of a 1920's Tax certificate issued by the Six Nations Confederacy (NY) can be seen on page 75 of The Iroquios and The New deal, L M Hauptman,1981. (6) The Position of Permanent Speaker was created by the Chiefs in 1858,it was not established in the Constitution(p33.section 14); with their removal from authority the role lapsed. The first incumbent was Chief John Smoke Johnson, grandfather of poet E Pauline Johnson. The deputy Speaker appeared in the 1870's and, following proper Iroquios reciprocal ceremonial form, was usually from the side of Council opposite the speaker. The first Secretary (1880-1915) was Chief Josiah Hill (a nanticoke) (Weaver, p 528, 533) The absent Speaker in the minutes was Cayuga Chief, Deskahe (Levi General) who was with lawyer Decker in Geneva, Switzerland attempting to lobby the League Of Nations against the anticipated coup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temagami Scourge Posted October 27, 2006 Report Share Posted October 27, 2006 Does anyone remember the very first post of Scriblett's? The one that started this thread about the NewYorkcrimwatch site, and how it linked natives to all manner of criminality? Well, it has since come to light that it was a non-Native person owning and operating the site, and the site is now defunct. why? Because of this: http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/documents/GRE.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 River, don't lump me in with other Native "sovreignists". I want to see a sovreign association similar to Quebec's plan.I am not ideologically opposed to some sort of sovereignty association for aboriginal groups, however, the devil (as always) is in the detail.For starters we would need to agree on some basic assumptions: 1) Aboriginals would still be Canadian citizens and would be entitled to all of the rights and privileges thereof; 2) Canadian law would still apply subject to whatever division of powers is negotiated (i.e. the RCMP would be entitled to enter aboriginal territory and arrest people who are accused of breaking federal laws without the need to resort to some extradition process). The exact set of federal laws that would apply would have to be determined during negotiations; 3) There would be freedom of trade and movement to and from these territories and the rest of Canada. This implies a common framework for business regulations. If you don't agree with the above then I don't think your wishes are realistic for various economic and political reasons. Assuming that we agree on the basic framework then real issue is how to reconcile aboriginal sovereignty with the principal that everyone should have a say in a gov't with the power to pass laws and raise taxes. I feel that since Aboriginals would still be Canadian citizens and would be entitled to live, work and vote in any part of the country then the same rights must be extended to non-aboriginals that choose to live within aboriginal territory. There can be no barrier to participation other than residency and participation must include the right to become part of the leadership if they so desire. Participation does not have to mean citizenship but it does have to have real power. I understand the appeal of a consensus based decision making but I think such a system is only effective when you are dealing with relatively homogeneous groups of people. Consensus based decision making would not work in territory occupied by a large number of non-aboriginal people that see themselves as Canadian first. Democracy is not perfect but it is the only effective system when extremely dissimilar groups of people occupy the same territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 There are many possible legal formulas for aboriginal self-rule that have been discussed and continue to be discussed. I appreciate within the aboriginal communities there are differences of opinion as to how this aboriginal self-rule should take place. We have heard for example Liberal candidate Ignatieff make references to recognizing the aboriginal nations as a distinct nation within Canada as he has about Quebec. I am not sure whether his concept is original or genuine, but the concept of aboriginal nations being self-ruling but co-existing in a federal state similiar to provincial and federal jurisdictions is not new and inevitable as the existing system with the federal Ministry of Indian Affairs has proven to be out-moded and not working at all. I personally would argue the aboriginal nations have become a 13th province so to speak already and must be recognized as such because like the provinces they have specific legal rights to govern themselves in specific areas that was granted to them through legal treaties that would be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada if contested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.