Supporting Caledonians in their resistance of the Mohawk Warrior Socie

[mister_v]

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.

This is a major show stopper. I think TS is only considering a scenario in which aboriginals are a massive majority in their nations. I don't think TS has considered the idea of non-aboriginals wanting to have positions of power. For example, can a non-native become a clan mother in the Confederacy? Can a non-native become a Confederacy chief? If not, what would happen if non-aboriginals formed a majority within the Confederacy?

Another thing that hasn't been considered is non-aboriginals living within the territorial boundaries of the aboriginal nations don't think that they are citizens of these nations (they feel they are Canadian). Therefore, they don't feel the laws of the aboriginal nations apply to them. I'm getting deja vu.

[mister_v]

It certainly pays to be the biggest gang around, don't it.

It certainly does, just like it did for your ancestors who used to go around kicking ass when they were the big boys in the neighbourhood.

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

however, the devil (as always) is in the detail.

Agreed. I'm in no way implying perfection in my notion. What I'm confident about is that the model is still in use. There would be a great deal of resistance from other Aboriginal people, who are more into maintaining bloodlines. The Confederacy's perspective is that you are Onkwehonwe or you aren't. The choice is the individual's, but when Six Nations went to that law, a number of non-Natives who had married in were taken in by the confederacy, but not in the eyes of Canada.

1) Aboriginals would still be Canadian citizens and would be entitled to all of the rights and privileges thereof;

Everyone would enjoy Canadian citizenship. I can’t see any reason for rights or privileges to be altered. The main point would be that everyone conforms to local laws, much like we currently do, and even then I can still see a commonality in laws. However, I can't speak for other Nations, but I know that there are many people across the country who think along similar lines to what I think.

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;

- I don't see a problem with having a pre-eminent set of laws for all parties to draw on. In fact, I expect that. My only concern would be that the laws of Aboriginal Nations are unable to be overridden on an arbitrary basis. There would be much discussion, I don’t doubt, especially on hot button issues like gambling, prostitution, legalization, gay marriage etc. But even then, these issues are already being taken seriously across Canada. As an aside, I personally would like to see the legalization of some drugs and prostitution. These two vices contribute to a massive black market, similar to what occurred with the underworld when alcohol was criminalized during prohibition. I’m not fond of these vices, but I’m a realist. People are going to smoke weed and use hookers, even if they were punishable as a capital crime. My rationale would be that the police are better served going after meth, coke and harder drugs and ignoring weed, and women would not be as easily killed if they decide to turn to prostitution. Dealers and pimps would be undercut, and taxes collected on either the product or service. I’d prefer to see brothels opened so that women can be afforded some protection, and ensure that street corners are cleared.

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.

I think this would be in the best interest of both parties, as well as tax collection and tax sharing.

If you don't agree with the above then I don't think your wishes are realistic for various economic and political reasons.

I don’t, but I can’t speak for every Native. Likewise, you might agree to these points, but we know that there are still going to be people who believe that Natives should be steamrolled into submission as there are Natives whose desire is to wave bye-bye to all the ships returning to the Olde World.

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.

If aboriginal Nations have the power to tax, then Aboriginal people will be taxed. This would create strong feelings because many natives believe in no taxation at all. I disagree with that notion because the concept of taxation has always been a feature in the Aboriginal Nations that I’m familiar with, the key difference being that we now use money instead of food, precious metals or other bulk items. Algonkian people had a man known as “the man who collects for the Chief”, whose job was to paddle around to the various extended families prior to a large gathering in order to collect food and other contributions from the populace to cache at the meeting site. In this way everyone paid for the common good, especially when it came to discussing business, which was the focus of these large gatherings.

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.

Yes. That would work both ways.

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 am all for having no barriers, although I know that there would be aboriginal people who would be opposed to that idea, but hen again, there would be non-natives adverse to this idea as well.

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.

A common language helps. However, I feel that people who still need to conform to our shared culture. Religions will present a nother set of issues, but its not like we can’t think of an answer to these things.

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.

I see your point and see how voting appears to be a good system, however, voting only ensures majority rule, and that is what causes divisiveness. Although some may argue that majority rule recognizes the feelings of most people, bear in mind that if we had localized majority rule situation today, the entire northern half of Canada –except for Dawson and Thompson, Manitoba would be a majority rule by Native people.

[Temagami Scourge]

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.

Yes...this is another option, and appears to be where we are currently heading. That's why I'm thinking of alternatives.

[Temagami Scourge]

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.

This is a major show stopper. I think TS is only considering a scenario in which aboriginals are a massive majority in their nations. I don't think TS has considered the idea of non-aboriginals wanting to have positions of power. For example, can a non-native become a clan mother in the Confederacy? Can a non-native become a Confederacy chief? If not, what would happen if non-aboriginals formed a majority within the Confederacy?

Another thing that hasn't been considered is non-aboriginals living within the territorial boundaries of the aboriginal nations don't think that they are citizens of these nations (they feel they are Canadian). Therefore, they don't feel the laws of the aboriginal nations apply to them. I'm getting deja vu.

Dude...I said this in post #95:

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.

Why would you infer that I don't want to see non-Aboriginal people in positions of authority? Bear in mind that the system I'm promoting is not like what we currently have. People with strong opinions and an ambition to lead aren't the best choice for leaders...as if we don't see that now in our current government. Although you might be tickled by people who seem driven and ambitious, Aboriginal traditional belief has often used people like this for specific, time-sensitive tasks. The driven, bellicose and ambitious have a place in society, but that is best suited for sports teams, or the military. These kinds of people would make good War Chiefs, but they only held a leadership position during the course of a war or raid. Once the conflict was over, their power went back inot the "Peace Chiefs", who were humble people who had to take the considertions of those they represent seriously. There will be times when a firm decision is made, and if there are Dissenters, then they can always move away to somewhere where their views are accepted.

That was one form of conflict resolution.

[Who's Doing What?]

That was one form of conflict resolution.

And armed occupation is another?

[Riverwind]

Agreed. I'm in no way implying perfection in my notion. What I'm confident about is that the model is still in use.

It is nice see we can find something to agree on for once...

One virtue of democracy which you have overlooked is the fact that it offers a concrete mechanism to break deadlocks which even the losing side can grudgingly accept if they had a fair opportunity to make their case. Democracy also makes it possible to have a complete house cleaning when the people decide that the current set of elites in charge have screwed up enough.

That said pure democracy does not exist anywhere in the world and there are always checks and balances that reduce the 'tyranny of the majority' problem that democracy brings. For example, constitutions protect minority rights and require super-majorities to change or powers are given to local gov'ts that allow local majorities to make decisions without interference from the majority that exists elsewhere in the country.

When it comes to aboriginal sovereignty I think the division of powers approach is necessary, however, I think we need to extend it beyond simple geographic borders. I cannot think of any reason why a non-aboriginal (unassimilated) majority living in an aboriginal territory should be able to make cultural decisions for the aboriginal group. Similarly, I am opposed to any system that would allow an aboriginal minority to make economic decisions for the non-aboriginal majority. It is not clear to me at this time how we would seperate the cultural from the economic decision making, however, I think it would be worth exploring.

That said, the urban-rural divide makes this problem particularly intractable because any coherent resolution would give natives living in rural and northern areas substantial self-govt but leave bands with traditional lands in urban areas with next to nothing. The Haldimand tract dispute is a good example since it would be impossible to give SN 'sovereignty' over land with 500,000+ non aboriginals living in it without either creating some kind of feudal system that reduced the non-aboriginals to land tenets or accepting that the SN gov't will be completely taken over by the non-aboriginal majority and replaced by something that looks a lot what we have right now.