We pay while Indians live in luxury

[gc1765]

Under expropriation, aren't they compensated for their losses?

Sure - but it is the gov't that decides what compensation is appropriate. In most cases of this means the owners can get fair market value for the property but that may be much less that what the property is worth to them. It is impossible to offer 'fair market value' for lands that natives claim because the cost would be too huge - so the gov't either offers symbolic compensation or argues that there is no legal claim.

I agree.

I think that Natives should be compensated whatever the government decides is "fair". In most cases of expropriation, the owner would get the market value. I don't know what that would add up to for Native claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was quite large. Giving market value may be impossible (depending on what the actual value is, again I don't know the exact figure) but I don't see a problem with giving money that the government deems is 'fair'. Obviously that opens up a whole different argument about what is "fair", but I won't get myself involved in such an argument because it would be almost impossible for me to give an exact dollar amount.

[blueblood]

1. The right of expropriation is practiced all the time and riverwind explains that to a T. If there is oil found on my farm or the gov't wants to run power lines thru it i'm SOL, no treaty for me, just a cheque.

2. I condemn residential schools, it was horrible and a black mark on Canadian history. But i did not send anyone there, therefore i do not owe anyone compensation. It's a shame that your ancestors were raped and tortured and the like, but have you considered other races in Canada - throughout the course of human history way way long ago, you can bet your ass that EVERY person's set of ancestors has been oppressed raped and tortured. I don't go to the Italian gov't and ask for compensation for what the Roman empire did, nor do i think that jews ask the german gov't for compensation during the holocaust.

3. The gov't runs the show. If the government wants something that they think will better everyone else they will take it, that's the right of expropriation and that's why property rights aren't enshrined in the constitution. There is nothing stopping the gov't from saying "we're not spending another dime on this native kerfuffle, land rights and special priveleges gone." That would save us tax dollars too. if the u.s.a wants our water, there is nothing we can do to stop them, all we can do is hope to work out a deal, and even if we do get one we'd have to really hope and pray that they don't screw us because there is nothing we can do to stop them. Courts applying rulings to government is a joke, the government only follows court rulings out of sheer benevolence. a special interest groups pulling stunts off like this is like a kid on a chess team trying to boss around the linebacker on a football team.

4. If you and others are so passionate about being sovereign, you have no business voting in federal and provincial elections.

5. If taken to the hague, judging by the billions of dollars funnelled through all of this and a lot of it being squandered with other groups in other places in the world in a worse position, i'd say Canada's case looks pretty good.

6. I have been ripped off by the U.S.A. it sucks, but there is not a lot i can do about it except hope for their benevolence.

[Riverwind]

I don't know what that would add up to for Native claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was quite large.

The 'market value' of land claimed by Six Nations and Mississauga New Credit adds up 2 trillion dollars. That is just two bands out of 600. Market value compensation is simply not an option.

Obviously that opens up a whole different argument about what is "fair"

Deciding what is fair is the political debate that needs to go on. However, there are a couple principals that we must start with:

1) The democratically elected gov't has the ultimate authority to decide what is 'fair' and impose it on native groups if necessary. An imposed solution is the 'nuclear' option and should never be used unless native groups refuse to acknowledge the political and economic realities in Canada today.

2) If treaties signed 100+ years ago are deemed to be 'unfair' to the majority of citizens living today then there is nothing wrong with ignoring them. That said, I would rather see a negotiated compromise rather than an outright repudiation. But that can't happen unless native groups acknowledge that honouring all terms of existing treaties is not an option and neither is 'giving the land back'.

[g_bambino]

If treaties signed 100+ years ago are deemed to be 'unfair' to the majority of citizens living today then there is nothing wrong with ignoring them.

I don't think they can simply be ignored as they stand as law now; many, if not all, as constitutional law. I don't disagree with your points regarding individual property rights vs. the will of the mass, but laws cannot simply be disregarded, though they may go a long way in dispute resolution.

[Riverwind]

I don't think they can simply be ignored as they stand as law now; many, if not all, as constitutional law.

The constitution can be changed if necessary but there is no political will to do so today because most people believe that a fair negotiated solution is possible. I am pretty sure that the political will to change the constitution would be there if the SCC handed down any judgement that cost the majority too much (e.g. if the SCC ruled that the entire Haldimand tract must be handed back to SN).

That said, I was making the point that no Canadian should feel guilty about repudiating a treaty signed 100+ years ago that is grossly unfair to the majority of people today provided the gov't makes a reasonable attempt to negotiate a new deal with the descents of the treaty signatories. Repudation should only be an option after good faith negotiations fail.

[malamute]

rule of law is not being paid attention to here. rule of law states quite unequvocably that there must be compensation and treaty rights must be honoured.

the government cannot just change this....it is judicial proceedings and many aspects still need the queens approval because of monies held in trust and she is still dictated, by canadian law, to protect indigenous peoples. international law is applicable. i'm sorry to say you're over your head on this one, but i do appreciate your input. is there some way i can help by steering you to law sites? i would be happy to help increase your knowledge.

expropriation is simply not applicable on native lands.

the chinese head tax and japanese internment camps are examples of government apologies and compensation, whether YOU had nothing to do with these humanitarian crimes. ill treatment is the legacy any government has to deal with. in modern society, if you are raped by your hockey coach or your child is murdered , there are both legal recourses and compensation available. would you not seek both?

once we are sovereign there will be no need to vote in federal elections.....we will be sovereign and that's that. however, those who live on tradtional lands and pay lease rights will have a voice to our council's ears, although they will not be eligible to vote.

it's called 'you clean up your ship, we clean up our canoe'. pretty plain and simple.

[geoffrey]

The treaties are very vague about what is Indian land.

For example, in Treaty 7:

That the Reserves of the Peigan Band of Indians shall be on the Old Man's River, near the foot of the Porcupine Hills at a place called "Crow's Creek."

Wow. That's like 10 square feet. If you want to play the literal interpretation game...

[Riverwind]

rule of law is not being paid attention to here. rule of law states quite unequvocably that there must be compensation and treaty rights must be honoured.

Wrong. The law is nothing more than what the democratic majority decide. If voters decide to change the law then they can. It happens all of the time and will happen again with native claims if natives group refuse to renegotiate terms that are acceptable to the majority.

international law is applicable.

International law is unenforceable and irrelevant.

international those who live on traditional lands and pay lease rights will have a voice to our council's ears, although they will not be eligible to vote.

You want to impose a feudal system of land ownership on the country. It is not going to happen because it is not acceptable to the democratic majority, although, some native groups will likely be able to negotiate terms like that over small tracts of largely unoccupied land.

[malamute]

"The Supreme Court of Canada purported to reverse the previously settled constitutional and international law, simply by ignoring its existence. Yet only a constitutional amendment can reverse settled constitutional law. And only an international convention can over turn settled international law.

The attempt by the Supreme Court of Canada to reverse existing constitutional and international law is a pretence, one that reneges upon the crown's solemn and legally binding undertaking of protection toward the aboriginal people, and negates the rule of law."

i am not proposing a feudal setup, please get your systems and politics straight. fedual is a far cry different from you having your own government and natives having theirs. paying land lease monies does not constitute feudal. it is simply paying to live on native lands. you are welcome to live on non-traditional territories sans lease.

the boundaries of the peigan are far diffferent from what has been laid out here.

i think it's time you start providing backup if you are going to present what you deem facts. this way i can provide the same to either counter or agree with what is stated.

[geoffrey]

There is no such thing as international law, you can use it as you wish, ignore it at whim. It has no teeth.

[geoffrey]

There is no such thing as international law, you can use it as you wish, ignore it at whim. It has no teeth.

[msfirstnations]

Dear mr poor misguided bigoted geoffry

First I'd like say that we are not "indians". That is a term for the East Indians. We are First Nations and remember that for my next few points. We are the decendents of this country and as such we have certain privilages. I suppose if you went back to your mother country you would have the same.

Second, we are not squatters. I have my name on a tenants agreement and Hydro, Gas, Telus and satelitte run to our homes. We pay them all. We have running water and yards to take care of. Granted there are alot of people here that do not but that is our problem and we do get on their cases about this. I see this in the non-native communities as well.

There is alot of drugs and alcohol in our neighbourhood here as well as in the non-native community as well. I remember my non-native mother telling me that if you have two drunks sitting beside each other that people will sneer at the native drunk while pitying the white drunk. We have a smaller community here compared to the "white" community so yes you will see ours more. INAC while starting out for the natives now has a larger intake of non-natives in town.

As far as judging goes to me it looks as though you have judged others in which means you have judged your self harshly, your words make me feel like a warrior, and for this I thank you.

(Previous paragraph done by my warrior)

So on to the TAXES. I, personally have a job and have been paying into taxes. So Yes I too am paying for, ommigosh!. I'm paying for my own hotel and food and clothes! How about that! And I don't know what hotels you've stayed at but these were ok. I'm used to better but it was in an emergency. The food was good and yes I'll have to agree that I ate well and have to lose a few pounds but so what. These are the perks to being a First Nations race.

So Blah! Cry me a river.

The asbestos that the government and we knew that was there is something that I hope they settle. Alegations that it is there was suspicious and evacuating us when they did was inconvienient. I hear that there's asbestos in thousands of old homes in the city, so I'm glad they found it prudent to do what they did with us.

Yes I am First Nations and proud of it. No one is going to make me feel less then I am. I'm sorry there is still so much racisim in this country when we have so much. I thank the non-natives for their contribution to our country and I am also glad there are alot of nice people here in Calgary.

[Riverwind]

"The Supreme Court of Canada purported to reverse the previously settled constitutional and international law, simply by ignoring its existence. Yet only a constitutional amendment can reverse settled constitutional law.

Agreed, however, the democratically elected representatives of Canadians have the power to pass any constitutional admentment if they feel there is a need. Currently there is no pressing need because everyone believes that the gov't will be able to negotiate a fair resolution that meets the needs of the non-aboriginal majority. If the SCC tried impose a judgment on non-aborignal Canadians that was grossly unfair but was 'legal' under current laws then the democratically elected representatives of Canadians would most likely use their power to change the constitution to ensure a fair outcome. There is nothing natives can do to stop the majority from doing that.

"And only an international convention can over turn settled international law.The attempt by the Supreme Court of Canada to reverse existing constitutional and international law is a pretence, one that reneges upon the crown's solemn and legally binding undertaking of protection toward the aboriginal people, and negates the rule of law."

Canada is an internationally recognized soveriegn state. The only laws that apply within the terroritory are the laws of Canada. International law is largely irrelevant and unenforceable when it comes to controlling how a state treats the people living within it. Canada should offer a reasonable settlement based on the demographic realities of today. If that settlement is not accepted by aboriginal groups then Canada can impose the settlement and there is nothing any international court or body can do about it.

i am not proposing a feudal setup, please get your systems and politics straight. fedual is a far cry different from you having your own government and natives having theirs. paying land lease monies does not constitute feudal. it is simply paying to live on native lands. you are welcome to live on non-traditional territories sans lease.

A simplistic argument. Every inch of Canada is the 'traditional territory' of one or more native band. What you are asking is that a group of people be granted exclusive right to own all land in Canada because of who their ancestors were. That is feudalism and it is a system of gov't that nobody wants. If you want self government you have two choices:

1) Limit yourselves to blocks of land that are not currently occupied by non-natives.

2) Grant full democratic rights to all non-natives living within the terrority negotiated.

There are no other options on the table. Which do you prefer?

i think it's time you start providing backup if you are going to present what you deem facts. this way i can provide the same to either counter or agree with what is stated.

The only facts I am stating are:

1) Democratically elected officials have the power to change the constitution if they want. That means that any constitutional claims that native groups have are worthless if public opinion is against them. That should be self evident and I don't think there is any argument that can refute that statement.

2) International courts have no police force or army that can enforce their rulings on states. That means they are irrevelant. It is true the international public opinion might create issues for Canada in some countries, however, that is unlikely to be a factor as long as Canada negotiates in good faith and offers a fair compromise that is refused. Can you present argument that proves international law is enforceable?

[bradco]

There is no such thing as international law, you can use it as you wish, ignore it at whim. It has no teeth.

True that it has no traditional enforcement measures but you underestimate it. States, more often than not, bind themselves to international law. That is the norm. And even when they break it they go out of there way to argue that they are not. Why such behaviour? Simply because the existence of rules benefits states more than it hinders them. You dont rob your neighbour's house simply because the police will come knocking but also because you dont want your neighbour to rob your house. The evolution of international law is no different than domestic law. Law is a way to solve the problem of living in the dangerously unsafe anarchic jungle. At the domestic level we have seen the development of law to overcome the state oflviving in the jungle and slowly we have seen the same evolution at an international level. So yes, international law is miles weaker than domestic law but not nearly as irrelvant as you argue when you say "there is no such thing as international law."

[Riverwind]

So yes, international law is miles weaker than domestic law but not nearly as irrelvant as you argue when you say "there is no such thing as international law."

Fair enough - but you are talking about using international law to govern interactions between recognized sovereign states. The relationship between Canada and its natives is purely an internal matter. Claiming that international law could be used to protect native rights is like claiming international law can be used to protect democratic rights or to ban capital punishment. International law is truely irrelevant when it comes to controlling how states treat the people that live within it.

[Who's Doing What?]

Dear mr poor misguided bigoted geoffry

First I'd like say that we are not "indians". That is a term for the East Indians. We are First Nations and remember that for my next few points. We are the decendents of this country and as such we have certain privilages. I suppose if you went back to your mother country you would have the same.

That is a load of crap. Why are you any better, or more worthy than any other Canadian?

Because of your race? Puh-lease!

OH and FYI, you are not "decendents of this country" You people did not spring out of the ground somewhere in North America. You are an immigrant just like the rest of us. At some point in history your family either crossed the bering land bridge, or, a more recent discovery, possibly came from Europe across the ice sheet that once covered the North Atlantic.

Second, we are not squatters. I have my name on a tenants agreement and Hydro, Gas, Telus and satelitte run to our homes. We pay them all. We have running water and yards to take care of. Granted there are alot of people here that do not but that is our problem and we do get on their cases about this. I see this in the non-native communities as well.

There is alot of drugs and alcohol in our neighbourhood here as well as in the non-native community as well. I remember my non-native mother telling me that if you have two drunks sitting beside each other that people will sneer at the native drunk while pitying the white drunk. We have a smaller community here compared to the "white" community so yes you will see ours more. INAC while starting out for the natives now has a larger intake of non-natives in town.

Did you ever see that for yourself?

Unless the population of Natives is equal to the population of non-natives there should be more non-natives in detox. Simple math reallly.

As far as judging goes to me it looks as though you have judged others in which means you have judged your self harshly, your words make me feel like a warrior, and for this I thank you.

(Previous paragraph done by my warrior)

Previous paragraph doesn't make sense.

So on to the TAXES. I, personally have a job and have been paying into taxes. So Yes I too am paying for, ommigosh!. I'm paying for my own hotel and food and clothes! How about that! And I don't know what hotels you've stayed at but these were ok. I'm used to better but it was in an emergency. The food was good and yes I'll have to agree that I ate well and have to lose a few pounds but so what. These are the perks to being a First Nations race.

Again with the "I deserve this because of my race." Total crap. Sorry, but it is.

So Blah! Cry me a river.

The asbestos that the government and we knew that was there is something that I hope they settle. Alegations that it is there was suspicious and evacuating us when they did was inconvienient. I hear that there's asbestos in thousands of old homes in the city, so I'm glad they found it prudent to do what they did with us.

Yes I am First Nations and proud of it. No one is going to make me feel less then I am. I'm sorry there is still so much racisim in this country when we have so much. I thank the non-natives for their contribution to our country and I am also glad there are alot of nice people here in Calgary.

You are surprised there is racism, yet you feel you are owed something because of your race.

Does the irony not hit you like a cold shower?

Are you not perpetuating racism by saying your race is better and more deserving than other races?

[Who's Doing What?]

oops

[malamute]

it has plenty of teeth when you're brought before the hague.

[geoffrey]

Dear mr poor misguided bigoted geoffry

I'm not bigoted. What do I have against Indians? Just that they have more rights than I do. On a meet one at the bar basis, I have no quarrel. It's not Indians, it's the government's treatment of them that I am opposed to.

First I'd like say that we are not "indians". That is a term for the East Indians. We are First Nations and remember that for my next few points. We are the decendents of this country and as such we have certain privilages. I suppose if you went back to your mother country you would have the same.

No. Your an Indian if you are governed under the Indian Act or various treaties. I use the term Indian to discuss such people, like those under Treaty 7 at Tsuu Tina. Anyone not a status Indian, I'll call them I don't know... first Immigrant people? Who knows. Your not 'native' to Canada, I can't claim I was 'native' to Calgary let alone France or before that the Rift Valley.

Second, we are not squatters. I have my name on a tenants agreement and Hydro, Gas, Telus and satelitte run to our homes. We pay them all. We have running water and yards to take care of. Granted there are alot of people here that do not but that is our problem and we do get on their cases about this. I see this in the non-native communities as well.

It's the news that calls you squatters. Personally I don't give a rats ass if you pay or not. I hope you do. Are you at Black Bear Crossing (ironically where Treaty 7 was signed... I'm not ignorant of your people)? If so, I did see on TV that the place has degraded considerably since the military handed it over. I shouldn't foot that bill. You don't pay to fix my yard.

There is alot of drugs and alcohol in our neighbourhood here as well as in the non-native community as well. I remember my non-native mother telling me that if you have two drunks sitting beside each other that people will sneer at the native drunk while pitying the white drunk. We have a smaller community here compared to the "white" community so yes you will see ours more. INAC while starting out for the natives now has a larger intake of non-natives in town.

I pity both. Alcoholism is a terrible condition and I wish it upon no one. I am not one that suggests all Indians are drunkards.

As far as judging goes to me it looks as though you have judged others in which means you have judged your self harshly, your words make me feel like a warrior, and for this I thank you.

Eh?

So on to the TAXES. I, personally have a job and have been paying into taxes. So Yes I too am paying for, ommigosh!. I'm paying for my own hotel and food and clothes! How about that! And I don't know what hotels you've stayed at but these were ok. I'm used to better but it was in an emergency. The food was good and yes I'll have to agree that I ate well and have to lose a few pounds but so what. These are the perks to being a First Nations race.

Do you not have an issue with one race getting better treatment than another? My friend, that's an injustice. The white in apartheid South Africa got 'perks' for their race. The Nazi party members got perks in Germany. I'm not saying the Indians have anything to do with this injustice, as they don't make the rules. White politicans (mostly) place this burden upon ourselves... and I just can't comprehend it.

Good that you pay taxes, we all should.

The asbestos that the government and we knew that was there is something that I hope they settle. Alegations that it is there was suspicious and evacuating us when they did was inconvienient. I hear that there's asbestos in thousands of old homes in the city, so I'm glad they found it prudent to do what they did with us.

They found it in one room, the rest was clear. Oh well. There is asbestos everywhere... but it's removal is not paid for by the government.

Yes I am First Nations and proud of it. No one is going to make me feel less then I am. I'm sorry there is still so much racisim in this country when we have so much. I thank the non-natives for their contribution to our country and I am also glad there are alot of nice people here in Calgary.

You blatantly supported racism when you told me that "These are the perks to being a First Nations race." Can I join? Or must I have a certain genetic line to get benefits? My friend, that's racism.

msfirstnations, I'm glad your bringing a reasonable tone to this discussion, and your points are in some cases valid. You'll find that I'm not racist against anyone at the Tsuu Tina, I do have business dealings with a couple of them and I find them great people. My concern is the governments special treatment of one race over another, and I don't think this is justifiable in a modern society.

[Riverwind]

it has plenty of teeth when you're brought before the hague.

Is that best you can do? We are not talking about committing war crimes or genocide. We are not really even talking about extinguishing aboriginal title. What we are talking about is changing the constitution to impose strict limits on what aboriginal title means to ensure the rights of the non-aboriginal majority are respected as well. Even if the court in the Hague ruled it was illegal they would have no power to stop Canada from doing it.

Aboriginal lands claims are a political - not a legal issue. Aboriginal leaders that recognize that will find they can cut some reasonable deals (like the Nis'ga). Aboriginal leaders that hold out for some feudal fiefdom covering land that is already occupied will likely find themselves with nothing.

[malamute]

first off let's get the notion of 'race' out of the way....it is a modern term who's definition was created to demonstrate superiority http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02.htm

in the end we are all one blood, although we are varying tribes (celtic, viking, pict, hunn as example for those of european heritage).

so this illusion of race does not help, it only hinders and serves to perpetuate those with superiority issues.

we indigenous people are 'indigenous' to the land. the beringia theory and other migratory theories are only that...theories, and they change as new evidence is discovered. the migration patterns held forth today will be different tomorrow. there is also good evidience that we were always here....that continental shift and divide moved us about , but this is where we decended from. it all depends on what books you are reading. let's not hold tight to beringia.....scientific theories are constantly evolving.

back to rule of law. the six nations is a good example of what is not happeining that should. the six nations agreement with the government of canada says a third, outiside governing body must be present and partake in all negotiations. this has never been done despite the law never changing.

so what is being argued about democracy and governments able to change laws is not valid or pertintent because none of those laws have been changed which are applicable to treaties and claims.

your arguement is moot owing to the rules of law still standing. you are only going by speculation. please stick to the facts.

as for traditional territories, if you look at all the bands with claims you will see they are not claiming all their traditional territories, only portions thereof. this does not nealry cover all of canada. therefore, again, by examing claims, you are going on speculation and exaggeration. again, please be more informed when presenting an arguement and stay with the facts of the matter.

'why me, why me?. well, the government has never properly taken care of business so this gets inherited down and the tax payer gets hit for government bunglling. this is not the fault of natives, it is the fault of government. i suggest again you contact your m.p.'s and m.l.a's if you are not happy that they are not dealing correctly.

as 'indians' we prefer to be called 'aboriginals, first nations, native, native indians'. 'indian' is a name given to us by the invaders because they thought they had reached the trade route of east india for gold and spices. the explorers made a mistake. while the government still uses indian, we are trying to instill pride in our people and culture by using the other names.....it's been a long, uphill battle to bring back pride and boost esteem to kick the stigma of being labelled.

if you don't want to call us as we wish , you are not helping, rather, you are hurting, even though that may not be your intent. would you like it if i called you 'honky' or 'cracker', because that is the same as calling an indigenous person an 'indian'. this is the way it goes in canada, in the united states they have a different view point and are fine with 'indian'.

again,k please look at current law and old law that still stands because this is what court proceedings boil down to, and specilation of how democracy may react or not only serves to convolute and bring untruths into the discussion.

also, please see about how the queen still has a part to play.

you can clean up your own backyard while we clean up ours. if you want merely to bitch, again, do it to the government.

[Riverwind]

so this illusion of race does not help, it only hinders and serves to perpetuate those with superiority issues.

You can spin it what ever way you like but it does not change the fact that you believe certain people should have more rights for no reason other than who their ancestors are. That is a form of a racism even if it does not fit exactly into the usual definition of the word.

so what is being argued about democracy and governments able to change laws is not valid or pertintent because none of those laws have been changed which are applicable to treaties and claims.

No laws have changed because the gov't wants to negotiate deals that are acceptable for the majority of people. Changing laws would be incredibly provocative and undermine these negotiations. However, that fact that the gov't ultimate has the power to change the laws means your arguments regarding the 'rule of law' are largely irrelevant.

your argument is moot owing to the rules of law still standing. you are only going by speculation. please stick to the facts.

Let's put it another way: why should the non-aboriginal majority accept deals that are grossly unfair because they grant special rights to a minority? So far the only argument you have presented is 'because its the law'. I have pointed out that such an argument is irrelevant.

So why don't you stop presenting demands regarding the type of of self gov't that you are entitled to and start thinking about what is politically possible given the demographic realities of the country today?

as for traditional territories, if you look at all the bands with claims you will see they are not claiming all their traditional territories, only portions thereof.

110% of BC is claimed by aboriginal groups. SN is claiming a terroritory already occupied by 500,000 non-aboriginals. Such demands will be rejected by the majority of the people no matter what the legalities. You are the one guilty of misrepresenting facts.

[Who's Doing What?]

first off let's get the notion of 'race' out of the way....it is a modern term who's definition was created to demonstrate superiority http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02.htm

in the end we are all one blood, although we are varying tribes (celtic, viking, pict, hunn as example for those of european heritage).

so this illusion of race does not help, it only hinders and serves to perpetuate those with superiority issues.

Like you are superior to me and deserve extra liberties because you are a First Immigrant?

we indigenous people are 'indigenous' to the land. the beringia theory and other migratory theories are only that...theories, and they change as new evidence is discovered. the migration patterns held forth today will be different tomorrow. there is also good evidience that we were always here....that continental shift and divide moved us about , but this is where we decended from. it all depends on what books you are reading. let's not hold tight to beringia.....scientific theories are constantly evolving.

Uh DNA has shown there were TWO migrations across the Bering Land bridge, and one from Europe. If that is a theory to you, go right on trucking. But you might want to ask yourself how nearly 25% of First Immigrants in North America have some European DNA. Research the Clovis Spearhead.

back to rule of law. the six nations is a good example of what is not happeining that should. the six nations agreement with the government of canada says a third, outiside governing body must be present and partake in all negotiations. this has never been done despite the law never changing.

so what is being argued about democracy and governments able to change laws is not valid or pertintent because none of those laws have been changed which are applicable to treaties and claims.

your arguement is moot owing to the rules of law still standing. you are only going by speculation. please stick to the facts.

as for traditional territories, if you look at all the bands with claims you will see they are not claiming all their traditional territories, only portions thereof. this does not nealry cover all of canada. therefore, again, by examing claims, you are going on speculation and exaggeration. again, please be more informed when presenting an arguement and stay with the facts of the matter.

You must have missed your fellow warriors posts where they were claiming ALL OF CANADA. Telling me how they will starve me off my land if it should suit their needs.

'why me, why me?. well, the government has never properly taken care of business so this gets inherited down and the tax payer gets hit for government bunglling. this is not the fault of natives, it is the fault of government. i suggest again you contact your m.p.'s and m.l.a's if you are not happy that they are not dealing correctly.

as 'indians' we prefer to be called 'aboriginals, first nations, native, native indians'. 'indian' is a name given to us by the invaders because they thought they had reached the trade route of east india for gold and spices. the explorers made a mistake. while the government still uses indian, we are trying to instill pride in our people and culture by using the other names.....it's been a long, uphill battle to bring back pride and boost esteem to kick the stigma of being labelled.

if you don't want to call us as we wish , you are not helping, rather, you are hurting, even though that may not be your intent. would you like it if i called you 'honky' or 'cracker', because that is the same as calling an indigenous person an 'indian'. this is the way it goes in canada, in the united states they have a different view point and are fine with 'indian'.

It doesn't matter what Politically Correct term you use for "ol' whitey" when you are still going to sit there and tell me you deserve something I don't because of your race.

again,k please look at current law and old law that still stands because this is what court proceedings boil down to, and specilation of how democracy may react or not only serves to convolute and bring untruths into the discussion.

Current law prohibits me from taking up arms and holding land hostage.

If First Immigrants aren't going to follow the law why should the rest of Canada?

also, please see about how the queen still has a part to play.

The Queen is nothing more than a figurehead. A left over curiosity from another time. The minute she tried to impose her will on this country she would be sent packing.

you can clean up your own backyard while we clean up ours. if you want merely to bitch, again, do it to the government.

The problem is First Immigrants apparently feel they own my back yard.

[White Doors]

we indigenous people are 'indigenous' to the land. the beringia theory and other migratory theories are only that...theories, and they change as new evidence is discovered. the migration patterns held forth today will be different tomorrow. there is also good evidience that we were always here....that continental shift and divide moved us about , but this is where we decended from. it all depends on what books you are reading. let's not hold tight to beringia.....scientific theories are constantly evolving.

Quoted for hilarity!

[malamute]

it seems useless to present valid discussion here when people are not willing to look at facts and back them up. i'm sad to see this attitude.

even my pointing to race being an illusion has only garnered spin and twist, attempting to place my views as being superior, or the rightful claims of my people as racist. again, we are a group of people, like any group of people, but our entitlement has everything to do with canada's own laws, which it fails to abide by.

dismissing the protocal and legal procedures (which involve the queen whether liked or not) weakens your stance. but that is why the government's postition is weakening and ultimatley through court natives will be granted what's owed, whether you like it or not , whether you agree with me or not.

b.c.'s claims are not 110% of the land....the claims themselves equal 110% because of disputes within tribes themselves. this is for the tribes to sort out. if you look at the squamish, for instance, they are not claiming all their traditional territory and no other band is claiming it, so there goes that arguement.

i don't know anything about 'fellow warrior' posts....whatever others have said may not be my view.

if you look at the caledonia situation , there have been no weapons used by natives. the opp did taser unarmed women and men though. i am not aware of anyone baring arms other then what is legal in canada, though i suppose with any group of people anywhere there are law breakers.

i look at the name of the post above and see it reads 'we pay while indians live in luxury'. some live in luxury, as do some of you, and many live in abject poverty. just like you have many homeless people. do you say too that you shouldn't pay for them because many of them are mentally ill or addicts and proper facilities to help them stand on their feet again are not in existance?

the dna findings are only as relevant as far as the researh has gone. there's miles and miles of work to be done on that yet.....the dna and migratory patterns of all groups traces us all back to africa, from a woman they call 'black eve'. so if you want to believe the scientists with what they have discovered to date then you have to accept this. do you?

again, the arguements about the government and demoratic process being the sole negotiators of indigenous rights is in error and you have failed to provide backup.