We pay while Indians live in luxury

[charter.rights]

I just did prove it. It's right there in the Canadian constitution. It's there in the petitions to the US government by the Haudenosaunee.

The onus is now on you to prove that there is a 28th country in North America.

There is nothing in the Constitution that makes Haudenosaunee Canadian citizens. In fact the Charter actually prevents Canadians under the Royal Proclamation 1763 from imposing citizenship, or taking land from all native peoples unless they desire to surrender it. As well their existing aboriginal rights - and that includes all rights over their sovereign territory and governance systems - are protected from incursions by Canadians or Canadian law.

The US recognizes the Haudenosaunee as a sovereign nation. Every so often presidents will publicly reaffirm it.

So, no. You haven't proven anything except that you have a very myopic opinion without any basis in law or reality.

Try again boy.

[M.Dancer]

It's like arguing with one of those "Freeman" kooks....you now, the ones who think they are sovereign? They get their legal advice from the same place Charter does.....matchbook covers.

[M.Dancer]

The US recognizes the Haudenosaunee as a sovereign nation. Every so often presidents will publicly reaffirm it.

Cite

So, no. You haven't proven anything

Still waiting for ....ummm.....proof for just about every wingnut claim you have ever made.

[AngusThermopyle]

It's like arguing with one of those "Freeman" kooks

Correct, thats why I don't waste my time with Charter anymore.

You can not have a rational discussion with the irrationally delusional.

[g_bambino]

There is nothing in the Constitution that makes Haudenosaunee Canadian citizens. In fact the Charter actually prevents Canadians under the Royal Proclamation 1763 from imposing citizenship, or taking land from all native peoples unless they desire to surrender it. As well their existing aboriginal rights - and that includes all rights over their sovereign territory and governance systems - are protected from incursions by Canadians or Canadian law.

The US recognizes the Haudenosaunee as a sovereign nation. Every so often presidents will publicly reaffirm it.

I never said a word about citizenship. I spoke of sovereignty and independence.

Again: prove there is a 28th country in North America.

[jbg]

Despite the lengthy ramble and the self-inflated pomposity, you've entirely missed the point. Regardless of what divisions maps and treaties show, within the jurisdiction of the Canadian monarch, all that territory, whether reserve or not, and the people living on it, whether FNs or not, are under the sovereignty of the Crown. Whatever the Haudenosaunee think they did or didn't do back at the end of the 18th century, they lost full sovereignty. There is no independent Republic of Haudenosaunee, or some such entity, to speak of.

I also believe it politically and economically impossible to literally honor treaties from 1774, just as a supply contract from 1784 would be outdated. If I were the descendant of someone holding a contract to buy an unlimited quantity of lumber at a set price (a common form of contract) could I literally force the contra-party to the contract to honor 1784 pricing?

I don't bloody think so.

[Smallc]

I also believe it politically and economically impossible to literally honor treaties from 1774, just as a supply contract from 1784 would be outdated. If I were the descendant of someone holding a contract to buy an unlimited quantity of lumber at a set price (a common form of contract) could I literally force the contra-party to the contract to honor 1784 pricing?

I don't bloody think so.

I think its time that we don away with the treaties. I think its time that people simply became people, no matter colour or ancestry.

[charter.rights]

I also believe it politically and economically impossible to literally honor treaties from 1774, just as a supply contract from 1784 would be outdated. If I were the descendant of someone holding a contract to buy an unlimited quantity of lumber at a set price (a common form of contract) could I literally force the contra-party to the contract to honor 1784 pricing?

I don't bloody think so.

Sure, why not. Then we can all become American.

The Jay Treaty 1794 holds the border between us and the US. If we just unilaterally wiped it out, then there would be no reason for the US not to push the border to say Manitoba. International treaties can be negotiated and modified but wiping them out would cause all kinds of conflict, possibly even war. Regardless we can't afford to wipe them out since all of the lands and resources gain through these treaties would be reverted back to native control under international law. You see, we don't get to ignore international law AND keep the spoils of those agreements UNLESS we are willing to take them by force. If we accept that war or oppression is our future then you might want to be prepared for a Middle east type of conflict. If that were to unfold, I have no doubt that natives would visit us while we slept.

So the only other real option is to start negotiating in good faith and settling all the treaties that are in abeyance. That means land and money - where it should have been in the first place - will have to be handed over to the natives upon settlement. You may think it is expensive but without the benefits we realize frm these treaties we would have no economy.

[M.Dancer]

Cite

Still waiting for ....ummm.....proof for just about every wingnut claim you have ever made.

House takes infinity

[charter.rights]

House takes infinity

Troll

[g_bambino]

Troll

Still waiting for you to... ah, what's the use.

[M.Dancer]

Troll

House wins again.

Anyone else wnat to take a chance on the empty bag?

[AngusThermopyle]

Anyone else wnat to take a chance on the empty bag?

Whats the point? You always take infinity so you always win.

[Riverwind]

The Jay Treaty 1794 holds the border between us and the US. If we just unilaterally wiped it out, then there would be no reason for the US not to push the border to say Manitoba.

The US could easily invade Canada and annex all of its terrority. It chooses not to because the costs outweigh the benefits. The text of some treaty written 200+ years ago is meaningless and has no power to stop the US from doing what it wants.

So the only other real option is to start negotiating in good faith and settling all the treaties that are in abeyance. That means land and money - where it should have been in the first place - will have to be handed over to the natives upon settlement. You may think it is expensive but without the benefits we realize frm these treaties we would have no economy.

The treaties have no meaning outside of Canadian law. If they get too expensive we change the law - end of problem.

[jbg]

The US could easily invade Canada and annex all of its terrority. It chooses not to because the costs outweigh the benefits. The text of some treaty written 200+ years ago is meaningless and has no power to stop the US from doing what it wants.

I don't think the US has the least inclination to conquer a strong ally. We don't eat our own.

[tango]

The US could easily invade Canada and annex all of its terrority. It chooses not to because the costs outweigh the benefits. The text of some treaty written 200+ years ago is meaningless and has no power to stop the US from doing what it wants.

The treaties have no meaning outside of Canadian law. If they get too expensive we change the law - end of problem.

Which law is that?

[Griz]

I think its time that we don away with the treaties. I think its time that people simply became people, no matter colour or ancestry.

Maybe we should just start over! That means shipping the whole works of you "boat-people-land-squatting-terrorists" back to Europe and the UK

[Smallc]

Maybe we should just start over! That means shipping the whole works of you "boat-people-land-squatting-terrorists" back to Europe and the UK

No....it's about fairness....people are all equal even if they are different.

[Riverwind]

Which law is that?

The constitution if necessary. Natives only have the rights that the majority chooses to give them. There is no higher authority than the voter in a democracy. If natives manage to piss off enough people by demanding too much then they will find that there will be popular support for a constitutional change to limit the demands.

I doubt it would even get that far because the SCC knows what a divisive debate that would be so I expect future rulings to limit the practical scope of native claims while preserving the symbolism. This is what happened in Australia.

[Griz]

The constitution if necessary. Natives only have the rights that the majority chooses to give them. There is no higher authority than the voter in a democracy. If natives manage to piss off enough people by demanding too much then they will find that there will be popular support for a constitutional change to limit the demands.

I doubt it would even get that far because the SCC knows what a divisive debate that would be so I expect future rulings to limit the practical scope of native claims while preserving the symbolism. This is what happened in Australia.

Shows waht you know--the SCC of Canada rulings have practically been ignored with many aboriginal cases

[Riverwind]

Shows waht you know--the SCC of Canada rulings have practically been ignored with many aboriginal cases

The actual instructions from the SCC are generally: 'go negotiate something fair' not 'give aboriginals everything they want'. The trouble is the aboriginals are insisting that the court said 'give aboriginals everything they want'. This makes negotiations impossible.

[tango]

The actual instructions from the SCC are generally: 'go negotiate something fair' not 'give aboriginals everything they want'. The trouble is the aboriginals are insisting that the court said 'give aboriginals everything they want'. This makes negotiations impossible.

Source?

[ponyboy]

Not another one...

The government has this thing called the right of expropriation, that means when the government feels that it is in the best interest of the country to take some land, it has the right and it exercises that right. You get to enjoy living in the best country in the world because the government in the old days exercised this right. The treaties any government sign are only good for as long as the people who made and signed them are around. Why should something that old apply in today's society? The government of Canada doesn't have to honor the treaties, who is going to stop them? The government could look at all those land claims and say go fly a kite, and quite honestly there isn't anything that can stop them. I don't understand why you are proclaiming that they should be sovereign, yet be protected under OUR charter of rights and freedoms plus vote in Canadian elections that's a double standard. We should get rid of the Department of Indian affairs and the Kelowna accord, that is a burden on our taxpayers for things that happened long ago and it would inject billions into the system. As far as poverty is concerned there is ample employment in Canada to accomodate them which will help boost the economy, heck we can even shut the door to immigrants. I live in a rural area with a high Metis population, they don't get special rights, some live in poverty, and some do quite well for themselves. The same goes for the rest of Canadians. There is also a reserve nearby where I live, it is hard to feel sorry for someone where a pile of tax dollars are flowing into a reserve where instead of doing something constructive with it, it is squandered or seeing a truck with a window sticker saying "whitey's taxes paid for this". Everyone in canada is equal, no one is more equal than anyone else, that is a concept that you appear to have a problem with understanding.

We screwed First Nations people from the start.We continue to screw them.This country was built on lies and broken promises.Makes me ashamed to call myself canadian and my families been here since 1764.All you whiners are like small children,BOO-HOO the First Nations get something we don't.For god sakes grow up!!!! Honor ALL treaties.

[jbg]

We screwed First Nations people from the start.We continue to screw them.This country was built on lies and broken promises.Makes me ashamed to call myself canadian and my families been here since 1764.All you whiners are like small children,BOO-HOO the First Nations get something we don't.For god sakes grow up!!!! Honor ALL treaties.

Yes.

Some time ago, Charles Mann wrote an article in Atlantic Magazine destroying many myths about aboriginals. Among those myths that he effectively demolished are:

1. That the Europeans deliberately killed or subjugated many of the aboriginals;
   
2. That there were many thriving and viable aboriginal cultures destroyed by Europeans;
   
3. That the aboriginals were "light on the land" and did not effect the "balance of nature" very much; and
   
4. That super-abundant numbers of buffalo, wolves and passenger pigeons (now extinct) were the natural state of affairs.
   

Now that 1491 has come out in book form, I decided that it was time to post the entire Atlantic Magazine preview, from, I believe, the April 2002 issue. It is fascinating and definitely worth the read, even if you have to pay some money to the Atlantic Magazine website for the excerpt.

Better yet, buy the book. Excerpts below:

===========================================

1491

Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say, Europe. New evidence of both the extent of the population and its agricultural advancement leads to a remarkable conjecture: the Amazon rain forest may be largely a human artifact

BY CHARLES C. MANN

.....

A few years ago it occurred to me that my ancestor and everyone else in the colony had voluntarily enlisted in a venture that brought them to New England without food or shelter six weeks before winter. Half the 102 people on the Mayflower made it through to spring, which to me was amazing. How, I wondered, did they survive?

In his history of Plymouth Colony, Bradford provided the answer: by robbing Indian houses and graves. The Mayflower first hove to at Cape Cod. An armed company staggered out. Eventually it found a recently deserted Indian settlement. The newcomers—hungry, cold, sick—dug up graves and ransacked houses, looking for underground stashes of corn. "And sure it was God's good providence that we found this corn," Bradford wrote, "for else we know not how we should have done." (He felt uneasy about the thievery, though.) When the colonists came to Plymouth, a month later, they set up shop in another deserted Indian village. All through the coastal forest the Indians had "died on heapes, as they lay in their houses," the English trader Thomas Morton noted. "And the bones and skulls upon the severall places of their habitations made such a spectacle" that to Morton the Massachusetts woods seemed to be "a new found Golgotha"—the hill of executions in Roman Jerusalem.

*snip*

Smallpox was only the first epidemic. Typhus (probably) in 1546, influenza and smallpox together in 1558, smallpox again in 1589, diphtheria in 1614, measles in 1618—all ravaged the remains of Incan culture. Dobyns was the first social scientist to piece together this awful picture, and he naturally rushed his findings into print. Hardly anyone paid attention. But Dobyns was already working on a second, related question: If all those people died, how many had been living there to begin with? Before Columbus, Dobyns calculated, the Western Hemisphere held ninety to 112 million people. Another way of saying this is that in 1491 more people lived in the Americas than in Europe.

His argument was simple but horrific. It is well known that Native Americans had no experience with many European diseases and were therefore immunologically unprepared—"virgin soil," in the metaphor of epidemiologists. What Dobyns realized was that such diseases could have swept from the coastlines initially visited by Europeans to inland areas controlled by Indians who had never seen a white person. The first whites to explore many parts of the Americas may therefore have encountered places that were already depopulated. Indeed, Dobyns argued, they must have done so.

Peru was one example, the Pacific Northwest another. In 1792 the British navigator George Vancouver led the first European expedition to survey Puget Sound. He found a vast charnel house: human remains "promiscuously scattered about the beach, in great numbers." Smallpox, Vancouver's crew discovered, had preceded them. Its few survivors, second lieutenant Peter Puget noted, were "most terribly pitted ... indeed many have lost their Eyes." In Pox Americana, (2001), Elizabeth Fenn, a historian at George Washington University, contends that the disaster on the northwest coast was but a small part of a continental pandemic that erupted near Boston in 1774 and cut down Indians from Mexico to Alaska.

Because smallpox was not endemic in the Americas, colonials, too, had not acquired any immunity. The virus, an equal-opportunity killer, swept through the Continental Army and stopped the drive into Quebec. The American Revolution would be lost, Washington and other rebel leaders feared, if the contagion did to the colonists what it had done to the Indians. "The small Pox! The small Pox!" John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail. "What shall We do with it?" In retrospect, Fenn says, "One of George Washington's most brilliant moves was to inoculate the army against smallpox during the Valley Forge winter of '78." Without inoculation smallpox could easily have given the United States back to the British.

*snip*

The question is even more complex than it may seem. Disaster of this magnitude suggests epidemic disease. In the view of Ramenofsky and Patricia Galloway, an anthropologist at the University of Texas, the source of the contagion was very likely not Soto's army but its ambulatory meat locker: his 300 pigs. Soto's force itself was too small to be an effective biological weapon. Sicknesses like measles and smallpox would have burned through his 600 soldiers long before they reached the Mississippi. But the same would not have held true for the pigs, which multiplied rapidly and were able to transmit their diseases to wildlife in the surrounding forest. When human beings and domesticated animals live close together, they trade microbes with abandon. Over time mutation spawns new diseases: avian influenza becomes human influenza, bovine rinderpest becomes measles. Unlike Europeans, Indians did not live in close quarters with animals—they domesticated only the dog, the llama, the alpaca, the guinea pig, and, here and there, the turkey and the Muscovy duck. In some ways this is not surprising: the New World had fewer animal candidates for taming than the Old. Moreover, few Indians carry the gene that permits adults to digest lactose, a form of sugar abundant in milk. Non-milk-drinkers, one imagines, would be less likely to work at domesticating milk-giving animals. But this is guesswork. The fact is that what scientists call zoonotic disease was little known in the Americas. Swine alone can disseminate anthrax, brucellosis, leptospirosis, taeniasis, trichinosis, and tuberculosis. Pigs breed exuberantly and can transmit diseases to deer and turkeys. Only a few of Soto's pigs would have had to wander off to infect the forest.

*snip*

Throughout eastern North America the open landscape seen by the first Europeans quickly filled in with forest. According to William Cronon, of the University of Wisconsin, later colonists began complaining about how hard it was to get around. (Eventually, of course, they stripped New England almost bare of trees.) When Europeans moved west, they were preceded by two waves: one of disease, the other of ecological disturbance. The former crested with fearsome rapidity; the latter sometimes took more than a century to quiet down. Far from destroying pristine wilderness, European settlers bloodily created it. By 1800 the hemisphere was chockablock with new wilderness. If "forest primeval" means a woodland unsullied by the human presence, William Denevan has written, there was much more of it in the late eighteenth century than in the early sixteenth.

*snip*

Guided by the pristine myth, mainstream environmentalists want to preserve as much of the world's land as possible in a putatively intact state. But "intact," if the new research is correct, means "run by human beings for human purposes." Environmentalists dislike this, because it seems to mean that anything goes. In a sense they are correct. Native Americans managed the continent as they saw fit. Modern nations must do the same. If they want to return as much of the landscape as possible to its 1491 state, they will have to find it within themselves to create the world's largest garden.

Edited April 21, 2009 by jbg

[tango]

Yes.

Some time ago, Charles Mann wrote an article in Atlantic Magazine destroying many myths about aboriginals. Among those myths that he effectively demolished are:

1. That the Europeans deliberately killed or subjugated many of the aboriginals;
   
2. That there were many thriving and viable aboriginal cultures destroyed by Europeans;
   
3. That the aboriginals were "light on the land" and did not effect the "balance of nature" very much; and
   
4. That super-abundant numbers of buffalo, wolves and passenger pigeons (now extinct) were the natural state of affairs.
   

Who has interpreted Indigenous knowledge for this?

I can't really either.

But I do know there's something missing:

Protecting Mother Earth, for the seven generations of the coming faces, in trust from the seven generations of ancestors.

It's not a question of light or heavy.

It's not a dichotomous choice.

It's HOW heavily can we abuse Mother Earth, until she can no longer support us?

That's not the way an Indigenous person would say it, but I hope you get my drift.

We all have the privilege of having life on Mother Earth, and the responsibility for sustaining her Life systems, sustaining life itself ... our life.

Were there orchards in some of those clearings?

"world's largest garden" ... with a population larger than that of Europe at the time.

It's important to remember that the explorer and military and missionary carriers of diseases pre-date by far the colonists.

It was the clearing of the land ... of people.

Today we'd just bomb them ... likely with germ warfare.

To produce "Terra Nullius" in North America for the Pope.

Edited April 21, 2009 by tango