Caledonia

[ScottSA]

These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological

Since you cannot validate your statement of "facts", I can dismiss your opinion as such.

Naturally, we can dismiss everything Indians say then, given that they are mostly *snort* "oral traditions."

Edited September 23, 2007 by ScottSA

[AngusThermopyle]

[

quote]Since you cannot validate your statement of "facts", I can dismiss your opinion as such. wink.gif

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I've noticed that if anything said here does not agree with you, you shoot it down totally. You don't offer any validation, you just make a final proclamation of your personal belief system and expect others to accept it as the word of god.

+

[jefferiah]

Isn't oral tradition basically hearsay times 100?

[jennie]

[

quote]Since you cannot validate your statement of "facts", I can dismiss your opinion as such. wink.gif

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I've noticed that if anything said here does not agree with you, you shoot it down totally. You don't offer any validation, you just make a final proclamation of your personal belief system and expect others to accept it as the word of god.

+

goddess ... please fellas ...

I believe I made my point.

He wants me to accept his statement as fact, but he provides no evidence so I don't have to.

To recap:

Posit has asserted that there is archeological evidence of Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy (Iroquois) people living on the north shore pre-contact, traditionally, several thousand years old.

kengs said no ... but that is so far just an opinion.

[jennie]

Isn't oral tradition basically hearsay times 100?

# Those tendering oral history evidence in court must be alert to whether the facts will be accepted as reliable and trustworthy and therefore relied upon by the trial judge. Reliability is a function of the source of the information (who is speaking the oral history), the nature of oral tradition within the relevant aboriginal nation, and corroboration with other oral facts, documents, or physical events.

The ways of corroborating oral history evidence are interesting. Eclipses can date events, Lady Simcoe's diaries are a rich source of validation of some post-contact events here in Ontario, etc. There is a variety of information that can accompany and validate oral history.

And the federal Courts at least have become familiar and have guidlines, but it is up to the Judge.

VII. Test for the admissibility of oral history evidence

The question of the admissibility of oral history was re-examined by the Supreme Court in Mitchell. Admissibility issues were discussed above with reference to Delgamuukw, but the court in Mitchell clarified the principles that should be applied by courts in order to receive and interpret oral history evidence in aboriginal rights and title litigation.

In Van der Peet (at para. 68), the Supreme Court laid down two basic principles governing the admissibility of oral history:

1.

Trial courts must approach the rules of evidence in light of the evidentiary difficulties inherent in adjudicating aboriginal claims (i.e., there are no written records; elders with knowledge have passed on).

2.

Aboriginal evidence must not be undervalued just because it does not strictly conform to the rules of evidence.

These comments meant that it would be easier to have oral history admitted as evidence, and that, once admitted, it ought to receive a more sympathetic ear when weighed or applied in the decision-making process. Technicalities should not obscure the important information brought to the courts in oral histories. The court's comments in Van der Peet were a direction to trial judges to "lighten up" on the evidentiary issues when it comes to aboriginal rights cases.

The court in Mitchell reaffirmed (at para. 29) the principle that the rules of evidence must be applied flexibly in aboriginal cases, primarily because of the obvious and inherent problems of proving facts that pre-date colonization and the written record. In this regard, the court said that flexibility means admitting evidence of post-contact activities to prove continuity with pre-contact practices and to allow "the meaningful consideration of various forms of oral history".

The court noted that underlying the principles of flexibility (and therefore fairness) are three concepts:

1.

The evidence must be useful in that it must prove a relevant fact.

2.

The evidence must be reasonably reliable.

3.

The evidence can be excluded if the probative value is overshadowed by its prejudicial impact.

etc etc ... http://www.cle.bc.ca/Cle/Practice+Desk/Pra...historyevidence

I don't see anything about x100.

Edited September 23, 2007 by jennie

[Posit]

"A reassessment of the written documents and largely neglected maps of the period suggest that the Iroquois occupation of the north shore was highly ordered abd based on traditional trade routes and tribal territorial claims. It was an extension of the homeland. But innovations in subsistence, settlement and lifestyle did occur. The study of expansion to the north shore provides valuable insights into the delicate balance between the forces of change and continuity in post-contact Iroquois society."

"In addition to village locations, the historical maps provide detailed information on portages, overland trails and non-village areas in the Iroquois cultural landscape. The distribution of these features is summarized in Fig. 1 and suggests the following:

(1) settlements on the north shore and in the homeland were distributed along parallel east-west axes

(2) distances between settlement on the north shore tended to be greater than distances between settlements to the south of Lake Ontario

(3) there were more connections between places in the homeland system

(4) the north shore villages were connected to the homeland settlements through fishing camps on the south shore

(5) the distribution of north shore villages resembled more closely the distribution of south shore camps

(6)the north shore villages occupied locations on routes leading north from the homeland rather than independent locations on the north shore of Lake Ontario."

"Once on the north shore, the interior and the northwest were accessible by three main routes: (1) from Lake Ontario to the Grand River and on to upper lakes. (2) from either the Rouge coming across the moraine, into the Lake Simcoe drainage basin and on to Georgian Bay, and (3) the traditional route to Georgain Bay via the Trent system of lakes, rivers and small portages."

Victor Konrad, Journal of Historical Geography 1981

Notice that the Iroquois were familiar with the Grand River (the Haldimand Tract) from "its mouth to its source" having lived there at the time. I'll let kengs333 explain to you who Victor Konrad is since he claims to be an expert and I'm just an incompetent historian......

[noahbody]

So here we'll back the truck up. Everything that follows stems from the incorrect answer to this.

Brant could have been designated a "Pine Tree" chief however, there is no record of him ever being raised up. If he had their would have been a wampum created for his installation. And if he was it still neither authorized him to speak on behalf of the Mohawks, or the Confederacy or to hold power of attorney over anyone.

Finally, Brant, with the power of attorney of 30 chiefs, accompanied by 300 warriors, got council to approve the sales and deeds on July 26, 1797. The official act was signed on Feb. 5, 1798 when Brant asked and received the Crown's approval for the sales. He thought it was for all time, but the Crown interpreted it as for this one time. It was a good deal on paper, but Brant assumed it was written in stone.

http://www.cambridgenow.ca/npps/story.cfm?id=163

[kengs333]

"A reassessment of the written documents and largely neglected maps of the period suggest that the Iroquois occupation of the north shore was highly ordered abd based on traditional trade routes and tribal territorial claims. It was an extension of the homeland. But innovations in subsistence, settlement and lifestyle did occur. The study of expansion to the north shore provides valuable insights into the delicate balance between the forces of change and continuity in post-contact Iroquois society."

"In addition to village locations, the historical maps provide detailed information on portages, overland trails and non-village areas in the Iroquois cultural landscape. The distribution of these features is summarized in Fig. 1 and suggests the following:

(1) settlements on the north shore and in the homeland were distributed along parallel east-west axes

(2) distances between settlement on the north shore tended to be greater than distances between settlements to the south of Lake Ontario

(3) there were more connections between places in the homeland system

(4) the north shore villages were connected to the homeland settlements through fishing camps on the south shore

(5) the distribution of north shore villages resembled more closely the distribution of south shore camps

(6)the north shore villages occupied locations on routes leading north from the homeland rather than independent locations on the north shore of Lake Ontario."

"Once on the north shore, the interior and the northwest were accessible by three main routes: (1) from Lake Ontario to the Grand River and on to upper lakes. (2) from either the Rouge coming across the moraine, into the Lake Simcoe drainage basin and on to Georgian Bay, and (3) the traditional route to Georgain Bay via the Trent system of lakes, rivers and small portages."

Victor Konrad, Journal of Historical Geography 1981

Notice that the Iroquois were familiar with the Grand River (the Haldimand Tract) from "its mouth to its source" having lived there at the time. I'll let kengs333 explain to you who Victor Konrad is since he claims to be an expert and I'm just an incompetent historian......

There's nothing there that states that the Five Nations lived along the Grand River. They would have been familiar with it because there would have been contact between the Five Nations, the Neutrals, and the Huron. There's an interesting parallel there, though, between the Thirteen Colonies and what the Five Nations were doing along the North Shore of Lake Ontario, isn't there? Of course there is a reason why the Huron withdrew from the region, but control of the region by the Five Nations only came following the destruction of the Huron in the mid 1600s.

[kengs333]

These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological

Since you cannot validate your statement of "facts", I can dismiss your opinion as such.

The relevant information is largely only available in universities; copyrighted material, theses, etc. tend not to be freely available on the Net. You clearly don't want to make the effort to find out the truth, which is just another example of why you are a complete waste of time. I doubt you've even set foot in a university; your pathetically childish level of debate would never be tolerated at that level, not even in Canada.

[jennie]

The relevant information is largely only available in universities; copyrighted material, theses, etc. tend not to be freely available on the Net. You clearly don't want to make the effort to find out the truth, which is just another example of why you are a complete waste of time. I doubt you've even set foot in a university; your pathetically childish level of debate would never be tolerated at that level, not even in Canada.

You are the one wanting to make the point.

[Posit]

There's nothing there that states that the Five Nations lived along the Grand River. They would have been familiar with it because there would have been contact between the Five Nations, the Neutrals, and the Huron. There's an interesting parallel there, though, between the Thirteen Colonies and what the Five Nations were doing along the North Shore of Lake Ontario, isn't there? Of course there is a reason why the Huron withdrew from the region, but control of the region by the Five Nations only came following the destruction of the Huron in the mid 1600s.

Wrong again bucko.

"(6)the north shore villages occupied locations on routes leading north from the homeland rather than independent locations on the north shore of Lake Ontario."

"Once on the north shore, the interior and the northwest were accessible by three main routes: (1) from Lake Ontario to the Grand River and on to upper lakes."

The maps, referred to by Konrad were prepared by the French in the early 1600's and they show a village near where Six Nations presently is situated. The Region surrounding it is referred to as "Iroquois du Nord". That is not to be confused with the other regions noted on the map that identify the Wendat, Neutral and Petuns where I have previously mentioned they were.

You do know who Victor Konrad is, right?

Edited September 23, 2007 by Posit

[geoffrey]

1.

Trial courts must approach the rules of evidence in light of the evidentiary difficulties inherent in adjudicating aboriginal claims (i.e., there are no written records; elders with knowledge have passed on).

2.

Aboriginal evidence must not be undervalued just because it does not strictly conform to the rules of evidence.

This is the most absurd legal ruling I have ever seen. Just because they don't have good evidence, we should accepted bad evidence so that it works. Better yet, people of a certain DNA have to prove less in court to get judgements in their favour, generally awarding more money, just because they didn't write stuff down.

What a joke. Oral history is invalid in all aspects in my opinion. It would not be valid for me to say that my grandfather's, grandfather once told me that the government exprorpriated his 400 acre farm on the outskirts of then Montreal, on which now are some of the most expensive houses in the area. And therefore I'm entitled to compensation?? (That story likely isn't far from the truth by the way).

If I brought that into court, I'd be laughed at. I'd probably even have some land titles documentation, but heresay is simply not valid.

Why make an exception for people of certain DNA requesting billions from the government? Only racism can be the approrpriate answer.

[jbg]

Perhaps Mr. Themopyle you are unaware that int he United Kingdom as is the case in Canada and other nations, many legal doctrine, i.e., constitutional doctrine, have been passed down orally and are not considered to have been contaminated.

Except significantly contaminated and limited by the Charter of Special Pleadings and No Real Rights or Freedoms.

And even assuming that an "oral Constitution" provides real protections, as it does in the UK, it has been in continuous operation since the Glorious Revolution, with earlier antecedents such as the Magna Carta. The FN's bogus debatable "oral traditions" can be whatever the band leaders say they are.

Edited September 23, 2007 by jbg

[Rue]

I have no qualms about not felling responsible for what others did before me. Why should I? The sad irony of this situation is that it is motivated by what Indians perceive the "white man" did to them 150 years ago, and thus anyone who happens to be "white" and/or proud to be Canadian is somehow suddenly deemed to be a member of the "racist" "oppressor" faction in Canadian society. You can't expect the government to give in to such an argument; they represent the people of Canada and Ontario in the year 2007, not 1784 or 1841. Certainly if Canada can be held to account for what happened in previous generations, so can the Six Nations for the atrocities and unfair dealing that they committed in the past.

Keng I am talking something different. Here is what I am saying. Look I am a Jew born the son of a refugee who only was granted citizenship even though she was badly needed as a doctor in her area because my father was a war veteran and fortunate enough to have a friend who was the son of a Senator who stepped in to prevent her extradition. So I am not in the position to lecture any Wasp or French person or aboriginal on certain things. From my perspective I am grateful to be the first generation in my family to live in freedom. So I am grateful to the British parliamentary system and its traditions for that. But I am also respectful of the province (Quebec) I grew up in where I was brought up to be bilingual and believe federalism works, but yes as Scott says I am a very typical liberal (not the political party one) and necessarily because of my heritage of course being a minority can not understand why it is not possible for federalism to accomodate the dualities, i.e., the French and English legal traditions as well as the aboriginal ones. To me the three are not incompatible at all. They may seem that way because of politics but as a lawyer, I do not see them from a purely legal sense having to be in conflict.

So when I write in I admit Ken I sound a tad righteous. I do not mean to. What I am trying to say though is that the fundamental principles in our constititution recognize the collective legal rights of aboriginals not because of racial characteristics but because of the recognition of aboriginal peoples as a series of nations with their own laws that preceded our laws abd whose laws were recognized as equal laws in treaties with out predecessor British crown and then was inherited by our Canadian government.

This is a matter of having entered into legal treaties with the aboriginal peoples and honouring them. It is a matter of agreeing to follow the laws we said we would with them when we signed these treaties.

Aboriginal peoples' legal arguements are not based onwanting you to be responsible for anything. No one can force you or anyone else to understand their history and what happened to them. What some of us are trying to argue though is that honouring their treaties is a legal obligation we do not have the legal right to simply ignore.

In 1982 when the Canadian constitution was patriated at that time we made it clear as an independent nation we recognized the treaties we signed with the aboriginal peoples. Our constitution, or concept of constitutionalism, or constitutional principles as

stated in numerous court decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada all recognize the aboriginal peoples treaties.

The disputes you see going on are not about whether aboriginal peoples have collective legal rights - that s a given-its finding ways to negotiate their practical application not because of anything they did, but precisely because our federal and provincial governments violated them and then placed non aboriginals in legal positions they knew would conflict with aboriginal legal rights they were breaching.

So no I do not think even a bleeding heart liberal like me or any one like me who thinks the law must be followed is expecting you to do anything morally. I sound righteous but I am not that presumptious. I can't tell anyone on an individual level what to believe and how they should conduct themselves least of all you. My comments are limited to the law or sometimes I get snippy if I see someone utter racial taunts.

One of the reasons I am so respectful of aboriginal culture and its legal traditions is precisely because they are actually far more advanced in many ways then our current legal system and offer some excellent formulas for us to apply in law to alleviate a wide range of conflicts or policy failures.

I need to address one last issue.

Our constitution is not just written. It is not limited to the Constitutional Act or Charter of Rights or subsequent legal decisions that state how it should be applied. It is also based on an oral tradition of principles that have been passed down. Our very legal system is based on oral doctrines that have been passed down. So of course is Britain's constitution in that regard. The British constitutional system is not based on one document. Its constitutional laws come from different statutes, case decisions, and a wide range of unwritten oral traditions.

So to dismiss aboriginal law or customs because they have been passed down orally when our own legal system and the British legal system ours inherits all its principles from, is hippocritical. We do the same thing.

[Rue]

The relevant information is largely only available in universities; copyrighted material, theses, etc. tend not to be freely available on the Net. You clearly don't want to make the effort to find out the truth, which is just another example of why you are a complete waste of time. I doubt you've even set foot in a university; your pathetically childish level of debate would never be tolerated at that level, not even in Canada.

Keng debate without getting personally insulting please. By the way the person you insult with due respect has been far from childish in what she has presented and in fact her comments are no different then many constitutional scholars I have had to listen to in university. If you disagree with them fine but please can we resist the urge to insult that applies to me too.

[Rue]

Except significantly contaminated and limited by the Charter of Special Pleadings and No Real Rights or Freedoms.

And even assuming that an "oral Constitution" provides real protections, as it does in the UK, it has been in continuous operation since the Glorious Revolution, with earlier antecedents such as the Magna Carta. The FN's bogus debatable "oral traditions" can be whatever the band leaders say they are.

But that is precisely the point JBG they aren't. The oral traditions can not be whatever the band leaders say they are. They aren't just made up subjectively just as these unwritten doctrine we rely on were not either.

I am not sure where this assumption comes from that an oral tradition is simply made up. That is a misnomer and our legal courts do not dismiss this oral tradition the way you do precisely because there are ways to corroborate it.

More to the point, there is nothing outlandish in these oral traditions. If some of us took the time to find out what they say, we would find they are not only accurate because historians have been able to corroborate them, but many of the traditions refer to principles we have borrowed and incorporated in our laws.

The notion of duality in our federal system is an aboriginal legal concept we adapted to try reconcile our French and English laws.

Many of our legal concepts as to collective rights in labour law or community rights in municipal law are based on aboriginal laws.

[Posit]

This is the most absurd legal ruling I have ever seen. Just because they don't have good evidence, we should accepted bad evidence so that it works. Better yet, people of a certain DNA have to prove less in court to get judgements in their favour, generally awarding more money, just because they didn't write stuff down.

What a joke. Oral history is invalid in all aspects in my opinion. It would not be valid for me to say that my grandfather's, grandfather once told me that the government exprorpriated his 400 acre farm on the outskirts of then Montreal, on which now are some of the most expensive houses in the area. And therefore I'm entitled to compensation?? (That story likely isn't far from the truth by the way).

If I brought that into court, I'd be laughed at. I'd probably even have some land titles documentation, but heresay is simply not valid.

Why make an exception for people of certain DNA requesting billions from the government? Only racism can be the approrpriate answer.

I'm glad that you have an opinion geoffrey but I'm also glad that your narrow point of view holds no weight in a court of law. You see we are collective guilty as Canadians of taking advantage, lying to, cheating and manipulating the deals we made with First Nations. And I believe that this is partly the reason they are not involved in our society and seeking solutions outside of our system. And since you or your ancestors have no history of oral tradition that can be tested and validated the way First Nations have, it is suffice to say that your opinion - as entitled you are to it - really is not that important. By all means if it improves your blood pressure to vent, then go for it. But remember that nothing you say that tries to advance that simplistic opinion will have any affect on the courts, First Nations or the "Rule of Law" the way it is written.

The courts have rule that oral tradition is NOT hearsay but carries as much weight (and more in some cases) as written history. This has nothing to do with DNA and everythign to do with the "Rule of Law". You do believe in the "Rule of Law" do you not?

[Posit]

But that is precisely the point JBG they aren't. The oral traditions can not be whatever the band leaders say they are. They aren't just made up subjectively just as these unwritten doctrine we rely on were not either.

I am not sure where this assumption comes from that an oral tradition is simply made up. That is a misnomer and our legal courts do not dismiss this oral tradition the way you do precisely because there are ways to corroborate it.

More to the point, there is nothing outlandish in these oral traditions. If some of us took the time to find out what they say, we would find they are not only accurate because historians have been able to corroborate them, but many of the traditions refer to principles we have borrowed and incorporated in our laws.

The notion of duality in our federal system is an aboriginal legal concept we adapted to try reconcile our French and English laws.

Many of our legal concepts as to collective rights in labour law or community rights in municipal law are based on aboriginal laws.

Their assumptions about oral history come from some elementary school game we played where the teacher tells the first child a secret and then they pass it on until they get to the last child who then tells the teacher what the secret was. Of course the secret gets changed along the way. Because they could not keep a small secret straight and have attention problems as children, they prejudice their belief that Natives must have a memory like them. They cannot comprehend that oral tradition is a skill practiced and passed on among native people and they have a proficient recall about details and facts.

In the majority of cases the oral history is tested against some of the written history presented to the court and links are found that validate the oral versions. The problem in written history is that it is tainted with the prejudice of the single writer and often relies upon hearsay to form those prejudices. However, when the facts are presented and the oral history is consistent with the facts, the use of oral history is much more reliable since it is carried by many people (and verified) and contains details of the reasoning for First Nations entering into agreements with the Crown in the first place.

[ScottSA]

Their assumptions about oral history come from some elementary school game we played where the teacher tells the first child a secret and then they pass it on until they get to the last child who then tells the teacher what the secret was. Of course the secret gets changed along the way. Because they could not keep a small secret straight and have attention problems as children, they prejudice their belief that Natives must have a memory like them. They cannot comprehend that oral tradition is a skill practiced and passed on among native people and they have a proficient recall about details and facts.

In the majority of cases the oral history is tested against some of the written history presented to the court and links are found that validate the oral versions. The problem in written history is that it is tainted with the prejudice of the single writer and often relies upon hearsay to form those prejudices. However, when the facts are presented and the oral history is consistent with the facts, the use of oral history is much more reliable since it is carried by many people (and verified) and contains details of the reasoning for First Nations entering into agreements with the Crown in the first place.

Of course oral history could never be fabricated out of self-interest. Why, I am just beginning to remember something from my youth....why, yes...it was my grandad, I think...yes, we own all of the hilands and much of the lowlands, and we all recall a treaty way back when Longshanks promised my family neverending moolah for ever and ever and ever. There, how's that for an oral tradition.

[kengs333]

I'm glad that you have an opinion geoffrey but I'm also glad that your narrow point of view holds no weight in a court of law. You see we are collective guilty as Canadians of taking advantage, lying to, cheating and manipulating the deals we made with First Nations. And I believe that this is partly the reason they are not involved in our society and seeking solutions outside of our system. And since you or your ancestors have no history of oral tradition that can be tested and validated the way First Nations have, it is suffice to say that your opinion - as entitled you are to it - really is not that important. By all means if it improves your blood pressure to vent, then go for it. But remember that nothing you say that tries to advance that simplistic opinion will have any affect on the courts, First Nations or the "Rule of Law" the way it is written.

The courts have rule that oral tradition is NOT hearsay but carries as much weight (and more in some cases) as written history. This has nothing to do with DNA and everythign to do with the "Rule of Law". You do believe in the "Rule of Law" do you not?

You can couch it in as sophisticated an argument as you can muster, but in the end oral histories are notoriously unreliable. It would seem to me that the courts have been forced into a position of having to accept such a thing as valid for the sake of being "culturally sensitive". Personally, I find it interesting how you place so much emphasis on the fact that the courts now accept oral history as having "much weight," while at the same time being critical of the Canadian legal system for up holding the legality of past land sales and surrenders.

[jennie]

while at the same time being critical of the Canadian legal system for up holding the legality of past land sales and surrenders.

What "past land sales and surrenders have been upheld"?

[Posit]

You can couch it in as sophisticated an argument as you can muster, but in the end oral histories are notoriously unreliable.

Again, for the slower thinkers.....the courts disagree with you. Oral history is AS reliable or MORE reliable in some cases than British written history. That isn't my opinion. It it th determination fo the court and thus the "Rule of Law".

It would seem to me that the courts have been forced into a position of having to accept such a thing as valid for the sake of being "culturally sensitive".

Courts are not political entities. There determine cases on point of law. They don't make law, they interpret it based on distinct rules of society. If they were political entities there is no doubt that the outcomes would be much different. However as legal entities their acceptance of oral history as being weighted as much as written history is a fact of our life in Canada and your objections over your opinion are pretty much pissing in the wind, so to speak.

Personally, I find it interesting how you place so much emphasis on the fact that the courts now accept oral history as having "much weight," while at the same time being critical of the Canadian legal system for up holding the legality of past land sales and surrenders.

The "legal system" is NOT holding up the so-called "past land sales and surrenders". They are striking them down and using oral history as one of the points of evidence to confirm what the treaties mean and what was really agreed to. That's what is scary to the white Anglo Saxon Christian male: you're afraid of losing the ability to propagate myth as truth, and in turn the entire concept of Jesus begins to fall apart. I realize that all of this is emasculating for you, but since our lives as Canadians is built on myth and deception, I would just as well see the truth come out in whatever form it has to take.

[ScottSA]

Again, for the slower thinkers.....the courts disagree with you. Oral history is AS reliable or MORE reliable in some cases than British written history. That isn't my opinion. It it th determination fo the court and thus the "Rule of Law".

What nonsense. All I've heard cited is the virtually irrelevant and unconnected concept of British common law, and one case individually accepted, in part. For the snail-like thinkers, that is not a blanket agreement to accept "oral history" every time some shaman pops out of represssed memory syndrome and discovers his tribe owns a city or two. Save us from fools.

And frankly, your celebration of the courts as entities aloof and above politics is a bit transparent, since when they do things you don't like, all of a sudden they're just whitey's lackeys, and/or operating outside some pie in the sky indian "law."

Edited September 24, 2007 by ScottSA

[jbg]

Aboriginal peoples' legal arguements are not based onwanting you to be responsible for anything. No one can force you or anyone else to understand their history and what happened to them. What some of us are trying to argue though is that honouring their treaties is a legal obligation we do not have the legal right to simply ignore.

Excellent post. I skipped quoting the background because it is imposible to disagree with. As you know I share many of the things you mentioned, though my ancestors came between 1890 and 1910 when there were not US restrictions on immigration.

I must differ with you on the quoted portion. I believe that the FN's want not only the land, but the handlouts. I do not believe that the ones burning tires in Caledonia plan to take responsiblity for anything. I just received an e-mail last night from a Sudbury nickel worker who said that the FN's he works with work their fool @sses off. Those are not the people with time on their hands to demonstrate or "do security" in occupied, partially constructed buildings.

Our constitution is not just written. It is not limited to the Constitutional Act or Charter of Rights or subsequent legal decisions that state how it should be applied. It is also based on an oral tradition of principles that have been passed down. Our very legal system is based on oral doctrines that have been passed down. So of course is Britain's constitution in that regard. The British constitutional system is not based on one document. Its constitutional laws come from different statutes, case decisions, and a wide range of unwritten oral traditions.

So to dismiss aboriginal law or customs because they have been passed down orally when our own legal system and the British legal system ours inherits all its principles from, is hippocritical. We do the same thing.

I do agree that the Canadian system can accomodate French/English and FN dualities. But that's only if all sides, not just English-speaking whites, do the accomodating.

[Posit]

I believe that the FN's want not only the land, but the handlouts.

I think you are in an untenable position because you haven't a clue what First Nations want and can only "imagine" it. The people I talk to (who are Six Nation and Tyendinaga Mohawks) want nothing more than a justice that not only includes the return of lands 'stolen' from them and a removal of the economic barriers that continually obstruct their advancement. They say they are not interested in joining Canada but are convinced that the only way to move away from barricades and protests is when Canada recognizes and continues to polish the Covenant Chain. For those who don't know the Covenant Chain is an treaty of peace and goodwill made 200 years ago, that guaranteed consultation and consideration in every move either party did that might have an effect on the other nation. And this is exactly what the Supreme Court rule must happen when any development, resource extraction or alteration occurs on land in which First Nations have a treaty or aboriginal right on. I think it would be justice to at least do what we have been promising to do, and now are ordered to do under the "Rule of Law"

I do agree that the Canadian system can accomodate French/English and FN dualities. But that's only if all sides, not just English-speaking whites, do the accommodating.

I do believe this why negotiation is the only course of action that will solve these issues. However, the "English-speaking whites" as you coin, are the ones who are most reluctant to find compromises. You have heard many people around here and elsewhere no doubt suggest that First Nations must comply with our law and our moral society and norms, right? Who do you think are being the hard-heads? The fact that First Nations have been willing to enter into negotiations for all these years to resolve their differences is sufficient for me to say that they are more than willing to settle their differences, if only our side could hold up our ends of the bargains.