Caledonia

[noahbody]

Isn't it interesting we Westerners coined the racist term " Indian Giver " because in this case we certainly acted like "European givers" because in 1792, Simcoe unilaterallyreduced the size of the land granted tio 1,110 km² or 111,000 hectares.

The origin of the term "Indian Giver" has to do with the native custom of gift-giving. When they gave a gift, they expected something in return. It's not about taking back of a gift.

As far as the Simcoe Deed goes, it was done out of a request of Brant seeking a grant that gave them ownership, as he understood the Haldimand Proclamation did not.

[Posit]

The origin of the term "Indian Giver" has to do with the native custom of gift-giving. When they gave a gift, they expected something in return. It's not about taking back of a gift.

No it is not.....

According to a number of Elders and native teachers I have met over the years, the term "Indian Giver" comes from a practice where if I gave someone a fork and another person gave them a fork as a gift also, I had the right to go and take my gift back. This comes from the belief that all property (tools, utensils etc) are communal property and there really is no sense of ownership in the same way we tend to hoard things. In the example given, the practical side is there is no way that a person could eat with two forks at the same time, and since it is likely that someone else would have need of a fork I could choose another recipient of the gift.

Although, the government in their attempts to steal and deceive natives sure give it a whole other definition, don't they.

[noahbody]

No it is not.....

According to a number of Elders and native teachers I have met over the years, the term "Indian Giver" comes from a practice where if I gave someone a fork and another person gave them a fork as a gift also, I had the right to go and take my gift back. This comes from the belief that all property (tools, utensils etc) are communal property and there really is no sense of ownership in the same way we tend to hoard things. In the example given, the practical side is there is no way that a person could eat with two forks at the same time, and since it is likely that someone else would have need of a fork I could choose another recipient of the gift.

Although, the government in their attempts to steal and deceive natives sure give it a whole other definition, don't they.

Why would you assume elders and native teachers are experts on the origin of English language? A good example that oral history can be riddled with speculation.

Indian Giver

There are two popular etymologies for this term for a person who gives a gift only to later demand its return. The first is that it is based on an unfair stereotype of Native Americans, that they don't keep their word. In the other popular explanation, the term doesn't cast aspersions on Native Americans, instead it echoes the broken promises the whites made to the Indians. Neither is accurate, although the first is closer to the truth.

Instead the term comes from different commercial practices. To the Native Americans, who had no concept of money or currency, gifts were a form of trade goods, of exchange. One didn't give a gift without expecting one of equivalent value in return. If one could not offer an equivalent return gift, the original gift would be refused or returned. To the Europeans, who with their monetary-based trade practices, this seemed low and insulting, gifts were not for trade but were to be freely given.

The noun Indian gift dates to 1765. Indian giver follows about a century later in 1865. Originally, these reflected simply the expectation of a return gift. By the 1890s, the sense had shifted to mean one who demands a gift back.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=indian+giver

[Rue]

Of course oral history could never be fabricated out of self-interest. "

Scott the last time I looked, writing things down did not guarantee they were not fabricated out of self interest either. Lol. I am not sure what your point is but what I would say is just because someone writes something down is no guarantee its not fabricated including this.

[jennie]

Of course oral history could never be fabricated out of self-interest. "

Scott the last time I looked, writing things down did not guarantee they were not fabricated out of self interest either. Lol. I am not sure what your point is but what I would say is just because someone writes something down is no guarantee its not fabricated including this.

There are some people on here that will argue black is white without ever cracking a dictionary to see if they are right.

I find that sad, that some think it is more important to defend their own "collection of prejudices" than to learn the truth.

As a society, we progress according to our ability to absorb and make sense of new information.

[Rue]

Why would you assume elders and native teachers are experts on the origin of English language? A good example that oral history can be riddled with speculation.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=indian+giver

How about quoting the Urban Dictionary? Is it not possible the Urban dictionary is also riddled with speculation? Again why do you assume the words you refer to from the Urban Dictionary are the only words to be considered as the meaning for the term " Indian Giver ".

You see its this assumption that automatically because its a dictionary and the person that told you something is a native that makes me ask are you even cognizant of the fact that you reject what this man says, not because its untrue but simply because he's aboriginal. If he was white and wrote a dictionary would you then believe him?

How about me? I am not native. Did it ever cross your mind that I and many other natives listen to aboriginal elders as to such things because they have NO reason to lie and its precisely because the words were directed at them that makes them provide an explanation your dictionary may not have recorded? Do you think truth is only in your eyes or terms of reference you define?

Since you brought this up, lets bring it right out in the open shall we and put it to bed.

Christopher Columbus mistakenly thinking he was in the “ Indies” started calling the native peoples he encountered as “indios” which is where the term Indian comes from.

The word “Indian" then became used by Europeans and then white settlers as an all-purpose "bogus" or "false," without the term giver attached to it. The negative context of the use of the word flowed directly from the believe that native peoples were inferior to Europeans.

The term "Indian summer" was coined simply because it meant false summer. The terms "Indian corn" and "Indian tea," are examples of how it was inserted before other words to signify that what it was describing, i.e., corn, tea, was of inferior quality.

Attaching the word "Indian “ to “giver" was done to bring into question the credibility of the giver.

Thomas Hutchinson an American described the term in 1765, in his book, The history of the Province of Massachusetts Bay ;"An Indian gift is a proverbial expression, signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected."

However the above description was based on his false assumption that “Indians” had a custom of giving a present but expecting something in return. This was a classic example of a non-native making an assumption of an Indian custom, then deeming it so. It is a classic example of a false assumption taking on a life of its own. That does not change the fact that it is false. Repeating it over and over does not make it legitimate.

More to the point his fabricated definition based on his false assumption which has been used by some to suggest “Indian giver” means one who expects something of equal or greater value in return is not the way it was ever used.

When the word “Indian” was attached to “giver” it was done no differently then how it was used to describe summer or tea or how it was used in a general sense, i.e., to describe something as false, or inferior because “Indians” themselves were considered inferior and of no value. Because Indians were considered to have no value, the word used to describe them took on that meaning, no more, no less.

It is a classic case of a racist concept, i.e., the belief “Indians” were of no value, fastening itself into the every day language to signify no value.

Ethnic slurs transferring themselves into every day language is seen in such words as “gyped” and “Jewed” and “niggardly” and on and on.

Interestingly the term “ Indian” was also used in England to insult people who had spent time in India.

So enough with this bull. We all know the term “Indian giver” was created by non natives to suggest they were untrustworthy-period.

It is nothing more then a racist term and so who better to understand it then the people who were the target of it.

It seems to me the people targetted for the hatred are in the best position to teach us what it meant not some friggin dictionary.

[kengs333]

The word "niggardly" has no connection to "nigger" from what I understand.

[M.Dancer]

The word "niggardly" has no connection to "nigger" from what I understand.

None what so ever.

nig·gard (ngrd)

n.

A stingy, grasping person; a miser.

adj.

Stingy; miserly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English nigard, perhaps from nig, stingy person, of Scandinavian origin.]

I would bet on that, and trust me, I have never welched on a bet, and if I ever do, haul me away on a paddy wagon. Mind you, before the ol bill comes to take me away, they would be best to summon up some dutch courage or better yet, take french leave.....naw...I'm just joshin....try to take the mikey out on ya....

[noahbody]

So enough with this bull. We all know the term “Indian giver” was created by non natives to suggest they were untrustworthy-period.

It is nothing more then a racist term and so who better to understand it then the people who were the target of it.

It seems to me the people targetted for the hatred are in the best position to teach us what it meant not some friggin dictionary.

Of course it meant untrustworthy. I'm also aware of the theory you stated of "Indian" be equated to "false." Why I would lean towards the origin I quoted (if you think it's exclusive to the urban dictionary, you're mistaken) is because it referenced the first known usage of the actual phrase "Indian giver." As to your comment that "who better to understand it 'then' the people who were the target of it," that lacks common sense. Let me demonstrate. You're a hack.* Now, why did I call you this?

*name calling for demonstration purposes only

[AngusThermopyle]

Go to any university in Ontario, and you will find papers, reports, journals, theses and books on the archeology of Ontario. I know it may be a little daunting, but give it a try anyway. Keep in mind, though, due to the scientific nature of the field, many of the articles/reports etc. will be quite technical.

The problem is some of us are from your same world and we do read and we are scientific and we are technical and we find what you say racist bullshit. Is that too technical?

Sorry Rue, I fail to see any racism in the preceding statement. What I see is a guy who is saying that if you go to a University you will find a plethora of information relating to the subject, however it may be pretty technical.

So where is the racism in that, he's 100% correct, you will find lots of information and, yes, it will be technical. How you extrapolate racism from that I have no idea.

[ScottSA]

I can't think of a better demonstration of the truth of the expression "Indian giver" than caledonia.

[Riverwind]

Did it ever cross your mind that I and many other natives listen to aboriginal elders as to such things because they have NO reason to lie

This is an incredibly naive statement. Native elders have a huge incentive to lie because huge sums of money potentially rest on their statements. More importantly, we know that human memory is quite malliable and that people will fabricate memories if given an incentive to do so. This means that their statements cannot be trusted even if they believe them to be true. Lastly, even if you can prove that the statements were true that does not mean that they have provided all of the relavent information. Selectiving editing of the information provided can drastically alter the meaning even without lying. For example, let's say the Brant sales were supported by a signicant number of chiefs in the 1700s - what are the chances that the elders living today would 'remember' that? I would say next to zero - the only narrative that would get passed down from generation to generation is the narrative that supports the myths that natives want to create about themselves. They would never pass on a narrative that contradicted their myths even if it is true. Edited September 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

This is an incredibly naive statement. Native elders have a huge incentive to lie because huge sums of money potentially rest on their statements. More importantly, we know that human memory is quite malliable and that people will fabricate memories if given an incentive to do so. This means that their statements cannot be trusted even if they believe them to be true. Lastly, even if you can prove that the statements were true that does not mean that they have provided all of the relavent information. Selectiving editing of the information provided can drastically alter the meaning even without lying. For example, let's say the Brant sales were supported by a signicant number of chiefs in the 1700s - what are the chances that the elders living today would 'remember' that? I would say next to zero - the only narrative that would get passed down from generation to generation is the narrative that supports the myths that natives want to create about themselves. They would never pass on a narrative that contradicted their myths even if it is true.

And yourself, Riverwind? Now that you have judged someone else's credibility based on absolutely no evidence and little understanding, how about a similar summary of your own.

[Riverwind]

And yourself, Riverwind? Now that you have judged someone else's credibility based on absolutely no evidence and little understanding, how about a similar summary of your own.

People lie, people omit facts and people believe what they want to believe even if it is false. Those are indisputable facts that are even more true when the lies provide personal gain. The onus is not on me to prove that native elders are not subject to same failings as every other human. I am simplying pointing out that it is absurd to claim that their word can be trusted. Edited September 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

People lie, people omit facts and people believe what they want to believe even if it is face. Those are indisputable facts that are even more true when the lies provide personal gain. The onus is not on me to prove that native elders are not subject to same failings as every other human. I am simplying pointing out that it is absurd to claim that their word can be trusted.

What you are saying is no one's word can be trusted.

[Riverwind]

What you are saying is no one's word can be trusted.

I have read studies where people are deliberately encouraged to believe in false memories. These studies demostrate that people will create false memories and will defend them in the face of counter evidence. These people were not lying - they honestly believed that what they were saying was true even though it could be proven false. IOW - even if you believe that someone is telling the truth you cannot know whether their 'truth' is fact or fiction.

That is why oral tradition is fundementally unreliable.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

I have read studies where people are deliberately encouraged to believe in false memories. These studies demostrate that people will create false memories and will defend them in the face of counter evidence. These people were not lying - they honestly believed that what they were saying was true even though it could be proven false. IOW - even if you believe that someone is telling the truth you cannot know whether their 'truth' is fact or fiction.

That is why oral tradition is fundementally unreliable.

Well again, your opinion aside, the Supreme Court of Canada believes oral tradition is reliable when it has met the tests they set out. AND in MNR v. Marshall they determined that the written agreement presented DID lie and so it was struck as being less reliable than the oral history.

Applying you own preference to lying, it is natural that you would think all people are liars. However, many of us have broken out of that mold and have no need to lie. Therefore by the same measure we mete to ourselves, we CAN believe that people are to be considered honest, until they are proven not to be. We recognized you long ago so there is no need for introductions.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Posit

[kengs333]

What you are saying is no one's word can be trusted.

grannyrants,

Writing evolved out of the need to keep reliable records of financial transactions and law codes. This implies that more advanced civilizations began to realize that there had to be some sort of concrete means of substantiating facts that could be open to interpretation. Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that the only records that we have on this issue are written and printed accounts originating from the European side. We can only go on what is written in them, to try and determine how much what is written is tainted by bias is simply speculation. We can't ever know what was said in order to generate these documents, nor can we really ever know the personalities of the people involved; but much of what the Six Nations is trying to accomplish, however, rests upon these unknowns. In order to settle this issue in a manner that is acceptable to the Six Nations, we would have to accept their century-and-a-half unverifiable claims, and this is simply something that should not be happening in the 21st century. What the Six Nations is trying to do is regressive, it undermines the very basis of our civilization, and simply should not be tolerated any further. We need to start looking at things through reason and logic, not emotion and fantasy.

[kengs333]

Well again, your opinion aside, the Supreme Court of Canada believes oral tradition is reliable when it has met the tests they set out. AND in MNR v. Marshall they determined that the written agreement presented DID lie and so it was struck as being less reliable than the oral history.

Applying you own preference to lying, it is natural that you would think all people are liars. However, many of us have broken out of that mold and have no need to lie. Therefore by the same measure we mete to ourselves, we CAN believe that people are to be considered honest, until they are proven not to be. We recognized you long ago so there is no need for introductions.

Well again, maybe you'd like to explain why Canadian law, in your opinion, is suddenly valid when it supports your agenda.

[kengs333]

People lie, people omit facts and people believe what they want to believe even if it is false. Those are indisputable facts that are even more true when the lies provide personal gain. The onus is not on me to prove that native elders are not subject to same failings as every other human. I am simplying pointing out that it is absurd to claim that their word can be trusted.

This is something that needs to be taken into consideration when negotiations take place; it would simply be beyond stupid for any agreement to come about based on the notion that somehow the Iroquois were honest and sincere in their attempts to secure the future of their own supposed nation.

The fact of the matter is that we do have official documents that show that the British had to substantiately increase the amount of payments and gifts to the Iroquois in the years leading up to the Haldimand Proclimation in order to secure their allegiance. That alone suggests that their was some attempt on the part of the Iroquois to exploit the precarious position that the British were in. Some ally. What I would give to know what the cheifs were saying to one another around the camp fire during those years in the early 1780s. I bet they really thought they were pulling one over on the "white man"...

[Posit]

Well again, maybe you'd like to explain why Canadian law, in your opinion, is suddenly valid when it supports your agenda.

I have no agenda. However, the "Rule of Law" which you often dismiss supports not only Six Nations requests for consultation and meaningful accommodation, but through oral history puts their evidence on par with ours. Canadian law is the "Rule of Law" something most of you don't get because you fear it advantages First Nations in their claims against us.

[Riverwind]

Well again, your opinion aside, the Supreme Court of Canada believes oral tradition is reliable when it has met the tests they set out. AND in MNR v. Marshall they determined that the written agreement presented DID lie and so it was struck as being less reliable than the oral history.

As usual, you only present part of the story:

In Lac La Ronge Indian Band v. Canada, the trial judge found that oral accounts of the treaty negotiations could be admitted but must be treated

with caution. . . because the individuals who testified on behalf of the band have been actively involved in the pursuit of Indian Rights and there was a chance that their personal opinions may have coloured their testimony regarding the history of negotiations (at para. 37).

The Court of Appeal agreed.

In Benoit v. Canada, 2003 FCA 236, the Federal Court of Appeal reversed the finding of the trial court that a tax assurance given by federal negotiators at the time of entering Treaty 8 was understood by the aboriginal signatories as a tax exemption and amounted to an enforceable treaty right. According to the appellate court, the oral history evidence relied upon by the trial judge for this conclusion was ambiguous and inconclusive. The court concluded that the oral history evidence had not been assessed with due caution and that it should have been assigned no weight.

The court's decision in Benoit is not so different from the Supreme Court's analysis of oral history in Mitchell. The principles underpinning the way oral history evidence is to be valued remain untouched. In the circumstances of the Benoit case, however, the issue went to the kind and quality of evidence that would stack up to the Mitchell test. Moreover, given the interpretive issues in Benoit, the decision of the Court of Appeal is not so much about oral history evidence and its use as to what it takes to show a common intention in a treaty promise. The court's decision revived the conventional approach to written promises by searching for a mutual intent in the language or in extrinsic evidence. In so doing, the court rejected an approach based upon the aboriginal understanding of the circumstances.

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

The courts may have accepted oral history as evidence for certain cases but that does not mean it is always accepted as face value.

In fact, the courts may have actually prejudiced the reliability future oral evidence because of the incentive to manipulate the evidence is much stronger now.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[jbg]

The courts may have accepted oral history as evidence for certain cases but that does not mean it is always accepted as face value.

In fact, the courts may have actually prejudiced the reliability future oral evidence because of the incentive to manipulate the evidence is much stronger now.

The acceptance of oral tradition as "evidence" is a major "watering down" of the protections inherent in the right of cross examination. The Courts have a general "rule against hearsay" because it is impossible to examine an unavailable declarant as to the "truth of the matter asserted". What can be more difficult to examine than the truth of some long dead shaman?

I think the SCOC made a grievous error in this regard.

[Riverwind]

I think the SCOC made a grievous error in this regard.

The SCC has made many errors when it comes to aboriginal issues and, as a result, has made it virtually impossible to predict how it would rule on any given case. On one occasion it had to issue a 'clairification' of a ruling once it realized the far reaching implications. When this case gets to the SCC its decision will be governed mainly by the politics as opposed to the legalities. The SCC was in the same situation when it ruled on Bill 101 or government's question on secession. Edited September 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[Posit]

The SCC has made many errors when it comes to aboriginal issues and, as a result, has made it virtually impossible to predict how it would rule on any given case. On one occasion it had to issue a 'clairification' of a ruling once it realized the far reaching implications. When this case gets to the SCC its decision will be governed mainly by the politics as opposed to the legalities. The SCC was in the same situation when it ruled on Bill 101 or government's question on secession.

In legal terms, the SCoC does not make any errors in interpretation. They confirm the law and have the final say.

Still in those cases you state the courts accepted oral history as a form of evidence. The SCoC hasn't ruled an open season on oral history but has set out a number of rigorous tests it must pass before being accepted. That would be similar to the tests that are required for written evidence to be submitted. I mean one does not accept hand scratched notes written months after an event as substantial proof. Neither does it accept that agreements written by the British after they have come to oral terms with people who couldn't read holds much weight either and it is incumbent on the courts to fully certify agreement documents were fully understood by both parties.

But like I said your opinions are worthless in comparison to what the "Rule of Law" actually is.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Posit