NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know how many of you have been following the coverage of the standoff between Police and members of the Six Nations in Caledonia, Ontario.

There is some coverage of the days events here. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/24/caledonia060424.html)

Very briefly, the land in question was part of a Grant given to the Six Nations as a reqard (or compensation) for their loyalty to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War. The government says it was given up legally to make way for a highway in 1841. Six Nations members say that was meant to be a lease. Money was put aside to pay for it but was sloppily invested and the Six Nations never saw most of it.

A court issued an injunction ordering the Six Nations to leave. The Six Nations say they are bound by their own laws to stay and protect their land. It is worth noting that the Six Nations have repeatedly asserted they never agreed to become British (and eventually Canadian) subjects: they were and remain allies of the Crown, not subjects, and their acceptance of the land was on those terms.

I am wondering what people think of the assertion that they are not bound by the court order, or at least that they are bound to respect their laws first and foremost. Does (and should) our legal system allow for this? How do we deal with the situation of Aboriginal Canadians who have a claim to being bound by dual sets of rights and responsibilities (those to the Canadian state, and those to their Nation ... not unlike other Canadians who are dual citizens) or have a claim to having a degree of sovereignty or independence from Canadian law.

And please, I would appreciate thoughtful posts, not knee-jerk reactions.

The laws of Canada apply. They are not their own little nation.

The laws of Canada apply. They are not their own little nation.

Care to back that up? How did the Canadian government acquire complete sovereignty over the Six Nations?

The simple thing would be to decide that they are a semi autonamous region (can't spell) and treat it like they treat quebec and so on, but however they are undoubtably part of canada so the simple thing would be to compulsorary purchess the land.

Care to back that up? How did the Canadian government acquire complete sovereignty over the Six Nations?
Force.

Force.

How? They were never conquered. They were military allies after all. The only First Nations in Canada that even came close to being conquered were those that sided with the French in the 7 years war, such as the Huron and the Mi'kmaq. But the French couldn't sign away their Allies land and independence any more than Germany could have signed away their allies land and independence after WWI. They quite simply never had the authority. The Mi'kmaq signed their own peace and friendship treaties with the British, but never ceded any land.

But I digress. Whence the force you speak of? When did the British turn on their former allies?

Care to back that up? How did the Canadian government acquire complete sovereignty over the Six Nations?

When the Six Nations can successfully repel Canada from what it considers to be its land, then they can have a claim to sovereignty.

When the Six Nations can successfully repel Canada from what it considers to be its land, then they can have a claim to sovereignty.

Didn't they just do that?

Besides, when did being able to repel other nations from your territory become the hallmark of sovereugnty? Kuwait needed the help of 30+ nations to get the Iraqis out, but no-one questions whether they are a soverign nation. And I doubt Lichenstein could really defend herself if one of her neighbours decided to flex their muscles, but no-one questions her independence either.

at the moment, none of Canada's Native nations are sovereign states because the majority of public opinion has never recognized them as such; the Canadian state never so much as conquered them by force, but rather through diplomatic and cultural means throughout time. that is to say, the conquest was not so much as a physical thing. physical repulsion such as the example cited of Kuwait is not necessarily the hallmark of sovereignty, but the idea of the nation must be preserved; this is seen in the idea of a free Tibet, where politically none exist, because public opinion supports this idea.

therefore, since the Six Nations are not widely accepted that they are sovereign states, then by virtue of this argument, Canadian law applies, because they own laws are not recognized as binding.

however, I don't believe that this should be the way things are, and I agree with the earlier post about treating all the Natives as "Quebecs" ; the Natives' actions now wouldn't be so different than if some other nation conquered the continent of Europe, treated Europeans as one culture, and then started to take advantage of them in every possible way.

Care to back that up? How did the Canadian government acquire complete sovereignty over the Six Nations?

Where is Caledonia located? Last I checked, it was in Canada. And please don't start with the "they were here first argument" since that implies that the natives conquered the land when they first came over on the land bridge.

You are trying to be clever by stating that the Six Nations somehow should have a different set of laws applied to them just because...what? They are natives? No one should be above the law nor should a different set of laws apply on the basis of skin colour.

Still, you showed that the Six Nations gave up the land in 1841 legally according to the government while the natives say it was only leased. Is this how you base your idea of the Six Nations claiming sovereignty? Do you see the Six nations as a complete and independent state? The example of Kuwait and Lichenstein are stupid since they are recognized by others as complete and independent units. Native reserves are not. Do you really think that a country outside of Canada will recognize a native reserve as an independent nation? At best, the natives will get some form of "self government" but Canada is a soveriegn nation. At one time, yes, the natives did have nations, but they are gone.

Besides, do you think that they natives will ever be allowed full autonomy? Raise their own army? Coin their own money? My goodness, if they did that then they would have to pay taxes.

Where is Caledonia located? Last I checked, it was in Canada. And please don't start with the "they were here first argument" since that implies that the natives conquered the land when they first came over on the land bridge.

Well, I wasn't going to. But now that you mention it, the Doctrine of Discovery is one means of establishing ownership of land under international law.


You are trying to be clever by stating that the Six Nations somehow should have a different set of laws applied to them just because...what? They are natives? No one should be above the law nor should a different set of laws apply on the basis of skin colour.

Not because of skin colour. Because of nationality. Because they are Iroquois. Assuming for a second that they are sovereign or semi-sovereign, then they have the ability to enact laws on their own territory, within whatever jurisdiction they possess. Their jurisdiction may be similar to that of independent nations. It may be similar to protectorates or other semi-autonomous national entities (in the US, Native Tribes have the status of domestic dependent nations). It may be similar to provinces. No-one disputes the fact that Alberta can pass a different set of laws than Ontario, or the Canada can pass a different set of laws than the US.


Still, you showed that the Six Nations gave up the land in 1841 legally according to the government while the natives say it was only leased. Is this how you base your idea of the Six Nations claiming sovereignty? Do you see the Six nations as a complete and independent state? The example of Kuwait and Lichenstein are stupid since they are recognized by others as complete and independent units. Native reserves are not. Do you really think that a country outside of Canada will recognize a native reserve as an independent nation? At best, the natives will get some form of "self government" but Canada is a soveriegn nation. At one time, yes, the natives did have nations, but they are gone.

First of all, international recognition is important, but not the be all and end all of sovereignty. Of course most states won't be inclined to recognize them, not because their claims aren't legitimate, but because they would fear people recognizing the sovereignty of their own indigenous peoples.

Also, I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier: what is the basis of the Canadian assertion of sovereignty over the Six Nations?

Finally, even if they did lose their independence at some point, could they not regain it, even to a limited degree? I can't even count the number of nations that lost their independence at some point, only to regain it at a later date.


Besides, do you think that they natives will ever be allowed full autonomy? Raise their own army? Coin their own money? My goodness, if they did that then they would have to pay taxes.

Most do pay taxes. Some to the Canadian state. Some to their First Nation. Most to both. The Indian Act provides only a very limited tax exemption for income earned on a reserve, and in many cases, even where the exemption applies, First Nations have implemented their own taxation.

Besides, do you think that they natives will ever be allowed full autonomy? Raise their own army? Coin their own money? My goodness, if they did that then they would have to pay taxes.

Besides. They don't need their own currency or military to be autonomous. Look at Monaco.

This situation reminds me of a Thucydides quote from the History of the Peloponnesus War, a must read;

"you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"

That summarizes distinctly the realist’s perspective on relations between states.

I'm not saying that this is the way it 'should' be, only that, in the end, it is the way it is...

I'm not sure about the legal situation for this particular group of Natives, but if it can be legally shown that the land belongs to the natives, it is very possible that Canadian laws need not apply. The Mohawks just south of Montreal are not bound by laws concerning tobacco, alcohol, housing, gambling, and urban planning laws that are in force throughout the rest fo Quebec and Canada.

Recogniton of treaty rights is enshrined in our constitution, it's one of the first items mentioned. We aquired land and territory through negotiation with the native peoples, albeit sometimes very one-sided negotiations. But the law of the land is to uphold those treaty rights.

The reservations aren't necessarily independent nations, but they are somewhat autonomous and have the legal right to be so, even in Canadian law.

Not knowing the specifics of this particular case, and knowing that the First Nations leadership is calling for the demonstrators to back down and allow negotiations to settle this, I would have to generally side with the courts on this one however.

This is a hard subject for me to remain calm about. But I'll give it my best.

The land in dispute was leased to the Canadian government. The Six Nations have not given consent for that land to be developed in this manner. The injunction to leave the land is not a valid one, as it assumes that the Canadian government has ownership of it. That is the basis of this dispute. That matter must be settled before questions of the legality of the injunction can be answered.

The laws of Canada apply. They are not their own little nation.
They are not a completely independent sovereign nation, but neither are they completely a part of Canada. First Nations are semi-autonomous by treaty. What is in dispute here is whether or not that particular piece of land is part of the Six Nations land, or part of 'Canada'.

at the moment, none of Canada's Native nations are sovereign states because the majority of public opinion has never recognized them as such
Public opinion does not trump the treaties. More and more First Nations are being recognised as self-governing, and semi-autonomous in full. Perhaps not by the public, but by the Canadian state. That means that yes, First Nations laws are binding on First Nations land. Which is the crux of the argument...who has claim to the land, and which laws apply? Public opinion notwithstanding.

Where is Caledonia located? Last I checked, it was in Canada. And please don't start with the "they were here first argument" since that implies that the natives conquered the land when they first came over on the land bridge. How do you 'conquer land'? We have been here for tens of thousands of years. That we have prior claim to this land is not even disputed by your own goverment. The disputes arise when treaties are violated, or mistakes are made...such as claiming that land was purchased instead of leased.

You are trying to be clever by stating that the Six Nations somehow should have a different set of laws applied to them just because...what? They are natives? No one should be above the law nor should a different set of laws apply on the basis of skin colour. This is not a question of being above the law. I really would wish that Canadians were more educated as to the historical responsibility of the Canadian government towards First Nations people in terms of the treaties that were signed. This has nothing to do with 'just because'. Land was given over to what is now Canada in return for certain concessions. One of those is tribal sovereignty, another is reserved land. That you don't know about this, or do not understand it, does not mean the claims aren't valid.

They are not their own little nation.

yes, they are. that's the point.

solidarity with the haudenosaunee.

When the Six Nations can successfully repel Canada from what it considers to be its land, then they can have a claim to sovereignty.

Which makes Canada......

I'm just enjoying the show. :)

I'm just enjoying the show. :)
What show (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/sinuhue/bek127.gif) are you referring to?;)

Which makes Canada......
Yes, that is a rather flimsy argument, isn't it?

What show (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/sinuhue/bek127.gif) are you referring to?;)

I suppose scalpings are out of the question. :p

I suppose scalpings are out of the question. :p
We've got enough bad press as it is.

What show (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/sinuhue/bek127.gif) are you referring to?;)

there has definitely been some nice riot pr0n from this - resistance always looks damn sexy

This (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/sinuhue/060425_caledonia05_gal.jpg) is the kind of public opinion we face. The uniformed, hostile public opinion that wants to 'make us pay'.

The media has finally started showing our side of things...and fairly well I think. They were asking a non-native protester what he would do if his family had lived on a piece of land for centuries, and had rented it out, and now the renters were claiming ownership and kicking him off...he was pretty taken aback. I think more people would understand why our people are doing this if they actually tried.

I think more people would understand why our people are doing this if they actually tried.

it's what comes from being so self-evidently in the right. shame that so many people would rather not try in the first place.

This (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/sinuhue/060425_caledonia05_gal.jpg) is the kind of public opinion we face. The uniformed, hostile public opinion that wants to 'make us pay'.

Wow, that's certainly more hostile than people around here are to the tribe. People may grumble under their breath, largely due to jealousy over the success of the local tribe, but I could never imagine someone publicly stating something like that.

it's what comes from being so self-evidently in the right. shame that so many people would rather not try in the first place.
It doesn't help that the majority of Canadians have had little to no contact with any native person outside of the occasional sighting and racist joke...

It is very rare to find a Canadian who has a basic understanding of the relationship between the Canadian state and the aboriginal people that reside here. I wasn't kidding when I said I wished it was taught in schools...before you hit University.

Wow, that's certainly more hostile than people around here are to the tribe. People may grumble under their breath, largely due to jealousy over the success of the local tribe, but I could never imagine someone publicly stating something like that.
It's not just about native people, and not just about these particular non-native protesters...look at the hostility that arises during any sort of conflict, a teacher strike for example. That kind of thing tends to boil up as tempers flare, and logic takes a walk.

It doesn't help that the majority of Canadians have had little to no contact with any native person outside of the occasional sighting and racist joke...

Not be be snide but... If the natives didn't insist on staying solely on their reserves for the most part, this wouldn't be a problem, but because there is a culture of isolation occurring, there is a negative effect stemming from it.

Of course, then there are those who do live in the cities, but we wouldn't know because they conduct themselves in such a manner that they are seen as Canadians in the same context that we view ourselves. They are accepted into the city and not viewed negatively, any more so than any other asshole who walks down Yonge.

To elaborate on my previous post...

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Aboriginal Canadians.

But, Sinhue, I think what you're failing to realise is that most Canadians honestly don't have an issue with your people. But, we get rather irked when we hear then say things like, "Canadian law doesn't apply to us." and yet, they are able to make use of the same services without paying taxes.

That's what I think, since most Canadians are tolerant of immigrants and people of colour. We generally don't have a problem with anyone until they think they're better than us and as examplified with the standoff at Caledonia, we see Canadians becoming irked because the Mohawks have decided that they are going to whine after police try and break up the protest at day 52/53 (gee, if the people of Belrus had that long, they'd be rejoicing).

Further, from the POV of the people of Caledonia, they only formed a counter protest because of the blockade. With any protest or strike, the best way to win hearts is NOT to irritate those you want to win the support and sympathy of. By blocking a major throughway, they've essentially done just that.

As for the whole isolation issue.

Honestly, I think tolerance can only be truly fostered with integration (not assimilation, but integration of a group of people) into a community, while retaining their culture. Many are able to do it while being part of a greater community.

How do you think the African and Carribean-Canadians did it?

Yes, there is still racism, but, not as much because they've made their presence strong and they've made it clear that they are also like us in the sense that they too are Canadian, even if they have a different ethnic background and culture.

Now, continuing and asking that you see this through the eyes of a Canadian living in a city, there are always problems and there will always be people who feel that they are on the fringe of society, regardless of colour.

Ok, since I've said as I felt, hopefully without flaming and clarifying my stance, I have a question for you...

Given that the Aboriginals in Canada feel and believe, based on an agreement from 1841, that they are genuinely entitled to the land and this current generation hasn't been forced from their homes, how can the barricade be justified? The protest can be easily validated, but the barricade?

You've said before that the Canadian public is all too complacent when it comes to aboriginal affairs, but, not all of us have the finacial capacity or the connections to make a difference and when we vote, we vote on what is presented. We have no control once the government is in power; we are in effect, equally as powerless as the aboriginals. Look at the Ontario farmers who've had to take their protest to 24 Sussex Drive.

And even if we vote for someone who does promise to help solve the issue that the First Nations' People have presented, who is to say that promise wom't be broken like others have in the past?

It is very rare to find a Canadian who has a basic understanding of the relationship between the Canadian state and the aboriginal people that reside here. I wasn't kidding when I said I wished it was taught in schools...before you hit University.

No kidding. I got a very basic history of First NAtions in our province in Grade 6, a bit of history of the Metis in Grade 11, and then no aboriginal content again until law school.

When it is taught in schools, it also tends to be taught from outdated books and viewpoints, and in a confusing and misleading way.

Not be be snide but... If the natives didn't insist on staying solely on their reserves for the most part, this wouldn't be a problem, but because there is a culture of isolation occurring, there is a negative effect stemming from it.


Almost half of Native Canadians live off reserve. There are probably plenty living all around you. They may not be in your social circle, but they are there.

The truth is, most Canadians don't go out of their way to meet people that don't come from a similar background.

Also, would it be to much to ask for non-Natives to take the time to visit a reserve?

How do you 'conquer land'? We have been here for tens of thousands of years. That we have prior claim to this land is not even disputed by your own goverment. The disputes arise when treaties are violated, or mistakes are made...such as claiming that land was purchased instead of leased.

I would like to see proof of this. As well, again, just because you were here first suddenly gives you special rights? Also, isn't the whole dispute in this case centered around this entire problem of whether or not the land was leased or purchased?


This is not a question of being above the law. I really would wish that Canadians were more educated as to the historical responsibility of the Canadian government towards First Nations people in terms of the treaties that were signed. This has nothing to do with 'just because'. Land was given over to what is now Canada in return for certain concessions. One of those is tribal sovereignty, another is reserved land. That you don't know about this, or do not understand it, does not mean the claims aren't valid.

Wow. Thanks for being so condescending. What is our historical responsibility then? As far as I know, each native group, which call themselves a nation, signed various agreements with the federal government. I'm sure that some groups came out further ahead than others in that respect. What about in this specific instance?

And what exactly does tribal sovereignty mean? You can make your own laws? Is it restricted to only the reserves? Does it mean that one set of laws (Indian law) apply on the reserve and another (White law) apply to the rest of Canada?

So, do natives not see themselves as Canadians? If so, then they should forfeit the rights and priviledges that it entails.

What do the natives really want?

But, Sinhue, I think what you're failing to realise is that most Canadians honestly don't have an issue with your people. But, we get rather irked when we hear then say things like, "Canadian law doesn't apply to us." and yet, they are able to make use of the same services without paying taxes.

Their services are generally not of the same quality, and as pointed out earlier, in general they do pay taxes. The tax exemption has much more limited application than people think, and even when it does apply, the First Nation often has a comparable tax of their own.



Further, from the POV of the people of Caledonia, they only formed a counter protest because of the blockade. With any protest or strike, the best way to win hearts is NOT to irritate those you want to win the support and sympathy of. By blocking a major throughway, they've essentially done just that.


I am in no position to speak for the Haudanasonee (I'll start using the more correct term instead of Six Nations), but I did not get the impression that they were expecting sympathy from the townspeople of Caledonia. They may be looking for some broader public support. But I think the main point is that they feel that enough is enough and they had to put their foot down. Unfortunately, the way we set these issues up tends to paint developers as bringers of progress, and anyone who tries to stop development as an opponent of human progress.

Also, you have to recognize that all over the country the government is selling off land to private interests in a deliberate strategy to defeat native land claims. The government refuses to recognize claims over private land, and also knows that the courts won't recognize aboriginal title once the land has been developed in a way that is inconsistent with aboriginal use (e.g. if the claim is based on a traditional use, such as hunting, once the land is no longer suitable for hunting, the claim is likely to be dismissed). So natives can stand by and watch the government erode the land base they need in order to both maintain their traditions and culture, as well as if they have any hope of developing modern economies, or they can stand up and try to stop this from happening. If it was your land, what would you do?

Almost half of Native Canadians live off reserve. There are probably plenty living all around you. They may not be in your social circle, but they are there.

The truth is, most Canadians don't go out of their way to meet people that don't come from a similar background.

Also, would it be to much to ask for non-Natives to take the time to visit a reserve?

I have worked on a reserve actually. This is what I saw. People driving around aimlessly in their trucks. Some people actually working but most just sitting around. I saw big welfare cheques each month being cashed at the store (bigger than mine and I was working). I saw some of the elite families on the reserve accessing money and denying their fellow the same. I saw crime and violence. I saw the after affects of a botched suicide and yes, it was me the white man getting up at 3 am at 30 below celsius to put out the landing lights for the evac plane because the natives could not be relied upon to help their own. There was only one native fellow who was actually trying to do something good but he was struggling. I saw big GST cheques being cashed and yet they paid no GST. I saw smashed in houses that were only 2 years old because the people living there didn't have to swing a hammer. All they had to do is say "I'm a native" and presto! Instant house.

I realize that their are restrictions placed on the local band governments by the federal governments. I also know that there is a lack of accountability by the local bands as to where the money goes but perhaps that is changing.

As well, since quite a few natives are living off reserve do they suddenly lose their rights or do they also get the benefits of being a Canadian?

But of course, let's blame the white man for everything.

As well, when I was making my remarks about sovereignty (raising an army, coining money) those are some of the points that came to mind. Suddenly you throw out Monaco. Gee, let's pick an exception to the general rule in the hopes of invalidating my argument. Did I say that my list was exhaustive? Nope. Are there degrees of autonomy? Sure. I can ammend my remarks on that.

Also, would it be to much to ask for Natives to ever be happy? How much money needs to be shelled out?

As well, again, just because you were here first suddenly gives you special rights?

Not special rights. Just different rights. And responsibilities.




And what exactly does tribal sovereignty mean? You can make your own laws? Is it restricted to only the reserves? Does it mean that one set of laws (Indian law) apply on the reserve and another (White law) apply to the rest of Canada?

It means they can make their own laws on their territory within their area of sovereignty. Just as the provinces can make their own laws within their areas of jurisdiction, and other semi-sovereign entities can legislate within their jurisdiction.


So, do natives not see themselves as Canadians? If so, then they should forfeit the rights and priviledges that it entails.

Why can't they be both Canadians and members of their First Nation at the same time? A concept not unlike dual citizenship, something Canadians generally have no problem with?

Not special rights. Just different rights. And responsibilities.

Such as?


It means they can make their own laws on their territory within their area of sovereignty. Just as the provinces can make their own laws within their areas of jurisdiction, and other semi-sovereign entities can legislate within their jurisdiction.

And when there is a dispute, what law will win out? Or will you leave that to the courts - which natives in this case don't even recognize. You will never have a perfect deliniation of spheres of responsibility.


Why can't they be both Canadians and members of their First Nation at the same time? A concept not unlike dual citizenship, something Canadians generally have no problem with?

Because in this case, "dual" citizenship is perceived as getting special priviledges - such as not paying GST minus the responsibilities. And some of those priviledges, like getting a brand new house (yes, limited to a reserve and what reserve you come from I think is how it goes) is seen as excessive. And I have to pay for it.

As far as I know, dual citizenship enables a person easier access into a country but then again, you may have other responsibilities to uphold, such as miltary service.

Finally, would it be too much to ask from natives for them to know that other groups of people have suffered but actually managed to move on and make something of themselves instead of crying all the time? My hometown was home to a POW camp in WWI. The language (Ukranian) was banned in parts of Canada. But we managed to address those issues and get on with our lives.

It doesn't help that the majority of Canadians have had little to no contact with any native person outside of the occasional sighting and racist joke...

It is very rare to find a Canadian who has a basic understanding of the relationship between the Canadian state and the aboriginal people that reside here. I wasn't kidding when I said I wished it was taught in schools...before you hit University.

And what point of view would you want to be presented in this case? I would like to see it as well, actually, as long as the material being delivered is unbiased. It also should include that the different native groups living in Canada did not live peacefully with each other but had brutal wars like, say, any other group of people living on this earth throughout history.

And what point of view would you want to be presented in this case? I would like to see it as well, actually, as long as the material being delivered is unbiased. It also should include that the different native groups living in Canada did not live peacefully with each other but had brutal wars like, say, any other group of people living on this earth throughout history.

What makes you think the material they are currently teaching is unbiased.

I have worked on a reserve actually. This is what I saw. People driving around aimlessly in their trucks. Some people actually working but most just sitting around. I saw big welfare cheques each month being cashed at the store (bigger than mine and I was working). I saw some of the elite families on the reserve accessing money and denying their fellow the same. I saw crime and violence. I saw the after affects of a botched suicide and yes, it was me the white man getting up at 3 am at 30 below celsius to put out the landing lights for the evac plane because the natives could not be relied upon to help their own. There was only one native fellow who was actually trying to do something good but he was struggling. I saw big GST cheques being cashed and yet they paid no GST. I saw smashed in houses that were only 2 years old because the people living there didn't have to swing a hammer. All they had to do is say "I'm a native" and presto! Instant house.

I realize that their are restrictions placed on the local band governments by the federal governments. I also know that there is a lack of accountability by the local bands as to where the money goes but perhaps that is changing.

As well, since quite a few natives are living off reserve do they suddenly lose their rights or do they also get the benefits of being a Canadian?

But of course, let's blame the white man for everything.

As well, when I was making my remarks about sovereignty (raising an army, coining money) those are some of the points that came to mind. Suddenly you throw out Monaco. Gee, let's pick an exception to the general rule in the hopes of invalidating my argument. Did I say that my list was exhaustive? Nope. Are there degrees of autonomy? Sure. I can ammend my remarks on that.

Also, would it be to much to ask for Natives to ever be happy? How much money needs to be shelled out?

There are undoubtedly some problems on some reserves and in some communities. However, I don't think anyone suggested that additional money was the answer here.

I don't pretend to have the answers, but years of paternalism towards the first nations has not helped. But refusing to agree by the terms of the treaties that our government signed is even worse. If we continue to think that way, we end up with shrinking rural containment zones. It's really up to the native peoples to decide for themselves whether or not they want to change the terms which we've arranged with them.

Prosperity, Self-Reliance, and the motivation to improve one's self are the keys for any group to excel. It's up to each native community to discover how they will do this, but we can't ignore the fact that we've spent decades just sweeping the problem under the rug.

The main point here, is that constitutionally, their land and the way they wish to conduct themselves on that land, is theirs.

Such as? .

You mean the responsibilities? The responsibilities a Native person might have toward their community or their nation vary from culture to culture. Ask a Native person.


And when there is a dispute, what law will win out? Or will you leave that to the courts - which natives in this case don't even recognize. You will never have a perfect deliniation of spheres of responsibility.


Of course you will never have a perfect delineation of spheres of responsibility. But that doesn't stop us from creating different governments with different spheres of responsibility in any other area, so why should it stop us here? The federal government and the provinces don't always agree on what their spheres of responsibility are, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the federal model. And countries don't always agree between themselves whose laws should apply. But there is a whole area of law designed to deal with these problems, called Conflict of Laws.

The people in question here are the Haudanasonee. The Founding Fathers of the United States copied their governance models to develop the idea of the federal state. I am pretty sure they have a good idea of how different spheres of responsibility and shared sovereignty work.


Because in this case, "dual" citizenship is perceived as getting special priviledges - such as not paying GST minus the responsibilities. And some of those priviledges, like getting a brand new house (yes, limited to a reserve and what reserve you come from I think is how it goes) is seen as excessive. And I have to pay for it.

As far as I know, dual citizenship enables a person easier access into a country but then again, you may have other responsibilities to uphold, such as miltary service.


Yes, but perception is not reality. Status Indians do not pay GST for purchases made on reserves, but most of them have to do most of their shopping off-reserve anyway. Plus many First NAtions have implemented their own paralell system of taxation (the FNST or FNGST) which means they do end up paying the tax, just to their First Nation instead. There are good reasons for the lack of taxation, including the Canadian government's lack of authority to do so, and the avoidance of double-taxation where First NAtions had and have their own systems of taxation.

And as I pointed out above, with the priveleges of belonging to their communities and nations, Native Canadians have responsibilities as well.


Finally, would it be too much to ask from natives for them to know that other groups of people have suffered but actually managed to move on and make something of themselves instead of crying all the time? My hometown was home to a POW camp in WWI. The language (Ukranian) was banned in parts of Canada. But we managed to address those issues and get on with our lives.

Most of my Native friends are conscious of the fact that other people have been through hard times in Canada as well. But I am also aware that what most other groups went through pales in comparison to what aboriginal communties went through. They were exposed to diseases that wiped out huge portions of their population. They were loyal allies of the European states who helped them acquire a foothold in this country, only to be shoved off onto the most marginal pieces of land the government could find. They were put through a residential school system where they were separarate from their parents, beaten, sexually assaulted, told their culture was wrong, and forbidden to speak their language. They were taken from their homes by misguided social workers trying to "protect" them, and placed with families that did not understand them. These wounds do not heal overnight.

And Sinuhue, I am very sorry if I have dragged you into something you did not want to be a part of.

Not be be snide but... If the natives didn't insist on staying solely on their reserves for the most part, this wouldn't be a problem, but because there is a culture of isolation occurring, there is a negative effect stemming from it. 70% of aboriginal people live off reserve. This is hardly a case of us insisting on hiding away on the reserves. We also tend to live close together in urban centres, much as many immigrant groups do. Why? Because we do not feel accepted by the wider society, and also because in our culture, family ties are incredibly strong. So blaming us for the fact that Canadians as a whole are largely ignorant of the relationship between the Canadian state and aboriginal people...it's a little silly. You learn more about Francophones than you do about aboriginals, even in areas of the country where aboriginals by far outnumber Francophones. That is somehow because of the reservations?

Of course, then there are those who do live in the cities, but we wouldn't know because they conduct themselves in such a manner that they are seen as Canadians in the same context that we view ourselves. They are accepted into the city and not viewed negatively, any more so than any other asshole who walks down Yonge.Sixty-eight percent (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-589-XIE/index.htm ) of all aboriginal people live in urban centres. Off-reserve aboriginal people suffer from much higher incidences of chronic health problems than those of us who stay on reserve. We are still more likely to complete secondary school later in life as compared to other ethnic groups, and have a higher rate of unemployment, and suicide than any other group of Canadians. We also are more likely to live in substandard, crowded conditions, mostly due to economic circumstance. NO. We are NOT just like everyone else in the urban centres, and it is foolish to say that we are viewed just like everyone else in urban centres. To declare that we are not seen any more negatively than anyone else is turning a blind eye to the quite real discrimination that aboriginal people face. Not JUST aboriginal people face that discrimination...but it certainly is a factor among my people.

So considering that the majority of aboriginal people live off reserve, and in urban centres, do you still want to claim that we are simply not noticed, and that's why people don't learn about us? We are one of the three founding peoples of this country, and yet there is a stunning lack of information available to the wider public about us.

To elaborate on my previous post...

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Aboriginal Canadians.

But, Sinhue, I think what you're failing to realise is that most Canadians honestly don't have an issue with your people. But, we get rather irked when we hear then say things like, "Canadian law doesn't apply to us." and yet, they are able to make use of the same services without paying taxes. You get irked, because you do not understand. You get upset, because you haven't been taught about our relationship with the Canadian state. You hear 'Canadian law doesn't apply to us' and you draw erroneous conclusions based on a lack of information. To me, that's a problem. It sounds like what you're saying is as long as we act like any other group of immigrants, which is something we absolutely are not, then Canadians will have no 'issue' with us. But when we speak out to protect our rights, then you get 'irked'. Again. You get irked because you don't understand the issues. That is a serious lack that needs to be addressed in our educational system.

That's what I think, since most Canadians are tolerant of immigrants and people of colour.We are not immigrants. We are one of the three founding peoples of this nation. That is ingrained in our charter. Most Canadians are somewhat to dimly aware of the rights held by Anglophone and Francophone communities in this country...but dismally informed of the rights held by Aboriginal people.


We generally don't have a problem with anyone until they think they're better than us and as examplified with the standoff at Caledonia, we see Canadians becoming irked because the Mohawks have decided that they are going to whine after police try and break up the protest at day 52/53 (gee, if the people of Belrus had that long, they'd be rejoicing). Again, your ignorance of the issues is creating this belief that what is happening in Caledonia having ANYTHING to do with aboriginal feelings of superiority. Were this a group of non-aboriginals, and you finally understood that this was a conflict over a legal agreement pertaining to land use, you'd not be painting the protesters as 'thinking they're better than us'.

Further, from the POV of the people of Caledonia, they only formed a counter protest because of the blockade. With any protest or strike, the best way to win hearts is NOT to irritate those you want to win the support and sympathy of. By blocking a major throughway, they've essentially done just that. Winning sympathy is not the point. Stopping development on contested land is.

As for the whole isolation issue.

Honestly, I think tolerance can only be truly fostered with integration (not assimilation, but integration of a group of people) into a community, while retaining their culture. Many are able to do it while being part of a greater community.

How do you think the African and Carribean-Canadians did it? One thing you fail to realise is that with immigrant groups, there is always the possibility of cultural renewal from without. The homeland exists, and means that even if people begin to shed their traditions and customs, those traditions and customs will never be totally lost, because they are practised in their home country. THIS IS OUR HOME COUNTRY. We have been forced to assimilate since the first days of contact, and it has taken a terrible toll on our culture. We are struggling to keep it alive, period. Most of us do not speak our languages as a mother tongue, and many of our traditions have already been lost. While you desire us to assimilate and retain our culture that way, you fail to see that we are in a life and death struggle just to ensure that our culture doesn't die out completely. Once we have greater cultural strength, integration may become more possible. But not now. And perhaps not ever...because to you, integration means we should not be who we are, which is a communal people with a strong tie to the land. Our Reserved lands aren't much...but they are the only homeland we have left.

Yes, there is still racism, but, not as much because they've made their presence strong and they've made it clear that they are also like us in the sense that they too are Canadian, even if they have a different ethnic background and culture. We are Canadian. But we are not like you, or like any other group of immigrants. We are members of semi-sovereign tribes. That legal difference is important.

Now, continuing and asking that you see this through the eyes of a Canadian living in a city, there are always problems and there will always be people who feel that they are on the fringe of society, regardless of colour.

Ok, since I've said as I felt, hopefully without flaming and clarifying my stance, I have a question for you...

Given that the Aboriginals in Canada feel and believe, based on an agreement from 1841, that they are genuinely entitled to the land and this current generation hasn't been forced from their homes, how can the barricade be justified? The protest can be easily validated, but the barricade? The barricade is necessary, as the government has indicated they would basically allow the development regardless of the conflict over land use. And in the minds of the Six Nations, they are protecting their borders.

You've said before that the Canadian public is all too complacent when it comes to aboriginal affairs, but, not all of us have the finacial capacity or the connections to make a difference and when we vote, we vote on what is presented. We have no control once the government is in power; we are in effect, equally as powerless as the aboriginals. Look at the Ontario farmers who've had to take their protest to 24 Sussex Drive. The complacency arises out of a lack of information. What is severely lacking in this country is an understanding of the issue in regards to aboriginal people. Even a basic reading of our charter should get some questions germinating in the minds of Canadians...what rights are those that are mentioned and guaranteed to Aboriginal people? How are they different than the Anglophone and Francophone communities? There is some little information that is now being addressed in schools and in the media...most people at least now know what Residential Schools were, if they still do not understand what went on and the impact that has had on people living today. But there is still far to go. There is conflict between our peoples because we still can not see eye to eye. We are working from a different cultural and political framework than other groups, and the reason that is important at all is because of our unique relationship with the Canadian state.

And even if we vote for someone who does promise to help solve the issue that the First Nations' People have presented, who is to say that promise wom't be broken like others have in the past? That is exactly why protests like the one in Caledonia happen. We have to ensure ourselves that our rights and issues are addressed. We certainly don't expect the government, or the wider Canadian public to do it for us.

Also, would it be to much to ask for non-Natives to take the time to visit a reserve?
We should have tours...I can just picture a big Greyhound with people pressing their faces against the glass as they roll on through the reserve:D

I would like to see proof of this. Do your own homework. I'm not about to search for information you should already be aware of. What...do you think we arrived here just a few hundred years before the Europeans? Pick up even an outdated anthropology book and you'll find that the most modest estimates put us here 11 to 14 thousand years ago...with more recent findings putting us here much longer.

As well, again, just because you were here first suddenly gives you special rights? It absolutely does, and in a very legal sense. The treaties recognised that without compunction. We gave over certain land for the use of the Canadian government in return for certain guarantees. Take a look at one of the bigger treaties signed in 1876, Treaty Six (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/trty6_e.html ). Some main exerpts:

And whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty's said Commissioners that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement, immigration and such other purposes as to Her Majesty may seem meet, a tract of country bounded and described as hereinafter mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract, and to make a treaty and arrange with them, so that there may be peace and good will between them and Her Majesty, and that they may know and be assured of what allowance they are to count upon and receive from Her Majesty's bounty and benevolence.
Also, isn't the whole dispute in this case centered around this entire problem of whether or not the land was leased or purchased? In this particular instance, yes. What needs to be taken into account is the original treaty. That land was included as 'reserved land' (land not given over to the Queen, and later the Canadian state). Under the laws pertaining to reserved lands, land can not be sold unless it is done so unanimously by the entire tribe...and sometimes not even then. Land held by aboriginals is held in common...no one owns a particular track of reserved land. The laws basically do not allow for those lands to be sold...but they can be leased. The Canadian government is claiming the lands were sold, but that is very unlikely, and even if true, the shady side of legal. Researchers are going to have to go over the available evidence and determine who has the right to that land...but the Canadian government had already declared their intention to allow development, even without a resolution as to land rights. That sparked the blockade.



Wow. Thanks for being so condescending. I'm sorry you took it as such. It was in fact a heart-felt statement. I believe a lot of these misunderstandings could be cleared up if Canadians only understood the treaty systems better.

What is our historical responsibility then? As far as I know, each native group, which call themselves a nation, signed various agreements with the federal government. I'm sure that some groups came out further ahead than others in that respect. What about in this specific instance? There are also the issues of lands that were taken, and never ceded. BC right now is almost entirely under treaty negotiation, as there were no previous treaties signed. The aboriginal nations there never legally abrogated their right to land, nor are they likely to do so now, and it is entirely possible that the majority of that province will be held by those nations.

And what exactly does tribal sovereignty mean? You can make your own laws? Is it restricted to only the reserves? Does it mean that one set of laws (Indian law) apply on the reserve and another (White law) apply to the rest of Canada? While the distinctions of tribal sovereignty are infinitely complex, it basically boils down to a simply concept. Just as a province has the rights to create laws that apply to provincial jurisdiction, and just as municipalities can do the same...so would tribal nations. That includes the right to taxation (in return for a loss of federal tax exemptions), and so forth. Laws applying to reserved territories would not 'trump' Canadian laws, but there certainly could be conflicts of jurisdiction that would have to be untangled.

So, do natives not see themselves as Canadians? We are Canadians, but we are also members of our own nations. If so, then they should forfeit the rights and priviledges that it entails. By no means. A certain amount of give and take is necessary. It's not about creating a currency, but it could be about creating our own police force (much as municipalities do when financially able). It's not about not paying into healthcare and then receiving it...it may be about tribally funded healthcare, and healthcare insurance off the reserve...it's going to vary, nation to nation.

What do the natives really want? We are not one people. We are many peoples, with many different desires. We are not united on this, and we need to be dealt with on a nation to nation basis...even then you will find conflict and controversy within the same group of people. But I believe that overall, we want to maintain our culture, and we want to make it in Canadian society without losing our sense of identity. We want to be empowered to make decisions that affect our lives, and the lives of our children down to the seventh generation. Many of us believe that sovereignty will afford us that empowerment. It can not be a case of having our cake and eating it too...which I believe many Canadians think. We know we will have to make concessions when it comes to things like taxation, and laws, and so forth...but we want to be the ones making those concessions...not having it done for us by the Department of Indian Affairs, which still governs us.

We should have tours...I can just picture a big Greyhound with people pressing their faces against the glass as they roll on through the reserve:D

I am trying very very very hard not to laugh out loud, as I'm at work right now and should not be on NS.

"Look, honey, indians!"
"Why aren't they wearin' feathers?"

Before I go into this, I have to say, that for someone who has actually lived among us, I am even more shocked that you seem to so little understand the issues.
I have worked on a reserve actually. This is what I saw. People driving around aimlessly in their trucks. Some people actually working but most just sitting around. Unemployment on the reserves is staggering. There is very little in the way of employment, which is why the vast majority of us leave. Yet when we want to create employment in the most profitable way possible, we are villanised. People resent that we open casinos, or have 'Band-Marts' that non-aboriginals frequent. When a particular reserve has oil revenue, that too is resented. We need more employment to keep our people home, and that is one of our major goals.

I saw big welfare cheques each month being cashed at the store (bigger than mine and I was working). Band members are able to access various forms of funding. What you are labeling as welfare is often a combination of things. Band funds are shared out to each member, sometimes on an annual basis, sometimes on a monthly basis, regardless of income. Those funds can come from any business venture that the band is involved in...even the ventures that are off reserve. As well, according to each treaty, we receive a certain amount of money from the federal government, again, regardless of income. Now, those people who actually are receiving social assistance are likely getting it for the same reason that non-aboriginal people are...because of disabilities (AISH), or unemployment (EI) etc. If you want to slam the system, go ahead...but don't pretend it's an 'Indian thing'.

I saw some of the elite families on the reserve accessing money and denying their fellow the same. The band councils, which are not set up at all in the traditional way, but rather have been dictated to us by DIAND, are notoriously corrupt. This is something we want the power to deal with.

I saw crime and violence. I saw the after affects of a botched suicide and yes, it was me the white man getting up at 3 am at 30 below celsius to put out the landing lights for the evac plane because the natives could not be relied upon to help their own. There was only one native fellow who was actually trying to do something good but he was struggling. These things are common to people living in poverty, regardless of ethnicity. Definitely problems for our people...do you think we rejoice in this?

I saw big GST cheques being cashed and yet they paid no GST. Everytime they shop off-reserve they pay GST. That amount is refunded, just as it is for foreigners shopping in Canada.
I saw smashed in houses that were only 2 years old because the people living there didn't have to swing a hammer. All they had to do is say "I'm a native" and presto! Instant house. Instant house? Report after report from stats Canada shows us living in substandard, crowded conditions, most notably in the North. Three or four families living in a house because the waiting list for a home (another guarantee of the treaties that has never been lived up to) is often 10 years...and the band council members constantly 'jump' the queue. But yes, in the more poverty-stricken reserves, homes aren't treated gently. The reasons are varied, but it certainly isn't a case of 'oh, I'll wreck this one, because I'll get a new one next year'.

I realize that their are restrictions placed on the local band governments by the federal governments. I also know that there is a lack of accountability by the local bands as to where the money goes but perhaps that is changing. Slowly...it has changed more radically in the bands that have gotten some self-rule. Our traditional forms of governance were much more flexible, and accountable. But our politicians have also learned much from the Canadian system...now if we can just weed out the corruption, then we'll have learned something useful.

As well, since quite a few natives are living off reserve do they suddenly lose their rights or do they also get the benefits of being a Canadian? I'm not sure what you mean...off-band members still get certain benefits available to all band members...but once off-reserve they can access Canadian services as well as being accountable to them. Is there a specific 'benefit' you're thinking of?

But of course, let's blame the white man for everything. That would be a ridiculous as saying the Canadian government has absolutely no responsibility to address the wrongs done to aboriginal people.

Also, would it be to much to ask for Natives to ever be happy? How much money needs to be shelled out? It's not about money. It's about culture, and sovereignty. You should look a bit deeper into the self-government agreements...all Canadians should. You'd realise that in order to achieve self-government, the onus of support is shifted onto the people themselves, which would actually further integration.

And when there is a dispute, what law will win out? Or will you leave that to the courts - which natives in this case don't even recognize. You will never have a perfect deliniation of spheres of responsibility. Conflict of jurisdiction will be settled by the courts. Conflict of jurisdiction even outside of native issues is quite common.

And this isn't a case of natives not recognising the courts...this is a case of natives disputing the right of land use. For reasons pointed out by Evil Cantadia, we can not allow the development and then contest it.


Because in this case, "dual" citizenship is perceived as getting special priviledgesThat you, based on a lack of information, and a lack of desire to get the information, perceive something in a certain way, by no means makes that perception reality.


such as not paying GST minus the responsibilities. And some of those priviledges, like getting a brand new house (yes, limited to a reserve and what reserve you come from I think is how it goes) is seen as excessive. And I have to pay for it. Yes you do. That is the agreement your government made, and you are bound to it. Negotiations are in the works, but regardless of the outcome, you will be bound by it. That is what happens in a nations state.


As far as I know, dual citizenship enables a person easier access into a country but then again, you may have other responsibilities to uphold, such as miltary service.

Finally, would it be too much to ask from natives for them to know that other groups of people have suffered but actually managed to move on and make something of themselves instead of crying all the time? My hometown was home to a POW camp in WWI. The language (Ukranian) was banned in parts of Canada. But we managed to address those issues and get on with our lives. When you describe our struggle as 'crying', and without the barest knowledge of the systematic cultural genocide that has been attempted, tell us to 'move on', it only shows me that your ignorance runs truly deep. You don't actually seem to want to understand, you just don't want to be inconvenienced in any way. Challenge your perceptions. Learn about the subject. Your judgments are based on prejudice, and a lack of understanding.

the Canadian government had already declared their intention to allow development, even without a resolution as to land rights. That sparked the blockade.

this calls for a compromise. i have it! the canadian government gets to do whatever with the land, and the indigenous go home and stay quiet so that we can all begin to forget that they even still exist again. that'll work out best for everybody we'll remember in a month or two.


The Obvious Fact of Our Continuing Existence (http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/6nations2.html#part2)

And what point of view would you want to be presented in this case? I would like to see it as well, actually, as long as the material being delivered is unbiased. Again...do your own homework.

It also should include that the different native groups living in Canada did not live peacefully with each other but had brutal wars like, say, any other group of people living on this earth throughout history.
You are suggesting that no native people lived at peace with one another, and that this continent was awash in blood when the Europeans arrived...a very popular myth that was even taught in schools during the 50s, 60s and 70s, until a less eurocentric view finally prevailed. Our peoples fought battles with one another, but we also formed alliances, and negotiated lasting peace between warring nations. However, none of this has any bearing on the case at hand...should your every action be brought in as evidence if you are contesting the seizure of your land? How exactly is any of this relevant, other than as part of your attempt to paint us as 'savage'?

Edit: It's been pointed out that I mistook this comment to refer to the case, rather than to education about aboriginal history. I'll address your questions again, in context, in another post.

And Sinuhue, I am very sorry if I have dragged you into something you did not want to be a part of.
Not at all. If we can get even a few people questioning the beliefs they hold, then it's a good thing. So often, those beliefs are simply based in a lack of knowledge.

Again...do your own homework.


You are suggesting that no native people lived at peace with one another, and that this continent was awash in blood when the Europeans arrived...a very popular myth that was even taught in schools during the 50s, 60s and 70s, until a less eurocentric view finally prevailed. Our peoples fought battles with one another, but we also formed alliances, and negotiated lasting peace between warring nations. However, none of this has any bearing on the case at hand...should your every action be brought in as evidence if you are contesting the seizure of your land? How exactly is any of this relevant, other than as part of your attempt to paint us as 'savage'?
He didnt say that. He shows that all mankind is savage, not just Indians or Europeans... and I would agree

He didnt say that. He shows that all mankind is savage, not just Indians or Europeans... and I would agree
And the relevence to this particular case (as he stated it should be put into the evidence) is...?

And the relevence to this particular case (as he stated it should be put into the evidence) is...?

everybody loves a good red herring?

everybody loves a good red herring?
I'm somewhat sensitive to that particular red herring, and the BS about us being so totally warlike...(ignoring our various peaces, and relationships with other tribes), because it wasn't that long ago that a judge in Alberta actually said that the Dene people were to 'savage' to negotiate with, and should lose the lands reserved for them in the treaties.

It was also used as an excuse during the 60s scoop (http://www.aboriginalsocialwork.ca/special_topics/60s_scoop/index.htm) (which actually spanned three decades), when aboriginal kids were taken from their families to be raised in white homes. In many cases, the government agents simply believed that being raised in a native home was abuse in and of itself, and removed the children for that reason alone.

So the belief that we are culturally inferior is deeply ingrained in the fabric of Canadian society. There are always 'reasons' to back it up...but it's certainly not something that no longer exists.

And the relevence to this particular case (as he stated it should be put into the evidence) is...?
Where did he state that?

Where did he state that?
Edit: well, it was MY mistake after all...

And what point of view would you want to be presented in this case? I would like to see it as well, actually, as long as the material being delivered is unbiased. It also should include that the different native groups living in Canada did not live peacefully with each other but had brutal wars like, say, any other group of people living on this earth throughout history.
So, the evidence in this case should include intertribal wars because....?

I wonder what people think about the non-native protesters that have smashed police vehicles?

Some reading on the subject:
Article Timeline (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/)

History of the Caledonia Land-Claim dispute (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/historical-timeline.html)

Really...a little reading on your part...it's not too much to ask, is it?


So, the evidence in this case should include intertribal wars because....?
I cant speak for him, but I am fairly certain by "this case" he is referring to the subject of history taught in schools. He refers to "material being delivered" not "evidence." His response is in reply to you raising a point about education I believe.

I cant speak for him, but I am fairly certain by "this case" he is referring to the subject of history taught in schools. He refers to "material being delivered" not "evidence." His response is in reply to you raising a point about education I believe.
You are correct. My bad. He was indeed referring to my quote about education.

Now that Residential schools are finally mentioned (briefly) in secondary school, I'd like to see more information given to students about pre and post-contact aboriginal history. If they can spend so much time learning about European history, they certainly can squeeze in some information about the third founding people of Canada. You can learn a lot in University, through Native Studies courses...but we can't assume enough people are going to make it to post-secondary in order to learn this stuff (or even take those particular courses). We don't have to go into excruciating detail, but I believe that Canadians have a responsibility to understand the treaty process, and the ramifications of soveriegnty, as well as the impact of various policies (Residential School, involuntary enfranchisement, the 60s scoop, banning of customs and so on) on aboriginal people today.

Even our politicians don't seem to know which end is up (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=693d247c-ac38-4c83-9b74-31d295972b79&k=37176):
Haldimand County Mayor Marie Trainer was confronted at the site by two protesters furious with her claim that residents have been hurt economically by the protest and don't have money coming in automatically every month. Powless and others have taken this to mean she was suggesting all natives are on welfare and not working.

"How do my people have money coming in automatically? How? Answer that. Answer it," First Nations spokesman Clyde Powless said as he thrust his finger in Trainer's face.

"They needed to know what the Caledonia people thought," said Trainer. "I have to stick up for my people, just like they're sticking up for themselves."
The Mayor has since been yanked from the front lines, and the Haldimand County Council has offered up it's apologies for her comments.

Comments in red are mine.

Almost half of Native Canadians live off reserve. There are probably plenty living all around you. They may not be in your social circle, but they are there.

The truth is, most Canadians don't go out of their way to meet people that don't come from a similar background.

Also, would it be to much to ask for non-Natives to take the time to visit a reserve?
1 - Actually, my best friend has native roots.

2 - No we don't because we just meet people who we encounter, so there is no deliberate attempt to mingle with another person simply because of race. Most choices are made based on the environment.

3 - Well... it depends on where it is... and if the non-natives have the means by which to do so.

Also, you have to recognize that all over the country the government is selling off land to private interests in a deliberate strategy to defeat native land claims. The government refuses to recognize claims over private land, and also knows that the courts won't recognize aboriginal title once the land has been developed in a way that is inconsistent with aboriginal use (e.g. if the claim is based on a traditional use, such as hunting, once the land is no longer suitable for hunting, the claim is likely to be dismissed). So natives can stand by and watch the government erode the land base they need in order to both maintain their traditions and culture, as well as if they have any hope of developing modern economies, or they can stand up and try to stop this from happening. If it was your land, what would you do?
You do realise that plenty of non-natives lack an actual piece of land because of the government as well? That we are have to pay property tax simply because we live on it? We don't even own it; we've got to keep paying for it; there is no right of ownership; it's simply an illusion. What could we do? We can whine and protest like you do, but, we're stuck in a hard place because of steep property taxes or rent. We may own a house on a piece of land, but until it isn't taxed...

The government taxes the clothes off our back and yet, we don't have the same tax exemption available to on-reserve natives.

And would we do to fight this? Nothing. If we protest and try everything, we still have to pay the exhorbant property taxes and if we don't, they could very well take the property... eminent domain?!

1 - Actually, my best friend has native roots. What does that mean exactly? Native roots? Is your friend native or not? Sorry...it just sounds odd...

2 - No we don't because we just meet people who we encounter, so there is no deliberate attempt to mingle with another person simply because of race. Most choices are made based on the environment. But your original point was that we were 'hiding' on reserves. Now you know that isn't the case, and in fact, most of us live in urban centres. However, you shouldn't have to run into us in order to learn about us.

3 - Well... it depends on where it is... and if the non-natives have the means by which to do so.
There are few places in Canada that are not fairly close to a reserve.

You do realise that plenty of non-natives lack an actual piece of land because of the government as well? Because of the government? I'm not sure what you mean. In any case...the non-natives were immigrants to this land. There is no guarantee of reserved lands for them. That we are have to pay property tax simply because we live on it? We don't even own it; we've got to keep paying for it; there is no right of ownership; it's simply an illusion. I'm unclear as to what you mean...are you saying that because you have to pay property taxes that you don't actually own the land? What could we do? We can whine and protest like you do, Wait...by 'you' do you mean native people? I'm fairly certain Evil Cantadia is not native... but, we're stuck in a hard place because of steep property taxes or rent. We may own a house on a piece of land, but until it isn't taxed... These are different issues altogether. Your inability to afford a piece of land, or your issues about paying land taxes are not similar to the land claims of native people.

The government taxes the clothes off our back and yet, we don't have the same tax exemption available to on-reserve natives. Why should you? You aren't native. However, if you choose to live on reserve, you'll also be eligible for certain tax deductions, especially if you conduct business on the reserve. If it's just tax deductions your after, by all means...endure the poverty of the reservations. We welcome you.

And would we do to fight this? Nothing. If we protest and try everything, we still have to pay the exhorbant property taxes and if we don't, they could very well take the property... eminent domain?!
It seems you take issue with taxation. That's fine. How is it the fault of native people, or in fact have anything at all to do with us? This is the oddest tangent I've seen...

I am trying very very very hard not to laugh out loud, as I'm at work right now and should not be on NS.

"Look, honey, indians!"
"Why aren't they wearin' feathers?"

Lol. "Where are their teepees?"

Not at all. If we can get even a few people questioning the beliefs they hold, then it's a good thing. So often, those beliefs are simply based in a lack of knowledge.

That was the hope for the thread. But I know there is often nothing worse than a well-meaning but misguided non-native trying to go off about these issues. It was going a little off the rails there, so thank you for jumping in.

I though all land in a way belonged to the Crown , though under the old colonial times it sure to of come under the the Governor of Canada even if was semi sovergein the Crown would have of had certian treaties in which they took over certian aspects of the government like diplomancy, defence , customs etc. probsably the answer to the quoestion really lies in a dusty corner of the records office in Westminister

Lol. "Where are their teepees?"
Better yet,
"Where are the teepees? And totem poles? And longhouses?"
"Uh hon...those are all from different tribes..."

That was the hope for the thread. But I know there is often nothing worse than a well-meaning but misguided non-native trying to go off about these issues. It was going a little off the rails there, so thank you for jumping in.
Um, there is absolutely something worse than a well-meaning but misguided non-native. And so far what you've said isn't misguided at all.

I though all land in a way belonged to the Crown , though under the old colonial times it sure to of come under the the Governor of Canada even if was semi sovergein the Crown would have of had certian treaties in which they took over certian aspects of the government like diplomancy, defence , customs etc. probsably the answer to the quoestion really lies in a dusty corner of the records office in Westminister
Land that was held by the Crown was passed to the Dominion. The treaties clearly outline which lands were ceded to the Crown, and which lands were held in reserve (hence the name, Reservation). However, a lot of the land that has been claimed as belonging to the Crown (and now to Canada) was never actually ceded. That is why we still have treaty negotiations going on.

I wonder what people think about the non-native protesters that have smashed police vehicles?

Some reading on the subject:
Article Timeline (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/)

History of the Caledonia Land-Claim dispute (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/historical-timeline.html)

I like how in 1924 the Canadian government "established an elected government". Kind of glosses over the fact that they sent in the RCMP and against the opposition of most members forcibly shut down a governance system that was over 1000 years old and had formed the inspiration for federalism in the US.

i think its a great thing that treaty rights are being pressed. native american and native canadians have gotten screwed by the government for a long time. its good to see them insisting on what they are allowed by law.

why should anyone have a problem with this? the law is the law. it will be reviewed by the federal courts and justice will prevail. i expect that it will consist of canadian indians getting their full treaty rights. why would it be any other way?

Better yet,
"Where are the teepees? And totem poles? And longhouses?"
"Uh hon...those are all from different tribes..."

"How come there aren't any igloos?"

why should anyone have a problem with this? the law is the law. it will be reviewed by the federal courts and justice will prevail. i expect that it will consist of canadian indians getting their full treaty rights. why would it be any other way?
Because tangled up in all of this is a basic misunderstanding of what native people are fighting for.

Hopefully people are slowly starting to learn.

The Residential School Compensation Package ( http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/25/residential060425.html) is pretty much a go, by the way. If even the government is ready to start dealing with this stuff...surely the average Canadian can as well?

Wait...by 'you' do you mean native people? I'm fairly certain Evil Cantadia is not native...

I'm fairly sure I'm non-native too. :) lol

I like how in 1924 the Canadian government "established an elected government". Kind of glosses over the fact that they sent in the RCMP and against the opposition of most members forcibly shut down a governance system that was over 1000 years old and had formed the inspiration for federalism in the US.

come on, everybody knows that indians are savages who didn't even know how to speak before the white man came to teach them how. the haudenosaunee didn't have a government, they just sat around all day being drunk and lazy, collecting welfare checks from the aztecs.

collecting welfare checks from the aztecs.
Warn a person before you say something like that! I sprayed coffee out of my nose...

Warn a person before you say something like that! I sprayed coffee out of my nose...

i'm sorry, but frankly you were engaging in reckless behavior and you knew that i was reading this thread. in other words, you were asking for it.

For some more good reading, check out the Art of Stealing Human Rights ( http://www.dickshovel.com/rights.html).

The main objective is to " GAIN THE INDIANS CO-OPERATION - It is much easier to steal someone's human rights if you can do it with his OWN co-operation."

So let me get this straight. There is land whose legal title is disputed. Earlier precedents in cases that share some materially relevent similarities establish that the current use (to which the land is put) and its current state (for instances the uses for which it is suitable) have an effect on the determination of title. Some people are trying to stop intentional interim (ie prior to legal determination regarding the title) changes to the land (whose title is in dispute) that would materially effect its suitability for certain uses and convert its current use into an alternative use that (according to previous determinations in similar cases) would prejudice the claims of one of the disputants over the other?

Unless I have gotten it all wrong somehow it seems pretty darn clear to me that since the state and use of the land might prejudice determinations as to its title, no changes to its current state or use ought to take place ahead of determination as to who has title.

Aside from the obvious fact that those changing the land may (at the end of legal arbitration) turn out to not have any right to alter the land, any act that might prejudice the determination of the title, risks prejudicing the determination at law. That is not particularly just and it is unusual that a court has allowed rather than blocked something that might unfairly prejudice the rights of either a party to a legal dispute.

*snip*.
These dicey situations are usually decided on the basis of who has the biggest stick. Whether this is fair or not is immaterial. Thou who hast the biggest stick dost as Thou pleaseth. Why else is the US even allowed to play international copper?

I don't know how many of you have been following the coverage of the standoff between Police and members of the Six Nations in Caledonia, Ontario.

There is some coverage of the days events here. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/24/caledonia060424.html)

Very briefly, the land in question was part of a Grant given to the Six Nations as a reqard (or compensation) for their loyalty to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War. The government says it was given up legally to make way for a highway in 1841. Six Nations members say that was meant to be a lease. Money was put aside to pay for it but was sloppily invested and the Six Nations never saw most of it.

A court issued an injunction ordering the Six Nations to leave. The Six Nations say they are bound by their own laws to stay and protect their land. It is worth noting that the Six Nations have repeatedly asserted they never agreed to become British (and eventually Canadian) subjects: they were and remain allies of the Crown, not subjects, and their acceptance of the land was on those terms.

I am wondering what people think of the assertion that they are not bound by the court order, or at least that they are bound to respect their laws first and foremost. Does (and should) our legal system allow for this? How do we deal with the situation of Aboriginal Canadians who have a claim to being bound by dual sets of rights and responsibilities (those to the Canadian state, and those to their Nation ... not unlike other Canadians who are dual citizens) or have a claim to having a degree of sovereignty or independence from Canadian law.

And please, I would appreciate thoughtful posts, not knee-jerk reactions.
We have the same problems with the 'Bloody Maoris' and unfortunatly i'd have to say these guys are right, they aren't Canadianian and can do as they please while on their 6 Nations land.

Unless I have gotten it all wrong somehow it seems pretty darn clear to me that since the state and use of the land might prejudice determinations as to its title, no changes to its current state or use ought to take place ahead of determination as to who has title.

Aside from the obvious fact that those changing the land may (at the end of legal arbitration) turn out to not have any right to alter the land, any act that might prejudice the determination of the title, risks prejudicing the determination at law. That is not particularly just and it is unusual that a court has allowed rather than blocked something that might unfairly prejudice the rights of either a party to a legal dispute.
Exactly. You aren't studying law by any chance are you? That whole post came out in pure geek-lawyer-speak:) But you've got the gist of the problem. If the Six Nations allows this land to be developed, they may lose any chance of proving title because the very development would invalidate their ability to have title. They really have no choice but to block this.

The simple thing would be to decide that they are a semi autonamous region (can't spell) and treat it like they treat quebec and so on, but however they are undoubtably part of canada so the simple thing would be to compulsorary purchess the land.

Semi-automomous region? That sounds like Tibet.

Exactly. You aren't studying law by any chance are you? That whole post came out in pure geek-lawyer-speak:) But you've got the gist of the problem. If the Six Nations allows this land to be developed, they may lose any chance of proving title because the very development would invalidate their ability to have title. They really have no choice but to block this.
I'm supposed to be doing a law degree...

But that doesnt explain my prose - it's more the other way around. I figured (when I decided to return to education) that since lawyers apparently charge by the syllable it would be one profession where my verbiosity and inability to get a point across in plain English would be a positive rather than a negative....hey it was that or politics and we all know what we think about politicians - a foot lower than lawyers.....


.....or was that the other way around? Damm!:headbang:

i'm sorry, but frankly you were engaging in reckless behavior and you knew that i was reading this thread. in other words, you were asking for it.
I contest that. I'm going to get Zagat to sue you, because I won't be done Law School in time.

Aside from the obvious fact that those changing the land may (at the end of legal arbitration) turn out to not have any right to alter the land, any act that might prejudice the determination of the title, risks prejudicing the determination at law. That is not particularly just and it is unusual that a court has allowed rather than blocked something that might unfairly prejudice the rights of either a party to a legal dispute.

Agreed. But the court took as an assumption that the land was validly purchased as opposed to leased or invaldly sold, without really bothering to seriously inquire into the issue.