MNN is rewriting history!
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
I thought the First Nations' Mohawks were warriors and had guns? What happened to the old days of open revolt? Just go after the nearest poor white farmer and reclaim the land that belongs to you!
I'll be tuning in at 5:00 PM to watch Harper send in the military
I'll be tuning in at 5:00 PM to watch Harper send in the military
Actually, as loosely affiliated as the Quebec Mohawk are to the Haudenosaunee, there is a Mohawk Warrior Society, as the there is a Warrior Society amongst in all the Six Nations.
And yes, Oka, Kahnasatake and Kahnawake are well armed now.
They come and go.
That's a rather silly over simplification don't you think?
At some point, that may come to fruition.
Yeah man. A handful have gas stations and cheap smokes now. Progress huh? Mineral whats? Royal whose? Poised to be?
Have I miss understood the premise of freehold mineral rights in respect to First Nations lands?
Are you sure about the First Nations' benefiting? The Canadian Government isn't as stupid as we claim, they'll probably buy out the Chieftain. "Alright Mr. Bigduck, here's 50 million under the table in return for a 500 million resource contract where we get everything" "Where do I sign!"
I see you have ignored the links I posted. Could it be that you and your wife are part of the "problem" rather than a part of the "solution"? Could it be that you would PREFER to see First Nations fail and prefer to ignore the successes as it doesn't fit in with your prefered world view.
I won't even attempt to argue that. I'm pretty sure it takes place.
But as I have found, through Gh's links, there are freehold mineral rights, held by the Feds, for First Nations lands. As well as open "Nation to Nation" negotiations, again setting precedent, that are on the table and at the Councils and Bands perusal.
Let's not for egt, that we are talking about semi autonomous First Nations Gov'ts here. As corrupt as some maybe, they can only hide so much from the people.
Ignored treatys finally being settled in what are now highly built up urban areas? Of course they have more than gas stations in a metropolis like Vancouver. They have casinos too.
Has it been your life long dream to be a blackjack dealer when a crack dealer makes 100X as much?
Is that all you got from the links I posted? I guess that answers my question.
I see Bear saw the progress AND the potential available to many First Nations people. How unfortunate that you don't/can't/won't.
Is that a good thing? Do you mean armed with rifles like most people in the country or stocked up on automatic rifles?
That depends on people like Cannuck.
I personally would prefer a negotiated outcome to all treaty breaches, with fairness and equality for both parties involved.
With that said, there is a small but loud contingent of people like Cannuck, that feel treaties are not contractual obligations, though precedent has been set for hundreds of years. And they feel all contracts should be nullified.
Which of course will only feed the nationalist Warrior types, and breed new ones, out of people like myself, that would have preferred a mature, legal, and fair outcome, from open dialogue and negotiation.
I mean everything from good ole farmer John's 30-30 to 60's era APC's.
That is not what I have said. The fact that you have to misrepresent my position clearly shows you can't refute it.
Bear isn't the only one that got that position from what you've been posting. I also see your position as being the contracts don't or shouldn't be upheld.
If you want to call gas stations with cheap smokes and casinos progress that is your perogative.
Have you ever heard of something called equity? How far can you get developing a business or industry without it?
Then maybe you should learn to read. I have clearly stated that Canada should honor treaties it signs with other nations. My opinion is that CB and his buddies are not a nation. If and when they choose to be, then I have no problem living up to our obligations. I also don't believe we owe Dzevad in Sarajevo anything because we signed a treaty with Yugoslavia. It doesn't exist anymore. If those in the Balkans want to reestablish the nation of Yugoslavia, then by all means, lets honor any treaties we have with them.
My position really isn't that hard to understand. Only stupid people and those that haven't bothered to read my posts would be confused.
That is exactly what you said...
Like we said.Just because you can't support your position now, and feel the need to back peddle, won't change that fact.
You're the only one that hasn't provided a single scrap of evidence, and have rested on the "cuz I say so", "it's racist" "unethical, they aren't nations, BS strawman argument.
Which is why I would love to actually debate you seriously on the topic.
You'd lose, you know it and that's why you make excuses, and refuse to actually debate me.
This comment proves the other half of my statement. That you feel the contracts should be nullified.
We were, long before Canada was.
They would be State Nations, in every sense of the term, if it weren't for unethical and illegal acts by the Crown and Crowns representatives, in contrary to Royal Proclamation, and Treaty.
Under the Law, even law in antiquity, you can not profit from an illegal act.
You want to argue ethics, good luck. You want to argue law, good luck.
You're argument is so full of "logical inconsistencies", you should actually drop that from the things that bug you about peoples arguments.
Of course it is, you keep squirming around, when you can't support the one I take apart, you try another. Until that one gets taken apart, then you try another. First it was "they aren't binding contracts", then it was "They aren't Nations", then it was "It's racist", then it was "Inequality", then it was an "Ethical" issue. Then you cry about being misrepresented?
I haven't misrepresented you. You can't support a single argument you've put forth. You move the goal posts around so much, you make your own argument a misrepresentation.
You sound so much like Joey in that respect.
There's no confusion, you can't debate, you've refused to debate, and have offered nothing that even remotely resembles a fact, to support your position. Only stupid people bounce from one angle to another when they fail to make a clear case for their opinion. Only stupid people cry about being misrepresented, then get shown their own words, proving without a doubt that they were not misrepresented. Only stupid people claim they would like to debate, then run from the challenge. Only stupid people move goal posts. Only stupid people use the "cuz I say so" argument. Only stupid people cry about logical inconsistency, but couldn't for the life of them, be so themselves. Only stupid people would try and discuss a topic they haven't even a cursory knowledge of.
So which angle will you settle on...
They aren't contracts?
It's race based?
They aren't nations?
It's unethical?
When will you offer some proof to support any of your claims? Other then because you say so?
Even I can offer case law, Royal declarations, exact Treaty references, historical accounts of unethical and criminal acts by the Crown, and my fave, precedent. But precedent only matters in hockey right Cannuck?
To quote you, as I ask again for some proof to back up you claims...
Do you fully understand what logical consistency is?
Last edited:
I don't think you have. The mineral rights on undisputed aboriginal lands belong to the First Nation in residence. Many bands in Alberta have negotiated arrangements with local petroleum producers, not only for royalties but in many cases for employment opportunities generated by the mineral development. Some groups also have made partnerships with outsiders/investors to create their own independent oil companies. In several cases this also extends beyond the borders of reserves into what is termed "traditional lands" although the compensation is more complex in those cases (and I'm not sure exactly how it all works except that there is some and the bands can block development if they're pissed off).
A lot of the problems in Alberta stem from corruption inside the leadership of some bands, in determining who is a member vs who is not (there have been a few bitter court battles over this issue), and of course, in unresolved land claims disputes.
Define "out west" . From where I sit you are all back east. Many nations on the coast are quite wealthy or at least have the potential to be if the band bureaucracy didn't scoop all the loot. There are a number of malls on band land on the island that generate a fair amount of revenue with little effort and jobs. Then there is a race based commercial fishery as well as the cash food fish industry. As well as a fair number of legitimate aquaculture and mariculture operations and logging operations. Several Run of River power projects that are a real cash cow too. Best of all few are taxable.