'Indian time' has begun
Sat, 2007-06-09 16:31
#1
joshmanicus
'Indian time' has begun
Sat, 2007-06-09 16:31
#2
joshmanicus
quote:
They want to give us money so that we will cease to exist. They have not understood our message. No generation can sell the land we are given by our ancestors to hold for our future generations. As long as there is one of us who adheres to our natural philosophy, the colonists can never claim Onowarekeh.One of their conditions/threats is for us to get off our reclaimed land of “Kanenhstaton.” Do they want us to live in the air? Or to retreat back into the few trees they left behind on our land?!
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/in_her_own_words.shtml?sh_itm=2b31fb6f0249047d45fa3... her own words[/url]
I wish I had something really intelligent to say about this issue, but the truth is that about the only thing I can say for sure is that I'm on her side. When I was reading this, I was thinking about the Northwest Rebellion and Louis Riel and all of that sort of thing. I'm really starting to wonder if they wouldn't have already taken it back by force if they had the means to do so...
Sat, 2007-06-09 18:53
#3
[b][i]GREAT[/i][/b] article.
Parts that most piqued my attention on the first read:
quote:
Canada is a foreign entity and is not entitled to collect any taxes on our territory. We also want a say in the immigration of people onto our land. They have to stop poisoning our land, clean it up and put it back the way they found it...Can a criminal that is caught with the goods demand a “consensus” from those he robbed as a condition for returning the stolen goods? We don’t think so...
The root of the problem is theft of our land by the colonists and refusing to even admit it. Then when they’re caught, they point their gun at us trying to make us accept a few dollars for it.
The offer barely covers fixing our water problem here at Six Nations caused by the toxins they’re dumping upstream!
Our ancestors did not negotiate with our enemies with their guns and weapons at hand. They set their weapons and hostilities aside. [b]We want to create peace, harmony and to stop all hostilities. The only weapon we have is the truth. We remind the colonists that our mother, the earth, is not for sale. She has to stay intact.[/b]
But I have a question about this paragraph:
quote:
We are looking out for the interests of everybody. We have over 300 alliances with our brothers and sisters. We have many friends and supporters in Canada. It has always been our custom that when Indigenous people come from another area to our territory we have the duty to comfort, feed and house them. This we shall continue to do.
Will they comfort, feed and house [i]non-indigenous[/i] people who might want to immigrate to their land and live according to their codes? I hope there's a possiblility for that.
Sat, 2007-06-09 22:06
#4
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by gram swaraj:
[b]Will they comfort, feed and house [i]non-indigenous[/i] people who might want to immigrate to their land and live according to their codes? I hope there's a possiblility for that.[/b]
Is there any nation--other than a sovereign first nation--that requires a certain racial background in order to emigrate to the nation? I believe I can become a Chinese or Japanese or Brazilian citizen but I've never heard of a person becoming a citizen of a first nation if they do not have the requisite racial background.
Sat, 2007-06-09 22:14
#5
joshmanicus
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Is there any nation--other than a sovereign first nation--that requires a certain racial background in order to emigrate to the nation? I believe I can become a Chinese or Japanese or Brazilian citizen but I've never heard of a person becoming a citizen of a first nation if they do not have the requisite racial background.[/b]
It's mainly because of our dysfunctional system of trying to choke the existence from them. If things worked the way they were supposed to (before our elimination of their self-governing systems), I'm sure what your addressing would have been possible.
Sat, 2007-06-09 22:35
#6
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Is there any nation--other than a sovereign first nation--that requires a certain racial background in order to emigrate to the nation?...I've never heard of a person becoming a citizen of a first nation if they do not have the requisite racial background.[/b]
Semantics again. The word "nation" again. There's a difference between a sovereign nation-state, and an ethnic, or sociological nation.
If First Nations were given the ability to govern themselves as sovereign jurisdictions, would they base membership in their communities only on racial background? Could one be a member of a First Nation community, while not ethnically being a first nation member? I think this has happened already, for example, David Suzuki has been welcomed into some tribes.
But this is drifting a bit. First, get the colonizers to pay for damages done.
Sun, 2007-06-10 05:31
#7
I don't think it is helpfull, particularly in the case of Caledonia and the Six Nations to sling terms like "Colonizer" around.
The people on the Six Nations reserve only beat my ancestors to this part of the globe by a generation or two. Perhaps there are other First Nations that might dispute the authority of the then government of Canada to enter into an agreement with Joseph Brant.
And besides, it is beside the point.
The point is the government's abandonment of the rule of law, which should greatly disturb everyone who is not a member of the current Family Compact and benificiary of their theiving practices.
quote:
Canada took our lease money without asking us and spent it on building the "nation" of Canada, as well the Law Society of Upper Canada and McGill University, to name a few, and maybe even the “steal” road that crosses Canada.
It is with these points that Horn can build bridges, alliances and understanding outside the Native Community. Those of us not connected to the constant stream of graft and corruption emminating from Parliament and Queen's Park are, like First Nation's groups, victims of theft.
It would be good for workers to remember that Parliament wrestled inflation to the ground by capriciously and arbitrarily limiting our wages and leaving us at the mercy of escalating prices, and created budgetary surpluses by stealing from our E.I. fund, and delivering Ford Pinto government services at Cadillac taxation rates.
While Horn and other First Nation spokes people and leaders would point to racism as a motivating factor in the way First Naitons people have been abused, and they would not be entirely wrong in that, more important to us all is that governments have done this because they can.
First Nations people have been stolen from because they were powerless and in possession of something of value to those in power who wallow in avarice.
Similarly, the vast majority of Canadians should open up their eyes and realize that we are in the same canoe as First Nations people.
Thier fight against the government is our fight.
[ 10 June 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sun, 2007-06-10 07:27
#8
Catchfire
Great Article.
Tommy, what does arrival time have to do with colonization? Does arriving shortly after the Iroquois somehow render the Brits unable to assert colonial tendencies? Of course you can't extricate colonialism from the situation of the Haudenosaunee. Of course it is not "beside the point." It [i]is[/i] the point. You make some great observations of why this kind of colonialism ultimately affects us all, but it is not only "helpful" to frame land claims in terms of colonialism, it is necessary.
Sun, 2007-06-10 09:10
#9
If someone ever wanted to accuse me of crusing over a passage and erroneously absorbing the wrong intent, such accusations would be, from time to time, on the mark.
However, I don't think this is such a time.
quote:
Colonists, if you made such a threat, if you act on that threat, we will take it for what it is, a declaration of war!
I guess the intent of Colonists could be the above reference to Ottawa. But usually when you say "you" the intent is a message to the reader, and that's how I received it. I surmise that, and this is technically true in a democracy, that Ottawa is doing what they do in our names. But, practically, this is not the case, and I would hope Horn appreciates this.
I'm not a colonist. I was born here. I am ethnically Canadian, a reference that I have as much a right to as ethnic "English" or ethnic "French" which, for how much anyone knows, is a hodge podge of the various groups that have criss crossed, settled, and moved on in those lands over the millenia.
In most regards, yes, I think it is beside the point. What matters most is who is here now, and how we are going to live together.
I think it's unfair to belabour the point. While I think Horn's rhetoric may create enemies on the ground that is fertile for alliances, either way it is not, by far, the most striking part of her article.
Sun, 2007-06-10 10:30
#10
Throughout history, people have been moving onto other people's land and displacing the people who lived there.
This has occasionally been peaceful, it has more often than not been violent.
While I share a feeling of guilt about how my ancestors treated our first nations, I feel that until the the first nations accept the fact that from about the 1600s successive European nations waged a war on the indigenous people, a war that they lost, the negotiation of land claims is doomed to be unsatifying for them.
Sun, 2007-06-10 10:43
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Is there any nation--other than a sovereign first nation--that requires a certain racial background in order to emigrate to the nation? I believe I can become a Chinese or Japanese or Brazilian citizen but I've never heard of a person becoming a citizen of a first nation if they do not have the requisite racial background.[/b]
That's incorrect, Sven. It has and does happen. I can't speak for all - because the different nations are sovereign unto themselves - but I do indeed know of people who have joined First Nations through marriage and other means.
Sun, 2007-06-10 10:44
#12
Catchfire
What war? You mean the war of 1812 the Iroquois helped the Brits win? Or you perhaps referring to the treaty that awarded huge tracts of land to the Six Nations along the American border in order to keep the Yanks from getting any fresh ideas?
Or maybe by "war" you mean the trauma inflicted by the residential schools (less than a generation ago, by the way) that the Canadian government is trying to slip under the carpet with a mediocre payoff so that those who suffered under them won't sue them? I suppose that counts as war, but it's not really "over" is it?
Or maybe the problem with your statement is that you, Bleeding_Heart, like most of Canada, is utterly ignorant of the fraught and complex historical relationship between First Nations and Ottawa, and like to reduce it to some kind of "war" that Canada (and I guess all of the Governments in North and South America (Except for Bolivia, unfortunately) somehow "won"?
Sun, 2007-06-10 10:50
#13
quote:
While I share a feeling of guilt about how my ancestors treated our first nations, I feel that until the the first nations accept the fact that from about the 1600s successive European nations waged a war on the indigenous people, a war that they lost, the negotiation of land claims is doomed to be unsatifying for them.
It's not about being "all in the past", it is about an ongoing colonial mindset and practice that continues to oppress and marginalize First Nations people. Why do the colonized need to "accept" that they were colonized abused and traumatized. Does calling something "war" somehow make it more acceptable than calling it plunder and murder.
Rather than First Nations people "accepting" the abuse of European colonialism, Canadians need to acknowledge that this nation was built on colonial theft and plunder. The privilege that the majority of white canadians take for granted was not built on there cleverness and hardwork it was built on plunder and oppression. IF anyone needs to accept anything, Canadians need to accept the extent to which they are complicit in ongoing conditions of oppression.
Sun, 2007-06-10 11:26
#14
Most historians actually acknowledge that the Indian Allies of the British were the real losers of the war of 1812 (which the Americans by the way still think they won).
Throughout history, one people have subjugated another people and that includes first nations.
We are only going to resolve this situation to everybody's satisfaction if we accept the fact that what happened, happened, we can't turn back the clock and let's move forward.
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]What war? You mean the war of 1812 the Iroquois helped the Brits win? Or you perhaps referring to the treaty that awarded huge tracts of land to the Six Nations along the American border in order to keep the Yanks from getting any fresh ideas?Or maybe by "war" you mean the trauma inflicted by the residential schools (less than a generation ago, by the way) that the Canadian government is trying to slip under the carpet with a mediocre payoff so that those who suffered under them won't sue them? I suppose that counts as war, but it's not really "over" is it?
Or maybe the problem with your statement is that you, Bleeding_Heart, like most of Canada, is utterly ignorant of the fraught and complex historical relationship between First Nations and Ottawa, and like to reduce it to some kind of "war" that Canada (and I guess all of the Governments in North and South America (Except for Bolivia, unfortunately) somehow "won"?[/b]
Sun, 2007-06-10 12:01
#15
quote:
We are only going to resolve this situation to everybody's satisfaction if we accept the fact that what happened, happened, we can't turn back the clock and let's move forward.
So either accept the dominant Eurocentric conception of history or fuck you, very progressive and accomodating. Of course "moving forward" means ignoring the atrocities of colonialism and their devastating legacy, very convenient.
[ 10 June 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sun, 2007-06-10 14:35
#16
OOOOO as a European-Canadian my feelings are really hurt. Please apologize.
So in an Indigenocentric version of history, the first nations still own everything and all 400 million descendents of European and Asian imigrants are crowded into their original European and Asian countries?
But seriously, short of building a time machine what are we going to do except move forward.
If you own a house, you are sitting on land that was once native land (if you rent you are renting from someone who owns land that was once native land). Do you really want to give it back?
The reason most of us bleeding hearts are able to support land claims is because our ancestors pushed the first nations out of all the good parts of the country and now the land they are claiming is predominently isolated areas of land none of us ever has any intention of visiting let alone living on.
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]So either accept the dominant Eurocentric conception of history or fuck you, very progressive and accomodating. Of course "moving forward" means ignoring the atrocities of colonialism and their devastating legacy, very convenient.
[ 10 June 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ][/b]
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2007-06-10 15:06
#17
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by BleedingHeart:
[b]The reason most of us bleeding hearts are able to support land claims is because our ancestors pushed the first nations out of all the good parts of the country and now the land they are claiming is predominently isolated areas of land none of us ever has any intention of visiting let alone living on.[/b]
I think BH has a point. There is no way anyone among the colonists are going to support any of the original treaties nor will they consider renegotiating treaties towards something closer to justice if it will inconvenience them even a little bit. This leaves FN people only the choice between militant resistance or cultural genocide.
Sun, 2007-06-10 15:07
#18
Glad I decided to come back for another look. The idea is not to send the vast majority back to Europe, it's mostly to recognise their indisputable Prior claim. As the necesasry starting point after generations of delay amnd flat denial. Nice to see that rednecks like you still can't accept the basics of property rights for non-whites, let alone the right of FN to want to preserve their cultures and identies as members of groups who may just accept them as one of their own.
Oh and no, I don't believe theyre all willing to drive cabs or run corner stores to pay off some white bureacrats and bankers and business men for another three generations before they can afford an oversized home -at least for themselves and their imediate families- not for land that was stolen from them in the first place, often in the most brutal fashion imaginable. That's one of the A, B and C's rednecks like you need to learn first, at least if you want respect among slightly more forward looking others.
None of this is breaking news either so don't tell me I'm being rude, land claims has been a political issue even among white Canadians, for nearly twenty years too. Communal rights to their own territory for surviving FN is also a right they never relinquished, and was recognised by our treaty obligations (when they weren't totally disgarded) from the beginning. Of course it's no coincidence that organized political resistence to their 'separate existence' began right around the time FN people started asking for more than bare subsistence and urban ghettos. Fact that they happen to be of slightly differenmt 'race' as we ourseolves still define it doesn't make it racist either, its just a sad reminder of our history as invaders and its racist to now insist they must disappear as peoples. (every nation after all belongs to one or two of the 'races' everyone is still more aware of than we admit, so why isn't there even One FN among all the Anglo, French or Hispanic ones after all this time?)
Now they want as much as five to seven percent of their land back, mostly from public land usually rented to logging and mining concerns (where the white 'resistence' recieves much of its funding and PR) for pennies on a dollar. That I think is reasonable being that their great 'welfare state' you rednecks like to refer to never got around to expanding their land base when their population started to recover abit again. Even the Yankees have done better (a bit) on that one.
[ 10 June 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Sun, 2007-06-10 15:14
#19
Maysie
quote:
The reason most of us bleeding hearts are able to support land claims is because our ancestors pushed the first nations out of all the good parts of the country and now the land they are claiming is predominently isolated areas of land none of us ever has any intention of visiting let alone living on.
I've been avoiding this thread for obvious reasons and feel a need to come in to support both Catchfire and N.R.Kissed.
Look up "colonization". It's a completely accurate description of what happened in Canada's past and what is continuing to happen.
As for "who is responsible", I have no ancestors that were colonizers in Canada, but my being here, and my being born in Canada is contingent upon the colonizers that came before. I benefit from the murder and genocide that preceded any of my family coming here, my dad in the mid 1950s and my maternal great-grandparents in the 1910s.
As for the question about the land, I would say yeah, give it the fuck back. When (I'm being optimistic here) the FN win this fight, not just here in Canada but in the entire hemisphere we call the Americas, I have not doubt they will treat us interlopers / immigrants / descendents of immigrants / descenders of colonizers much better than our governments have treated them. If they say give the land back, we sure as shit will do it.
There can be no moving forward until the past is set to rights, and as long as certain non-FN Canadians continue to deny the reality of what colonization has reaped.
How to do this? Land claims is one place to begin. Further answers to that question are best answered by those who are most affected and marginzalized by 500 years of brutality.
Sun, 2007-06-10 15:17
#20
Just a clarification on a few points.
The land in question in Caledonia was part of a large payment made to Joseph Brant's confederacy that fought with the British against the American Rebels in the War of Independance. Originally, it included a swath some miles either side of the Grand River, from the mouth to the headwaters. I forget the exact width. I think it was six miles.
Note that this land was in payment for fighting. Land was also given at the same time to "United Empire Loyalists", people who were against the revolution, but [i]did not fight.[/i]
It shouldn't be confused with the Natives who were part of Techumseh's confederacy which fought on the side of Canada against invading Americans in 1812.
quote:
The reason most of us bleeding hearts are able to support land claims is because our ancestors pushed the first nations out of all the good parts of the country and now the land they are claiming is predominently isolated areas of land none of us ever has any intention of visiting let alone living on.
Either that, or the same burning desire in our hearts for justice that Joseph Brant and Tecumseh had.
If anyone is unfamiliar with the story of Joseph Brant, you should google the name. There are no shortage of web sites that give good biographies.
Sun, 2007-06-10 15:18
#21
quote:
OOOOO as a European-Canadian my feelings are really hurt.
Yeah, 500 years of colonialism always comes down to some dumb ass white guys feelings.
quote:
But seriously, short of building a time machine what are we going to do except move forward.
How does one move forward if one is presently situated in a place in complete ignorance and denial of history and its consequences. You seem to think that the atrocities of colonialims are some how irrelevant because a) atrocity is a common occurence in history b) it happened a long time ago. So according to you a crime is not a crime if it commonly occurs or it happened a long time ago. By these standards how much time has to go by before something stops being a crime? How frequent does something have to be to stop being a crime? Is rape or torture somehow less horrific because they occur on a regular basis? Do you even have the slightest clue what your saying?
quote:
If you own a house, you are sitting on land that was once native land (if you rent you are renting from someone who owns land that was once native land). Do you really want to give it back?
I rent I would gladly be paying rent to an FN's person rather than a European guy. The manner in which the land is being abused by western capitalism it will no longer be able to sustain anyone if it continues.
[ 10 June 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sun, 2007-06-10 15:24
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]I think BH has a point. There is no way anyone among the colonists are going to support any of the original treaties nor will they consider renegotiating treaties towards something closer to justice if it will inconvenience them even a little bit. This leaves FN people only the choice between militant resistance or cultural genocide.[/b]
Thats real helpful Makwa, but we're not all rednecks and penny pinching bigots either thanks; there's even some support for land claims in certain high places too, just not near enough as usual. Maybe assuring the average ill-informed and misinformed Canadian that their own little pieces of grass aren't actually "on the table" along with the all the free hectares that should be, just might help win more support among the majority. Pointing out that it would be good for everyones economy in the medium to long run too is another potentially useful angle. Those are two known facts that the anti-claims forces regularly distort, especially when they know they can't say deny them out loud.
[ 10 June 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Sun, 2007-06-10 15:47
#23
As non-native taxpayers, we will be on the hook for whatever settlements come about for land claims and compensation.
And, you know, well we should be. It has been our spinelessness in controlling the avarice of our governments that is, ultimately our responsibility.
Just as it has been with David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, and soon, Mr. Arar.
And others.
Because we are spineless in the face of authority. Even plainly evil authority.
Horn told us that trust money was stolen to establish McGill University, and the Law Society of Upper Canada, and, as desperate as John Macdonald was for funding for the CPR, like as not for that rail road.
And, I do believe but cannot find through searches that the land claims made by Natives at Colpoys Bay stem from a trust fund that "dissapeared" when in the hands of a University.
If we non natives were persons of character, we would be demanding that before we meet our responsibilities to the issues of land claim settlements, that these institutions be made to shell out their share first. Even if it renders them insolvent.
Again, switching over to the Ipperwash issue, if we were a people concerned with justice, we would be demanding a criminal investigation of all Indian Affairs Ministers and senior beurocrats in that department as to why Ipperwash was not turned over to the Natives after the end of WWII, as the War Measures Act stipulated.
But we won't we'll hide in our corn cribs like good United Empire Loyalists.
And the Natives will once again fight alone what should be everyone's battle for justice and good government.
[ 10 June 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sun, 2007-06-10 16:16
#24
And Tommy, the Iroquois have roots that go way back in Southern Ontario too, earlier than Six Nations land that was "sold" again later, the confederacy itself probably came from the St Laurence and south, before shifting further west by the time whites arrived again, then north after the bloody 'beaver' wars and back south again even later. It's complicated.
Many of their members are decended from related groups which were there all along, Huron, Attiwandaron, Tionitati/Petun, Wenro, least as long as most neighbouring Algonquins or whoever. The American Mingos and Wyandot are the only other groups who could make the same claims. They were conquered by the Hodenosauneee but quickly became full fledged members, more than we can say yet. The neighbouring Mississauga also moved down there when they and their allies defeated the confederacy (before becoming allies with them and one point the British against the Americans) but they too probably lived near there earlier.
Why exact locations aren't considered that important with FN, outside some particular land use disputes (like did this or that band settle here or only use it on occasion, and for what) as the one thing we can know for certain is that their nations have been in the "Americas" as peoples longer than most European ones have even existed. (Europe has an unusually short shelf life for nations actually, maybe the geography) Anyhow, even a two minute edge in getting to a claims offices is considered legally valid among the rest of us.
Sorry if I'm being pedantic again, I didn't know alot of that myself until recently, but I think this has to be sorted through carefully and remembered now, particularly for their particular case. Most text books make it sound like the "Iroquois" are just recent arrivals themselves, but that only applies to the "nations", not the people. Also sorry for snapping at you too Makwa but armed struggle is hopeless when youre outnumbered a hundred to one and your enemy has all the playing cards and tanks. Other forms of resistence isn't. I've never heard a native leader even suggest that going back to Europe was an option, except maybe in jest. Some might wish to themslves we did at times. Just won't happen.
[ 10 June 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Sun, 2007-06-10 16:35
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]As non-native taxpayers, we will be on the hook for whatever settlements come about for land claims and compensation.And, you know, well we should be. It has been our spinelessness in controlling the avarice of our governments that is, ultimately our responsibility.
Just as it has been with David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, and soon, Mr. Arar.
And others.
Because we are spineless in the face of authority. Even plainly evil authority.
[/b]
Thanks for that. Spineless and uncaring too, and yes, too often bigotted to this day. Not unlike every other nation built on the graves of others I suppose, only this invasion was more...total, more than the usual occupations or border shifts. But they are still with us, despite our forefathers secret wishes, and they never surrended or decided to give up everything else and join our exclusive club either.
Sun, 2007-06-10 16:41
#26
And like Europe and Asia, First Nations groups moved around and took land based on "might is right", just as we took it from them. And if we don't smarten up and find away to break out of that demonstrably disasterous way of doing things, Makwa is quite blameless in her militant resistance.
So, I think "who was here first" is a dubious way to base anything on, for anyone.
But the starting point should be agreements that we have entered into, promises made, etc. This is solid ground for Native people and others towards justice.
And never appologize for pedantry at Babble.
This is who we are. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2007-06-10 16:47
#27
Actually I don't blame Makwa and others for getting pissed off at all of us at times, specially when half the threads here have been sidetracked by white Canadians who like to invoke liberal individualism while showing such clannish defensiveness. [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] Sometimes do it myself without meaning to I suppose. Does get complicated though, if it doesn't get past historical wrongs either. I get frustrated as well cause so many of these things are Still going on, only in more indirect ways. Don't need to invoke our great aunts or uncles in every case, though I suppose that history can't be forgotten either. How everyone got to the mess we're in now, squatters on someone elses backyard but still acting like feudal landlords.
And yeah, pedantry is us, any subject any day of the week... [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 10 June 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Sun, 2007-06-10 17:21
#28
Somtimes I start to think of the land I live on as my own. Then I find an arrowhead. Or a fossil. Ferns, usually.
Sun, 2007-06-10 17:26
#29
You know, we all tend to lash out at the nearest possible thing to lash out at. Whether we are workers, or feminists, or gay or person of colour, we will often puke up our righteous bile at the nieghbour that only agrees with 95% of what you are saying, instead of saving that righteous bile for the asshole in Ottawa or Queen's park that is really sticking it to you.
Assholes tend to keep their distance.
Sun, 2007-06-10 17:30
#30
quote:
Originally posted by Farmpunk:
[b]Somtimes I start to think of the land I live on as my own. Then I find an arrowhead. Or a fossil. Ferns, usually.[/b]
Tee-hee, yeah. And sometimes I lie on "my" front lawn and look at the stars and begin to see the whole concept of land ownership for the neurosis which it actually is. I've never had the privilege of coming across an arrowhead. But ferns blow me away. Imagine, as a species, just deciding you're evolved as you can possibly get.
Sun, 2007-06-10 23:13
#31
laine lowe
The last two posts are offensive IMV. To diminish the historic and continuing oppression of indigenous people who have been robbed of their land, livelihood and culture is very ugly. On the international stage, the treatment of our FN people is Canada's ugliest blemish for what is considered a fairly progressive nation. And still, posters on what is supposed to be a left-leaning discussion board think it's a joke.