Kahnawake evicting non-Natives II

[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Evictions+racist+council+member/2570... regrets past involvement, and now his girlfriend faces expulsion [/url]

Quote:

Alvin Delisle personally delivered eviction notices to non-natives in Kahnawake back in 1988, the last time non-natives were evicted from the Mohawk reserve on the South Shore.

But yesterday, Delisle, a former band council member now involved in a love relationship with a non-native woman, had a different take on the controversial policy.

In his room at Royal Victoria Hospital, where he is awaiting heart surgery, he condemned the present Mohawk band council and its decision to issue eviction notices to 25 non-natives living in Kahnawake.

Delisle, known by the nickname Tuffy, said they should have learned from the mistakes of the past, including his.

"It's inhumane. Hell, it's racist," said Delisle, 66, the first Kahnawake Mohawk to speak publicly about receiving an eviction notice.

"Are you supposed to ask someone when you meet them what race and nationality they are, and not associate with them just in case you may fall in love and want to be together?"

When the very reasonable-sounding Mohawk editor of a newspaper says that loving relationships should count for more than diddly squat, I assumed it would be legitimate to make that observation. When I ask  "Is the editor correct," I'm trying to determine how FN people respond to this question, which is clearly going to be awfully important down the road if the considerable claims on the status quo are to be met with social justice prevailing.     Please don't claim a priority on social sensitivity here, U.  I'm the guy who posted and wrote about What is America? and 1491...and I have more than an anthropological interest in what "we", the descendants of European invaders have done.  You are perhaps too accustomed to condescending conceern or the flippant observations of the Svens of this world?

I understand your concern, U, but I can't leave the correspondence to the interpretation of the alienated on either side of what is a huge cultural divide.  I've tried several times to invoke discussion on education, a particular concern of mine, only to discover the huge divide that exists on the meaning of education as a means of cultural assimilation.  I have to know  such things, and as a member of the babble community, I don't know what I'm doing here if I don't/can't  ask such questions as  "is the editor correct?"   And if that is not a legitimate question, I've not idea what is going on.  At all.

I would suggest that before anyone wades into trying to find  out what native identity is, they should first research and consider what Canadian identity is.

I can suggest that it is a ruse, a lie and built entirely on myths. However not all is lost, if we instead embrace the real Canadian identity as a metis soceity.

"A Fair Country", Ralston Saul......is a pretty good primer.

I think that refering to Canada as a "Metis society" is just a way for Saul and other liberal intellegensia to obscure their continuing role in colonialism. The dude was the GGs hubby for chistsakes!

Quote:

Because of intermarriage, the issue of identity will likely be the biggest long-term issue that FNs will have to struggle with.

That's wierd, and all this time native people from all over turtle island have been telling us settlers that the biggest long-term issue is COLONIALISM!

I agree in part with Unionist. It is important to remember that the reason that this issue is even an issue though is because the Canadian government impossed band councils on Mohawk communities- with force in many cases. This is what has lead to the current divide between the Confederacy and their Constitution and the band coucil and their Indian Act. This was done in our (settlers') name and has benefited most of the people on this board.

Edited to add: I highly recomend that people educate themselves about the Guswhenta. This treaty is the basis for the relationship between the Haudenashanee and Canada.

I'm pretty sure that because you're such a biggot you are not allowed to post in this forum yarg. Not to mention your post displays your total lack of knowledge about the situation.

Le T wrote:

"That's wierd, and all this time native people from all over turtle island have been telling us settlers that the biggest long-term issue is COLONIALISM!"

My point was simply to say that, eventually (whether it's 50, 100, or 250 years from now), pretty much everyone in Canada will have FN blood in them.  So, in the long term, and even if all other issues are addressed, that is going to raise intractable issues regarding FN identity.

No george, literally in another thread I caught canquetoo (sp) responding, at length, to a very lengthy technical question asked of yarg, and indicated it then...but did not book mark the thread so do not now know where it is, or I would link to it.

I don't know if Charter Rights is FN. I believe Le T is FN. Regardless, why does CR have to be right and Le T be wrong? Seriously, we are on the same side. Babblers have been very divisive lately.

My point was Gerorge that because (and correct me if I am wrong) CR's post fit with your beliefs he was deemed FN. Le T didn't fit your beliefs and was basically dismissed.

Intellegence is not just in books George. Saul's ideas are not particularly new (Paula Gunn Allen was writing about the influence that Indigenous philosphies and politics had on settler societies in a similar way in the 80's).

It troubles me that Saul, who gleefully paraded around as the Queen's rep in Canada, is then lauded as having some great insight into colonialism in Canada. There are thousands of indigengous people who have a better percpective and have not had the extreme privilege of publishing a number of books.

Canadian identity in my mind is fundamentally bound up in colonialism and an orchestrated settler mentality.

And I am not FN, I am a settler.

Honestly George I haven't read those books. Perhaps if I did I could see where you are coming from. I apologize for being a bit snarky there.

I'm part settler, part FN. Try reconciling the two. It is not easy.

You have totally missed my point George. I don't give blessings to writers, I simply pointed out Saul is a privileged white settler man who is intimatly linked to the colonial government. His ideas are not particularly new to those outside his audience.

What do you think the hundreds of specific land claims are? They are a testament to our failed Metis Nation.

J.R.Saul is an elitist, and rubs many the wrong way, LeT. At the Guelph lecture, Dec. 9, however, he defended his thesis in A Fair Country with real vigour and what seemed, obvious belief. I had asked him to defend his idea in view of the fact that the American historian, David Hackett Fischer had portrayed Samuel de Champlain as a European who stood outside the mould of controlling colonizers and butchers (the English and Spanish), and who gave credence to Saul's idea of a Metis nation. 

Not enough empathy for the aborigianl people to suit Saul. He was, after all, just another exploiting European, and Fischer just another condescending historian, said Saul, spreading his arms in an appeal to his audience.   As the one who invited a response, I was sort of impressed by his answer to my question. (Although, of course, it could have been pure theatre.

A Fair Country, is not an indigenous point of view. It is a pre-Victorian settler point of view that is supported jointly by British written history and native oral history.

I have never stated I am FN. I do work on a daily basis with Mohawks and am most often on their Territories in southern Ontario.

The point I was making was that the Victorian CHANGED history to suit their interests, against First Nation interests. If we want to understand who native people are, then we must first understand who we as Canadians are. That means challenging the myths that were created during the Victorian era, and realizing that the settlers we not much different than the same-period native peoples and that Canada was built on a basis of co-operation and common(er) benefit, and not the the elitism protrayed by the likes of Sir John A. McDonald and the fathers of confederation.

Once we understand our own roots we can realize the grevous injury we have caused through ignorance, and institutinoalized racism.

The Haaudenosaunee concept of land title recognizes "occupation rights". That is to say that if a settler wanted to clear and farm land they were entitled to move in and set up a homestead. However, land could not be removed from another's "territory". It is unfathomable to sell land because it cannot be taken with your. Then again your rights to occupy and use the land left when the settler left.

The onlt signatories to the Two were the Dutch and the Haudenosaunee. Yes the principles of the Two Row were incorproated into the Silver Covenant Chain, but the SCC supercedes the Two Row in dealing with "The Crown". It is no less legitimate or powerful than the Two Row but the Two Row has no force in law, while the Silver Covenant Chain was entrenched in law with the pronouncement of the Royal Proclamation 1763.

While many Mohawks protesters claim the Nanfan Treaty of 1701 declares their legal territorial rights, they do not. Instead it was a political treaty that had the effect of the British recognizing that the Haudenosaunee had political dominion over vast territories and they had the ability to dispose of it at will. Once that happened the British were put on notice that territory was controlled by the Iroquois Confederacy, and their negotiations with the French in the 1750's gave the King incentive enough to bow to the demands of the Haudenosaunee (by protecting their territory by royal decree) and pronouncing the Royal Proclamation 1763 in exchange for continued settlement of Upper and Lower Canada. 

And finally, while the Haudenosaunee recognize the rights of settlers to homesteading, it does not extend to the "removal of land" such as minerals  or other resources. These are still the property of Six Nations. Nor did the occupation rights extend to commercial enterprises off the land which were the impetus of the Victorians and consequently the thrust to bury any evidence of native occupation of Canada, as pre-existing rights.

No. Not emphahsis. Just confirmation by British and Canadian records that are consistent with Haudenosaunee oral history.

I'm so tired of defending myself.  I am Mohawk.  My mother, grandmother and great grandmother are all Mohawk.  I am who my Mother is.  My children will get the Clan from the female side.  If any one of my female relatives were non-native then I would have no clan.  My father is also Mohawk from Six Nations.  Where in the World can I go to learn about my culture, language, history?  My reservation with my Mohawk relatives.  What would happen if all the Natives decided to be all inclusive.  Lets all run out and marry non-natives.  I would tell you what happens, genocide.  All Native people would be gone, only to read about in books.  Thankfully my ancestors stayed within their Nation.  I too will be an ancestor one day. As for Steve Bonspiel of the Eastern Door Newspaper, he's not even from this community.  He cannot have any voting rights at any of our meetings in regards to membership.  As for Tracy Deer, she is married to Steve Bonspiel and is taking his side.  Many members of Kahnawake are upset with them for siding with the non-native people.  They are biting off the hand that feeds them.  Many community members have already decided to stop purchasing his newspaper.  Ellen Gabriel is such a hypocrite.  She is the one that has said many many times the Newspapers and Television twist our words.  Now she is saying the People of Kahnawake should be following Human Rights?  What rights do we have? Most have already been trampled upon for generations in regards to the Resendtial Schools.  One of them was my great grandmother taken at the age of six, returned at age 14.  She was beaten if she spoke Mohawk, many died of TB never to return back to their reservation.  Is that the Human Rights you speak of?  Keep sitting on your thrones judging us.  Until you share our history and pain then you can tell us who to accept as member on a First Nation reservation.  You take land for Hydro lines, you take land for the seaway, you take land for the highways, you take land for the bridges, you take land for train tracts, all of this has been done already to Kahnawake.  Now you want to tell me I have to allow all non-natives into my reservation to reside forever. Go ahead and put labels on us.  Call me racist if it means im allowed to continue to survive, if our next seven generations get to survive.  For the record,  I don't hate any race, like you care.  I love all the colors, trees, plants, flowers and all the race of people.  I just don't think one race gets to make the rules for the rest of the world.

Ditto

E.Tamaran wrote:

Double ditto. FN land for FNs ONLY!

So then the question becomes, what makes you FN?  Or Inuit?  Or Metis?

Is it only blood, is it only cultural, or is it somewhere inbetween?

There are Metis in Alberta who are more full-blooded than most Mohawk, but they do not consider themselves FN, they are fiercely Metis.  The Mohawk are a proud people, who work hard to maintain their traditions and revitalise their language...does having mixed blood make them weaker or less culturally strong?  Is outside blood the threat, or is it the loss of culture, and do the two always go hand in  hand?

So you speak for Mohawks and/or FNs now?  I thought you were not FN? Though you claim some of your best friends are FN and so you are an authority?

Officially? So we have the official rep for FNs here? gee, although thats somewhat tough to believe without names, official statements etc.

So I call Bullshit

Why all my mohawk friends tell me your lying and Im the official rep, gee what a conundrum

Bacchus wrote:

Officially? So we have the official rep for FNs here? gee, although thats somewhat tough to believe without names, official statements etc.

 

So I call Bullshit

 

Why all my mohawk friends tell me your lying and Im the official rep, gee what a conundrum

I think he is trying to point out that legislation that defines who is and who is not FN's effectively reduce the number of "status" Indians with each generation. I have heard this "genocide" by bureaucrat analysis before. It is not uncommon.

I for one recognize the teachings of the elders Yawih speaks of even if they are worded differently.  Apparently the FN's you (Charter Rights) "work with on a daily basis" have not taught you those principles.  But according to your statement - anything you picked up as an annonamous white guy "working with FN's" is more valid than the teachings of elders that some of us have been raised with all our lives.

I do know the difference between true elders and those you speak of which I call 'olders'.  'Olders' are old shallow FN folks who one day realized they could have young naive people support their alcohol and/or drug habits by spending a little time at the public library reading up on FN teachings and use it to their advantage. 
Something like this would suite their agenda perfectly:
Charter Rights wrote:"I was taught that one neither proclaims they are Elder, nor do their students proclaim them as Elder, but rather the evidence of truth and experience will be modelled in the student as it is in the Elder. Thus the Elder and the Student are interchangeable, neither one being the wiser but each teaching the other that which is real."

Keep in mind I am not an internet indian.  I use my real name and there are literally thousands of people aware of the traditional nature of my up bringing (for reasons I will not divulge to strangers on the net). 

But my point is, that if you want to claim that the teachings of true elders that have been regarded as medicine-people since birth and trained accordingly since they were young - are meaningless against the teachings given to you, a nameless white guy (Charter Rights) because those elders are not recognized by you or the 'olders' that guided you - I assure you the ground I stand on is firm when I stand against you.

Stated by Lonewolfbunn in this thread to Charter Rights and his claims