Native communities denounce historic treaty
DangerMouse @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:01 am
lily lily:
Very few bands got prime land, and those that did only got it by default - the land became valuable years later. Examples include the Musqueam Band with lands in South Vancouver, and the Squamish band, who owns much of West Van (Ambleside and Park Royal). Had "we" known then what "we" know now, do you really think they'd have got that land?
[font=Comic Sans MS]It shows that maybe one or two of our non-aboriginal grandparents had sort of a heart. And damn they should have twinned all those bridges back then so there wouldn't be so much traffic chaos in the lower mainland today! [/font]
Mustang1 @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:26 am
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
Xort Xort:
I don't believe treating people differently because of their race exceptable. The fact that we had to make an exclusion clause in the constitution to protect our racist native policies is telling.
Offer them a fair deal, citizenship in Canada. That's it that's all. They can take it or see if another nation wants them as citizens. But no more racial based policy, or institution.
Offer them a fair deal, citizenship in Canada. That's it that's all. They can take it or see if another nation wants them as citizens. But no more racial based policy, or institution.
[font=Comic Sans MS] Wow your as sharp as a marble! I said it before and I'II say it again! The Indians did not write the laws or the constitution there Mr Lightbulb. I often wondered why bozo-brains give the natives heck over laws and policies in which they neither wrote or were not consulted. It was only as recent as the 1990s when governments actually sat down to talk. Before that they were all your laws bonehead--so why do people like you hate the indians over your own rules--grow up bozo brain [/font]
Actually, genius, are you sure aboriginals didn't have a say in the Charter and Constitution Act? Sec. 25 and 35 were added as a means to appease Native groups. Instead of projecting your prejudice, piss poor education and ignorance, why not get a clue and read a book.
ShepherdsDog @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:32 am
DM and his Flatland approach to the world are rather amusing don't you think?
DangerMouse @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:30 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
Xort Xort:
I don't believe treating people differently because of their race exceptable. The fact that we had to make an exclusion clause in the constitution to protect our racist native policies is telling.
Offer them a fair deal, citizenship in Canada. That's it that's all. They can take it or see if another nation wants them as citizens. But no more racial based policy, or institution.
Offer them a fair deal, citizenship in Canada. That's it that's all. They can take it or see if another nation wants them as citizens. But no more racial based policy, or institution.
[font=Comic Sans MS] Wow your as sharp as a marble! I said it before and I'II say it again! The Indians did not write the laws or the constitution there Mr Lightbulb. I often wondered why bozo-brains give the natives heck over laws and policies in which they neither wrote or were not consulted. It was only as recent as the 1990s when governments actually sat down to talk. Before that they were all your laws bonehead--so why do people like you hate the indians over your own rules--grow up bozo brain [/font]
Actually, genius, are you sure aboriginals didn't have a say in the Charter and Constitution Act? Sec. 25 and 35 were added as a means to appease Native groups. Instead of projecting your prejudice, piss poor education and ignorance, why not get a clue and read a book.
[font=Comic Sans MS] Wow a "lightbulb moment" from another "sharp marble!" AHEMM! What about the Indian Act? 1871? Maybe you should get of the couch with your beer and read [/font]
Mustang1 @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:09 pm
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
Xort Xort:
I don't believe treating people differently because of their race exceptable. The fact that we had to make an exclusion clause in the constitution to protect our racist native policies is telling.
Offer them a fair deal, citizenship in Canada. That's it that's all. They can take it or see if another nation wants them as citizens. But no more racial based policy, or institution.
Offer them a fair deal, citizenship in Canada. That's it that's all. They can take it or see if another nation wants them as citizens. But no more racial based policy, or institution.
[font=Comic Sans MS] Wow your as sharp as a marble! I said it before and I'II say it again! The Indians did not write the laws or the constitution there Mr Lightbulb. I often wondered why bozo-brains give the natives heck over laws and policies in which they neither wrote or were not consulted. It was only as recent as the 1990s when governments actually sat down to talk. Before that they were all your laws bonehead--so why do people like you hate the indians over your own rules--grow up bozo brain [/font]
Actually, genius, are you sure aboriginals didn't have a say in the Charter and Constitution Act? Sec. 25 and 35 were added as a means to appease Native groups. Instead of projecting your prejudice, piss poor education and ignorance, why not get a clue and read a book.
[font=Comic Sans MS] Wow a "lightbulb moment" from another "sharp marble!" AHEMM! What about the Indian Act? 1871? Maybe you should get of the couch with your beer and read [/font]
Nice deflection dullard. Aboriginals had a say in the Constitution Act. You didn't know because you're an uneducated pleb that thinks gas sniffing increases grey matter. Burned you again, goof off - this is where you take your dog and pony show back to your double wide and get nosebleeds from US magazine. Dumbass
DangerMouse @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:19 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
Xort Xort:
I don't believe treating people differently because of their race exceptable. The fact that we had to make an exclusion clause in the constitution to protect our racist native policies is telling.
Offer them a fair deal, citizenship in Canada. That's it that's all. They can take it or see if another nation wants them as citizens. But no more racial based policy, or institution.
Offer them a fair deal, citizenship in Canada. That's it that's all. They can take it or see if another nation wants them as citizens. But no more racial based policy, or institution.
[font=Comic Sans MS] Wow your as sharp as a marble! I said it before and I'II say it again! The Indians did not write the laws or the constitution there Mr Lightbulb. I often wondered why bozo-brains give the natives heck over laws and policies in which they neither wrote or were not consulted. It was only as recent as the 1990s when governments actually sat down to talk. Before that they were all your laws bonehead--so why do people like you hate the indians over your own rules--grow up bozo brain [/font]
Actually, genius, are you sure aboriginals didn't have a say in the Charter and Constitution Act? Sec. 25 and 35 were added as a means to appease Native groups. Instead of projecting your prejudice, piss poor education and ignorance, why not get a clue and read a book.
[font=Comic Sans MS] Wow a "lightbulb moment" from another "sharp marble!" AHEMM! What about the Indian Act? 1871? Maybe you should get of the couch with your beer and read [/font]
Nice deflection dullard. Aboriginals had a say in the Constitution Act. You didn't know because you're an uneducated pleb that thinks gas sniffing increases grey matter. Burned you again, goof off - this is where you take your dog and pony show back to your double wide and get nosebleeds from US magazine. Dumbass
[font=Courier New] Are you really that dense? The first Indian Act was written in 1876 way before the Constitution Act of 1982. This was when our ancestors were still in Europe and well before they got here in the boats. My guess is your a typical lil boy right-winger...when all else fails start calling me names
especially since I only speak the truth 
[/font][
Tman1 @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:26 pm
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
Are you really that dense? The first Indian Act was written in 1876 way before the Constitution Act of 1982. This was when our ancestors were still in Europe and well before they got here in the boats. My guess is your a typical lil boy right-winger...when all else fails start calling me names especially since I only speak the truth [/font][
especially since I only speak the truth [/font][1876 was when our ancestors were still in Europe and before they got here in boats?
Igloo @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:57 pm
let them have it, they will mismanage it and it will be back in canadian hands by the end of the century.
The americans who would be their trading partner by default will fuck them in the ass at every corner, and the canadian government can wash their hands of it.
let them have their land and autonomy.
and when it looks like they've spent all "grammies and gramps inheritance" all up... we buy the land back for half the price.
not to mention that status cards go in the trash, no university grants,minimal funding. they can go smoke the peace pipe and huff gas till their hearts explode with hallucinogenic joy.
if we were to deal with them on a "nation to nation" basis they'd be crying foul in weeks.
and thats what they should do
DangerMouse @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:28 pm
[font=Comic Sans MS] 
Holy SMokes Igloo--who peed in your coffee this morning? ARe you another budding lilboy right-winger in the works? [/font]
Igloo @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:40 pm
i tend to sit in the middle, however i think we should settle the land claims its only fair if we signed it . so once everything is final and we fufil whatever the lawyers can agree on.
We then go full speed ahead on financially ,politically, even militarily screwing you ,your nation and your grandchildrens nation till your black and blue.
we can leverage current major international trade agreements(such as NAFTA) ,educational institutions,infrastructure plans as well as tariffs,duties and taxes.
of course we would never publicly tell you that in negotiations, until the ink is dry
have a nice day
Mustang1 @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:59 am
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
[
[font=Courier New] This was when our ancestors were still in Europe and well before they got here in the boats.
[font=Courier New] This was when our ancestors were still in Europe and well before they got here in the boats.
“Our” ancestors were still in Europe in 1876?!?!? Are you this flippin’ cognitively challenged? If they were in Europe, then who drafted the legislation, genius?!?!? And who the heck were all those people in Toronto, Kingston, Montreal or Halifax? In fact, could you call (you can afford one, right?) up the local university (that’s a place of higher learning…you can’t get in, but you can dream, right?) and correct their course syllabuses as evidently 1876 was the year we made contact and everything before that was just wind and spirit. Damn…I think you may be this week’s recipient of the CKA smashhead award.
$1:
“My guess is your a typical lil boy right-winger.”
Actually, my prose challenged chimp, I’m a moderate, but you’re still an uneducated peon and ideology won’t mask your ignorance. Befuddle away
$1:
“when all else fails start calling me names”
Smooth move hypocrite as you’ve called people, “sharp marble” so you’ll excuse me if I take your sanctimonious nonsense and tell you to park it. Sorry, you’re still pushing dumb and retreating to the periphery won’t save your piss poor understanding of history.
DangerMouse @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:47 am
[font=Comic Sans MS] Heyhh! The point being that the laws etc were of European origin and the INDIANS had nothing to with writing them and were not consulted! And look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763? It was written by King George III, and while you and others are boiling because I've made my point clearly, you will see that it was the proclamation that laid the basics of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights! And "Sharp Marbles" like you, SheperdsDog, Igloo, and all the "shallow phony Scott Peterson type rightwingers" give and hate indians over laws that they had nothing to do with writing. It's outright DUMB to give someone heck over something they had nothing to do with--the natives of today were born into the laws that were designed in the 1700 and 1800s--and when people realize this, then you'll be showing signs of maturity and not the lil boy antics of the so called right wing party stance, and all I can say is the whole bloody works of them are a bunch of idiots who pretend to support each other and be friends to each other--what a bunch of damn phonies [/font]
Mustang1 @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:02 am
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
[font=Comic Sans MS] Heyhh! The point being that the laws etc were of European origin and the INDIANS had nothing to with writing them and were not consulted! And look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763? It was written by King George III, and while you and others are boiling because I've made my point clearly, you will see that it was the proclamation that laid the basics of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights! And "Sharp Marbles" like you, SheperdsDog, Igloo, and all the "shallow phony Scott Peterson type rightwingers" give and hate indians over laws that they had nothing to do with writing. It's outright DUMB to give someone heck over something they had nothing to do with--the natives of today were born into the laws that were designed in the 1700 and 1800s--and when people realize this, then you'll be showing signs of maturity and not the lil boy antics of the so called right wing party stance, and all I can say is the whole bloody works of them are a bunch of idiots who pretend to support each other and be friends to each other--what a bunch of damn phonies [/font]
[/font]Nice, dodge, dunce, but you still don't know what you're prattling on about. Oh...and genius, if laws are of European origin then why should the Royal Proclamation be valid? Isn't it English? You can't have it both ways. According to your trashcan logic, it's now suspect, so why quote it? Damn, you're thick. Get a clue and piss off.
DangerMouse @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:32 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
[font=Comic Sans MS] Heyhh! The point being that the laws etc were of European origin and the INDIANS had nothing to with writing them and were not consulted! And look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763? It was written by King George III, and while you and others are boiling because I've made my point clearly, you will see that it was the proclamation that laid the basics of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights! And "Sharp Marbles" like you, SheperdsDog, Igloo, and all the "shallow phony Scott Peterson type rightwingers" give and hate indians over laws that they had nothing to do with writing. It's outright DUMB to give someone heck over something they had nothing to do with--the natives of today were born into the laws that were designed in the 1700 and 1800s--and when people realize this, then you'll be showing signs of maturity and not the lil boy antics of the so called right wing party stance, and all I can say is the whole bloody works of them are a bunch of idiots who pretend to support each other and be friends to each other--what a bunch of damn phonies [/font]
[/font]Nice, dodge, dunce, but you still don't know what you're prattling on about. Oh...and genius, if laws are of European origin then why should the Royal Proclamation be valid? Isn't it English? You can't have it both ways. According to your trashcan logic, it's now suspect, so why quote it? Damn, you're thick. Get a clue and piss off.
[font=Comic Sans MS] Do you actually trust your "Scott Peterson type" husband? You knew what I meant there...Europe, England, regardless it came here in a boat. Valid? We are a commonwealth nation aren't we? WHat do you mean I can't have it both ways? Idiot! I said why do assholes like you give indians heck over laws that were written hundreds of years ago by boat people from Europe...DUHH! Now grow up and get along with your so called loving husband who probably has a huge insurance policy[/font]
Igloo @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:01 pm
DangerMouse DangerMouse:
[font=Comic Sans MS] Heyhh! The point being that the laws etc were of European origin and the INDIANS had nothing to with writing them and were not consulted! And look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763? It was written by King George III, and while you and others are boiling because I've made my point clearly, you will see that it was the proclamation that laid the basics of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights! And "Sharp Marbles" like you, SheperdsDog, Igloo, and all the "shallow phony Scott Peterson type rightwingers" give and hate indians over laws that they had nothing to do with writing. It's outright DUMB to give someone heck over something they had nothing to do with--the natives of today were born into the laws that were designed in the 1700 and 1800s--and when people realize this, then you'll be showing signs of maturity and not the lil boy antics of the so called right wing party stance, and all I can say is the whole bloody works of them are a bunch of idiots who pretend to support each other and be friends to each other--what a bunch of damn phonies [/font]
[/font]holy cow i was for settling the treaties legally amicably. which is all that is legally required.
The rest of it you find offensive?
then you're just a cry baby.
you want it both ways. you want to be a nation and invoke the treaties that our grandfathers signed which both sides were BORN into . but if we say thats fine and we should treat you like a separate nation after its settled fairly. you cry foul .
just another example of the lack of will to really end the issue, but more so the willingness to use it as a perpetual crutch and lobby tool for more handouts.