The Third Solitude

Formal recognition of the First Nations would have a lot more than symbolic value, and I'm a bit surprised that Phil Fontaine would allow it to be cast that way.

Formal recognition would mean, eg, that land-claims disputes across the country would have to be dealt with by the federal government at a nation-to-nation level. Successive Canadian governments have ducked that responsibility, but Harper is probably even more reluctant than his predecessors, more ideologically opposed to the implications of formalizing First Nations as such, as we know from the history of his strange friend and adviser Tom Flanagan. (Sorry: had to refer to myself there because the Walrus link doesn't work any longer.)

I'm all in favour of Campbell's proposition, but Harper has already resisted/rejected the Kelowna Accord, so it will be interesting to see how he responds to this move. Even more than with the Quebec resolution, there would be serious practical issues at stake immediately with formal recognition of the First Nations. They are waiting for you at Caledonia, Mr Harper.

Well stated. It is a rare day when I also agree with Harper and Campbell.

Fear not about the Conservatives adroitly benefiting from Iggy and Duceppe's clumbsy efforts to define Quebec's place in the Canadian identity. With last minute heroics, the Torries have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

http://liberalcatnip.blogspot.com/2006/11/tory-cabinet-minister-michael-chong.html

In the immortal words of Gordon Lightfoot:

"Sometimes I think it's a sin, when I feel like I'm winnin when I'm losin again."

fontaine has taken a weak pposition on this....natives are sovereign and we don't need premiers and prime ministers to say so....we need them to follow canada's own rules of law. its a bit like the recent u.n. declaration on indigenous peoples.....a glorified statement with no teeth.

so fontaine, campbell and now gerard kennedy can make all the platitudes they want but in the end its all ready in the courts and waiting to be heard. this is what these men do not want. they are hoping statements of recognition will make natives back off claims and rights.....in the end it's resoures and minerals that are wanted.

fontaine is happy on the government's payroll.

Scouts got a point. The Supreme courtof Canada has ruled a long time ago that the land claims must be dealt with by the Federal governement, and treated as deals made between soveriegn nations. The fact that nearly every Federal Government has ignored this doesn't change that. the first Nations peoples have always been a nation, both in fact and in law, and so Campbells motion to recognize them only underscores the negliugence and ignorance of all those in power.

this is really one of the things that really had me pulling out what's left of my hair at the Caledonia situation (1/2 hour from home). The provincial government assigned a mediator, but no one could figure out exactly who he was mediating between. the police had no power over landclaims, and neither did the province. the Feds refused to get involved, even though the land claim had been on file with them scince 1994. Rumour has it that when contact by McGuinty, the Harper response was that the Feds would only do one of two things, a) wait for the claim to be settled (average of 27years wait), or send in the army. McGuinty realized that neither was a viable option, and has scince actually tried to handle things himself. The matter has been complicated by repeated acts of violence, theft and harrassment of innocent residents of
Caledonia by natives, when a large scale peaceful protest would most likely have lead to a successfull resolution satisfying all parties by now. With the land in the hands of the province, developement is done, and the only thing outstanding is how to proceed with criminal charges against those who crossed the line, when the entire native band refuses to co-operate with the investigation.

Specifacally, 1) repeated instances of heavily armed natives entering Caledonia stores, taking armloads merchandise, and driving back through the barricades to the reserves
2) Throwing cinderblocks off of bridges into traffic
3) Stopping two american seniors, pulling them from their car, assulting them to the point of hospitization, and the theft of their belongings

There are several other lesser charges that will probably just be let go, but those three will have to be addressed. the Land Claims process must be speeded up, or dozens more Caledonia will spring up across Canada. One doesn't win either public or politcal support with criminal acts, and I doubt that will help in any court cases either.

I'm sorry folks, I wasn't really clear with this post. I am talking about rewriting our founding myth to get rid of the false "two founding peoples" dichotomy, not about imbuing one faction or another with new or different powers.

And I agree absolutely with what Scout is saying, and with skdadl's point as well. Those are the operational aspects of what I am talking about here, but I am speaking to national myth.

And yeti, man, that's a whole different can of worms you are talking about.

The founding nations issues is at the root of the Quebec's nationalist aspirations. Quebec voluntarily entered confederation with the two founding nations concept assumed. Of course at that time, by founding nations they meant Great Britain and France as represented by Upper and Lower Canada and Nova Scotia. To those who say "why isn't Albera considered a socialogical nation" I can only respond that they are probably too ignorant to understand the explanation. That Canada's First Nations have not been recognized

Oops - I meant to say that Canada's first nations have not been recognized and treated as founding nations is a travesty.

But Canada's First Nations do not constitute one single nation. They constitute multiple nations. And they've identified themselves as separate nations and we've referred to them as nations (plural) for quite some time now. If they can all of a sudden become one single 'nation' then the definition of nation is even more fluid than I imagined!

And the federal government must already enter into negotiations with First Nations on a nation-to-nation basis for land claims, as per the Delgamuukw decision.

tim, that's ok, i know you're acting with good intent....most people just aren't aware of aboriginal issues because msm does not present the facts and perspective....that's why Yeti has some things correct about the law but is misguided on other points. i won't get in to the mis-facts here on this post.

skdadl makes very good points, as does cottegauche. canadians have been led along by a string on historical data AND law. cndescending and outright bigotted politicians perpetuate this, and museums and other places of learning do too. i'd love to see tom flanagan go back to the states.

canada needs to clean itself up....we are making good effort to get rid of the puppet chiefs on the payroll. the day that the dept. of indian affairs dismantles will be a good day for ALL canadians.

meantime quebec can have a good look at itself and it's treatment of natives.....it's insulting to hear them cry about culture and rights with their treatment and attitudes towards aboriginals.

Scout, I live in a small community in the NWT that is almost eactly 50 per cent aboriginal to 50 percent non-aborginal people. There are two distinct First Nations in my community, and the local Metis Nation as well. I have watched them all go through land claims processes, treaty rights entitlements and have watched them slowly evolve into functioning local governments. The chiefs (or presidents in the Metis' case) up here on their own payrolls for the most part, not those of the federal government, and it makes for a markedly different attitude.

I am very familiar with the political and social issues aboriginal people deal with, they just weren't the topic of this post. Nonetheless, this being a reasonably open forum, we can explores those issues as well, though I suspect it would take a whole lot more than one thread.:-)

I agree that revisiting our mythology matters, in the sense that refining our civic dialogue matters.

To me, language, history, and the ongoing profound marginalization of some groups remain serious challenges to any sense we might have of a Canadian "norm" -- that's why I try to take the national question seriously, because I don't think we are all in quite the same boat and it is unfair to pretend that we are.

I understand why people are fearful of ethnic nationalism, and yet if a group have faced discrimination as a group, there is no way to correct that injustice except by correcting for the group. Our courts grasp that principle, but I'm not sure that most citizens feel comfortable with it yet.

There's more than that, though. Ethnic nationalism is not all bad, nor is historical memory. They are without question real -- as in people do experience them -- and sometimes they are glorious.

I'm not sure that politicians are the best people to be leading this discussion among citizens, though. We do need a revived discussion, with lots of humanity and nuance, maybe some temper and some venting but also more goodwill -- does that sound like electoral politics to you? I fear that it does not to me.

That would be apart from the feds' duty merely to obey the law and live up to their (our) responsibilities to the First Nations, though.

I certainly agree with Tim that we should recognize the symbolic importance of the First Nations, Inuit and Metis.

I also want to point out to CoteGauche that Confederation was based on the two founding nations concept; but the history of Canada did not stop at Confederation. The prairie provinces were settled as a colony of Central Canada by a multitude of ethnic groups in addition to the aboriginal groups, and the two founding nations concept means nothing there.

While large numbers of anglo-Canadians, British and Americans came to the prairies, there were not that many Quebeckers or French; those ethnic groups were only two of many and smaller than some; we had large numbers of Ukrainians, all sorts of eastern Europeans, Scandinavians, Chinese, Japanese, etc. So do not assume Albertans are ignorant because we don't care about the two nations concept which does not apply to us; we just know more about our local history than about Quebec's; just as Quebeckers know little about prairie history.

Tim wrote "The chiefs (or presidents in the Metis' case) up here on their own payrolls for the most part, not those of the federal government, and it makes for a markedly different attitude."

As far as I know, most First Nations pay their chiefs and councils out of their own money, certainly in southern Alberta; possibly not on reserves that have less income, I don't know. But they are not federal civil servants; they are elected representatives.

I think part of the problem is with the federal government controlling the First Nations' money, leading often to having to negotiate and delays in getting the money to implement council decisions.

But you also get people elected as chief or councillor who have no experience as politicians or negotiating or in handling money or in making budget decisions. Some of them make mistakes or make bad decisions, some become crooked, some learn over time and become statesmen.

I think getting out from under the Indian Act would help; but any government, be it municipal, provincial, federal, or First Nation, is going to have its share of problems and crooks; ditto with the bureacracy that goes with each. The trouble is that on soem reserves, the First Nation government administration is just about the only employer; so if it is a bad government, it will affect everybody.

And scout, I second your wish to send Flanagan back to the US; he pretends to be an expert, but is ignorant about First Nations current and historical.

I prefer to think of Campbell's statement as him finally agreeing with me!

Here in the Yukon, the native bands have signed an agreement with the territorial and federal governments giving them legal status and rights as First Nations. Things have changed drastically in many ways here from the days when they were shunted aside and excluded from participation in things that directly affected them. Now they must, by law, be consulted on issues of land use and development, among other things, and they can exert considerable influence. There are still many serious problems, social and otherwise, for them to contend with, but I am hopeful that future generations of Yukon aboriginals will play a respected and beneficial role in Yukon government and society.

Stick,

My comment about Alberta was in reference to an editorial in the Edmonton Sun which basically asked the question "why not us?".

I don't want to infer that there is a pecking order of provinces, but there is historical context that applies to some provinces but not to others. Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and Newfoundland were all self governing or colonial governed states prior and up until the time they joined confederation. This does not confer upon these provinces or their people any rights that do not apply to the prairie provinces - which were annexed or joined to Canada from former territories.

The colonies that were once a part of New France, and were ceded to the British Crown under the Treaties of Utrecht and Paris, have a different history than Ontario, Newfoundland and British Columbia. Quebec in particular has a history and culture as an atomic, distinct people group that predates confederation. It is not a great stretch to call these people a sociological nation. If some sort of identity is so desired, I suppose one could also call Acadians a sociological nation.

The people of the west whose culture and sociological identity predates confederation are the Chipeywyn, Cree, Sioux, Metis, Haida, Salish, Nuchatlaht, etc. We do (and should) accord these peoples identities as first and founding nations of confederation. These "nations" do have rights that stem from continuous inhabitation of the land for thousands of years - legally embodied in treaties and agreements between sovereign entities.

The Anglo 'nation' in Canada however is not so well defined. There are few in English Canada that can trace their roots or a distinct cultural identity back to Great Britain. The west was settled by immigrants in several waves of immigration and migration from within Canada and the US. But this in no way diminishes Anglo-Canadian culture or conferes upon Quebecois rights that the rest of us don't enjoy.

IMO - it is this argument about "special treatment" for Quebec that ignore special history, or special treatment for First Nations peoples that ignores special ancestry that continually divides us on the constitutional question. English Canada does not have to give up anything to recognize the distinct history and culture of Quebec.

A few notes of clarification:

Both Quebec and Ontario were part of New France. Crucially, neither existed under their present names prior to 1867, and from 1841 to Confederation they were united to form the Province of Canada. Moreover, prior to the Quiet Revolution, nationalism among francophones was more along the lines of French Canadian nationalism - in short, it did not exclude Franco-Ontarians, for example.

I'd also have to take issue with the notion that francophone Quebeckers "know little about Prairie history", as contended by Holly above. They are probably more well acquainted with the Red River Rebellion, the hanging of Riel, and, of course, the Manitoba Schools Question, the outcome of which was the eventual elimination of the French language in Manitoba schools. See here.

In essence, English Protestants agitated to eliminate French-Catholic schools, which were deemed to threaten their "hopes as one Canadian people." So, you see, these questions go back a long, long time.

Cotegauche, while I agree that the province of Alberta is not a sociological "nation", neither is the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec includes several nations within its borders: the descendants of the people of New France, the Cree, the Innu and others.

I have no objection to the province of Quebec protecting Quebecois language and culture, or having three judges on the Supreme Court to deal with its different laws. I do object to the common characterization of all non-Quebec Canada as some homogeneous blob or ROC. The province of Alberta is part of the prairie region, which has a different history, geography and population than those of Ontario, or Newfoundland, or the Maritimes. I don't know that they should be called nations, but there are regional differences which matter.

"This does not confer upon these provinces or their people any rights that do not apply to the prairie provinces - which were annexed or joined to Canada from former territories." This is incorrect. Unlike the other provinces, the prairie provinces did not have control of their natural resources, including Crown lands, minerals, etc., until transfers from the federal government was negotiated in 1930. So Manitoba did not have the same rights as other provinces for 60 years and Saskatchewan and Alberta did not for 25 years.

"There are few in English Canada that can trace their roots or a distinct cultural identity back to Great Britain." This is not true. Many of my own Maritime ancestors have been traced back to their Scottish, Irish, English or German roots; likewise my prairie ancestors. One difference from Quebec and Ontario is that the prairie population comes from multiple cultures and they have produced a multicultural society, not an "English" one. Another difference is that the earlier wave of settlement in most of the prairies took place only one century ago; and another major wave came after 1945. So there are plenty of people with ties to their cultural identity, whether to Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, Germany, the Ukraine, Iceland, Singapore or wherever.

The province of Quebec includes several nations within its borders: the descendants of the people of New France, the Cree, the Innu and others.

I don't anyone here would dispute that.

In any case, on my dad's side my family is from Oshawa and southern Alberta and is thoroughly Anglo-Celtic. But on my mom's side, my ancestry comes from Central and Eastern Europe... and they almost all live in and around Toronto.

Anyway, we are still a very young country, and the Prairies are the youngest region yet. Not surprisingly, it'll take a while for all this to gel!

tim, i was not suggesting you are not familiar with native issues....i was suggesting you are not famililar with native perspective. that's all. the statement 'Aboriginal people are a nation within the country of Canada. Le'ts finally state that for the record.' as far as most natives are concerned should read, 'canada is a government within native territories' or something like that.

aboriginal perspective is different, that's all, it fits within topic as needs clarification. if you are interested enough maybe one day you'll do a seperate thread, but otherwise i feel it fair to make some points regarding how canadian and provincial government statements and policies are seen on any topic. yes?

meantime i hold that campbell is a hypocrite and is probably doing another 'shut me up and give me more money for the olympics' ploy. worked on the softwood lumber deal.

Okay, Scout, I understand and I have to agree with you on that point. While I am supportive of the aboriginal position on most issues, I cannot honestly say I have seen these issues from their perspective as I am a non-aborginal person.

And you are probably right on your assessment of Campbell's hypocrisy, but I am still glad he highlihgted the issue in the context of the "nation" motion.

Stick,

I have never said the "province" of Quebec is a sociological nation. Personally, I think that is a slippery slope because a province is a geopolitical structure rather than a cultural structure. I would recognize distinct people groups, not geopolitical regions as having rights to self identity and self determination.

You make my point for me when you argue that that prairie populations comes from mulitple cultures, races and backgrounds. The point with the Quebecois is that there IS and has historically been a single dominant culture there for over 300 years. Their history and identity existed prior to confederation and was not extinguished by confederation.

The province of Quebec is not a nation. The province of Quebec is a geopolitical jurisdiction and subregion within the sovereign nation of Canada. It contains many people groups, including the Quebecois nation and many First Nations. All of whom are Quebeckers and Canadians/Canadien.

first nations are NOT quebecs! we are first nations. period.

pardon the length of the following, kahentinetha doesn't have it up on mnn yet:

QUEBEC “NATION” FIRED THEIR GUNS & THE MOHAWKS KEPT A’COMIN!

MNN. Dec. 1, 2006. How can Prime Minister Steven Harper declare Quebec a nation when Canada isn’t even a nation? Under international law, to be a state, a people need a land base and a language. They have no land base and their languages are from Europe. And nobody ever decided what a nation is. But we know a nation isn’t a bunch of mongrels camping out on someone else’s turf. The land belongs to us. The people, the languages, their laws, their dirty diseases and corrupt immoral habits, that all came from Europe.

When they came here the king told them they must deal fairly with the Indigenous people. They were supposed to learn one of our languages. Let’s face it these French and English people were abused in their homelands. The law of the land here is Indigenous. So what did they do? They tried to totally exterminate us.

With all this hullabaloo over Quebec pretending to become a nation on Indigenous land, we thought we should give a short history lesson. In 1534 Jacques Cartier came to Turtle Island. He went down the “Big River”, abducted some native people and took them back to France. He came back the next year. We had gone berry picking and he said we had gotten lost in our own back yard. He wrote some stories that we had disappeared. We can assure you we have not. He was trying to get more money to come for another trip here. In the meantime, the French cleaned up their streets and jails and sent them over here to fill up their penal system they had set up in Quebec City, just like in Australia. They wanted to use their people for slave labor. These inmates were in dire straits and needed our help to survive.

Then Samuel de Champlain arrived and started a settlement in Quebec City in 1607. Next year they’ll be celebrating this event. To make it authentic, we think everybody should wear black and white striped outfits with a ball and chain around their ankles.

After thousands of years of peace, the French got the Huron and Algonquin to turn against us, the Iroquois. In 1609 Champlain went to Ticonderoga with some Indian guides and a few French soldiers with guns. This was the first time we ever saw guns. Champlain boasted that with his “arquebus”, “I keeled two chiefs with one bullett!” This story was written up all over Europe to make this lying psychopathic murderer into a hero.

Then he started the 92-year war with the Iroquois. Before this the Algonquin called us “Iros”, which means fire. Champlain liked to attached Frenchy bastardizations to Indigenous words. He added “quois” which means “what”? He was always wondering what was going on! Mohawk is another Algonquin word which means “eaters of French men” or something like that. We call ourselves the Kanion’ke:haka, which means “people of the flint”.

Champlain went down to Lake Kanion’ke:haka. He renamed it “Lake Champlain” after himself so he could be a big superstar in Europe.

He was so busy promoting himself that in 1614 when he went on a campaign in January with French regulars, they didn’t have snow shoes or winter clothes. Hundreds froze to death. He mounted three unsuccessful campaigns to wipe out the Mohawks. [Who’s sorry now?]

King Louis in 1640 said, “We will eradicate the Iroquois from the face of zee earth”, boasting about killing us all off. They didn’t like us from the beginning. They knew to take the land and inhabit it, they had to kill off the real owners. That way they could call it uninhabited territory. Did we want to hang out with these guys? Not on your life!

Because of the treachery of the Huron, we invaded them in 1645 in Ontario, their homeland. 10,000 Iroquois defeated 30,000 Huron. It was one of the greatest military defeats. In four years they no longer existed.

The French lost their Huron allies and their Ontario base for their beaver trade and existed after that in Quebec City.

After 92 years of war the French sued for peace with us. It was under another King Louis. This was the Great Peace of Montreal signed on June 25, 1701. One month later we went to Albany and cut a deal with Britain to share the beaver hunting grounds but not the land. We could never give up the land as it belongs to the unborn generations and we are the title holders. The whole concept of buying and selling land never existed here. This agreement was according to our foreign policy known as the Guswentha, the Two Row Wampum, the most brilliant foreign policy ever devised. We were equal and kept what was ours. The British were to remain in their ship with their laws, language, culture and ways. The Iroquois were to stay in our canoe with our laws, language, culture, ways and land.

By 1649 the Huron were gone from Ontario. We occupied their land. In the 1701 in the Great Peace of Montreal, the Huron formally relinquished all their territory. They recognized that this is all Iroquois land - the St Lawrence Valley, the Great Lakes watershed, all the way to Iowa and down through New York state right down to Cherokee lands. In Albany the British confirmed this through the Nanfan Treaty, otherwise known as the “Beaver Hunting Ground Treaty”.

We had peace with the French for the first time since they got here. But we never trusted them again. 1701 was historic because we made peace with both the French and the British. In 1754 the English under General Wolf attacked the French under General Montcalm at Quebec on the Plains of Abraham. Then the English claimed control over the French in Canada. It wasn’t legal because it was on our land. They should have all just left. Instead, they decided to squat here.

Quebec City is Algonquin land. What are the French now going to call themselves? Canada is a Mohawk word. Ontario is a Mohawk word. Toronto is a Mohawk word. They stole our land, resources and words.

We are not sure what “Quebec” means in Algonquin, but we heard it means, “kiss my ass”. “Mohawk” too was a slang word that the Algonquin called us. It means something like “the one eyed, one horned flying purple people eaters”.

The English tried to assert their dominance over the French settlers in Quebec who were living like dogs. If it wasn’t for the Indians, they would have starved to death. The French had no women here, so King Louis sent over a ship load of orphan girls between ages 12 and 15 for all his French friends called the “filles du roi”. They were the king’s daughters that were picked up on the streets. Most of them died. So today those uppity descendants in Quebec society who call themselves “pur laine”, which means “pure bull”, are really the descendants of that shipload of abused little girls who were used as whores and sold off.

Before the American Revolutionary War, the British set up Upper and Lower Canada. The French people were mistreated by these megalomaniac British bums as being a notch below them. Imagine! We just hid in the bushes and watched all these crazy white people as they strutted about and salivated over our lands and resources. They’re still doing that.

Then the American Revolutionary War started. The French came from France and helped the American rebels. Ben Franklin got the French to help by putting up the lands of the Oneida of the Iroquois Confederacy as collateral. The French from France were hoping that by helping the Americans they could come back and try to take over our land. Listen! Nobody has our land but us! The Americans became independent of Britain. Then an imaginary border was put over our land.

In 1813 Sullivan’s army was coming in to attack Montreal. They could not get by us at Kahnawake. We were there with our Mohawk buddies from Kanesatake and Akwesasne. This was known as the battle of Chateauguay

In the early 1800’s, the Americans tried to come and take over our lands many times. We had a few surprises for them. The first battle that British General Isaac Brock claimed was at Michelemackinac. That’s when the Americans who were terrified of the Mohawk warriors, surrendered. The British claimed the victory in that battle. Then it was the battle at Detroit. Tecumseh with his warriors and the Mohawks were on one side. They scared the Americans into surrendering again.

Then in 1812 Brock’s next so-called battle was at Queenston Heights. 2,500 Americans came across the Niagara River to do battle. But the U.S. militia refused to cross the line because, they made the excuse that in the U.S. Constitution the militia could not go onto a foreign soil. Brock was in his tent sleeping. When the battle started, he ran out like a big idiot with a sword. He took a musket ball in the head and died instantly. Actually he was trying to run away. The British grabbed their dead hero general and ran all the way to St. Catharines. So 80 Mohawk warriors stayed behind and took the guns off the Americans. When we beat back them back, the British came running back and took all the credit. Now there’s a big huge monument of General Brock between Niagara Falls and Fort George. Guess you gotta be stupid to get a monument.

The Guswentha had created 3000 years of peace on Turtle Island until the arrival of the French. Then the British started moving in.

After the war of 1812, the French immigrants were laying around licking their wounds in Montreal. The British were very mean to them, like they were to people all over the world. Then the corporation of Canada was formed in 1867. For the first time, the French felt they had some power in the pretend democracy of Canada. They had become the most populous of the immigrants and started flexing their tiny little muscles. Now they’re flexing their big fat mouths and their little pea brains.

There were many French Prime Ministers because they had a lot of voters. The priests were hounding them all the time to have a lot of kids to keep up the “revenge of the cradle” or “overuse of the womb” strategy.

We never left our homeland. We never sent our Mohawk men and women all over the world like they did. We stayed home. Not one inch of our land was ever given up. We agreed to share our land according to the Guswentha.

If they want to be independent, they better go back to France. That’s where they belong. We all know it’s our land. We have laws and constitutions which they have to stop ignoring. Now that they think they’re a nation, maybe they can fly back on Air France to where they came from and stop bothering us. They don’t have to take those boats with the big sails on them anymore.

Kahentinetha Horn
MNN Mohawk Nation News
Kahentinetha2@yahoo.com
For workshops, speakers, updates and to sign the petition go to www.mohawknationnews.com

A wonderful history told from a native persective, but with many key ommisions. New France was no penal colony. The French settlers comming to set up farms in the signeural system of the french colony had to pay the French monarchy to do so, but soldiers retiring from French military service, or even currenbtly active soldiers could be granted land for free. It was the influx of unmarried soldiers that made the fils de roi necessary. They were upper-lower class girls, for whom marrying a land-owning farmer was a definite improvement. It was voluntary, and these were not abused little girls or whores impressed into service from the streets of Paris.

The next two bits I'm trying to figure out which is worse, buit I'll start with General Brock, and get to the really offensive stuff later.

General Brock was killed leading the charge up Queenston hieghts after an Amercan force had scaled the cliffs in the dark, and siezed the high ground. He was shot in the chest by a rifle, my history teacher taught that his last words were to conceal his death from his men, but that she was uncertain as to the certainty of this.
The leaderless British forces retreated, and the Americans did as well, unable to reinforce their position (militia men on the american side of the river refused to cross, as they had seen enough of the battle to convince them (wrongly - they didn't know Brock had been killed) that the fight was unwinnable). He died defending Canada against a country more than 10x its size with an army to match, leading his men bravely into battle. His successful strategys at Michelenacenac and Detroit were key victories that kept the Americans on their side of the border, and are the principle reasons that George Bush is not my President, and yours too.

Up until now, we have merely been presenting different spins, and perspectives on alternate histories, and your may be just as valid, or one-sidedly biased as mine. But here we go.

1. Thousands of years of peace between Iroqouis Hurons and Algonquin people is bullcrap. More it is perpetualting the myth of the Noble Savage, at peace with the envirnment and each other. A postive stereotype may be used to some advantage, but in the long run its as damaging as any other.

2. You own version of Ontarios native history condemns you. In response for their trechery, you invaded Huron territory, and committed genocide, wiping them out, and removing them from their homelands. So your claims to any land here are bupcuss, because a)either you stole it, and its not yours, or if stealing land is right, b) we stole it from you so its ours.

Finally, and your not going to like this, once the Quebecois are recognized as a "nation" or a "people", Quebec becomes their homeland. The France they left ceased to exist long ago. Incase you missed it, they had a revolution, and shortened the hieght of their King, by a head. They kept the name France, and speak the same language, but that is all that's left of any similarity, and the french of France would claim they don't even share the same language anymore, and claim the Quebecois speak "pig-french".

Taking the low road will never get you anywhere, and teaching misinformation, and ingraining a persecution complex along with a sense of entitlement is counter-productive and self defeating.

1. Thousands of years of peace between Iroqouis Hurons and Algonquin people is bullcrap. More it is perpetualting the myth of the Noble Savage, at peace with the envirnment and each other. A postive stereotype may be used to some advantage, but in the long run its as damaging as any other.
i'm not talking 'dances with wolves...don't be silly. and the 'margaret mead' theory can die.

2. You own version of Ontarios native history condemns you. In response for their trechery, you invaded Huron territory, and committed genocide, wiping them out, and removing them from their homelands. So your claims to any land here are bupcuss, because a)either you stole it, and its not yours, or if stealing land is right, b) we stole it from you so its ours.
this is native nation to native nation affairs. if you had any concept of indigenous life your comment would not be the same. 'we stole it from you so it's ours'....no. quebec was not a nation.

Finally, and your not going to like this, once the Quebecois are recognized as a "nation" or a "people", Quebec becomes their homeland. The France they left ceased to exist long ago. Incase you missed it, they had a revolution, and shortened the hieght of their King, by a head. They kept the name France, and speak the same language, but that is all that's left of any similarity, and the french of France would claim they don't even share the same language anymore, and claim the Quebecois speak "pig-french".

Taking the low road will never get you anywhere, and teaching misinformation, and ingraining a persecution complex along with a sense of entitlement is counter-productive and self defeating.
what are you talking about when you say i'm not going to like this one? if quebec is declared a nation they still have the same obligations as canada to deal with native nations accordingly with all prior proclamation and international law. quebec sovereigntists have never come up with a plan to recognize the rights of indigenous people....they want to take away rather then deal with what is in place....so quebec won't like it, and maybe you won't like it if quebec becomes a sovereign nation.

taking the low road? teaching misinformation? ingraining a persecution complex along with s ense of entitlement???? that's your own guilt speaking and i can't help you with that. you have to overcome it yourself. most have...wake up.

Scout

I was with you until this last post. My point was that the province of Quebec is a geo-political region, not a nation of its own. It does however contain people groups who have a distinct identity and history in the area sufficient to consider them nations.

I appreciate your perspective on history; it is important to remember that history is generally written by the conquerors with little regard for accurately expressing the prespective of those who stood in their way. However even a First Nations prespective on history has to at fit known historical events.

You state that after a 1000 years of peace the French got the Algonquins and Hurons to turn against us. It is true that in 1608, Champlain with a number of Wyandot (Huron/Algonquin) warriors travelled south, encountered Iroquois (probably Kanien'kéhaka) and defeated them in series of short skirmishes using firearms. This was probably your people's first introduction to guns - unfortunately from the wrong end.

However it is also known that around 1609 the Five Nations signed the Convenant Chain agreement with the Dutch settlement of New Amersterdam (now New York) and shortly acquired firearms from the Dutch. These firearms were quickly brought into play in your on again, off again wars with the Algonquins and Hurons whom it appears you had been at war with off and on for probably 400 years of more. The acquisition of guns seems to have been the event that turned the tide and set the stage for an Iroquois conquest of Upper Canada.

This seems to be backed up by archeology in that the traditional ancestral homelands of the Haudenosaunee in what is now called up state New York, was originally occupied by Algonquin, Attiwondaronks and Eries (from DNA samples taken from human bones dating to about 1000 BC). Your people migrated into these lands, conquering and adopting its occupants between 800 AD and 1400 AD. It is unlikely this displacement of nations happened without blood shed.

What is now Southern Ontario and Quebec was not Five/Six Nations territory prior to the the coming of the French. With guns from the Dutch and later the British, your people conquered and controlled much of Upper and parts Lower Canada as you say by the late 1600's. However, most of the Haudenosaunee villages were still in the traditional areas of up state New York. Most of the Iroquois came to reside in Canada as a result of siding with the British in the American Revolutionary war.

It would be more accurate to say that both the French and British engaged in alliances with First Nations, and made promises (treaties) in return for assistance in their colonial wars. First Nations acquired guns from the French and British (and Dutch) and used them both in wars against the British and French and each other.

The Haudenosaunee were loyal to the British, and had General Brock, whom you seem to dispise, not been killed and replaced by less competant leaders, it is quite possible that your people's ancestral homelands might now be a part of Canada. It was Brock's plan, after repelling the Americans at Queenston Heights to invade New York. Unfortunately after Brock's death, the Canadian Militia, backed by Iroquois, Shawnees under Tecumseh and a few British Regulars, out numbered 10 to 1 were not able to hold the advantage.

It appears you resent being called a Quebecker. My appologies - I meant this in the sense of a resident of the province of Quebec, not in the sense of belonging to the Quebecois identity.

it is important to remember that history is generally written by the conquerors
ah....yes....i'm an elder, i know that one more then well. in native tradition we are taught oral history. there is a reason for this. to be a 'witness' is like an long apprencticeship. it is clear and accurate accoutning of event/s. from there it becomes the oral history, passed down whether it be a naming ceremony or war. this will tie in in a minute.

so, who's known historical events are you talking about that our perceptions have to fit into?

This seems to be backed up by archeology in that the traditional ancestral homelands of the Haudenosaunee in what is now called up state New York, was originally occupied by Algonquin, Attiwondaronks and Eries (from DNA samples taken from human bones dating to about 1000 BC). Your people migrated into these lands, conquering and adopting its occupants between 800 AD and 1400 AD. It is unlikely this displacement of nations happened without blood shed.

dna samples and other 'evidence' have archeologists conclude at the recent pointe a calliere exhibit 'st. lawrence iroquonians' that a certain
group of iroquois dissapeared from the region. what they failed to take into account was like most indiengous people, they moved every 20 years to let the land lie fallow in proper stewardship techniques. the exhibit claims it spoke with many iroquois to confirm this. upon emailing them a few times their 'many iroquois' was reduced to one man.....upon contacting the iroquois, it turns out this 'one man' is by no means trained in oral history.

this is reminiscent of a trip to mesa verde with a hopi friend. there was a very friendly park ranger leading the tour , a really nice old guy. he said this, that, but would say, 'we don't know what this artifact is and we don't know what that room was used for'. my friend would turn to me and give me the answer.

do you know why the archeologiesta and anthropologists didn't know the answers? they had never bothered to ask. if they asked they would be told. simple respect can go far.

it is quite possible that your people's ancestral homelands might now be a part of Canada
we are our own people and our own nations, no matter what. it's all layed out in the books, more so, in natural law. per-conquest any wars we had were had were grossly exaggerated by the settlers who arrived and witnessed evetns. but they made good stories to write back home about. war often meant one of two warriors being killed or a raid. it was the peacekeeping associatied with it afterwards that was important, and a sophisticated process.

until north america starts abiding by it's own rules of law, the governments of these 'nations' do not legally exist, you can trace that back in your law books.

It appears you resent being called a Quebecker. My appologies - I meant this in the sense of a resident of the province of Quebec, not in the sense of belonging to the Quebecois identity.
escpecially bcause i'm in b.c. :) . you will be hard pressed to find many natives in quebec saying they are a resident in the province of quebec....you will often , however, see a return addresss as the name of the nation with quebec in brackets. just like out here i may chose to put squamish territory with b.c. in brackets.