NAFPS Forum
Odds and Ends => Etcetera => Topic started by: NDN_Outlaw on November 23, 2009, 01:58:47 pm
-
"Chief" Ardy may not be profiting from her work like some frauds but her grandiosity remains troubling. I would say she is sincerely concerned for the plight of her people and this virtuous. BUT it is quite another matter to self proclaim to be a Chief and a clan mother. The Canadian definition of who is and who is not an NDN combined with the NDN definition of citizenship can become quite confusing. Especially in Canada where so much is up in the air right now. A right is not a right unless it is exercised and a chief is not a chief until they are recognized by their people. I still question her declared traditional status.
-
"You are both seem to be claiming all descendents, no matter how far back and no matter how long it's been since they have had any relationship with a First Nation , should rightfully be considered Treaty Benificiaries."
are you nuts momma p? NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, i do belive that if you are a descendant of a Treaty Signator, you are entitled to be a beneficiary, its as simple as that, and yes if you are a PODIA, the govt has set it up that you can join the Native Councils, and get benefits, do i agree with it NO! but it is set up that way, so if a PODIA tells me they arent getting anything i send them to the Native Councils,
"I don't mean to be disrespectful , but in cyberspace it's really hard to know who anyone is or who or what they really represent. it takes a while to learn about someones point of view and see a pattern and an integrity there.- or lack of it."
now you have offended me by attacking my integrity, fine so be it....
apukjij, if you do not believe that distant descendants should receive benefits, why do you send them to the Native Councils? Just because it's set up that way, doesn't mean they are entitled to or should receive benefits. When there are First Nations who are not able to receive adequate help, why encourage those who don't deserve anything to take from the limited funds?
-
Quoting myself
"I don't mean to be disrespectful , but in cyberspace it's really hard to know who anyone is or who or what they really represent. it takes a while to learn about someones point of view and see a pattern and an integrity there.- or lack of it."
Apukjij
now you have offended me by attacking my integrity, fine so be it....
My comment was a general comment about cyberspace. I 'm not endowed with amazing telepathic powers and niether is anyone else. It takes time to figure out where people are coming from.
You are just diverting from the issues I brought up by getting offended.
Sam / Apukjij
Quote
"I will briefly state what i wrote on those post. If you are a
descended from a Treaty Signer i believe you are entitled to join the
Native Council in NS, NB, PEI and NFLD. Thats the only mechanism to
give Metis and People of Distant Indian Ancestry (PODIA) a chance to
excercise the Treaty Rights they deserve. You can join and take part
in all the enteprenerial and business acumen programs they offer, they
have a fishing fleet excercising rights won by Jr. Marshall. They also
offer notifications on jobs and training programs availible. So when
Acadian Metis cry that they are not benifiting from Treaty, its a lie
WE HAVE A MECHANISM IN PLACE FOR PODIAS ITS JOINING THE NATIVE
COUNCILS IN EACH OF THE MARITIME PROVINCES. PODIAS WHO TRACE THEIR
HERITAGE BACK TO A TREAT SIGNATOR ARE NOT L'NU BUT TREATY INDIANS."
What is in bold is the same thing John Williams is saying, and if there is a difference in your mind, it didn't come through in what you wrote.
And this will undoubtably be used by people wanting to make these claims as further justification.
See here;
http://pa-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=13275037517&topic=9271
Jeannine 01 2009
John I spoke to Ardy and she said I would be a beneficiary Indian to the Signatory Indians and this holds alot of weight because I am not status which is controlled by government. I have the forms here and it's all filled out but they only asked for information going as far back to my grandparents.
I also see where you said
sam
Your assertion that only heirs of the signatories could negotiate Treaty, is suicide for our People because that gives the Chiefs the authority to sign aggreements without being accountable to the People if they meet your criteria. I seen you even want to run for Chief. That is your biggest folly. An Indian Act Chief is the lowest cretin we have in our communities.....,
I only somewhat grasp the implications of all this, but the thing that strikes me is that when a leader of any Nation signs a Treaty with another Nation, this Treaty is between the 2 Nations and hiers of those Nations, not the individual hiers of anyone who can prove they descended from the National leader who signed the Treaty.
If these Treaties get watered down to nothing more than an agreement between the Nation of invaders and the individuals who can prove descent to the person who signed the Treaty , it becomes an agreement of a Nation with individuals - not an agreement between Nations.
And this interprtation will undoubtably be used to proceed to the next step , which is, if people can't prove they descend from a Treaty signer , than even if they are a member of an unbroken chain of families who are members of the Nation that signed these Treaties, they are not legitimate Treaty Benificieries
What is really disturbing is Ardy actually sounds like she is promoting this interprtation
http://pa-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=13275037517&topic=9271&start=30&hash=2db17f190e92e2247709a52a4c5afcc6#topic_top
Ardy
John Williams,
I have certainly read enough already! Those that claim an "unbroken direct line" to a Treaty Signatory is very impressive. With the records that survive today concerning genealogical ties, along with yDNA and mtDNA proof to back those claims would appear to fit into this forum whereby some are asking for 'sources' to back certain CLAIMS.
Where is your proof of descendancy with DNA to back up your claim? I, for one, would like to see it. In your case you state the line is unbroken and direct, so that would mean a yDNA test along the father line. The Haplogroups for Natives in North America are; A, B, C, D and X. I point out that all Natives in Atlantic Canada had been DNA profiled years ago and the same as in the USA.
Two years ago I challenged the Chiefs to a DNA test so they could prove they had a right to sign my rights away and the rights of my children and grandchildren and those not yet born. Not one stepped up to the plate. My test came back, Haplogroup C, no line unbroken, and I sent them a copy and asked where theirs was. No reply of course.
This test is not "invasive" as some Indian's would want you to think. There is also an Autosomal test which would give a percentage of your Aboriginal/Native heritage claimed. mtDNA would give you Maternal lineage.
That Ardy imagins DNA can fairly be used to determine membership and leadership abilities in a First Nation - and that Ardy is actually promoting this , is scarey.
First those autosomal tests are about as accurate as eyeballing someone and guessing their admixture. I started a thread on DNA and what it can tell and what it can't be learned from it in the link below.
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1375.0
Second, although I understand Ardy is very pleased to learn her mtDNA shows both she and the last known survivor of the Beothuk share a common ancestor, mtDNA and YDNA show only a very small part of a persons ancestry.
It is entirely possible and even likely, that many people will have one matrilinal line which originated on this continent when this persons other nine hundred and ninty nine ancestors originated in Europe.
Conversely, it's entirely possibly and even very likely many people who are almost full blood will have a patrilineal line or matrilineal line which is European. There was quite a bit of intermarriage , and thedescendents often remained with the tribe . And it's also important to note , this wasn't all Native women marrying Native men and a substantial number of Mi'kmaq women living today will have a European matrilineal line.
That doesn't mean they are less Mi'kmaq than someone with one Mi'kmaq ancestor who was born in the 1600's who just happens to have that ancestor on their matrilineal line.
Apukjij
i have to go back to this, i have to express my disappointment in you momma p, i have read every thread youve posted to for a year and a half, and your the last person i expected to put words in my mouth on this site, now i dont trust you, and if anyone in Mi'kmaq country asks about you, and they are reading these posts because Ardy posted in her facebook this thread, i will tell them you are not to be trusted...
And Apukjij , thats just mean.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am pointing out whats been said and how you come across to people reading what you write.
I have tried to sort this out privately but you never replied to the main issues, and then you said it couldn't be discussed because it is private internal affairs of the Mi'kmaq people.
But you discuss it and promote this in your public posts in facebook.
So I think if it is something being promoted publicly it is something that can be discussed publicly. Seems fair to me.
You know, I don't like to toot my own horn at all, but I don't feel safe doing what I do here, and many times I have seriously considered stopping participating here. But things keep coming up. And I think if I don't do what I see needs to be done, nobody else looks like they are going to . So I do.
In exchange I get a lot of criticizm, and even threats.
And then I get told you will spread it around I am not trustworthy because i've dared to question the consquences of some of your own words.
well Thanks for that.
You probably have no idea how many times I feel like hanging up the porcupine suit and doing something else. Or how ready I am to call it a day....
-
This thread got split off from it's begining , as that aspect of of this has been resolved . The beginings and a lot of what people are reffering to here can be found in the thread below.
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.0
It would be really helpful if the moderators could make a note at the begining of new threads that they start by splitting off part of an older thread, so people can find where it began . Otherwise anyone reading it will be completely confused by references to things that are no longer a part of the thread...
-
This thread got split off from it's begining , as that aspect of of this has been resolved . The beginings and a lot of what people are reffering to here can be found in the thread below.
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.0
It would be really helpful if the moderators could make a note at the begining of new threads that they start by splitting off part of an older thread, so people can find where it began . Otherwise anyone reading it will be completely confused by references to things that are no longer a part of the thread...
I for one am throughly confused. I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I still don't see how this ardy person is who she says she is. My crap detector is still on high alert. Also, I want to add, enough with the Tonto speak! I find this insulting and very stereotypical. No one talks like that.
Diana
-
I also wish this thread could have been left intact and just moved to ECT with the change of title I suggested. There is a lot said in the first part which is relevent here. Splitting the thread just makes a confusing matter a lot more confusing.
And although Ardy's genealogical claims are true , there is probably some legitimate questions about how a person rightfully would come to be a hereditary Chief within the Mi'kmaq traditions, and if Ardy has gone through this process, why does she say she is Chief of herself and a Nation of one. I agree that just doesn't sound very likely to be what a Hereditary Chief is, in the traditional sesne. While I really admire and appreciate her honesty about this, the appaerntly unconventional claim does raise questions and concerns.
I guess I should add a link to some 1/2 baked research which I have been circulating privately, as this would help provide a bit of context to what is percolating around in my mind as I ask about this .
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcwzmv4g_60dzqrvcgp
I need to emphasize this research is put together from stuff I have come across online or heard of indirectly and it may be I am way off track in some of my interpretations. But there is enough here to raise some very real concerns.
A bit of Apukjij's perspective is probably explained by a comment of his in the thread on Acadian Metis .
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1187.0
Reply #9
Re: Acadian Metis ?
Apukjij
We have also fought hard and long for the two National Aboriginal Caucus associations, the Native Council of Nova Scotia and the Native Council of New Brunswick. i suggest very strongly that Ms Swan and the Bras D'or Lakes metis to join such a council. because in the Tri-Partite negotiations involving Treaty Beneficiaries and the rights they have with the Feds and the Province; the Native Council of NS and NB are the only metis organizations that are sitting at the negotiation tables in the Maritimes and they are already serving the people very well.
I may be mixed up, but from what I found on line I believe the native Council of Nova Scotia is a CAP affiliate. CAP is the organizations discussed in the link above.
I want to be clear ,I am not interpreting this comment as Apukjij saying they in any way agree with how their political representives may be being manipulated in the bigger picture. Any more than I believe federally recognized Chiefs are all colaberators with the non native government against their own people. And I know for a fact there is some good and trustworthy people involved in some of these organizations.
Just, there is some evidence that makes me think things are being intentionally funded and manipulated to disempower First Nations in canada. And that people like Apukjij, who are feeling abused by the previous system , that was intentionally set up and funded by the non native government, to disempower First Nations people , might be vulnerable to being enticed into a new situation , which is also being intentionally set up and funded by the non native government, to disempower First Nations people....
I myself have no right to speak on these matters , but the only cure I know for coruption open discussion where everyone tries to identify the truth and their common concerns and goals. at this point it seems every one is pointing fingers at the political organizations everyone else is involved in, and accusing each other of corruption.
So maybe openly talking about it is a good idea.
Considering the general principles and precedents being set here, it seems very very important that the foundation of these new definitions is sound . And i am puzzled at the lack of public discussion I see about this.
I really don't know much, and am just groping around with a small candle in the dark myself.
And I am sorry if I am asking about the basis of policies that some people feel should be private internal issues.
-
Kwe' Moma,
I have been attacked by others all of my life and over the years I have developed the shell of a Turtle, the water just runs off my back. People fail to remember that Mi'kmaq women have feelings too. The things which I have written are not things I want to say - they are things that must be said. The truth hurts us all - even Ardy. It is not my objective to offend anyone. As for the INAC Chiefs they do not legally or otherwise represent me in respect to Treaty or other matters. I only represent my Treaty Heirs. And, 5 children came from my womb. Dr. Speck's historical writing's confirms that we originally existed in family groups. I was not born a Canadian citizen as that Law applied to Indians after 1959. I have never applied for Canadian citizenship. I belong to the Tribe of MicMac. We are a Matriarchal society.
The Chiefs have declined the offer of unity which I have extended to them many times in the past. I have considerable knowledge in the field of Treaty & Aboriginal Rights and I have a lot to offer, if I was ever to be given a chance to participate in the inner circle of the Tribe. The INAC Chiefs, local MLA & MP refuse to meet with me to hear my legitimate concerns in respect to the present NS Treaty Talks Tri-partite - Talks which the decisions shall affect my Treaty Heirs. I have no political representation at any level of government within Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has expressed in recent Landmark decisions pertaining to Treaty Rights that all Aboriginals must be consulted in respect to political decisions affecting our Rights. The Honor of the Crown is at stake in its dealings with Aboriginal people. The Mi'kmaq Leadership has a Fiduciary responsibility to our people too, as they are elected under the Indian Act, under the Laws of Canada, to act in the capacity as the representatives to the Crown.
The Eskasoni Band does not allow all of its members, whom are Registered Full-Status Indians under the Act and living on the reservation, to exercise their Right to Democracy by way of Electoral Ballot to be issued for Voting purposes in the Election of the INAC Chief & Council held under the Indian Act Band Elections Rules, as dictated by The Supreme Court of Canada in the Corbierre 1999 decision; which struck down voting eligibility requirements in respect to an Indian's ordinary place of residence. Therefore, the Eskasoni Band Chief is not elected by a Majority of Band Members and has no Legal Right to enter into agreements, in exchange for monies, on behalf of those members which have not been Consulted or Compensated, and furthermore, have been denied their Right to Vote in Band Elections held under the Indian Act. Therefore, The Crown's Legal Duty to Consult all Aboriginals, whose Rights are at Stake, has not been met by Her Majesty & the Queen's Representatives.
INAC Leaders are living in denial, enjoying a lavish lifestyle while our people continue to suffer daily in an ongoing downhill spiral. The media may paint the picture that the daily lives of Aboriginal people within Canada are improving and that we get everything for free, but, all is not as appears. I have not received from any government, whether it be Red or White, as much as 10 cents in my life for being an Indian. The INAC Chiefs & Councils receive a considerable sum of money to act as leaders - I lead from my Heart. The Mi'kmaq Grand Chief has an elected Chief under the paternalistic Indian Act, however, everyone acknowledges his Title and bows to him and the man won't even take my calls. My particular people have no representation on the Grand Council - Sante Mawiomi. The same denial of representation applies to the Assembly of First Nations Nova Scotia self-appointed Chief - who also has an elected Chief under the Indian Act.
The Title of Chief which I acclaim to was originally bestowed upon me by my people, the grassroots L'nu of the Traditional Mi'kmaq District of Kespoogwitunak many moons ago. Like Geronimo, I shall not fail my people for the Trust which they have placed in me, a Mi'kmaq Woman. This is a Life which I was born into, at no time did I make application to others to be Mi'kmaq. I was born Mi'kmaq. The present deteriorating situation within the Mi'kmaq community of despair, poverty, drugs, alcohol, sexual abuse, inadequate housing, incest & suicide does not have to presently exist in the manner it does. We, the Mi'kmaq, are presently in a state of Turmoil.
We cannot continually place singular blame upon the Whiteman when today's problems are allowed to continue by those elected to represent others; representation under a foreign system of Indian Act policy. The present political structure & leadership of the Mi'kmaq Nation must look inward and address our people's own economic & social struggles and other hardships & injustices. Then and only then can one claim to have honored the Title of Chief, which they have all so handsomely been rewarded for by the Department of Indian Affairs. This is my Traditional Role as an Alkonquian Mi'kmaq Clan Mother.
I consider myself the only Legitimate Chief of the Tribe of MicMac residing in Nova Scotia today - as I have not been empowered by decree of Foreign Legislation & Policy. Native Customary Law is still valid in the Land known today as the Maritimes and if my words were untrue - then the British Regime would not be presently executing Talks with the INAC Band Chiefs to obtain Title to the Land of the MicMac. I rely on my Treaty Rights to access Bounty provided by the Creator to be used as sustenance for personal consumption & ceremonial purposes; in my struggle to survive, as I continue to occupy the Traditional Territory of my Ancestral Homeland of Mi'kma'ki.
I do not like writing letters defending Treaty & Aboriginal Rights. I would rather be playing my guitar, out on the land hunting & fishing and spending happy time with my people. It has been a difficult life. It shall not be long and I shall be 60 years old. My bones are getting old & tired after many moons of walking Mother Earth. I do not have many more seasons of hunting moose left in me and I would only like to enjoy my Indian Summer years in peace & harmony with all Mother Earth's creations before my Bones return back to the soil of Mother Earth, whose womb I stem. But, until that time comes - I shall continue to defend my people & remain Caretaker of the Land of my Ancestors, as I have a duty to those in the Spirit World - who gave their lives for us to be here today.
Moma you have raised some interesting points and I heed your words as advice. This goes beyond your role as an NAFPS investigator. Thank you. And, ... your work is not finished here yet Moma_porcupine, so, may I suggest that you take the word "Quit" out of your vocabulary. You are Good Medicine for the Allied Indian Nations.
m'sit nogamah,
TTT
-
What specific clan do you represent ?
-
NDN_Outlaw - The most powerful of all clans - Mooin - the Bear Clan. The bear always sits at the bottom of the Totem Pole. Therefore, she cannot be toppled, but yet, she carries the weight of all other clans upon her shoulders. The old wives tale of being at the bottom of the Totem Pole has been spoken in recent times to mean being treated poorly in situations or a bad spot to be in, however, it means exactly opposite - it is the most powerful & safest place to be. As explained to me by my Grandmother at a very young age - many moons ago.
-
Clan Mother
I appreciate your kind words, and I am sorry if some of the harsher things that have been said hurt your feelings. When I meet someone who can can put our common goals ahead of wanting to be respected right away or being annoyed when people like myself are sometimes rude, I respect that. And we all have blind spots sometimes. Working with other people can be hard on those. Though it might not be apparent I would much rather work with people than fight. I think most of us feel that way.
But at the same time honesty and holding ourselves and each other accountibile is really important. If we ever loose that, we will become just as corrupt and damaging in our actions, as the frauds and exploiters we seek to expose.
There is some good folks who participate here. I have learned a lot from the privilidge of being able to talk with them. One thing I have learned is that someone I have a passionate disagreement with on one issue, can be a very helpful at a later point. I really treasure that and I'm always happy then that I did not actually eat them for breakfast . ( hint hint )
I have heard about there being problems with coruption in some tribal governments.
For the sake of the strength of your whole community , I hope you can find ways to work with all your community members, including the people who are Chiefs. The old divide and conquer senario is really painful to watch, getting played out again and again and again...
I can't support that.
Take Care
-
I am Bear Clan too. The clan heads are not inheirted. The positions simply belong to the oldest surviving male and female members. Plains people never had much use for inheirted positions. Everything had to be earned. A great freedom came with this. Respect for the aged was recognized. The clan leaders both female and male don't dictate but are the authority on protocols. The clan structure I speak of is the Saulteaux aka Chippiwa aka Anishinabe plains people. Most Cree are part Saulteaux and most Saulteaux are part Cree. I was adopted into the Saulteaux Bear Clan and was given certain responsibilties. I never heard the clan heads boast or dictate. They simply serve and are quite humble about it. My beware meter goes up whenever I hear people proclaim themselves to be this or that. The real people don't brag.
-
To employ the words of Judge John R. Nichols of Nova Scotia Provincial Court when he acquitted my Blood Brother, Beaver - Maybe my people have a different culture and burn different tobaccos than other Clans. At no time am I Bragging or Boasting. Aboriginal People within Canada have remained passive & silent far too long. I can see us, as Indians, losing out rights within Canada in the next 10 to 15 years; if the status quo should remain Docile within our Nation. Also, my mtDNA results indicate that Cherokee & Chippewa Blood runs through my veins too. I inherited my Mother's Tribal Clan as our Customs dictate; as we operate under a Matrilinreal Blood-line of descendency, and Power is passed to the Eldest Daughter, from generation to generation. Humble is your concept for Taciturn in my Tribe. The Mi'kmaq are one of the most fierce of all Warriors, as history has recorded. A major hurdle we must overcome is to teach the Whiteman & some within our Allied Indian Nations not to streo-type all Indians in one dimension. You seem to all paint us all with the same brush. I assert my Rights, Title & Sovereignty at anytime a situation arises which may jeopardize my people's Land or legal standing that supports it. You proclaim to be humble, however, I find you to be mean spirited and thinking like a person who just likes to stir the pot, always picking something apart; a fault finder - always looking for the negative. And, I can tell after many moons of walking my Mother Earth that you have adopted the paternalistic way of the Whiteman, as your writings indicate; as I cannot relate to in my Tribal History of a Man ever serving in the capacity of Clan Mother. In Mi'kma'ki, the Women Rule by the Laws of Natural Justice. In other words, maybe you operate under a different Clan System. To be Indian is to be many things ... and, in Mi'kmaq Traditional Government the Clan Mothers appoint the Male Chiefs and, until the day comes that a True Man is up to the Task of fulfilling the Role of Chief, - This Mother Bear shall remain the Chief of the Bear Clan of the Tribe of MicMac! Now, I shall return to my Den ... TTT
-
clanmother said
Also, my mtDNA results indicate that Cherokee & Chippewa Blood runs through my veins too.
clanmother, mtDNA can't indicate the ancestry of specific Tribes. Where abouts did your Cherokee ancestors come from?
-
As much as I understand people being curious about some of Ardy's personal claims , and I would love to ask about her reference to the Mi'kmaq? totem? poles? her grandmother told her about , probably the issue of predominately non native people being encouraged to claim themselves as Treaty benificiaries is more important than Ardy.
So getting back to that ...
Here is a simple straightforward definition of who a Treaty benificiary is
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/treaty+Indian
treaty Indian
n. Canadian
A status Indian belonging to a band that has signed a treaty with the federal government.
In many cases it sounds like what Aboriginal Title means is still being worked out in canadian courts.
As the courts find that Aboriginal title exists and Treaties made with Aboriginal people must be respected, more and more people seem to come forward insisting they are Aboriginal people
Quoting from, page 359 of Mi'kmaq Elder Daniel Pauls book " We were Not the Savages " about genocide in canada .
( with the typos and errors being my own transcription errors )
"Inclusion of the word Aboriginal in section 35 of the Canada Act
without adaquet definition of it's meaning is beging to cause all
kinds of problems for First Nations. People are coming out of the
woodwork claiming to be aboriginal. And this is how the government
recieves them: Employment and Immigration Canada defines an
"Aboriginal" as anyone who "percieves him / herself to be a Indian. "
29. people who have marginal if any First Nations blood in their veins
have availed themself of this interpretation and are taking advantage
of benifits normally reserved for registered Indians."
So along comes CAP, discussed in the Google Doc posted above, which not only asks that some of it's members be included as benificiaries but that it wants all of it's members to have a part in the process deciding who the benificieries should be.
http://www.abo-peoples.org/media/current/CAP_Claims_Settlement_Jun13_07.html
The National Chief was clear in his call for the engagement of the broader First Nations community. “We believe it is Canada’s fiduciary and moral responsibility to undertake purposeful steps to ensure that all treaty beneficiaries and off-reserve First Nations peoples are granted their entitlement to full and effective participation in all stages of negotiation and settlement of such claims,” said Chief Brazeau.
National Chief Brazeau also affirmed that such a position is not without legal precedent. “In the 1999 Corbiere v. Canada decision, rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, it was affirmed that the principles of democracy, equality and respect for human rights are the grounds for ensuring that future land rights agreements are inclusive of all Aboriginal peoples,” asserted Chief Brazeau.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:iQfZjQln94gJ:www.constitutional-law.net/Sappier.DOC+%22
Treaty+beneficiaries%22&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca7strip=1 (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:iQfZjQln94gJ:www.constitutional-law.net/Sappier.DOC+%22
Treaty+beneficiaries%22&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca7strip=1)
2. CAP is a national Aboriginal organization representing approximately 850,000 Métis, off-reserve and non-status Indians. CAP is comprised of 12 provincial and territorial affiliates, including the Aboriginal Peoples Council of New Brunswick. CAP was founded 33 years ago as the Native Council of Canada, and subsequently changed its name to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to better reflect the constituency and mandate of the organization.
That is debateable. I read that Brazeau who up until recently was the leader of CAP, and has now been given a seat in the canadian senate. CAP has never made it's membership lists public, or shown how many of it's members are off reserve status Indians or federally recognized Metis and how many are people claiming distant Indian ancestry ( PODIAs). While there may be many people in Canada who are legitmate Metis or off reserve status Indians, from what I read I don't think more than a small fraction of this are actually formal members of CAP, and many of these people are totally enraged that CAP feels it has a right to claim it is representing them as members at all.
The court record continues
(3) Beneficiaries of the Treaty
25. CAP notes that the Appellant conceded that the respondents (status Indians who live on the Woodstock First Nation reserve) were beneficiaries of the Treaty, so the issue of to whom the Treaty applies is not directly raised. CAP is concerned, however, that the Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, expressed itself in a manner that may purport to limit the class of beneficiaries of the treaty. The Court of Appeal’s Formal Judgment in R. v. Sappier and Polchies states as follows:
1) The appeal is denied because the respondents possess both a treaty and an aboriginal right to harvest trees for personal use on Crown lands traditionally occupied by members of the Maliseet Community now living on the Woodstock (First Nation) Reserve.
Formal Judgment of New Brunswick Court of Appeal dated July 22, 2004, Appellant’s Record (R. v. Sappier and Polchies), p. 85
26. CAP respectfully submits that to the extent that this judgment purports to define the beneficiaries of the treaty right, it does not properly reflect either the jurisprudence of this Court or the wording of the treaty. As noted above, this Court has been careful in treaty cases from Atlantic Canada not to limit the potential beneficiaries to those with status under the Indian Act, or living on reserve. Rather, the test is whether the person claiming a treaty right has a “sufficient connection” to the historic aboriginal nation that made the treaty (which test may be satisfied by membership in a modern First Nation, or otherwise). For example, Donald Marshall Jr., who successfully asserted his treaty rights in R. v. Marshall (No. 1), was living off-reserve at the time he was charged.
This new openess of the definition is reflected in what the NS government is saying about the treaty process...
http://www.gov.ns.ca/abor/officeofaboriginalaffairs/whatwedo/negotiations/guidingframework
Legal Clarity
The courts have confirmed that the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia have rights protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act. The nature and extent of those rights, as well as the responsibilities and authorities of governments with respect to those rights, remain largely undefined. In some cases, they remain before the courts.
“The existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of
Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed” Section 35.(1) of the Constitution
Nova Scotia would prefer to resolve legal uncertainty regarding constitutional rights through negotiation, not by the courts. Courts deal with matters of law but have no mandate to address other issues. A key interest of the province is to ensure agreements address the rights of all potential treaty beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are those individuals who are legitimately entitled to Mi’kmaq treaty and Aboriginal rights in Nova Scotia. This will require a fair and inclusive process to identify Mi’kmaq beneficiaries and appropriate mechanisms for all Mi’kmaq to participate in the ratification of agreements. It is the province’s view that it is important for the Mi’kmaq community itself to define its membership, as well as how the community is represented in the negotiations. Clarification of the rights of non-Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq within the province should be determined.
But it is not clear exactly who is being condidered " the Mi'kmaq community" Does that include PODIAs of distant Mi'kmaq descent?
Because CAP does include these people.
The link below makes some interesting reading.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/abor-e/13ev-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&comm_id=1
I tried to find some parts to quote to point out all the double talk, but the whole thing is so outrageous I'm not even sure where to start.
Notice how thoughout this discussion ( and in many parts to long to quote here) the CAP leader Patric Brazeau repeatedly sides steps questions asking how he would define an Aboriginal person, and instead he repeatedly accuses elected First Nations representives of being corrupt. His solution is to suggest there should be no more Indian Status for anyone. It's not at all clear what he thinks should replace this, except it sounds like it would include a lot more people who might have very distant Indian ancestry . He suggests replacing the current reserve system with a lot fewer centralized Native communities and that the reserves aren't really owned by the First Nations anyways and these lands really belong to the federal government.
This is the same thing , called centralization was attempted in NS in the mid 1900's. All it did was allow the federal government to neglect their responsiblities to a lot of people collected in one area while absorbing some lands previously occupied by First Nations. Daniel Paul discusses the disaster of decentalization in his book "We Were Not the Savages "
As cyberspace and this message board seem to be being used to direct PODIAs to CAP, in order to participate in defining who treaty benificiaries should be, I thought it would be interesting to hear is peoples opinions on this, or at least compile some of the things I am reading, so people can see what organizations some people seem to be serving...
This situation reminds me of all the people who try to claim to be Cherokee tribes in the States.
Does canada have any clear criteria for federal recognition of people claiming to be an Aboriginal Nation?
Maybe some public discussion would be interesting, or maybe it is just something people can read and if people are concerned they can investigate this for themselves and take appropriate action in their own communities.
I only dimly understand this , but what I see looks very strange.
===========
edited to correct formatting error which attributed my comment to what I previously quoted .
============
edited to correct a comment that CAP leader Brazeau was appointed not elected. He was appointed to the canadian senate and there is questions about who the members of CAP are who elect these people, but he was elected to his position by the provincial CAP affiliates..
-
My Grandmother told me the story of the Totem Pole as an example of the strength of the Bear. The Mi'kmaq never had Totem Poles. DNA evidence is accepted by the Courts everyday in its determination to convict or exonerate others. Family Tree DNA scientist say that I have Cherokee & Chipewa ancestry in my DNA markers. I am not a scientist. A Treaty Indian is one who stems from Ancestors who signed a Treaty. For example: Native Council of Nova Scotia represents Treaty Indians and Canada recognizes those Treaty Beneficiaries by allowing them access to harvest natural resources such as Moose, Deer, Fish, etc... without hindrance. I point out that NCNS is not a Band as defined under the Indian Act, as NCNS is not recognized as a Band; as it is situated outside of an Indian Reservation, as defined under the Act. So, all definitions of Treaty Indian may not be accurate. Aboriginal Title exist in the Land of the MicMac. I exercise my Treaty Rights wherever I choose in the Maritimes. The NCNS members exercise their Rights outside the reservation as well. Corbierre 1999 recognized that no matter where an Aboriginal resides that the Aboriginal has an interest in the community which they connect to. Section 109 BNA Acts 1867 everyone who holds land does so in the right of the province, subject to any other interest. In other words ... the underlying Title of the Aboriginal - Royal Proclamation 1763. CAP is just another splinter group comprised of a dozen smaller splinter groups who have taken it upon themselves to represent other people claiming Aboriginal ancestry. The governments recognize and deal with these groups. It is my opinion that all these groups which exist under the sanctions as registered non-profit societies of another Nation are not legitimate, unlike myself who draws no pay cheque or honorarium and does not need to be governed under the legislation of another Nation. At the time of the signing of the Treaty we are recognized as a Tribe, not bands. I do not need a Foreign Registry of Joint Stocks Legislation to tell me who I am - I am the Real Deal! Now, may I ask you, What's up with this mockery - " Mi'kmaq Burial Grounds Research & Restoration Association", that this thread originates from? The Association that the Author & Mi'kmaq Historian - Daniel Paul sanctions, but others dare to question in a Paternalistic Society the legitimacy of this group of people playing Indians. I go to the reservation - White people pump my gas & sell me tobacco, I go to the Wharf and White people fish the Treaty Boats, I go to the Band Hall & White Woman is on Band Council. Apparently, the White people got nothing left to take away from Indians -execpt our Ancestors remains ...
-
clanmother said
Family Tree DNA scientist say that I have Cherokee & Chipewa ancestry in my DNA markers.
Nope. If I was you, I would reevaluate this claim and educate yourself about this subject.
-
The DNA report says I carry those bloods too. I am Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroup "C" and we did not marry our direct relations, as can be confirmed by evidence at the Hopewell Mound; which has the descendants of Aboriginal People of all Amerindian Haplogroups. Indians were smart people not only to travel water corridors by the star charts, but, we knew about what is termed today - mtDNA. Matriarchal Society. We survived on Turtle Island for thousands of years as Independant Indian Nations.
-
clanmother said
The DNA report says I carry those bloods too.
DNA and science can's specify a "Tribe" like the Cherokees and Chippewa. It can link someone to ancestors in the American continents, but even then its controversial, and its not 100 percent accurate.
BlackWolf said
Where abouts did your Cherokee ancestors come from?
-
The DNA report says I carry those bloods too. I am Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroup "C" and we did not marry our direct relations, as can be confirmed by evidence at the Hopewell Mound; which has the descendants of Aboriginal People of all Amerindian Haplogroups. Indians were smart people not only to travel water corridors by the star charts, but, we knew about what is termed today - mtDNA. Matriarchal Society. We survived on Turtle Island for thousands of years as Independant Indian Nations.
When it comes to linking DNA to "race," it is far from an exact science. DNA can give somebody a good idea of what their racial mix up might be, but it is still not an exact science whatsoever. So at this time using DNA to determine the race of an individual without doubt really can not be done.
I also agree with Blackwolf when he says that DNA testing can not determine what tribe a person comes from. DNA testing can possibly identify markers that are most likely from America Indian people, but it can NOT identify a specific tribe at all.
Many have claimed they have done this, or have had it done; those claims are always debunked and proven to be false.
-
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.msg20470#msg20470
I said reffering to Apukjij and Ardy...
You are both seem to be claiming all descendents, no matter how far back and no matter how long it's been since they have had any relationship with a First Nation , should rightfully be considered Treaty Benificiaries."
and Apukjij replied
are you nuts momma p? NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, i do belive that if you are a descendant of a Treaty Signator, you are entitled to be a beneficiary, its as simple as that, and yes if you are a PODIA, the govt has set it up that you can join the Native Councils, and get benefits, do i agree with it NO! but it is set up that way, so if a PODIA tells me they arent getting anything i send them to the Native Councils,
Apukjij, I would like to explore your comment here a bit...
First a bit of background
http://www.wabanaki.com/british_crown_treaties.htm
With regard to specific treaties being made between the crown and aboriginal bands or communities in the Maritimes, the British crown signed a number of historical documents with the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people between 1725 and 1779. These historical documents are commonly referred to as treaties, but only three of them, the two LaHeve treaties of 1760-61 and the Cope treaty of 1752, have been formally recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as having the constitutional status of treaties.
In response to part (a) of the question, it is important to consider the geographical boundaries and political structures of the Maritimes in the 1700s. In the Marshall decision, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that “...the British signed a series of agreements with individual Mi’kmaq communities in 1760 and 1761 intending to have them consolidated into a comprehensive Mi’kmaq treaty that was never in fact brought into existence. The trial judge found that by the end of 1761 all of the Mi’kmaq villages in Nova Scotia had entered into separate but similar treaties”. It is important to note that during the colonial period, Nova Scotia was considered to include modern day New Brunswick.
Regarding parts (b) and (c) as they relate to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Marshall, only the 1760-61 treaties were recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as treaties under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The 1760 LaHeve treaty was signed on March 10, 1760 in Halifax. The 1761 LaHeve treaty was signed on November 9, 1761 in Halifax.
In addition, the other “historical documents” that have been identified from various archival sources are virtually identical to the LaHeve treaty of 1760 with the exception of the February 23, 1760 agreement with the Saint John (Maliseet) and Passamaquoddy Indians, which contained similar promises but also renewed previous peace and friendship treaties with the crown.
Copies of the following 1760-61 documents were provided to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in May 2001:
Renewal of 1725 Articles and 1749 Articles, with the delegates of the Saint John and Passamaquoddy, at Chebucto (Halifax) Harbour, 23 February 1760; Treaty dated 10 March 1760 with Chief Michael Augustine of the Richebuctou Tribe; Treaty with Chief Paul of LaHeve Tribe at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with Claude René, Chief of Chibennacadie and Muscadoboit, concluded at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with the Merimichi Tribe, concluded 25 June 1761; Treaty with Chief Claude Atouash of the Jedaick Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Etiene Apshobon of the Pogmouch Tribe, Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Joseph Argimaut, Chief of Mesiguash Indians, Halifax, 8 July 1761; Treaty with Chief Jeannot Picklougawash on behalf of the Pictouk and Malegomich Tribes, 12 October 1761; and Treaty with Chief Francis Mius of the LaHeve Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 9 November 1761.
In part (d) reference is made to “Marshall or Halifax treaties”. It is assumed this is in reference to the LaHeve treaties of 1760-61, which were considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall decision. Therefore, with respect to which bands or communities are covered by these treaties, the Government of Canada is of the view that while modern day first nations are the most likely successor groups of the original signatory groups, it is impossible to determine a direct correlation between the application of treaties to modern day first nations.
It is important to keep in mind that the passage of time has meant that there have been changes to the composition of some of the signatory groups. We recognize the difficulty in connecting the signatories of historic treaties to particular contemporary first nation communities. This may be due in part to migration of first nations, intermarriage, government policies creating bands and other initiatives such as the centralization of reserves. However, since the court found that all Mi’kmaq communities participated in the treaties, members of modern communities are likely beneficiaries of these treaty rights.
For these reasons, the Government of Canada has determined that the most appropriate course of action is to enter into a dialogue with the 34 Mi’kmaq and Maliseet first nations in present day Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec to consider the implications of the Marshall decision
So, one of these Treaty signatories was the descendent of a Mi'kmaq woman and an Acadian surnamed Muise, who was born in 1681.
His brother married a French woman and it is said most of the Acadians with the surname Muise descend from his brother.
http://museeacadien.ca/argyle/html/egenealogy1.htm
Philippe Mius d'Entremont(1609-1700). Philippe Mius (d'Azy) d'Entremont, his son, born in 1660, married an unidentified Native American woman, and later a Native American woman named Marie. Joseph Mius (d'Azy), approximately 1679-1729, son of Philippe Mius d'Azy, son of Philippe Mius d'Entremont, married Marie Amirault. This family is the source of all the families bearing the name Mius or Miuse or Meuse that can be found in North America.
http://www.acadian.org/indians-Mius.html
More about Joseph Mius:
Joseph Mius was born in 1680 and died in 1729 in Annapolis County, Nova Scotia. He Married Marie Amirault in 1700. Marie was born in 1684.
Reference: Dictionnaire Genealogiques des Familles Acadienne. [MIUS section] Publication: Centre d'Etudes Acadiennes, Universite' de Moncton. Author: Stephen A. White.
Special Note: Joseph's Brother Francois Mius b.1681 became Chief of the Indians of Le Have. A Treaty was signed by Francois Mius in 1761 that is still honored today.
REF: Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Hon. Robert Nault.
Apukjij. I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but what you have said does seem contradictory.
When I said
You are both seem to be claiming all descendents, no matter how far back and no matter how long it's been since they have had any relationship with a First Nation , should rightfully be considered Treaty Benificiaries."
You replied
Apukjij
are you nuts momma p? NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT,
From this comment it sounds like you think there is a point where a person of some distant Native descent is no longer a benificiary of the Nation's resources their distant ancestors descended from.. But your comments right after that seem to contradict this...
i do belive that if you are a descendant of a Treaty Signator, you are entitled to be a beneficiary, its as simple as that,
But then right after that, you seem to contradict this when you said this...
and yes if you are a PODIA, the govt has set it up that you can join the Native Councils, and get benefits, do i agree with it NO!
Some of those Mi'kmaq who signed those Treaties were born in the late 1600's. Someone with one Native ancestor who was born in the 1600's is a PODIA . A descendent of one Treaty signatory would be a PODIA. So what you are saying here seems contradictory.
It sounds like the Treaties being refered to were signed between 1725
and 1779 , and some of the Treaties that have been signed that are not being respected go back even earlier than that, such as the Treaty signed in 1685 by someone with the same surname as Ardy's husband.
When you say all people who are descendents of a Treaty signer should be considered benificiaries, do you mean all people who can prove they are direct descendents of that particular person are benificiaries, but anyone who cannot prove they are direct descendents of that particular person are outaluck - even if it can be proven these people undoubtably descend from the Nations those Treaty signatories were representing, and these people are registered Indians who are currently members of a historic federally recognized Mi'kmaq or Maliseet band?
Or do you mean everyone who can prove a close personal family genealogical relationship with the person who signed the Treaty would be included as benificiaries? While this would include more people who may not be able to prove direct descent from the individual who signed the Treaty, it also would include a lot of people who were related to the Treaty signatory but who's families have not been members of the indigenous First Nations this individual who signed the Treaty was representing, for hundreds of years.
For example, Francois Muise who signed this Treaty was the brother of Joseph Muise.
If you are thinking of the Treaties as representing individuals, their families and their direct descendents, of the individual people wh signed the Treaty, wouldn't this Treaty include all the Acadians with one gr gr gr gr gr gr gr grandmother who was Mi'kmaq who descend from Joseph Muise- because his brother was a Treaty signatory?
The book
"The Acadians of the Maritimes" by the Centre D'Etudes Acadien gives the following information;
page 141
The majority of the population, as has already been pointed out, can trace it's origin to 40-50 families who came to Acadia at the instigation of Razilly an d'Aulnay . In the 1671 census , some 70 families were counted, including one third which resulted from marriages in Acadia. 35 Few families came thereafter though some immigration continued right up to the fall of Port Royal in 1710.
I should also point out that most of these marriages that occured in Acadia were between the offspring of French families, though a small minority did involve indigenous people.
If we trace our families back , starting with our 2 parents, 4 grand parents , 8 great grandparents ect ect , and you go back as far as the late 1600's, most of us have more than 1000 ancestors once you get that far back. So , chances are everyone that is Acadian would be related to everyone else somewhere back there.
Most families that descend from a common ancestor who lived in the 1600's now number in the hundreds of thousands of descendents... In the Maritimes in 1971, there was 330, 565 Acadians in the Maritimes alone. ( The Acadians of the Maritimes page 167 )
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/l/e/b/Shirley-T-Leblanc/GENE16-0050.html
Today, there are well over two million Acadian descendants. They are all over the world including France, Canada, South America, West Indies, and all over the United States. But the largest concentration, more than eight hundred thousand, is in Louisiana.
And thats probably not even counting the people who are "part Acadian" .
Are all of these individuals who can show they descend from Joseph Muise who was the brother of Treaty signatory Francoise Muise to be considered as Treaty benificiaries?
Or did these peoples ancestors loose the ability to participate in rights recognized in the Treaties formed with the Mi'kmaq Nation when they married out of this Nation?
Because of this problem, I don't think it is as simple as individual descendents tracking their ancestry back to individuals who signed a treaty.
This seems obvious to me.
I guess what I am concerned about is that in recognizing groups which recognize PODIAs as Aboriginal people, the canadian government seems to be promoting unworkable chaos. This chaos might be a powerful device to use to disempower and delay implimentation of recent court cases which recognized the Treaty rights of Aboriginal people.
Establishing that there is a legal title holder is pretty meaningless if it can't be established who that person may be.
And who benifits from that?
It seems much more workable to interpret these treaties as having been signed on behalf of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet First Nations.
But if you ( or anyone else ) sees this differently I would be very interested to hear the reasons behind this.
-
The DNA report says I carry those bloods too. I am Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroup "C" and we did not marry our direct relations, as can be confirmed by evidence at the Hopewell Mound; which has the descendants of Aboriginal People of all Amerindian Haplogroups. Indians were smart people not only to travel water corridors by the star charts, but, we knew about what is termed today - mtDNA. Matriarchal Society. We survived on Turtle Island for thousands of years as Independant Indian Nations.
When it comes to linking DNA to "race," it is far from an exact science. DNA can give somebody a good idea of what their racial mix up might be, but it is still not an exact science whatsoever. So at this time using DNA to determine the race of an individual without doubt really can not be done.
I also agree with Blackwolf when he says that DNA testing can not determine what tribe a person comes from. DNA testing can possibly identify markers that are most likely from America Indian people, but it can NOT identify a specific tribe at all.
Many have claimed they have done this, or have had it done; those claims are always debunked and proven to be false.
In my opinion a matriarchal society in no way indicates a knowledge of mt DNA.
As near as I can make out at the present time (in other words this is very tentative) C mt DNA is Iroquoian. While that includes Cherokee, most likely a person in Canada would have inherited that from a northern Iroquoian people, perhaps Wendat (Huron), Talmatan (Neutral), or Five Nations.
While Hopewell sites were held by people with C, B,D and X mt DNA, and later (after 536 CE) by A mt DNA as well, as best as I can determine they were held by peoples ancestral to Shawnee and Cherokee in earlier times.
Ojbwe should be A mt DNA or far less often X mt DNA.
To my knowledge, the Y DNA parsing is still imprecise, as rattlebone and blackwolf state. To my knowledge he also accurately states the spurious claims made by some in hope of gaining money.
What I have noticed is that the greater the destruction of any people's history, the more grandious is the history they construct to replace it.
Apparently this sometimes starts on a personal level, and then extends.
-
What I have noticed is that the greater the destruction of any people's history, the more grandious is the history they construct to replace it.
Yep. I would say people living in a communal setting require the approval of their peers before acting in any position that impacts on their peers. There is no room for a "loose cannon" when the survival and well being of the group is at stake. The corrosive effects of long term colonialism can create an environment where other peoples culture and spirituality are imported to replace what was lost. Thus we see people wearing plains regalia and practicing a plains spirituality their anscestors never practiced. Positions of responsibility in service to the people such as in a communal society can easily become positions of power over others. When a communal culture is eclipsed by a culture of the individual, distorsions occur. One of these as you mention is grandiousity and even a strong sense of entitlment all with out the approval of their people. The aggressive individual takes what they see and tries to make it their own. This may very well be a definition for colonialism. They want the flower they don't want the thorn. A non NDN friend of mine once said she wished she could be an NDN. I told her why would you want to be poor and depressed all the time.
-
What I have noticed is that the greater the destruction of any people's history, the more grandious is the history they construct to replace it.
Yep. I would say people living in a communal setting require the approval of their peers before acting in any position that impacts on their peers. There is no room for a "loose cannon" when the survival and well being of the group is at stake. The corrosive effects of long term colonialism can create an environment where other peoples culture and spirituality are imported to replace what was lost. Thus we see people wearing plains regalia and practicing a plains spirituality their anscestors never practiced. Positions of responsibility in service to the people such as in a communal society can easily become positions of power over others. When a communal culture is eclipsed by a culture of the individual, distorsions occur. One of these as you mention is grandiousity and even a strong sense of entitlment all with out the approval of their people. The aggressive individual takes what they see and tries to make it their own. This may very well be a definition for colonialism. They want the flower they don't want the thorn. A non NDN friend of mine once said she wished she could be an NDN. I told her why would you want to be poor and depressed all the time.
Thank you for saying this.
-
The corrosive effects of long term colonialism can create an environment where other peoples culture and spirituality are imported to replace what was lost. Thus we see people wearing plains regalia and practicing a plains spirituality their ancestors never practiced. Positions of responsibility in service to the people such as in a communal society can easily become positions of power over others. When a communal culture is eclipsed by a culture of the individual, distortions occur. One of these as you mention is grandiousity and even a strong sense of entitlement all with out the approval of their people. The aggressive individual takes what they see and tries to make it their own.
Well said. Many people long for power, while trying to avoid the responsibilities. The outcome is never good.
But I don't think that being poor and/or depressed is a requirement for being NDN, though the thoughts of the conquest and the continued plight of many always weighs heavy. It is hard sometimes to keep a good heart for the struggles ahead and to keep ones head up looking for the course of the path.
-
Family Tree DNA scientist say that I have Cherokee & Chipewa ancestry in my DNA markers.
::) I'm not going to get into a big explanation about genetics. But I would read 'National Geographics' human DNA studies on North American Indians. Then I would ask 'Family Tree' for a refund.
-
never said i want anyone who has a drop of native blood to be status, thats ludicrous and alarming to see that in print and i had to distance my self from such statements, see thats why i reacted to her putting words in my mouth, i knew what could happen, I've NEVER publicly stated how i feel on this issue on FB or NAFPS, because its a Mi'kmaq Treaty Right, things will remain "as between the Indians as before" which we insisted be put into the Treaties we've signed with the British and American govts, we don't discuss L'nu core issues with non-L'nu, UNTIL moma p forced my hand! sidetracking the thread with posts from a FB site, we do however share our history and oral tradition and as a holder of Mi'kmaq Oral Traditions i share when i thinks its appropriate, , which is what i attempted to do on both here and on FB,
i was engaging a well known terrorist John Williams, i never knew he was the greywolf that had all these posts against him here on NAFPS site, a thread lol i even posted on, and it turns out that john williams is a hosting a popular site in Maliseet country. I have never publicly stated on that site my feelings on Mi'kmaq Citizenship, i was responding to his alarming assertion its the non status descendant who not only should be a Treaty Beneficiary, but the actual ones engaging the Govt in the self-govt agreements, and these self-govt agreements he says are invalid, because he considers himself a descendant of ?Mokawanndoo??/ a Great Chief, he incorporated his own wapanaki confederacy composed of him as grand chief and 12 of these descendant people he is in contact with as Chiefs, and feels its his quasi organization who should be engaging in self-govt negotiations, he is dangerous, making statements>" a few of the Treaties the Mi'kmaq signed were as useful as toilet paper," an L'nu would never speak of the Treaty like that, the Treaty making process is so ingrained in Mi'kmaw consciousness, so steeped in Spirituality, always made with a Pipe=Ceremony, and then he said on that FB site that "the Mi'kmaq were like the sioux who he claims both did nothing in the Indian Wars and like to take credit for things battles they never fought," which my and my peers feel is treason, and the approach hes taking terrorism.
OK lets take his claims, hes a dna direct descendant of ???Mockawanndoo??? but current dna science is traced from the female descendant not the male lineage, so he cant have in his hands a dna test proving hes directly related to this chief -its not currently possible in todays dna science, BUT he could be the offspring of a union of that great Chief and a woman, he could be related to that child of their union, traced thru dna testing thru the mother who married that great chief and then traced thru her daughters female descendants thru the female line but that is much different than his claim he possesses a scientific record proving hes a descendant of that great Chief, and he has yet to show the Mi'kmaq people who phoned him about to provide this dna proof of a scientifically traced direct lineage directly to the woman who married ???Mackawannndoo??.
now, for the true Mi'kmaq perspective, lets use the Treaty of 1752 which the Canadian Supreme court recently affirmed the this Treaty that was signed gives the Mi'kmaq a guaranteed right to a moderate living of the resources of Mi'kmaq territory, (which knowing the Feds, who like the vatican will take centuries to officially determine wat a "Moderate Living" entails), Now unlike the Maliseet, Passamaquoddy, and the Penobscot Treaty Signators, the Mi'kmaw Signator, often a Chief or some other dignitary in my Nation at that time, signed a Treaty; they had to return back to the communities, to provide complete details of the agreements and then a consensus based deliberation process began, each District could choose to accede to the new Treaty or not as they saw fit, the Signator had to defend their signing of the Treaty! i can tell you the dates of when each Mi'kmaq District acceded to the Treaty of 1752, all these details have been kept alive thru Oral Tradition, so its the Treaty Beneficiaries themselves who have the right to make the final decision on Treaty Negotiations, which some call self-govt agreements. for the other Wapana'ki nations mentioned, its completely and irrevocably different, it was usually the Chief, he signed it was on behalf of his entire tribe, right then and there, the Mi'kmaq had/have a completely different type of govt, because the other nations of the Wapana'ki were agricultural based communities, and the Mi'kmaw hunter gatherers, and they had/have specific home based fixed communities, not some nomadic sheep with no ties to the land they perused; as taught in the school books about nomadic tribes. One time in my life i was employed at a grass-roots urban Indian centre as E.D. i had to serve and promote the interests of the Native, Inuit Metis and Non-Status (where the PODIA's fit in), i had to counsel these people as well, its not for me to say anything when joe q public feels he had an Indian great grandmother and wants to learn his heritage and partake of any rights or privileges he or she may or may not be entitled to, so i send then to the Native Councils, because they too are part of the circle and they are set up to handle these people as well, the problem of the Feds and their current ruse of overfunding these non status orgs is a DIFFERENT issue than whether joe q public wants to get to know his great grandmother or his heritage and whether the Native Councils should be in existence, i do believe they should be in existence, but not funding in the hundreds of millions that is occurring now, i do take issue when a PODOIA claims to be a shaman, or Elder; and when Status Indians make Native Spirituality a mercantile, pay to pray service. lets just say ive had the finest of Traditional L'nu teachers so believe me i know the Ceremonies, Protocols, Customs, Values, Traditions and feel confident to confront these culture vultures, i am not afraid to stand up at a conference march up to the podium and take the eagle feather out of the speakers status Indian hands if what he is sharing goes against the Spirituality and virtue needed to stand with an Eagle Feather and address the People. i know of these supposed elders who have conducted a Pipe Ceremony then only to include biting and offensive comments in their speech. i know of supposed elders who after conducting a Sweet=Grass Ceremony go to attack white people, remember thats what this thread was about, ellen hunt the white "MI'kmaq elder head of a supposed MI'kmaq organization, doing naming ceremonies mentioning the late esteemed Charlie Labradors name,
you see i have worked on the front lines at the grassroots urban Indian level, where by my mandate was to serve all indigenous people including the Non-Status. now where the issue gets really contentious is the some of the Wapana'ki Treaty Signators sprung from marriages with mostly the Acadian, where by the esteemed Treaty Signator just signed a Official Document stating "my heirs" will be following the Treaty. do you see the problem, greywolf i think has contacted 9000 descendants of Wapana'ki that he found in the Mormon archives in salt lake city and his version of history is twisted and perverted, and as for the subject 'who is a Mi'kmaq Citizen and how the descendants of a Mi'kmaq Treaty Signator fit in, and how and what is a Treaty Beneficiary, and how they fit in will be deliberated by the Mi'kmaq. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR NAFPS TO DISCUSS or FB for that matter, is for L'NU only, not the Feds, not the Province, not for the ngo's, agencies, non for profits and nafps, and i have told moma p this privately and then she continued to force my hand, thats why i don't trust her, shes got an agenda in mind for Wapana'ki peoples, and this agenda has forced her to act in a way that has alienated her from the real grassroots L'nu patriots, i told her the Treaty Beneficiaries Association i belong too refused her request for more information on Qalipu First Nation, if they did respond i would have sent it to her, if this post was titled Re: Mi'kmaq Treaty Indians, First Nations, Descendants i would have fought tooth and nail to get it removed.
so now you see the dilemma, Mi'kmaq Treaty Signators signed Sacred Treaties which included the words "For me and my Heirs" and some of them were from acadian-MI'kmaq marriages, and a new term has entered Mi'kmaq lingo- Treaty Beneficiary, but its up to the L'nu to determine the extent of their participation if any of their participation,
Ardy is one of the most incredible Warriors of our People, i am angry she wont post here anymore.
-
The treaty of 1752 goes beyond saying for me and my heirs, it states for themselves and their said Tribe their heirs and the heirs of their heirs forever.. No doubt the signatories never would have imagined what this could lead to.
I don't think Moma P was trying to be a jerk, I think she was trying to understand. You have to admit that the situation is complex.
-
I find the emphasis on DNA testing a little disturbing. Citizenship to me is family connected to community. I have dark complexion relatives and blue eyed blonds with pink skins. We're one big mob connected to an NDN community. We have a common heritage and a living culture. We have Treaty rights but the Treaty does not define us. Treaties do not make Nations. Nations make Treaties.
-
I find the emphasis on DNA testing a little disturbing. Citizenship to me is family connected to community. I have dark complexion relatives and blue eyed blonds with pink skins. We're one big mob connected to an NDN community. We have a common heritage and a living culture. We have Treaty rights but the Treaty does not define us. Treaties do not make Nations. Nations make Treaties.
I'll pm you a pic of my dad and I. We look like salt and pepper shakers. ;D
-
well ndn outlaw for Mi'kmaw Treaty does define us, all i can share is Treaties were made because of/and are tied into Prophecy, there exists in Mi'kmaq Country what i call the Treaty Way, people who are living treaty, Treaty is to us what the Longhouse is the the Kwedij, it is our refuge and first and last hope, despite what john greywolf williams says.
-
Apukjij what is your position on the legitimacy of the controversial Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) ?
-
Apukjij, thanks for trying to clarify some of what you have previously said.
I know i can be hard on people who seem to contradict themselves.... It's not personal and I only do this because I think it's important people are clear in their approach to these issues.
Most of us have a few contradictory and incompatible beliefs that tend to cancel each other out , and we all sometimes say things in a way that what we say isn't exactly what we mean.
But at the same time, if we do this, i think it's important we take responsibilty for our own words and how we said them, and any misunderstandings that result. Especially if this is connected with sensitive definitions which will probably have profound repercussions down the road.
Apukjij
never said i want anyone who has a drop of native blood to be status, thats ludicrous and alarming to see that in print and i had to distance my self from such statements, see thats why i reacted to her putting words in my mouth, i knew what could happen, I've NEVER publicly stated how i feel on this issue on FB or NAFPS, because its a Mi'kmaq Treaty Right, things will remain "as between the Indians as before" which we insisted be put into the Treaties we've signed with the British and American govts, we don't discuss L'nu core issues with non-L'nu, UNTIL moma p forced my hand!
Apukjij first off, I don't think this public discussion has yet gone into people with maybe ? a drop of Native blood recieving Indian Status. What has been publicly discussed here so far, has to do with your public comments saying PODIAs who descend from a Treaty signatory deserve to be Treaty benificiaries.
I am sorry to put you on the spot here, but you most definetly did this say this . Read your own words...
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.30
Reply #34 ( my post quoting Apukjij on facebook )
Apukjij
"I will briefly state what i wrote on those post. If you are a
descended from a Treaty Signer i believe you are entitled to join the
Native Council in NS, NB, PEI and NFLD. Thats the only mechanism to
give Metis and People of Distant Indian Ancestry (PODIA) a chance to
excercise the Treaty Rights they deserve.
(Con...),
PODIAS WHO TRACE THEIR
HERITAGE BACK TO A TREAT SIGNATOR ARE NOT L'NU BUT TREATY INDIANS."
Reply #35 on: November 23, 2009,
Apukjij
i do belive that if you are a descendant of a Treaty Signator, you are entitled to be a beneficiary, its as simple as that,
It's possible you just haven't thought this through , and that is why you keep contradicting yourself every other sentence. Or maybe you aren't communicating clearly... Or maybe you are angry because I noticed what you are saying and asked questions. I don't know.
Like Sky says it is a complex subject and I don't hold it against you if you are feeling a bit confused about some of the details... Or about what your own position is.
But I do expect people to be responsible for their own words and if they are feeling mixed up to just say so - and not try and make it seem like it is someone else who has a problem.
Apukjij
and as for the subject 'who is a Mi'kmaq Citizen and how the descendants of a Mi'kmaq Treaty Signator fit in, and how and what is a Treaty Beneficiary, and how they fit in will be deliberated by the Mi'kmaq. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR NAFPS TO DISCUSS or FB for that matter, is for L'NU only, not the Feds, not the Province, not for the ngo's, agencies, non for profits and nafps, and i have told moma p this privately and then she continued to force my hand, thats why i don't trust her, shes got an agenda in mind for Wapana'ki peoples, and this agenda has forced her to act in a way that has alienated her from the real grassroots L'nu patriots, i told her the Treaty Beneficiaries Association i belong too refused her request for more information on Qalipu First Nation, if they did respond i would have sent it to her, if this post was titled Re: Mi'kmaq Treaty Indians, First Nations, Descendants i would have fought tooth and nail to get it removed.
Apukjij, considering the actual time line here, and that it is YOU who has been bringing up the issue of who is and who is not a Treaty benificiary for public discussion, I feel you aren't being honest or fair in trying to make it look like I have somehow been disrespectful towards the Mi'kmaq people , in bringing this up.
Below is a post I made in another thread on Nov 10
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2427.msg20183#msg20183
Quoting myself
Here is a situation in Canada I came across when I was researching the Acadian Metis . Up in Newfoundland the canadian government is granting full status and federal recognition to people they are calling the founding members of a new Mi'kmaq First Nation, without requiring proof beyond a doubt.
http://www.qalipu.com/m_faqs.asp
13. Do I have to prove beyond a doubt that I am a descendant of an aboriginal person?
No, but the more information you have to prove this, the stronger your application to be included on the Founding Members list—but you are not required to prove it “beyond a doubt.” The Enrolment Committee will be directed to consider whether you are a descendant of an aboriginal person on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the committee must be satisfied that it is “more likely than unlikely” that you are a descendant of such a person.
I wonder what they mean when they say people don't have to prove this beyond a doubt? Is there some reason the Native people in this area sometimes can't prove their lines of descent? Or has the canadian goverment decided to create new First Nations even when there is reasonable doubts about whether or not some ( or all ? ) of the members are of any Native descent? ( there is no limit on how far back this alleged ancestry can be either) I wonder how they wiegh the probabilities to see what the balance is? What objective criteria are they using to wiegh this? If someone in canada has figuered out how to wiegh probablities, that would be interesting and useful to know. Assuming they have this figured out.
Seeing some of the Mohawk people complaining about the canadian governemt setting up fake tribes in order to displace legitimate Aboringinal title, some of the precedents here make me wonder...
http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/singlenews.php?lang=en&layout
=mnn&category=58&newsnr=557&backurl=%2Fnews%2Fnews4.php%3Flang%3Den
I wonder if there is some particular circumstances in this area of canada that make this policey make sense?
In response to me asking about this , on November 10 , you told me you had emailed my questions to everyone in the Treaty Advisory group and you would let me know what they said.
You never got back to me.
In Reply #31 on: November 22 I asked about some of Ardy's comments which sounded identical to John Williams, who promotes the idea of all Acadians being Metis - which the Wabanaki Confederacy has said is hurting First Nations in that area. The link to that discussion is below.
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.30
In reply 32 , on November 22 Apukjij joined the discussion to say good things about Ardy and Apukjij , it was YOU and Ardy who brought up the subject of Treaty negotiations.
Apukjij
There are some Hereditary Chiefs on the Mi'kmaq Grand Council, Gary Metallic was one, but he resigned from the Grand Council and is pursuing Self Govt for his District, which is MI'kmaq tradition, whereby the Districts come under the umbrella of the Grand Council, but each District is Sovereign and when the Treaties were signed they were acceded to District by District, the Signatory had to return to the Districts and had to defend his signing of the Treaty, and only after consensus did the District adhere to the Treaty. For instance I can give you the dates that each District acceded to the Treaty of 1752. This is dramatically different from the Maliseet Penobscot and Passamaquoddy, in which the Treaty Signatories were often Chiefs, and when they signed the Treaties, it was directly on behalf of their entire Nation. This is because they were agricultural based societies and had a completely different type of govt, Mi'kmaq were hunter gatherers, which often have the multi tiered govt i described above. The Indian act chiefs are signing away our rights as we speak, I can name only one Chief of a reserve i admire in all of MI'kmaq Country, the rest are sellouts, trading our Treaty Rights for the all mighty dollar.
In Reply #34 on: November 22, I publicly asked you about your public comments on face book. You had publicly stated that PODIAs deserve to be Treaty benificiaries.
Then on November 23, Apukjij sent a PM saying my questions he sent to the Treaty Advisory Board about Qalipu won't be answered and this is a private matter which should not be discussed publicly.
Then in Reply #36 on November 23 1/2 an hour after sending this PM, and before I had even been on line to get this, Apukjij posted a public message saying he would tell people in his community I wasn't to be trusted.
And now this is given as the reason
Apukjij
THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR NAFPS TO DISCUSS or FB for that matter, is for L'NU only, not the Feds, not the Province, not for the ngo's, agencies, non for profits and nafps, andi have told moma p this privately and then she continued to force my hand, thats why i don't trust her,
Well no... Actually, Apukjij, you told me you would try and find out the answers to my questions, didn't get back to me , and then you and your friend Ardy continued to publicly discuss this. It seems like you just didn't want me asking any more public questions about your public comments.
.
Your unwarrented attacks on me don't reflect well on you Apukjij. I really hope this is just a misunderstanding.
Because how you are coming across is like it's fine for people to publicly talk about who IS entitled to be a Treaty benificiary, and encourage PODIAs to feel entitled and get involved in the Treaty process, but it's not OK for anyone to ask about the rational or criteria that is being used to include PODIAs in this, or to ask about the long range consquences of this widely inclusive definition.
Which of course makes me think public discussion might be a very good idea.
I don't mean to be disrespectful , but as both Apukjij and Ardy have portrayed the elected Mi'kmaq leadership as completely corrupt and have mentioned problems with other "infiltrators", I have to admit I have some major misgivings about the fact that some of the very basic definitions and the rational behind this , are not being explained publicly... Usually if people feel like what they are doing is the right thing , they feel secure in publicly stating their own position and the reasons behind this.
And I also don't see how this can truly be a "private" matter within the Mi'kmaq Nation, if hundreds of thousands of non Mi'kmaq people with extremely distant Mi'kmaq ancestry are being invited to participate as distant descendents or relatives of Treaty signatories. Especially if this is somehow linked to people with little or no Native blood recieving Indian Status or the canadian government creating ?"new"? First Nations?. it seems there is some precedents being set which might impact the fundamental definition of who is an Aboriginal person in canada...
I have been guessing that probably if something is majorly and fundamentally wrong with the claims being made , someone within the Mi'kmaq Nation with a lot more knowledge and competence than myself must have noticed, and if there is a serious problem I would guess someone within the Mi'kmaq Nation is going to address this.
But the extremely defensive response and unwarrented attacks on me for daring to ask obvious questions, doesn't help me feel very confident ...
I was also wondering about this
Apukjij
where by my mandate was to serve all indigenous people including the Non-Status.
Who gave you a mandate to serve people who have no NDN status? Are you saying you are a representitve of NCNS which is a CAP affiliate ?
Reply #30
NDN Outlaw
Apukjij what is your position on the legitimacy of the controversial Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) ?
I would be interested to know that too...
-
i feel like im pounding my head on the wall, moma p i addressed every concern you just raised, what kind of trick is this repeating the same concerns i just finished explaining and putting a different spin on it seems like your more interested in posting your own questions rather than reading the answers, i got to hand it to you this is a new type of offense, and this is supposed to engender more trust in me, making statements like the about Mi'kmaq nation and how dare you state how you cant see why this has to be a private matter, you are really digging yourself in a hole here and your denial is almost laughable if it wasnt tragic? and there you again putting words in my mouth telling people that i said Treaty issues are a private matter, i said the issue of who is a Treaty Beneficiary is a private matter, you make me sick, and i cant belive you are saying metis people dont deserve rights,
"Apukjij first off, I don't think this public discussion has yet gone into people with maybe ? a drop of Native blood recieving Indian Status. (YES IT DID WHEN YOU MADE THIS STATEMENT IN A POST "You are both seem to be claiming all descendents, no matter how far back and no matter how long it's been since they have had any relationship with a First Nation , should rightfully be considered Treaty Benificiaries.")What has been publicly discussed here so far, has to do with your public comments saying PODIAs who descend from a Treaty signatory deserve to be Treaty benificiaries.
I am sorry to put you on the spot here, but you most definetly did this say this . Read your own words..
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.30
Reply #34 ( my post quoting Apukjij on facebook )
Apukjij
Quote
"I will briefly state what i wrote on those post. If you are a
descended from a Treaty Signer i believe you are entitled to join the
Native Council in NS, NB, PEI and NFLD. Thats the only mechanism to
give Metis and People of Distant Indian Ancestry (PODIA) a chance to
excercise the Treaty Rights they deserve."
so when you question why i state metis deserve rights you better not let Ric hear you question this, and those councils that serve non-status have different membership level depending on your heritage, or in other words they have different membership levels based on what rights you deserve, they way you twist my words is criminal, ive shown nafps your true coulors and now you are intensifying your attack by asking the same questions expecting me to give different answers, your disrespect of Mi'kmaq protocol leaves such a bitter taste in my mouth. ive never worked for cap, but i have worked for the campus and community radio stations assoc and the native friendship centre movt, now i am afraid to answer any of your question seeing the way you twist my words, so dont ask me any more questions, i wont entertain any more of your foolishness, and NDN i have no position on cap, any concerns i had with them i raised with Antle' Denny, Kji-Captain of the Mi'kmaq Grand Council, 2 weeks ago, can we leave it at that?
-
Apukjij
i addressed every concern you just raised, what kind of trick is this repeating the same concerns i just finished explaining and putting a different spin on it seems like your more interested in posting your own questions rather than reading the answers, i got to hand it to you this is a new type of offense,
What ? Apukjij, look, if you are sincere, you need to understand I am honestly not understanding what you are saying, and that is partly your responsiblity. I don't see where you have honestly addressed any of my concerns. All you have done is repeatedly deny saying what you said .
All this personal stuff just serves to deflect from our disscussing the real issues.
I have no idea why you are so offended, but I've tried to cut you some slack , and I've tried to give you the benifit of the doubt, that this is just a misunderstanding and I'm trying not to accuse you of intentionally twisting my words - and it would be nice if you would do the same.
there you again putting words in my mouth telling people that i said Treaty issues are a private matter, i said the issue of who is a Treaty Beneficiary is a private matter
But you have been discussing this publicly on face book...You mean the definition and criteria being used to define who is a Treaty benificiary is a private matter ? Why ?
how dare you state how you cant see why this has to be a private matter,
Because I really can't see why something as basic as the principles behind who is a Treaty benificiary and who isn't, and who is eligible for Indian Status in canada and who isn't , should be a private matter. That you think it should be is incomnprehensible to me...
I try to imagine what would happen in the US if the criteria the federal government used to recognize tribes was secret, or if the criteria tribes used to include or exclude certain people from enrollment was secret. It just makes no sense to me. In fact it seems more than just a bit fishy.
you are intensifying your attack by asking the same questions
Asking questions isn't an attack, unless the answers would make you look bad. And as far as i can understand ( maybe I am honestly dumb) you haven't answered any of my questions - except that you are not working for CAP.
Just my own opinion but I'm glad to hear that.
you question why i state metis deserve rights
No I never questioned that , for the most part the Metis in Central canada aren't PODIAs, and they probably have more Native in them than a lot of status NDNs . The problem is, the definition of Metis is so unclear it might include PODIAs. But i don't think thats the fault of the real Metis, meaning the ones who are represented by the MNC.
What you are saying about CAP having different levels of recognition and rights depending on peoples heritage is something I'd never heard before, and if this is so , I would probably have a better opinion of CAP - and the practicallity of including distant descendents.
Could someone give some more information about that? That is one of the things I have been wondering about. The Qalipu First Nation which was organized by CAP does seem to be saying the canadian government it is giving full Indian Status to anyone who looks to probably have any Aboriginal ancestry no matter how far back .
So how does this different levels of entitlement work?
-
Rereading this i am thinking maybe I didn't make what is bothering me clear.
Reply #32 from the thread on Ardy in Archives
Apukjij
The Indian act chiefs are signing away our rights as we speak, I can name only one Chief of a reserve i admire in all of MI'kmaq Country, the rest are sellouts, trading our Treaty Rights for the all mighty dollar. chiefs are the lowest form of vermin in Mi'kmaq Country.
From this comment, I am wondering if the Treaty Advisory board Apukjij is involved with may be something different than the Treaty negotiations being carried out by representives elected within the Mi'kmaq community?
I completely agree that First Nations should be able to create the criteria which defines their own membership, and that they should be able to do this in privacy and without outside pressures.
As outrageous as it may be that an outsider such as myself is publicly asking questions about definitions, when these definitions should only rightly be created by people within the Mi'kmaq Nation , it seems to me that Apukjij publicly inviting PODIAs into the process- and even saying they deserve to be benificiaries, would be creating much more in the way of outside pressures, and outsiders thinking they have a right to have a voice in creating these definitions, than my questions about how exactly benificiaries and new Status Indians, are being defined.
If the Mi'kmaq community has already been decided that PODIAs will be included as Treaty benificiaries, then it seems the people who have created this definition would be willing to stand behind it by explaining publicly, who they are, how they were given authority within the Mi'kmaq Nation to make these decisions, who is a treaty benificiary, who isn't and who might be, and the reasons why this desicion was arrived at.
Otherwise there is hundreds of thousands of people who won't be sure if they are in or out, and people who care about the sovriegnty and rights of First Nations in canada won't be sure if they should be joining or not joining, or encouraging or discouraging their relatives and friends from getting involved with CAP, or thinking they deserve to be a Treaty benificiary.
I hope what I am concerned about has been explained more clearly here, than my last 2 overly long rambling posts....
-
Tansi;
As I have stated, on a previous topic, I do not have an opinion on the Aboriginal people's of the East. That is a very long way from where I live. I also do not know much about CAP, other than that they publicly came out in support of the Conservative Party, before the last federal election, had their president appointed as to the Canadian Senate, when the Conservatives won the election, and do not provide any apparent transparency in thier organization, as far as I have been able to learn. I have not been able to learn about thier membership criteria nor membership numbers, in an accountable manner.
I also do not know that the people of this area would be able to be considered as Metis, under the criteria of the Metis National Council (MNC), which represents the Metis of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, where the Metis people have a long history, Culture and political identity. Metis people are not beneficiaries of any Treaties, but do have Aboriginal Rights, under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, 1982.
I do not wish to be brought into this particular thread, but felt it necessary to respond, due to my name being brought up, possibly as a way of attempting to gain my support, which I am not able to give.
Ric
-
omf im having freaking flashbacks of university, where not only the professors but the other students as well, we were having the same problems, as my Elders warned me i was going to have a problem with linear thinking, i cant state it any other further momap if you would only listen, i addressed all yur concerns and dont know any other way to do it, now im think im beginning to understand when my therapist stated an arab and a jew could should never get married, the only thing i can add is your talking to someone who has been at the forefront for 25 years, when we started and supported the friendship centre and the native council movts there was no such thing as cap
-
ric the reason why i mentioned my name was moma p was trying to crucify me over the following statement i made on another website,
Quote
"I will briefly state what i wrote on those post. If you are a
descended from a Treaty Signer i believe you are entitled to join the
Native Council in NS, NB, PEI and NFLD. Thats the only mechanism to
give Metis and People of Distant Indian Ancestry (PODIA) a chance to
excercise the Treaty Rights they deserve."
i fought hard in the friendship centre movt many years ago to make sure the Metis and the non-status to be included, there was no bill-c31 then, people like me were all non-status, i remember a friendship centre conf years ago where i spent the entire conference in the company of Terry Lusty, which in it self was extraordinary for a Mi'kmaw half-breed from the east connecting with a Metis pioneer from the west, so when i take a step back i see i must have mentioned your name because theres a certain part of me that sees momma p's ministrations as an attack on the Metis and the non-status.
-
i am still stepping back and taking inventory, and now i see why i get so triggered by you momap you remind me of john greywolf williams, in that you are the finest expert on what you have been taught and uncovered in fact a genius in that respect, but what you have defend so fiercely ...so fiercly, and the tragic part it is such a miniscule part of the overall picture, and your ego refuses you to let anything new in.......
-
...your ego refuses you to let anything new in...
Sounds like projection to me. I will give credit to the Mic Mac and other tribal peoples down east for surviving so much and still remaining a people. The persecution was horrific and it can certainly be argued the British practiced genocide against the Mic Mac:
" In 1749, Nova Scotia's English Governor Colonel Edward Cornwallis, ordered his troops to "annoy, distress, take or destroy the savages commonly known as Mic-macks (sic) where ever they are found.." He established two companies of volunteers to hunt and kill Micmacs, offered ten pounds sterling for every Micmac scalped or taken prisoner, and ordered his troops to burn the forests...The campaign of genocide continued relentlessly for over a decade. Hundreds of Micmac were massacred."
- The Dispossessed, life and death in Native Canada, Geoffrey York, Little & Brown ,ISBN 0-316-90272-1
This is a history they don't teach us in school. It would be a shame if the same people who now sacrifice so much for their people, should find their numbers overwhelmed by those who don't. Beware the newly minted NDNs who have less NDN blood than a misquito.
-
I understand it's not my buiseness to say who is Mi'kmaq and who isn't, or who is a Treaty benificerary and who isn't, but as a general rule of thumb , I question any group claiming to represent the 'rights" of PODIAs AKA people who are less then 1/8 descent or more than 2 generations removed from family that lives in a recognized historic Native community.
I am not comfortable supporting any group claiming to represent the rights of PODIAs unless I am sure this group has a clear mandate to do so from the recognized leaders of the tribe these people descend from.
I have a lot of respect for both Sky and Joey's opinion, and from what is being said it sounds like the Mi'kmaq are supporting this.
I still don't get it, and I don't see asking questions about this as an attack, but I'm certainly not going to continue if that is how I am coming across.
-
i go thru this everyday, all these people putting thier energy in divisions, putting so much energy in the attempt to be right, every L'nu site on FB i write the same thing,> the supreme court of canada ruled the Treaty of 1752 and its tenet that L'nu "have the right to a moderate living of the resources" are valid, we should be putting all out energy into forcing the govt to live up to that (and the other treaties), because if the govt lived up to thier obligations, and every "l'nu" earned a moderate living, then we would not be having these contentions, and the threat of scarcity and the fear it engenders would melt like a snowflake on my nose...
-
The situation in Mic Mac country may be complicated and confusing but it has some very serious implications for other Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Precedents set in one area of the country can have a direct impact on other areas of the country. Court decisions upholding Treaty rights in western Canada have benefited NDNs in the east and vice versa. The question of Metis citizenship is very much up in the air. I would be very concerned if PODIA carpet baggers dominate and control citizenship down east and set a precedent that undermines Metis citizenship out west. This doesn’t mean I want to become involved in your internal politics. I remember attending the Constitutional Conferences on Aboriginal Rights back in the 80s. The Feds were always asking us about our position on Aboriginal rights. One of the Chiefs asked what was the governments position on Aboriginal rights. Their spokesman said he needed to get a legal opinion. When he came back he told the Chiefs it was the position of the Federal Government that the only Aboriginal right we had was the right to surrender our rights. This is what we are up against but despite this we keep winning in the courts. The potential for a precedent detrimental to all Indians requires some vigilance. These divisions in the east are being watched with some concern. Please understand I'm not so much cynical but concerned.
-
Looks like there has been some concerns for a while....
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3f7827a1-d524-4c56-a6f4-d86bb1aada68
"I challenge you to demand that the Congress of Aboriginal People issue proof of their membership and aboriginal ancestry," wrote Jean-Guy Whiteduck, the longtime chief of the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg reserve. "Mr. Brazeau and his father were reinstated into the Kitigan Zibi Amishinabeg First Nation," continued Mr. Whiteduck, "after the 1985 C-31 amendments to the Indian Act. Mr. Brazeau never resided on the reserve and was raised in the town of Maniwaki and had little or no contact with reserve life in all his years of existence."
Chief Lawrence Joseph of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations wrote the minister to say he had "grave concerns regarding the structure of CAP, its funding, its electoral process and its influence on national and federal issues."
Angus Toulouse, regional chief of Ontario, wrote to Mr. Brazeau personally, demanding he "cease and desist your irresponsible and unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimately elected First Nation's leadership."
In an attempt to get the courts to recognize the Treaty right of individual descendents , outside of the community authority of First Nation community on an Indian reserve, CAP claims to represent 850,000 Métis, off-reserve and non-status Indians. This can be seen in the link below.
http://www.constitutional-law.net/bernard.doc
I tried to learn how many people have actually signed up for membership in all the provincial CAP affilates, but this information isn't easy to find.
But some of the numbers I did find don't seem to add up....
According to the 2006 census, in all of Canada , there is only 1,172,785 people who self identify as Aboriginal or metis/ mixed blood.
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-594/search-recherche/lst/page.cfm?Lang=E&GeoCode=13
More information found on the AFN website explains this further...
http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=2918
The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is the national organization representing First Nations in Canada. There are 756,700 First Nations people in Canada
According to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, of the total Status Indian population:
* 62 percent live on-reserve (471,900).
* 38 percent reside off-reserve (284,800) in urban, rural, special access and remote areas.
Aboriginal people who live on reserve are not eligible to become members of CAP.
So ,subtracting the 471,000 registered Indians who live on a reserve from the 1,172,785 recorded as claiming an Aboriginal or metis identity in the 2006 census leaves only 700,885, meaning that when CAP is claiming to represent 850,000 Aboriginal people , it is claiming it represents about 149,000 more Aboriginal people than identified themselves as Aboriginal or mixed blood/ metis in the census.
And presumably many of the people who do identify as Aboriginal or metis have never signed up to be members of CAP.
I tried to find some membership numbers for the various provincial affiliates of CAP to see how they got the number 850,000, but with the exception of NB, details for most of the provinces with CAP affiliates is hard to find.
In the 1996 census there was 9,180 people in New Brunswick who claimed Aboriginal ancestry, 975 who claimed metis and 120 who claimed Inuit ancestry. In total there was 10,250 in all of New Brunswick who identified themself as being Aboriginal or Metis
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/980113/dq980113-eng.htm
In 1999 the NB CAP affiliate representive Betty Ann LaVallee , claimed to represent 7500 people in NB. This claim can be read in the link below.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1039849&
Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=2 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1039849&
Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=2)
Ms. Betty Ann LaVallée (President, New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council):
We represent approximately 7,500 off reserve in New Brunswick.
According to census information, the people claiming Aboriginal ancestry in NB almost doubled in between 1996 and 2006 and according to the NB CAP affiliate website, this organization is now claiming to represent 28,000 Aboriginal people living in NB .
http://www.nbapc.org/pages/What-is-N.B.A.P.C%3F.html
The N.B.A.P.C. stands for the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, but was once called the New Brunswick Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians. We, at the Council are an Off-Reserve Aboriginal voice for approximately 28,255 Status and Non-Status Aboriginal People who reside in the Province of New Brunswick.
According to Statisics Canada , counting everyone who declared themself as Aboriginal, or Metis in NB in 2006, status and non status, on reserve and off reserve , there is at most 17,655 Status and non status Aboriginal or Metis people in NB.
Of this number there was 10,865 wh0 were Status Indians living in New Brunswick and 7005 of them lived on reserve - and were therefor not eligible to become members of the NB CAP affilliate - leaving only 11,000 people in new brunswick who self identified as Aboriginal in 2006 , who might have been eligible to become represented by CAP.
So where did the NB APC get a full 17,000 more Aboriginal members in NB than was recorded as existing in the 2006 census?
As CAP affiliates are very active in lobbying for both resources and authority to be diverted away from First Nations communities located on reserves, ( see the info in the links highlighted above for examples of this ) , it seems important to be sure the Aboriginal constituents CAP claims to represent, are real.
I'm not that good at math, but the numbers being claimed don't seem to add up, and that does seem like something someone might look into .
-
Here is a link to some statistics and other information I compiled.
It will probably give any normal person a headache. But I was curious about the different numbers and where they all come from. What I found was interesting.
Well, to me anyways ...
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcwzmv4g_121d9rjrpdv
-
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.msg20470#msg20470
I said reffering to Apukjij and Ardy...
You are both seem to be claiming all descendents, no matter how far back and no matter how long it's been since they have had any relationship with a First Nation , should rightfully be considered Treaty Benificiaries."
and Apukjij replied
are you nuts momma p? NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, i do belive that if you are a descendant of a Treaty Signator, you are entitled to be a beneficiary, its as simple as that, and yes if you are a PODIA, the govt has set it up that you can join the Native Councils, and get benefits, do i agree with it NO! but it is set up that way, so if a PODIA tells me they arent getting anything i send them to the Native Councils,
Apukjij, I would like to explore your comment here a bit...
First a bit of background
http://www.wabanaki.com/british_crown_treaties.htm
With regard to specific treaties being made between the crown and aboriginal bands or communities in the Maritimes, the British crown signed a number of historical documents with the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people between 1725 and 1779. These historical documents are commonly referred to as treaties, but only three of them, the two LaHeve treaties of 1760-61 and the Cope treaty of 1752, have been formally recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as having the constitutional status of treaties.
In response to part (a) of the question, it is important to consider the geographical boundaries and political structures of the Maritimes in the 1700s. In the Marshall decision, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that “...the British signed a series of agreements with individual Mi’kmaq communities in 1760 and 1761 intending to have them consolidated into a comprehensive Mi’kmaq treaty that was never in fact brought into existence. The trial judge found that by the end of 1761 all of the Mi’kmaq villages in Nova Scotia had entered into separate but similar treaties”. It is important to note that during the colonial period, Nova Scotia was considered to include modern day New Brunswick.
Regarding parts (b) and (c) as they relate to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Marshall, only the 1760-61 treaties were recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as treaties under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The 1760 LaHeve treaty was signed on March 10, 1760 in Halifax. The 1761 LaHeve treaty was signed on November 9, 1761 in Halifax.
In addition, the other “historical documents” that have been identified from various archival sources are virtually identical to the LaHeve treaty of 1760 with the exception of the February 23, 1760 agreement with the Saint John (Maliseet) and Passamaquoddy Indians, which contained similar promises but also renewed previous peace and friendship treaties with the crown.
Copies of the following 1760-61 documents were provided to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in May 2001:
Renewal of 1725 Articles and 1749 Articles, with the delegates of the Saint John and Passamaquoddy, at Chebucto (Halifax) Harbour, 23 February 1760; Treaty dated 10 March 1760 with Chief Michael Augustine of the Richebuctou Tribe; Treaty with Chief Paul of LaHeve Tribe at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with Claude René, Chief of Chibennacadie and Muscadoboit, concluded at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with the Merimichi Tribe, concluded 25 June 1761; Treaty with Chief Claude Atouash of the Jedaick Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Etiene Apshobon of the Pogmouch Tribe, Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Joseph Argimaut, Chief of Mesiguash Indians, Halifax, 8 July 1761; Treaty with Chief Jeannot Picklougawash on behalf of the Pictouk and Malegomich Tribes, 12 October 1761; and Treaty with Chief Francis Mius of the LaHeve Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 9 November 1761.
In part (d) reference is made to “Marshall or Halifax treaties”. It is assumed this is in reference to the LaHeve treaties of 1760-61, which were considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall decision. Therefore, with respect to which bands or communities are covered by these treaties, the Government of Canada is of the view that while modern day first nations are the most likely successor groups of the original signatory groups, it is impossible to determine a direct correlation between the application of treaties to modern day first nations.
It is important to keep in mind that the passage of time has meant that there have been changes to the composition of some of the signatory groups. We recognize the difficulty in connecting the signatories of historic treaties to particular contemporary first nation communities. This may be due in part to migration of first nations, intermarriage, government policies creating bands and other initiatives such as the centralization of reserves. However, since the court found that all Mi’kmaq communities participated in the treaties, members of modern communities are likely beneficiaries of these treaty rights.
For these reasons, the Government of Canada has determined that the most appropriate course of action is to enter into a dialogue with the 34 Mi’kmaq and Maliseet first nations in present day Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec to consider the implications of the Marshall decision
So, one of these Treaty signatories was the descendent of a Mi'kmaq woman and an Acadian surnamed Muise, who was born in 1681.
His brother married a French woman and it is said most of the Acadians with the surname Muise descend from his brother.
http://museeacadien.ca/argyle/html/egenealogy1.htm
Philippe Mius d'Entremont(1609-1700). Philippe Mius (d'Azy) d'Entremont, his son, born in 1660, married an unidentified Native American woman, and later a Native American woman named Marie. Joseph Mius (d'Azy), approximately 1679-1729, son of Philippe Mius d'Azy, son of Philippe Mius d'Entremont, married Marie Amirault. This family is the source of all the families bearing the name Mius or Miuse or Meuse that can be found in North America.
http://www.acadian.org/indians-Mius.html
More about Joseph Mius:
Joseph Mius was born in 1680 and died in 1729 in Annapolis County, Nova Scotia. He Married Marie Amirault in 1700. Marie was born in 1684.
Reference: Dictionnaire Genealogiques des Familles Acadienne. [MIUS section] Publication: Centre d'Etudes Acadiennes, Universite' de Moncton. Author: Stephen A. White.
Special Note: Joseph's Brother Francois Mius b.1681 became Chief of the Indians of Le Have. A Treaty was signed by Francois Mius in 1761 that is still honored today.
REF: Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Hon. Robert Nault.
Apukjij. I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but what you have said does seem contradictory.
When I said
You are both seem to be claiming all descendents, no matter how far back and no matter how long it's been since they have had any relationship with a First Nation , should rightfully be considered Treaty Benificiaries."
You replied
Apukjij
are you nuts momma p? NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT,
From this comment it sounds like you think there is a point where a person of some distant Native descent is no longer a benificiary of the Nation's resources their distant ancestors descended from.. But your comments right after that seem to contradict this...
i do belive that if you are a descendant of a Treaty Signator, you are entitled to be a beneficiary, its as simple as that,
But then right after that, you seem to contradict this when you said this...
and yes if you are a PODIA, the govt has set it up that you can join the Native Councils, and get benefits, do i agree with it NO!
Some of those Mi'kmaq who signed those Treaties were born in the late 1600's. Someone with one Native ancestor who was born in the 1600's is a PODIA . A descendent of one Treaty signatory would be a PODIA. So what you are saying here seems contradictory.
It sounds like the Treaties being refered to were signed between 1725
and 1779 , and some of the Treaties that have been signed that are not being respected go back even earlier than that, such as the Treaty signed in 1685 by someone with the same surname as Ardy's husband.
When you say all people who are descendents of a Treaty signer should be considered benificiaries, do you mean all people who can prove they are direct descendents of that particular person are benificiaries, but anyone who cannot prove they are direct descendents of that particular person are outaluck - even if it can be proven these people undoubtably descend from the Nations those Treaty signatories were representing, and these people are registered Indians who are currently members of a historic federally recognized Mi'kmaq or Maliseet band?
Or do you mean everyone who can prove a close personal family genealogical relationship with the person who signed the Treaty would be included as benificiaries? While this would include more people who may not be able to prove direct descent from the individual who signed the Treaty, it also would include a lot of people who were related to the Treaty signatory but who's families have not been members of the indigenous First Nations this individual who signed the Treaty was representing, for hundreds of years.
For example, Francois Muise who signed this Treaty was the brother of Joseph Muise.
If you are thinking of the Treaties as representing individuals, their families and their direct descendents, of the individual people wh signed the Treaty, wouldn't this Treaty include all the Acadians with one gr gr gr gr gr gr gr grandmother who was Mi'kmaq who descend from Joseph Muise- because his brother was a Treaty signatory?
The book
"The Acadians of the Maritimes" by the Centre D'Etudes Acadien gives the following information;
page 141
The majority of the population, as has already been pointed out, can trace it's origin to 40-50 families who came to Acadia at the instigation of Razilly an d'Aulnay . In the 1671 census , some 70 families were counted, including one third which resulted from marriages in Acadia. 35 Few families came thereafter though some immigration continued right up to the fall of Port Royal in 1710.
I should also point out that most of these marriages that occured in Acadia were between the offspring of French families, though a small minority did involve indigenous people.
If we trace our families back , starting with our 2 parents, 4 grand parents , 8 great grandparents ect ect , and you go back as far as the late 1600's, most of us have more than 1000 ancestors once you get that far back. So , chances are everyone that is Acadian would be related to everyone else somewhere back there.
Most families that descend from a common ancestor who lived in the 1600's now number in the hundreds of thousands of descendents... In the Maritimes in 1971, there was 330, 565 Acadians in the Maritimes alone. ( The Acadians of the Maritimes page 167 )
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/l/e/b/Shirley-T-Leblanc/GENE16-0050.html
Today, there are well over two million Acadian descendants. They are all over the world including France, Canada, South America, West Indies, and all over the United States. But the largest concentration, more than eight hundred thousand, is in Louisiana.
And thats probably not even counting the people who are "part Acadian" .
Are all of these individuals who can show they descend from Joseph Muise who was the brother of Treaty signatory Francoise Muise to be considered as Treaty benificiaries?
Or did these peoples ancestors loose the ability to participate in rights recognized in the Treaties formed with the Mi'kmaq Nation when they married out of this Nation?
Because of this problem, I don't think it is as simple as individual descendents tracking their ancestry back to individuals who signed a treaty.
This seems obvious to me.
I guess what I am concerned about is that in recognizing groups which recognize PODIAs as Aboriginal people, the canadian government seems to be promoting unworkable chaos. This chaos might be a powerful device to use to disempower and delay implimentation of recent court cases which recognized the Treaty rights of Aboriginal people.
Establishing that there is a legal title holder is pretty meaningless if it can't be established who that person may be.
And who benifits from that?
It seems much more workable to interpret these treaties as having been signed on behalf of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet First Nations.
But if you ( or anyone else ) sees this differently I would be very interested to hear the reasons behind this.
now after months of thinking about this topic i think i am better able to make sense of all this,
now im going to repeat myself and remake the points i made in earlier posts, i hate doing that because it usually means you werent paying attention the first time, or you have a personal agenda so thru the filters you have you only see what you want to, or what supports your assertions, so why should i repeat myself again to be not heard, maybe if i put my key points in capital letters i will be better understood.
To be understand what a Treaty Beneficiary is so complex. First i was accused of saying PODIA are treaty beneficiaries, what i said was the problem is that there were Mi'kmaq Treaty Signators who signed a treaty stating
'FOR ME AND MY HEIRS NOW AND FOREVERY"
and what has happened is some of these Treaty Signators descendants left the Mi'kmaq Communities.
and now their descendants are researching their roots and finding themselves a direct descendant of a Mi'kmaq Treaty Signator, their Mi'kmaq ancestor signed a treaty stating their Heirs are a beneficiary. DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM!!!! so in THIS CASE ONLY, THEY WOULD BE A PODIA, AND YET A TREATY BENEFICIARY,
secondly, BEFORE YOU START ON CAP, (WHICH I HATE) YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE NATIVE FRIENDSHIP CENTRE MOVT IN CANADA, if you do not research the Friendship Centre Movt, you will never know what issues were before the non-status, YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND HOW CAP CAME TO BE, and as a former executive director for a Native Friendship Centre, I HAD TO SERVE ALL INUIT, METIS, ABORIGINAL, NON-STATUS, AND PODIA INTERESTS. ITS THE MANDATE OF ANY FRIENDSHIP CENTRE. so of these rights they may or may not be entitled to the ones i encouraged them in was to sit in a Talking Circle, sit a Drum, learn about thier heritage, social activities, these are what many Native Friendship Centres do, so when i told momma p she is only seeing a small part of the picture, ITS BECAUSE SHE DOESNT KNOW ABOUT THE FRIENDSHIP CENTRE MOVT, and i am not going to spend anytime explaining it, its up to you the researcher to do that!
momma p made alot out of this statement, she found on FB that i made:
"I will briefly state what i wrote on those post. If you are a
descended from a Treaty Signer i believe you are entitled to join the
Native Council in NS, NB, PEI and NFLD. Thats the only mechanism to
give Metis and People of Distant Indian Ancestry (PODIA) a chance to
exercise the Treaty Rights they deserve.'
BUT I NEVER STATED EXACTLY WHAT THOSE RIGHTS ARE, if i was ever to write that statement again i would put at the end: "IF ANY" AND WHAT RIGHTS THE METIS HAVE IS DIFFERENT THAT ANY RIGHTS PODIA MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE, (SO IF YOU REFUTE THAT STATEMENT I MADE IN ITS ENTIRETY THEN YOU ARE REFUTING THE RIGHTS OF THE METIS) AND AS I SAID JUST BEFORE, YOU CAN BE A PODIA AND DESERVE RIGHTS, ONLY IF YOU ARE A DIRECT DESCENDANT OF A TREATY SIGNATOR BECAUSE THEY SIGNED A DOCUMENT STATING 'ME AND MY HEIRS NOW AND FOREVER
and heres the problem the Mi'kmaq Nation has, DO THESE DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF TREATY SIGNERS, HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM THEY ARE L'NU (MI'KMAQ) ITS MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEF MAYBE NOBODY ELSE SHARES THAT THEY WOULD BE A TREATY INDIAN, BUT NOT L'NU, BUT ITS NOT UP TO ME TO DETERMINE THAT ITS UP TO THE MI'KMAQ GRAND COUNCIL. so why i say i send people to the Native Council, the Native Council in NB and NS has different levels of membership, based on your ancestry, and they will let you know where you stand, as a full member or a secondary level of membership, and for those who have full membership, there are programs available, including partaking of the Fishing and Hunting rights that flow from the Treaties we signed, from what i understand from the L'nu hunters i asked, yes these full members are given a green hunting license, different than the ones we normally have.
and finally for Qalipu First Nation, i read on thier FB site, that they are going by the Census of 1945 to determine the Founders List, i find this completely reasonable, they claim this honours their grandparents struggles, in this case that makes them 1/4 blood, which i personally believe is the cut off for being considered L'nu, anything less than that and you are a PODIA, entitled to NO rights, unless your are A DIRECT DESCENDANT OF A TREATY SIGNATOR. Qalipu's case is much more stronger than other First Nations who got full status, such as the Pequots.
-
So the courts consider the word 'heir' to mean 'descendant'.
-
hi critter, i am not sure what the courts consider, to me an heir is a direct descendant, and a descendant means you are related, i am not a lawyer so i dont know any more, but I say to ME that for the purposes of being a Treaty Beneficiary means a Direct, Unbroken, Chain of relations to the Treaty Signator, not the Treaty Signators' brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and cousins.
the Native Council of NS was first created and open to STATUS indians living off reserves, i thought that to be a full member you had to be status, and off the rez for 6 months, same as for the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, if you look at the NS council, it doesn't say what the membership criteria is, and for NB, its say its open to people living off reserve but mentions 1867, (the year canada became a country- or commonly known as confederation.) so that would mean 1/4 to 1/8th bloods, (NOT PEEPS WITH A DROP OF NATIVE BLOOD AS SOME POSTERS ASSERTED) and to further punish the newly registered; most Mi'kmaq bands made a separate list, called the Off-Reserve List, and cut them off of most services cept for welfare, medical services and funding for university. thats what i remember, because i got my status in 1985, and i was put on the Off-Reserve List because i left Eskasoni to attend University in 1989, only to find i wasnt eligible for the Training Programs and Certain Benefits cause technically i was living off reserve, if only to attend school. so that's how the Native Councils started, to serve the off-reserve indian needs as the Friendship Centre movt didn't have the capacity to meet their needs in that way. so when i say i fought for the Native councils, i did, cause my Band cut me off and put me on a separate list> the off-reserve list, and we wanted representation! i didnt fight for Native Councils so P Muise descendants 200 years later would get treaty benefits. how CAP influenced or change membership criteria, i do not know, I do know in the Tri-Tripartite negotiations, (government negotiations concerning policy between the feds, the province, and the First Nation,) that the only body representing the off-reserve and non-status indians are NB aboriginal Peoples Council, and the Native Council of NS. what that means is they are sitting at the table with the other official Tribal Councils and First Nations in any negotiations with the Govt. Nancy Swan and her so-called "brasdor lake indians" have no legitimate right to ANYTHING, other than learning the history of their relations, and in fact the sign on the road in the village of Bras'Dor that she had city council erect to commemorate her ancient brasdor ancestry has been changed from Bras Dor Lake First Nation to Bras Dor Lake Historical society.
-
Thanks for taking the time to clarify all of this, Apukjij. It sounds like a complicated system even when people are familiar with the ins and outs of it all. I'm not surprised there have been misunderstandings and frustrations with trying to explain it, or understand it, or discuss it when not everyone knows the history and structures.
-
Apukjij
1/4 blood, which i personally believe is the cut off for being considered L'nu, anything less than that and you are a PODIA, entitled to NO rights, unless your are A DIRECT DESCENDANT OF A TREATY SIGNATOR.
That definition sounds a lot less likely to cause serious problems, as most of the people who directly descend from the mixed blood Treaty signatories who married back into the tribe have mainly Mi'kmaq heritage.
Sorry if i misunderstood what you were trying to say before, and i appreciate that you have tried to clarify your position for us annoyingly linear thinkers..
Apukjij
the Native Council of NS was first created and open to STATUS indians living off reserves, i thought that to be a full member you had to be status, and off the rez for 6 months, same as for the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council
I'm sorry but thats not true. At least not in relation to NB APC . And I don't think it is true in relation to the NSNC either. Back in 1999 ,the President of the NB APC and now of CAP specifically say they represent both off reserve status and non status people.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1039849&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=2
November 25, 1999
Ms. Betty Ann LaVallée (President, New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council)
Our organization was established back in 1972 to address the needs of the off-reserve non-status Indians at the time. Those were people like myself, my father, and my grandfather, who were put off the reserve for the simple fact that we all joined the military. We lived up to our treaty obligations and said we would serve the crown and protect this country from forces that would try to overrun us or destroy us. My family kept up its end of the treaty. My son is now the fourth generation of continuous military service. He is serving in Petawawa with the Canadian Airborne, throwing himself out of perfectly good aircraft—well, maybe not so perfectly good any more, but throwing himself out of aircraft. My family has lived up to its treaty.
For the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to stand up and publicly deny that I am entitled, as a beneficiary, or a natural heir and descendant to a signatory of the treaty, to access my God-given right or my blood right is total foolishness.
I can see why the non status people she describes, in this discussion with canadian politicians, need representation.
However, the membership criteria of these organizations appears to allow almost entirely non native people full membership and to be advocating on behalf of these slightly mixed blood people to full entitlement to share in these rights, and even the equal right to vote on decisions as to how these resources are distributed.
Apukjij
if you look at the NS council, it doesn't say what the membership criteria is, and for NB, its say its open to people living off reserve but mentions 1867, (the year canada became a country- or commonly known as confederation.) so that would mean 1/4 to 1/8th bloods, (NOT PEEPS WITH A DROP OF NATIVE BLOOD AS SOME POSTERS ASSERTED)
Apukjij, I'm really sorry to be argumentive, but as far as I can see this just isn't true. ..
What it says is
http://www.abo-peoples.org/affiliates/nbapc.html
or
http://web.archive.org/web/20080208213330/http://www.abo-peoples.org/affiliates/nbapc.html
Membership Criteria
Constitution and By-Laws 1. Membership A. Full membership in the council shall be limited to persons of Aboriginal ancestry (Indigenous People of North America) 16 years of age and older and husbands and wives who do not reside on a Reserve. Only a Full-Aboriginal-Member shall be eligible to vote and Assemblies or Special Meetings or to hold elective office at the Executive or board of Directors level of the Council.
1.
To be eligible for Full Membership people must live off the reserve in the province of New Brunswick for six (6) months prior to applying for Membership.II Any person wishing to join the council as a full member shall meet the requirements of Membership and must fill out and have approved a Membership form prescribed for such purposes
III To be eligible for full Membership a person must be a descendant of a verified and known Aboriginal person since July 1, 1867.
B. Spousal Membership shall be open to the husband and or wife of a Full Aboriginal Member who has been accepted for Membership in the council. No formal Membership Application is required for Spousal Membership but Spouse's name shall be included in the Annual charter List from Locals.
C. Membership in Good Standing: to be a member in good standing a person must be eligible for full membership in the council, either Member at Large or Local Members and subscribe to the aims, goals, and objectives of the membership and have paid the required annual membership fee to a chartered Local as a Local Member, or to pay the required $25.00 membership fee as a Member at Large to the Council by 31st of March each year. Each member in good standing shall be entitled to a membership card and one vote at any meeting of the membership of the Council. D. Membership List: Each member in good standing shall have their names added to an annual membership list that shall be maintained and prepared by the Council by the 15 day of April each and every year. Such lists shall be sent to all chartered Locals by the 30th day of April of each year. E. Associate Membership: Shall be open to those persons who wish to support the Council but who are not eligible for a full membership. Associate members shall not be entitled to vote and hold elective office at the Executive committee or Local Level of the Council or on the board of Directors. Associate Members shall not be entitled to vote at the Annual Assembly. F. Honourary Membership: May, at the discretion of the Council, be granted to any persons who efforts on behalf of the People of Aboriginal Ancestry warrant such recognition.
G. Supporting Membership: Individual people, churches, businesses and other organization who wish to support our work may obtain a Supporting Membership upon payment of an Annual Fee of $25.00 but such members will have no voting rights. It is a direct membership in the Council rather than in our locals.
Apukjij
the Native Council in NB and NS has different levels of membership, based on your ancestry, and they will let you know where you stand, as a full member or a secondary level of membership, and for those who have full membership, there are programs available, including partaking of the Fishing and Hunting rights that flow from the Treaties we signed, from what i understand from the L'nu hunters i asked, yes these full members are given a green hunting license, different than the ones we normally have.
If thats the case, the information on their websites really doesn't make this clear . The different levels of membership you mentioned seem to be for entirely non native or honerary members.
It's true the NS CAP affiliate gives no clear information about what their membership requirements are.
Shouldn't this membership criteria be openly explained to the public, so people can be sure no double standards or favoritism is taking place when people try and join?
Apukjij
the Native Council of NS was first created and open to STATUS indians living off reserves, i thought that to be a full member you had to be status, and off the rez for 6 months, same as for the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, if you look at the NS council, it doesn't say what the membership criteria is, and for NB, its say its open to people living off reserve but mentions 1867, (the year canada became a country- or commonly known as confederation.) so that would mean 1/4 to 1/8th bloods, (NOT PEEPS WITH A DROP OF NATIVE BLOOD AS SOME POSTERS ASSERTED)
How many generations that is depends on how you count, and how this extremely vauge definition is interpreted...
It doesn't say born in the year of 1867 - which wouldn't make sense
And it doesn't say anyone born after 1867, which would probably limit most adult members to people who were at least 1/64.
Born 1867
childern born 1887
grandchildren born 1907 ( 1/4)
great grandchildren born 1927 (1/8)
great great grandchildren born 1947 (1/16)
great great great grandchildren born 1967 ( 1/32)
gr gr gr gr grandchildern born in 1987 ( 1/64)
But the thing is, these membership requirements only require an Aboriginal ancestor who was living in 1867. Which means a couple more great greats can be added to that.
And by "an Aboriginal person" do they mean full blood? If someone who was living in 1867 and could prove they are 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/8 , would that mixed blood ancestor who was living in 1867 be considered "Aboriginal"?
Are only a small percentage of the people who are members of CAP affiliates less than 1/16. Or are the large majority of people who are members of CAP affiliates less than 1/16 ? What percentage of the membership is less than 1/64...?
If the conditions off reserve NDNs are living under are so hard, why have a membership criteria which allows slightly mixed blood people with no real identity as native people, an equal share in scarce resources?
I don't see anything in the membership criteria that would prevent 99 percent of the members of CAP being less than 1/64. Not saying they are, I'm just saying that as things stand this looks entirely possible, and it appears there is no way to know one way or the other...
It seems that information should be publicly available, and verifiable
The wide open and vague definitions really don't seem clear, or geared towards protecting the rights and identities of First Nations. When CAP complains the on reserve status Indians are getting more than their fair share of resources , I would like to know what percentage of the people they are representing have substantial Native heritage. I would also like to know how many of the people they claim to represent , actually applied for membership in CAP. Usually the numbers they claim seem to be taken from the census and are not the actual people who wanted to join their organization.
It just seems it would be good to know exactly who the people actually are, who are claiming to have a right to a share of the resources which belong to Aboriginal people in Canada.
And Apukjij thanks for your efforts to clarify this.
-
hi momma p you wrote:
"Apukjij
Quote
if you look at the NS council, it doesn't say what the membership criteria is, and for NB, its say its open to people living off reserve but mentions 1867, (the year canada became a country- or commonly known as confederation.) so that would mean 1/4 to 1/8th bloods, (NOT PEEPS WITH A DROP OF NATIVE BLOOD AS SOME POSTERS ASSERTED)
Apukjij, I'm really sorry to be argumentive, but as far as I can see this just isn't true. .."
yes it is true,
lets look at the 1867 date again
1867 suppose it was my relation who was born, full status and marries a nonnative lets say matrilineal, she lives the typical long life of the Mi'kmaw, let say she passes on when shes 80, she dies in 1947, she has her first child when she was 20, 1887, and her last when she was 45, 1912, so this woman born in 1912 (she may be still alive in 2010) is half, and repeat the same story its quite possible this lady born in 1867 has grandchildren alive in 2010, who are quarter blood, dont be so quick to put down the 1867 date.
momma p you wrote:
Apukjij
Quote
the Native Council of NS was first created and open to STATUS indians living off reserves, i thought that to be a full member you had to be status, and off the rez for 6 months, same as for the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council
I'm sorry but thats not true. At least not in relation to NB APC . And I don't think it is true in relation to the NSNC either. Back in 1999 ,the President of the NB APC and now of CAP specifically say they represent both off reserve status and non status.
i say again, yes it is true and ill cut and paste from later in your post!
"Quote
Our organization was established back in 1972 to address the needs of the off-reserve non-status Indians at the time. Those were people like myself, my father, and my grandfather, who were put off the reserve for the simple fact that we all joined the military. We lived up to our treaty obligations and said we would serve the crown and protect this country from forces that would try to overrun us or destroy us. My family kept up its end of the treaty. My son is now the fourth generation of continuous military service. He is serving in Petawawa with the Canadian Airborne, throwing himself out of perfectly good aircraft—well, maybe not so perfectly good any more, but throwing himself out of aircraft. My family has lived up to its treaty.
For the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to stand up and publicly deny that I am entitled, as a beneficiary, or a natural heir and descendant to a signatory of the treaty, to access my God-given right or my blood right is total foolishness. "
the nonstatus off reserve shes talking about are a few categories of L'nu, NOT this metis acadian micmac foolishness, at that time> the canada's official stance was the treaties were no longer valid, so there was no benefit to being L'nu, so there were no wannabees wanting to be L'nu, there was only a medical plan, but canada has socialized medicine all canadians have a medical plan. As Well, if you joined the military, attended university, joined the bar as a lawyer, married a non-native, all these actions left you what the canadian govt calls disenfranchised (unenrolled) according to various clauses of the Indian Act at that time, your status was removed (they cut up my moms status card in front of her) and i guess in the LaVallee family they got kicked off the rez as well. think about it, L'nu we were not allowed to attend university until 1969!
-
we werent legally allowed to enter a bar or agency liquor store until 1964! not saying this is a good thing to do lol!
-
Guess you don't have to be Indian to be a Treaty Indian in Canada. Apukjij, from how you've explained things, there's a definite difference between being a Treaty Beneficiary and a member of a First Nation. A direct descendant of anyone who signed a treaty would be a beneficiary, whether Indian or not. While your ancestor who signed the treaty might have been Mi'kmaq, if every generation since then married out, you may be a beneficiary but you aren't Mi'kmaq. You'd be a Mi'kmaq descendant, and a distant one at that. If the ancestor who signed the treaty was mixed-blood, could you honestly even claim to be a Mi'kmaq descendant? Apparently, continuous ties to a First Nation really don't matter either. This follows the letter of the law, but not the spirit. From the way the treaties were written, I doubt if this was the intent. These treaties were written to protect the Mi'kmaq as a Nation, not to provide for a group of watered-down, self-centered individuals looking to benefit from the pain and suffering of true Mi'kmaq people. As an example, these treaties guaranteed the Mi'kmaq continued hunting and fishing rights. This was/is their birthright. It wasn't intended to give recreational hunters and fishermen the right to do so without a license. I don't think this is right. However, as you've explained, the treaties say all descendants of the treaty signers, with no stipulations, are beneficiaries. I don't understand the Mi'kmaq Nation supporting this. It seems there should be a way for these treaties to only benefit the people they were intended for.
-
hi bonnie, well there has been nothing written in stone, as i said, these are the problems facing Mi'kmaw, this is whats beore us, we are in deliberation about all these subjects, the Mi'kmaq Grand Council in auspices with KMK are sponsoring Meetings in Mi'kmaw communities called "Who is an L'nu", and as i said before its my own personal belief that these direct descendants of a Treaty Signator are not L'nu (Mi'kmaq) but Treaty Indians. The only thing we are not in deliberation is the Qalipu First Nation, if i had not brought them up at the "Who is the L'nu" Meeting, my community and the Mi'kmaq Grand Council wouldnt have known about it. sadly i accused the Mi'kmaq Grand Council of dropping the ball on this, which was met with much derision from the Grand Captain. It should have been the Mi'kmaq Grand Council who negotiated with the Feds to give status to any group meeting the qualifications. I asked if they (Qalipu) would be given a seat on the Grand Council, he said he didnt know who these people are, how could they give them a seat on the Grand Council, which is in stark contrast to the formation of the Conne River First Nation in nfld in the 70's where the Chief Misel Joe was given a seat on the Grand Council and made a Hereditary Chief.
-
now as i said it should have been the Mi'kmaq Grand Council negotiating, but one thing i cant stress enough, is that at the end of the day, its the Mi'kmaq People themselves, as a Nation that has the final say, Not the Feds, Not the Grand Council, but the true Treaty Beneficiaries, we should be the one having the final say, which would require millions of dollars to consult the communities and bring them up to date on the Qalipu First Nation, then having a referendum. The problem i have with the "Who is an L'nu" meetings. The techies who are holding these meetings are all paid by Indian Affairs, (here's the website of the organization that all these techies belong to, with a non-native as Executive Director, http://www.mikmaqrights.com/) under the direction of the Grand Council, i say it undermines L'nu sovereignty to bring the Feds to the table concerning Mi'kmaq Citizenship, i say it undermines L'nu sovereignty to allow KMK to sign Fishing and Hunting agreements, which EVERY agreement they have signed with the Feds has an extinguishment clause, where-by every agreement they signed contains at least one tenant limiting or removing a right to Hunt and Fish as set out by the Treaties, as well this federally funded agency, KMK, believes because the have the blessing of the Chiefs and the Grand Council, think they have the final say on our Treaties FOR THE NEXT 7 GENERATIONS, as quoted on their website, This is another colonialist tool, that the govt has set before us, and the Chiefs and the Grand Council have become puppets of the Govt. so with all due respect to momma p's research on CAP, and to Qalipu First Nation, we L'nu have far greater problems to consider.
-
I'm really glad to hear there is some formal debates in the Mi'kmaq community as to who is L'nu as it seems it would be good if the people who the Mi'kmaq Nation defines as L'nu,could be united and allowed to fairly access their Nations resources, and if the people who ARE NOT could be told where there is a nice heritage group they can join...
If the definition of a Treaty benificiary is limited to direct descendents, there may be a few descendents who's families are no longer connected with the tribe, who might get some benifits they may not deserve, but including direct descendents , in itself , doesn't seem likely to undermine the long term health and integrity of the Mi'kmaq Nation, or of First Nations in general.
I'm not sure about any of the details of how the non native legal system works, but on a basic level it seems it tries to identify clear underlying principles, and then in theory anyways these principles are supposed to get fairly applied to all situations.
I have no legal training, but it seems if these Treaties are interpreted as guarenteeing resources for not only the Mi'kmaq Nation and members of the Mi'kmaq Nation , but also individual descendents of the person who signed the treaty, it isn't completely clear whether the Treaties are between two Nations or between a Nation and an individual and all their relatives.
If the Treaties are interpreted to include individuals, it seems important to make sure the Mi'kmaq Nation is the governing body which distributes these individual rights , and that the Mi'kmaq Nation retains the absolute right to govern it's own resources. Otherwise, it seems to potentially set up a situation where this right could be contested by endless splinter groups composed of individual descendents.
One of the things that is fueling this concern is noticing that the emphasis on individual benificiaries, seems to be what Tom Flanagan, prime minister Stephen Harpers close advisor and the anti First Nation author of the book "First Nations Second Thoughts" is also promoting...
An interview with Tom Flanagan .
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822033156/http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=207
Frontier Centre: Your new book, First Nations? Second Thoughts, presents a view of aboriginal history that challenges what you describe as the prevailing orthodoxy on the subject. Could you describe that orthodoxy?
Tom Flanagan: The orthodoxy could be summarized by the term "nation to nation" -- that aboriginal people have to relate to the rest of Canada "government to government". I think the relationship should be more person-to-person.
So, while there is people who sound like they have been unfairly excluded by policies set up by the canadian federal government , it sounds like there is people who may be trying to manipulate this to their own advantage.
Oh, and Apukjij, the number of generations who would descend from an Aboriginal ancestor "since" ????? 1867 all depends on how old people are when they have babies. So both our hypothetical lines of descent are correct. The problem is, the way this definition is written, it includes both the legitimate NDN people you describe , and the extreme PODIAs i described. it seems it would be good if the definition was written in such a way to include the people you are concerned for, and also to protect the Mi'kmaqs control over their own resources from being taken over by people who's families haven't considered themselves NDN for generations and have only recently got interested in reclaiming this part of their heritage and any resources that might be attached.
-
at the end of the day, its we as an L'nu Nation who decides who is an L'nu, not the feds and the indian act, not the province, and blood quotient question is moot, as its really the families and the communities who decide.
-
Well, it's hard for me to keep up on all this information, but one thing that might be useful is to define 'heir'. Yes, I know to you, and probably to many it means 'descendant'. But that isn't always the case with an heir. I'm speaking in legal matters here. Some distant relative is not necessarily automatically an 'heir'. And defining this may cut down on some of the claims people are trying to make.
-
I think part of the problem is that cultures which relied on agriculture put a lot of emphasis on who owns what, and where one persons wheat field ends and another persons wheat field begins. Everything gets divided up , which requires exact descriptions of the dividing lines, and specific peoples names have to bee clearly stuck on everything they hope to continue to use. Anyone who doesn't play the game looses their wheat field to the first aggressive person who comes along who will take advantage of the lack of clear boundaries or ownership.
Cultures that relied more on hunting and gathering were not tied to defending a crop, and tended to have more flexible and fluid definitions based on relationships, what relationship worked at a particular time , and the ability to move with the needs of the current moment.
The non native legal system is designed to protect the non native cultural values which rely on inflexibly defined owners and personal property. I think indigenous peoples often find themselves in a catch 22 of being forced to use the exact inflexible definitions of the non native legal system, in order to protect cultural values which are compromised by using this system to protect these same values.
And the necessity to deal with things in a way that will be supported by the non native legal system, is probably being imposed from without, not from traditional values within the Mi'kmaq Nation.
This is probably one of the reasons my persistent requests for clear, non contradictory, protective definitions has made Apukjij feel like pulling his hair out.
I think we all agree it needs to be the Mi'kmaq Nation that defines itself and decides how to distribute it's own resources. The problem seems to be that the definitions of what and who the Mi'kmaq Nation is, and who the leadership is, are getting confused. The candian government seems to be promoting this confusion in various ways. The Qalipu group, which is calling itself a First Nation and which is being supported by the canadian government, is reported to have so far approved with 11,000 applications, with another 15,000 - 17,000 waiting for approval, and this sounds like it will double the existing population of people registered as Mi'kmaq. Which could further confuse these definitions.
More on that is in the link below.
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2607.0
And I want to apoplogize if some of the information I've posted is overly long and more than a bit garbled. It is a complicated situation and sorting out what I am trying to ask, and how to express this clearly, while also being sensitive to peoples personal perspectives, has me feeling a bit frazzled.
-
I'm really glad to hear there is some formal debates in the Mi'kmaq community as to who is L'nu as it seems it would be good if the people who the Mi'kmaq Nation defines as L'nu,could be united and allowed to fairly access their Nations resources, and if the people who ARE NOT could be told where there is a nice heritage group they can join...
Thanks, moma_p, those "heritage groups" you mentioned are exactly the tool needed to deal with a lot of the frauds operating out there, from what I have seen.
In this case, I think you need to consider that the situation in Canada is different than in the US, where they are trying to set up rez, moving off rez assistance groups, and heritage groups. As I mentioned before, the solutions are being worked on by each people, as each people will face these problems if they are not already facing them, and the solutions will vary not only from people to people, but with respect to each "colonial" government as well.
You may want universal hard definitions, but I tend to think that ultimately the definitions will be working ones made in response to the specifics of each situation. Canadian L'nu solutions will differ from US Tsulagi solutions.
I really thought the effort made in the opening ceremony of the Vancouver games was really nice.