[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

"It is a First Nation decision, how it wants to deal with its land," she said.

Unless the Chippewas decide to lease the land once again, she said little can be done.

"When a lease expires, a lease expires," Litzgus said.

---

quote:

---

Cottagers were told in the letter they cannot "remove or dismantle" any buildings on the land since they are now considered property of the First Nation.

---

I disagree with this. Fine they don't own the land, that's what happens when you lease land but to tranfer ownership of a building that could be physically moved is unfair. How by being a landlord do you get to keep a building you didn't build or maintain? And if people can't get their boats out cause it's winter someone else can claim ownership? That's out there.

And how is it legal to lease land in such a manner that it puts people in a postion to lose so much?

quote:

---

They want people to feel sorry for them because some are out of country and cannot get their stuff?

---

Can some one fill me in on the progressive 101 on why I should take pleasure in this?

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Scout ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Can some one fill me in on the progressive 101 on why I should take pleasure in this?

---

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Can some one fill me in on the progressive 101 on why I should take pleasure in this?

---

Anyone who can afford a cottage and a boat is inherently your Class Enemy(TM) and is therefore entitled only to your derision and hatred?

quote:

---

From the article:
Karen McCulloch, whose father-in-law built their cottage in the 1960s, said the situation is heartbreaking. While she said cottagers knew they were leasing aboriginal land, they were always told they would be given at least one year's notice if the lease wasn't renewed, and wouldn't have to walk away from their housing investment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Can some one fill me in on the progressive 101 on why I should take pleasure in this?

---

Expressing lack of sympathy, does not tranlate into pleasure that it is happening to them.

They have had 12 years since the contract ended, just how long did they think they could stay there?

I'm sorry, I have bigger villains to fry, tittering at these people is not progressive. They're leaving, let them get their stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Makwa I don't have words to express how disappointing your response was. Have some grace.

---

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

...The cottagers continued to make their lease payments to the federal government until 2005, when the Nawash band council voted to again designate the subdivision for leasing.

But that fall, a new chief and council were elected who did not agree to the vote, effectively ending the leasing arrangement. Last May, six-month temporary permits were issued.

In return for the six-month permit, the Gibbs family paid around $3,000 in rent, double the lease payment of other years. But Gibbs doesn't think the issue is about money.

"If it was about money, all they would have to do is tell us how much they want," he said.

Paul Nadjiwan, chief of the Chippewas of Nawash, said in a statement that the cottagers were informed when the six-month permits were issued that they would not have any legal rights to use the land when the permits expired...

---

INAC page about this. It does not give details, such as whether the leases specified what would happen to the cottages.

ETA: does the band have strong need for housing for its members? Many reserves have growing populations and inadequate housing.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
INAC page about this: The cottage leases, and their designation which allowed the Minister to enter into agreements, expired in 1995. ... Since 1995 the cottagers have paid rent to INAC and remained on the land with the acquiescence of the band. In 2006, a permit was issued for the 2006 cottage season. The permit expired on October 31, 2006. On December 1, 2006, INAC Ontario Region sent a letter, produced in collaboration with the First Nation, informing the cottagers at Hope Bay that they may access the reserve until January 31, 2007 to retrieve their chattels (i.e. movable property) by making arrangements with the First Nation. ... A dedicated line at the First Nation has been established for the cottagers to call to make arrangements to retrieve their chattels.

---

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

Snarkiness should be encouraged, not because the cottagers had this coming (they might do) but because of the importance of land disputes in Canadian Indian-White relations and the delicious irony of Whitey getting kicked off his land because he forgot to read the fine print of his own courts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Remind the spite is oozing all over the place from your posts. What do you get out of it? These are just regular people.

I'm sorry, I have bigger villains to fry, tittering at these people is not progressive. They're leaving, let them get their stuff.

Makwa I don't have words to express how disappointing your response was. Have some grace.

---

Spite? Tittering? Amazing how you can infer that from my saying I have no sympathy and its not like they didn't know.

Putting intonal emotion upon others "typed" words, unless there is a clear indicator, by an expletive, all too often causes people ascribe an overly negative tone to what they are reading. Imposing their own emotional quotient upon it so to speak. In this case, you're wrong also, I am being pragmatic and I never titter. And am interested in what word usage I used that gave you the impression I was "tittering" or indeed being "spiteful"?

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Sigh. This so-called "aboriginal issues and culture" forum is no fun. It doesn't feel like a welcome place, a place where I can express myself without worrying whether I am offending white folk. Sorry, but I don't see the point of this forum at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Sigh. This so-called "aboriginal issues and culture" forum is no fun. It doesn't feel like a welcome place, a place where I can express myself without worrying whether I am offending white folk. Sorry, but I don't see the point of this forum at all.

---

So I wouldn't be surprised if some of the cottagers happened to light a match or two on their final visit.

I still don't understand why they can't take their buildings if they're transportable and they built them, though.

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Sigh. This so-called "aboriginal issues and culture" forum is no fun. It doesn't feel like a welcome place, a place where I can express myself without worrying whether I am offending white folk. Sorry, but I don't see the point of this forum at all.

---

The only person offended seem to be you, again, I just think your disappointing. I just don't see gloating as very progressive in this instance.

quote:

---

The cottagers felt entitled to land that was not theirs.

---

Did they now? So that's why they are in court now fighting a land claim. It's all clear now.

quote:

---

It is not as if this taking back ownership has not occured in large and small scales in the world and around Canada. They had plenty of examples to show them land contracts come to an end and owners take ownership. Moreover, as I said they had 12 years to do something but did nothing, hello? And now it comes to light they knew last May.

---

They aren't fighting the issue of ownership. There are also plenty of examples of leases being renewed.

quote:

---

Putting intonal emotion upon others "typed" words, unless there is a clear indicator, by an expletive, all too often causes people ascribe an overly negative tone to what they are reading.

---

Then you had best haul your ass back to the Elizabeth May thread and start changing your tune. Or you could just own up to the level of satisfaction you take in what has happened.

quote:

---

Just me, I think. I was not only tittering, but giggling uncontrollably, but the funny has worn off and now I just don't give a shit and am throwing myself a pity party. I wonder if Catchfire has any single-malt left?

---

This whining stunt worked about a year ago when you first started doing it but now it just a pathetic attempt to shut people up and garner undeserved sympathy. "Pity party" has been over used by you. Don't get your way have a hissy. No one is denied their right to their land in this thread. No one suggested "whitey" as they are now so progressively refered to deserved anything but chance to get their shit and maybe a small measure of dignity as they aren't villians and were simply and quite reasonable waiting to see if the lease would be renewed. What would have been stupid is walking away from an investment before a final decision was made up.

quote:

---

I need to feel sorry for these people who have been sitting on other people's land for a long time? I need to feel bad that the FN people have gotten their land back and some justice?

---

I didn’t ask you to feel sorry for them about losing their land. Can you at least see that I never asked that of anyone? I asked people to be a little less shitty about the fact that some of them aren’t able to get back and get their personal belongings. I asked people to lay of the “whitey” comments and I asked that people behave with a little grace and dignity. Be a gracious winner. Cause that’s what this thread is about, nothing is up for debate the land is reverting back to FN end of story.

quote:

---

I need to feel bad that the FN people have gotten their land back and some justice?

---

Stargazer please read what I actually said. I know it would be way more powerful to have someone to hammer away at to show the world just how unjust things have been for FN but it wouldn’t be honest. I never asked you to feel bad that they got their land back.

quote:

---

I don't think so. I would take your concern for 'whitey' a little more perhaps if you had ever expressed outrage over what is being done to the FN people in this country but correct me I am wrong, and I may be, but I haven't exactly seen you post much in this forum is support for FN land claims

---

I don’t post that much in the Middle-east forum either. So that’s a pretty shitty accusation. I don’t post much at all on babble and I didn’t know there was a score card, you’d think I’d know that considering how long I have been here. Nor did I know that it was progressive to use “whitey” to silence people. I treat this forum the way I expect people to treat the feminist forum, I don’t need men to swoop in and save me any more than I assume FN people need me to swoop in and save them, but in either forum I would take exception with a post that is not further either cause but is to just a place to laugh at others misfortune. I don’t think “ha ha whitey” is progressive.

quote:

---

If you read the last posts you'd see they have plenty of time to get their things.

---

They also had plenty of time to hope the lease would be renewed. Why walk away before they knew the outcome. I don’t think they did anything out of the ordinary in waiting. If I invested 40 years in something, I’d wait to make sure I was losing it before walking too. I’d also think I be able to take the home I’d built. I fail to see how the cottages now belong to someone who wasn’t the landlord at the time let alone the Government who made this mess.

I think the Government should have returned the land 40 years ago and never leased it to anyone for such a length of time. I think their handling of the situation is a bungle from the beginning and only had an unhappy ending in sight.

quote:

---

We also don't know as yet what has happened or will happen to the buildings they built or bought.

---

What I read in the article stated they lose their homes. Is there a link you can guide me to showing they may get to take their homes? Or get compensated?

quote:

---

As pissed as women's rights being stripped from us. As pissed that we as women, were considered property. I hope you can see the comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
This whining stunt worked about a year ago when you first started doing it but now it just a pathetic attempt to shut people up and garner undeserved sympathy. "Pity party" has been over used by you. Don't get your way have a hissy.

---

I have come to realize that I have three voices that I drop into when I express myself. In once case, I try to be more distanced and academic - in that mode I can handle criticism pretty well. In other instances, I'm like a little kid, full of silly snot jokes - nobody seems to mind that. However, when I express myself without particular deliberation, I find myself feeling especially vulnurable to criticism, and I become hypersensitive and prone to depression. When I express that senstitivity its pretty nasty to have you take that as an opportunity to take such personal attacks.

I removed the 'over the top' statements I had made because I felt bad over offending you, but now I don't care. I'm glad they were evicted, I don't care if the cottagers get their shit, and I don't care if you don't like it. This is a space for FN people to express themselves, good or bad. Feel free to voice any objections or concerns you like, but also be ready to be told that FN people don't give a shit what you think.

If this is not a space where I can rant and be irrational at times or vent about 'whitey' then it's a wasted token space, and I don't need it, because sometimes the feelings and reactions of FN people are filled with rage, whether you like it or not. If babble cannot deal with that, then they should close the FN forum as a failure, as yet another useless token gesture designed to ameliorate white guilt.

Ed to add: Does babble have an FN person modding this forum? If not, I nominate Stargazer.

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

As has been pointed out a few times (but bears repeating), the issue isn't the end of the lease. The issue is a landlord not giving former tenants a reasonable opportunity to retrieve their personal property.

If the landlord was a big corporation (and especially if the tenants were natives or another visible minority), everyone in this thread would be up in arms about the injustice of not allowing people to retrieve their rightful property from the land they leased.

Yet because the landlords in this situation are natives, and many (perhaps most or even all) of the tenants are white and own cottages, principles of fairness, economic justice, and just plain human decency are thrown out the window in the name of ethnic revenge.

We're not just talking about a few old deck chairs and lifejackets. We're talking about small buildings that could be possiblly transported by flatbed truck (or maybe boat), items of sentimental value, and large and expensive items such as boats. If someone can't travel to the land right away for some reason, reasonable measures should be taken just because it's the right thing to do.

quote:

---

I was not only tittering, but giggling uncontrollably, but the funny has worn off and now I just don't give a shit and am throwing myself a pity party. I wonder if Catchfire has any single-malt left?

---

So this being real…

quote:

---

Gee, don't get personal or anything. I've tried to be real here, and you launch into personal attacks.

---

…is a load of crap.

quote:

---

I agree, it's not pretty and it's not mature. Sometimes the reactions of FN people is not all stoic dignity. I'm not going to play the noble savage for you.

---

Nope, I’m not getting played this time. Quite race baiting me with shit like “noble savage”, this is a progressive forum for discussion you might want to try that once in awhile. You never pass up an opportunity to twist people’s words so you can throw a stereotype in there to attribute to them. That’s not discussion it’s a personal attack and trolling.

“However, when I express myself without particular deliberation, I find myself feeling especially vulnurable to criticism, and I become hypersensitive and prone to depression. When I express that senstitivity its pretty nasty to have you take that as an opportunity to take such personal attacks.”

Makwa this is the internet, I don’t know you personally so I’d appreciate it if you’d take responsibly for your own actions. I can only read what you post. And really when your ranting and being a jerk I don’t read sensitivity in your post – so spare me the attempt at emotional blackmail here. Being a woman doesn’t make me all nurturing or an easy mark for a guilt trip. I can not take responsibility for your getting depressed when you get called on immature or cheap behaviour. How exactly would that be moderated around here? Special rules just for you when you shoot your mouth off without thinking? Shall we call it the "Pity Party clause"?

quote:

---

I removed the 'over the top' statements I had made because I felt bad over offending you, but now I don't care. I'm glad they were evicted, I don't care if the cottagers get their shit, and I don't care if you don't like it. This is a space for FN people to express themselves, good or bad. Feel free to voice any objections or concerns you like, but also be ready to be told that FN people don't give a shit what you think.

---

I wasn’t offending as you keep inferring. I think gloating is always wrong. I never asked you to remove anything, but that’s what you do when called on anything and then you decide you shouldn’t have removed the copy and that whoever disagreed with you is a big racist whitey and can kiss your ass because your FN and you’ll say what ever you want and I should suck it up because you’ll get depressed and make random threats about drinking that I should for some reason care about, oh ya and that you might just leave babble. It’s enough. This is like the 20th time you have done this routine. I am not indulging this hissy fit.

You posted this to gloat about a group of people who merely had a lease with the Government, you chose to attack them instead of the Government. People chose to gloat that people couldn’t go back for their things, said they were stupid, couldn’t have their thing and chose to accuse them of feeling entitled to said land based on personal feeling as opposed to facts. It was tasteless, so I spoke up just as I would in the FF if something similar happened.

quote:

---

If this is not a space where I can rant and be irrational at times or vent about 'whitey' then it's a wasted token space, and I don't need it, because sometimes the feelings and reactions of FN people are filled with rage, whether you like it or not. If babble cannot deal with that, then they should close the FN forum as a failure, as yet another useless token gesture designed to ameliorate white guilt.

---

I don’t know that babble was ever designed for people to irrationally vent their spleens, that’s what blogs are for. Babble after all has rules. The forum is for discussion and education. It’s a progressive space and I don’t know how any of that covers being your therapist, which is what you seem to be require of babble and it’s posters.

And you didn’t post to rant Makwa, your first post was to gloat. There was nothing out of control or sensitive about it. You only became irrational and ranty when called on your gloating.

No one said they shouldn’t have to leave. Not one person in this thread said they should fight. I just think taking pleasure in other people’s sadness is not progressive, “whitey” is not progressive, ignoring the Governments culpability and focussing on a small group of people whose racial mix we don’t know isn’t progressive.

quote:

---

If the landlord was a big corporation (and especially if the tenants were natives or another visible minority), everyone in this thread would be up in arms about the injustice of not allowing people to retrieve their rightful property from the land they leased.
Yet because the landlords in this situation are natives, and many (perhaps most or even all) of the tenants are white and own cottages, principles of fairness, economic justice, and just plain human decency are thrown out the window in the name of ethnic revenge.

---

[moderator hat on] This somewhat interesting thread does not need to go down the toilet, despite it's apparent current direction. I recognise that there are a lot of edited posts up there, but I don't see anyone oozing spite or being inappropriate around this at all. There is no need for personal attacks so cut it out. Further, this is the First Nations Forum. That I, as a white summer cottage renter from Toronto, have one reaction, and a FN person feels something different as well as maybe more visceral upon reading this does not require real deep analysis IMO. Let people own their own reactions and respect those of others. If anyone is oozing, get to a clinic. [/moderator hat off but handy]

[edited for spelling]

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
You're quite right. It's true. I'm simply awful. Bitter, vindictive, immature, all that. PS: No really, I suck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:
Not only that, I have it on good authority that you are, in fact, somewhere beyond puerile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
I never asked you to remove anything, but that’s what you do when called on anything and then you decide you shouldn’t have removed the copy and that whoever disagreed with you is a big racist whitey and can kiss your ass because your FN and you’ll say what ever you want and I should suck it up because you’ll get depressed and make random threats about drinking that I should for some reason care about, oh ya and that you might just leave babble. It’s enough. This is like the 20th time you have done this routine. I am not indulging this hissy fit.

---

Actually I'm quite grateful to you for engaging me this way, because I need to learn to deal with this kind of shit in a constructive way if I'm going to be able to effectively deal in the real world. I've come to consider you a virtual exercise. I admit I'm broken and immature sometimes and have a hard time admitting foolishness, but when I respond to you because I thought your point had merit, you go for the jugular.

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
True dat. But maybe I just need a space to express myself without reservation. (da-dum!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Secret Agent Style:
If someone can't travel to the land right away for some reason, reasonable measures should be taken just because it's the right thing to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:
While I reserve judgment on that particular pun, you should feel free to cree-ate more humourous posts - ignore dene-sayers who'll say it can't be done. And if they persist, sioux be it - huron the right track.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
They aren't fighting the issue of ownership. There are also plenty of examples of leases being renewed.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting intonal emotion upon others "typed" words, unless there is a clear indicator, by an expletive, all too often causes people ascribe an overly negative tone to what they are reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you had best haul your ass back to the Elizabeth May thread and start changing your tune. Or you could just own up to the level of satisfaction you take in what has happened.

---

If a lease has not been renewed in 12 years most likely it is not going to be, someone would be pretty mired in delusion to think otherwise, and as I stated they knew since last May control of the property would be reverting back to the Chippawa.

What has happened scout, what really has happened that you keep implying that I feel satisfaction over? Again lack of sympathy is NOT feeling satisifaction. I am still awaiting your examples of my tittering and glouting? Though now you have lessened it to accusing me of "feeling satisfaction".

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

There is no need for personal attacks so cut it out.

---

I also think this thread is salvageable, and I think a FN person should be moderator. But no amount of bribery or flattery will get Stargazer to take it on.

Any perceived lack of sympathy and empathy, in this new edited thread, or outright obvious lack of sympathy and empathy, reflects both the poster and the postee.

Cottage country is stolen land, people!

I don't own a cottage, but I have visited and rented them when I want to get away from the big city. It's a contradiction for sure, as the land is not mine to rent, or to own.

Analogies are problematic, but what the hell, I'll give it a try. Yse, the white cottagers feel hard-done by, in the same way as getting a scratch on your new BMW sucks. It's not nice, but it's a fucking luxurious problem that, when we reflect on issues like no drinkable water on reserves, unemployment, lack of opportunity, lost and broken families, kinda fades into the background, hmm?

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Duck ]

However, they haven't been wronged in any way. Building improvements on leased land is rather foolish, regardless of noble intentions. It's like renovating a rented apartment. Sympathy in such a situation is the more gracious response, but "What did you expect?" is the more reasonable one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck:
Should the cottage owners not be able to remove
their cottage. I realize that this was leased land, but if the landowners received their lease payments, what would entitle them to any structure on the land that was not there when the lease was originally signed.

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Duck ]

---

It would depend on what was agreed to in the lease documents. In this case, though I haven't seen them in person, the cottages would be considered nothing more then improvements to the land and thus not retreivable...just as someone pointed out like if you renovate a apartment. One chooses to do it with the foreknowledge that their is no guarantee of keeping it forever and ever. This is what happened here.

If there is anyone that the cottagers should be upset with here it should be the government and not the landlords. They were acting as the go-between and up until the final letters arrived appeared to be saying to many of the cottagers...no problem...don't worry...it'll work out while I expect they knew or at least suspected it was not the case.

Also, and I'm afraid this is only hersay from talking to someone in the area that any chance of individual cottagers negotiating individual leases...like one human being to another...was squashed by the government telling individuals not even to try because it would 'affect' relations ie: the governments with the band. The cottagers were assured that they would look after it. As time progressed, tensions developed between the band and the Government over the issue and what might have worked for some became an impossibility. The government again has proven how inept it is with dealing with anything FNs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Draco:
Sympathy in such a situation is the more gracious response, but "What did you expect?" is the more reasonable one.

---

Like Oldgoat, I have fallen in love with the Bruce, and I have taken my kids there, and spent a week last summer aquainting yet another young child with the wildlife and... words fail me.

Do you know how much I love the Bruce? Last week, I was watching a documentary on Alexander Selkirk. Although there was some stock footage of Robinson Crusoe Island, I KNEW the close ups with the actor were shot on the Bruce. I know the rock. I know the texture and clarity of water. At the end, I watched the credits and they confirmed what I knew at a glance.

But, when I go I know I am a visitor, and because I want the Bruce to be there, I do my best to pump my tourist dollars to everyone, including FN business.

If not for divorce, I guess I would be in an economic position to buy a retirement cottage on the Bruce. Maybe one day, I still will.

But since I was a young man with such hopes, I knew I wouldn't buy a cottage without researching native land claims, and communicating with native people in the same way I'd communicate with the local white population to determine if I would be welcome.

The original leases probably dealt with the removal of property upon lease expiration. And the reason leases are so long is that no bank will give mortgages on short term leasehold interests. Designations are required in order to consent to take the land out of normal reserve operation so as to be able to grant leasehold interests in the land to non FN members. It was very irresponsible of everyone to allow the land to remain in limbo for so long.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:

Anyone who can afford a cottage and a boat is inherently your Class Enemy(TM) and is therefore entitled only to your derision and hatred?

...Okay, I got nothin'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Village Idiot:

Personally, I believe the idea of (presumably) affluent (again, presumably) mostly white persons getting kicked off land that never belonged to them has a certain poetic justice to it, given the history of indigenous land claims here in Ontari-ari-ario...

---

I suppose that you think that if something terrible happened to the German people, then that, too, would be "poetic justice" given what the Germans did to the rest of Europe a generation ago?

edited 'cause I can't spell benefitting

[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I suppose that you think that if something terrible happened to the German people, then that, too, would be "poetic justice" given what the Germans did to the rest of Europe a generation ago?

The decision of the FN has nothing to do with "poetic justice". The FN people living today have legal rights and they are simply exercising them, as it is their right to do. It's nothing more and nothing less than that.

---

Your first paragraph...sigh, sigh, sigh...I'm still shaking my head, mentally, and about all I'm gonna say about that is: It all depends on the nature of the calamity that were to befall these hypothetical Germans, I suppose. No sane person likes to see bad things happen to good people, but if the SAME Germans responsible for the Holocaust suffered some terrible fate, then yes, I believe there would be a certain amount of poetic justice in that.

It's a topic best discussed in another forum, however.

I DO agree that the Chippewa are properly exercising their legal rights. I'm not laughing, or being mean about anything, here. Irony being rather subjective, however, I believe I am entitled to my own sense of it.

I also wonder about the reasonable-ness of these people (both cottagers and Chippewa), since it HAS been 12 years. I haven't read anyhing else regarding this lease, so I have no idea what the Chippewa want to do with their land - perhaps there was just no deal that could be worked out...

[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: Village Idiot ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
That isn't a fair comparison Sven. The German people are not still benefitting from the things they did in WW2. Nor do they continue to kill Jews, Commis, Queers, Poles, Catholics, etc.

---

I’m a ten million per cent supporter of Aboriginal redress and independence (including land claims) in order to help rebuild their economies and societies damaged by colonial capitalism.

I think the band has the right to evict the cottagers, as unpleasant as that is, since their agreement—as in legally binding contract they signed—says that is an option.

But a goofy move is a goofy move. My sympathies aren’t so much with the cottagers as they are with fair treatment and due process—something First Nations have been denied too much in history.

quote:

---

Cottagers were told in the letter they cannot "remove or dismantle" any buildings on the land since they are now considered property of the First Nation.

---

Can’t folks here see just how undemocratic and unjust that is? It’s similar to the same type of shit that has been pulled on many Aboriginal nations for so long.

The band owns the land—and that’s as it should be. It has the right not to renew the lease and tell the cottagers to move in a reasonable time if it wants to. No question.

But where does the band council think it’s within its right to simply take what it has never considered its own in the first place? If the band wants to use the land for something else, that’s fine. So why not just give the cottagers a reasonable amount of time to remove their things and buildings, and if they fail to meet the deadline, the band has them removed at the cottagers’ expense?

If the ban want to keep the cottage building intact, why can’t they buy them off the cottagers or at least hurl them a generally accepted local market rate for them as compensation?

quote:

---

They want people to feel sorry for them because some are out of country and cannot get their stuff?{

---

Maybe some of them do, and that’s too bad for them. The band should still issue a call to vacate the premises and give them some time to do so. That would give the out-of-county ones a chance to get back here and do what they need to do or make arrangements for someone to do it for them. If they don’t comply then they can go cry elsewhere.

quote:

---

They have had 12 years since the contract ended, just how long did they think they could stay there?
If a person wants to invest so much time and money into building on a 40 year lease then I would say; "ya shoulda been smarter".

---

Maybe so. But does that give the band council the right to play dictatorial mean-spirited landlord? It’s exactly these types of practices that the Aboriginal activists I know and work with tell me much of their movement is dedicated to fighting, and rightly so. Curtailing the power of ruthless landlords has been a key part of the struggle for social justice in just about every part of the world.

Why anyone would think that the Chippawa would not want this incredibly beautiful land back ASAP, when it came back into their control/possession is beyond me. They have been watching others enjoy their land for 52 years, with nothing they could do about it.

How much do you think they actually received for this land use btw? If it is anything like the lease holds here, it was peanuts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
This is the case. The band rightfully controls the land. The lease expired long ago, and the band gave the cottagers an extra decade grace.

---

quote:

---

A decade grace? How patient should the band be. It's this kind of passivity that gets FN bands pushed around. They should have reclaimed the land without evasion ten years ago, and let everyone know that they would assert their rights without compromise in every situation.

---

Well, maybe they should have. Obviously, for some reason, they didn't. Perhaps they were in debate over whether to renew the lease or not or whether to develop the land, etc. I don't know, since the article doesn't say. But those kinds of disagreements can last for years.

The fact is now they have just as much right to do this as they did then. So fine. The question is why they have to play heavy-dude and start making claims on people's personal belongings that aren't part of the lease.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
The question is why they have to play heavy-dude and start making claims on people's personal belongings that aren't part of the lease.

---

quote:

---

I woudn't - I'd push for some compensation, but I'm a suck.

---

Hold on a minute. How does doing something reasonable, like you're suggesting, make you a suck? Selling out your values and colleagues and not exercising your rights would make you a suck--not standing up for your rights and doing that responsibly.

quote:

---

If they wanna get tough suddenly after being all passive for ten years, good for them.

---

They already did that. In fact, it's not even about "getting tough." Rather it's just about them deciding not to renew the lease and asking the residents to relocate. That’s just doing what they're supposed to do.

The problem is when they start laying claim to people's personal belongings outside the scope of the lease. That's no longer exercising their rights. That's clearly what is historically recognized most everywhere as an act of oppression. There's nothing "tough" about it--just bully-ish and exploitative. And it's exactly one way colonial capitalist powers used to screw the First Nations historically--obviously not a good habit to get into.

quote:

---

The more FN people stop worrying about what the larger community think, and start being more aggressive about pursuing their rights, the better the FN community will be overall.

---

Will it? It's great to be more aggressive about pursuing their rights, and the "greater community" should expect nothing less (those who do are the bigots).

But if the stunt referred to above, has less to do with exercising rights and more to do with abusing power over others, becomes a regular practice among Aboriginal governing bodies, I really doubt the FN community will be better off, and neither will the "greater community."

There was a controversy something like this on the Musqueam reserve several years ago, but in all the media hype and righteous indignation in the neighbouring white community the fact that these white tenants had paid a grand total of -get this- Thirty dollars a Month on a deal arranged between -of course- white Bureacrats decades earlier Never got much attention. I sent a letter in asking about that but it never got published for some reason. So suck it up whitey, you shoulda invested your vast savings in other things like early Microsoft stocks, but hey, noone can Change the mistakes of the past....right? I love it.

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

Legally, the Crown would own any chattel permanently affixed to the land. Not the band as most would assume. As well, only the Crown has the authority to dispose of these kinds of chattels. It gets muddy after that, as in: it depends on who was the proponent of what development (ie. local service station).