Feb 28, 2007
February 28th - One Year Anniversary Part 2
When I wrote the previous posting, the on line poll for the Globe and Mail regarding Caledonia was in its early stages. By the look of the poll it appeared that 50/50 would be the extreme ends of the poll and the four questions that it asked.
Well I am saddened by the stupidity of many individuals.
Question 1 - Would you keep negotiations going until a resolution was obtained. 17% said yes, which equals 6,946 votes.
Question 2 - Would you set a deadline for negotiations to bear fruit. 4% said yes to this question which equaled 1,830 votes.
Question 3 - Would you prefer the province to buy out the home owners and assist them in relocating to another community. 6% said yes to this one, which equaled 2,310 votes.
Question 4 - Would you use force to remove the protesters (in other words would you send in the army to clear them out once and for all) Unfortunately 74% of the people voted yes for this question, which totaled some 30,872 votes.
One should understand that the Globe and Mail polls is an on line poll, however in saying that, one can only vote once on this poll as the G&M system tracks the computers address of those who vote, restricting the votes to just one per computer.
I read the "democratic agenda" as found in the Mohawk News Media by Ms. K. Horn. It sounded very interesting and very good. Barring her racial rhetoric, her ideology is a blend of communism and a very loose democracy, that has some traces of Marks/Engels, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, and a smattering of Fascism, all wrapped up and applied to the ideology of the religion of the Longhouse/Peace Maker, which by the way sounds a whole lot like the early Christian church ideology of having all things equal, living in a community that is independent of other communities.
It was interesting to read, but there was something about it that just didn't ring clear. So I am not sure how to say this. Unless I read the article wrong - one of the ideas was that there would be freedom of thought and expression, and then later on I understood the article to say that contrary thinking and speaking would not be tolerated. There were sections that were a bit confusing, so it will need to be re-read at least another time I am sure.
The idea that the community would purchase all industry, companies, etc. and that everyone would be treated equally, and everyone would receive an income of sorts, and the homeless would be given housing, and that there would be shelters for the homeless to use. Ms. Horn, the homeless don't like using the shelters that are free for them already. The ideology is interesting, but the socialism that is expressed is actually idealistic communism, something that not even Native business men (ie Grand River Enterprises) would accept.
There also appeared to be some confusion in the area of government. Ms. Horn expressed that the American and Canadian governments would cease to exist, and then some how assumed that these governments will still provide financial obligations as per agreements previously established. Again, unless I mis-read the article, it sounds confusing.
The Indian Act would be disbanded and all the government agencies stopped, and yet for some reason these people in the agencies and government would be allowed to continue to represent the people and serve the communal government? Not sure if I am understanding that right. As I said, I may have to go back and re-read this again.
Well as always, when a society has nothing to lose and anything to gain, these communistic ideals sound really good. So basically what Ms. Horn is suggesting is a revolution plain and simple. Ms. Horn suggested that the blueprint to follow would be that which has been established by the present day Hugo Chavez and his rebuilding of a socialist Venezuela. The concepts were interesting, but no matter how you paint this kind of socialism, it is really the ideal form of communism, which means that a revolution is necessary in order to bring about the ideological change that is being suggested. Interesting.
I have some questions though. Would only the basic needs of people be met, or would there be the idea that everyone would have more than just their basic needs met? Would there be room for research and development in new medicine, new technology, better education, a social net for everyone, better social services, and security? Would there be recreation facilities and would there be a continuation of sporting events lets say right up to the the NHL, Olympic levels etc.
What about the Physically Challenged (if that's the right phrase to use, there are so many), or the Mentally Challenged. What services would be granted to them. Would they be allowed to live in public or institutionalized so that only the "perfect people" are seen in public? Would their needs be met? Would there even be admission that such people are in the community. The reason why I say this, is that for years Russia, China, Cuba, and many other such states, including Iran proclaimed to the world that they had no disabled people. The all of a sudden in 1984 China admitted they had disabled people and presented a paralympic team. Since then every country seems to have admitted to disabled people. I just wonder if this new country would be similar?
How would you attract new industry to enter into the area, when the owners of the industry know that they will lose their control of their business. Ms. Horn speaks of getting rid of corruption and having a transparent community. We know for a fact that many of the reserves already are led by corrupt individuals of both hereditary councils and elected councils. We know already that many Native communities are not transparent in their operations. Would you, Ms. Horn, force your ideologies of openess on these people?
There is a lot of things that appear to have been taken for granted. It is assumed that things can be taken over without any problems. That people would be happy to live in these "conditions of equality". What if, for example the companies refused to sell? Once these companies are taken over by force, who would run them? Would there be incentives to work? If everyone gets all their basic needs met, and some sort of an income, free housing, etc. why work?
In other words, the kind of society that Ms. Horn is suggesting sounds really good on paper, and I am sure that there are those who wouldn't mind having some sort of government wipe their butts from birth until death. The fact is, your system is only idealistic, and even though it could work, it assumes too many things. Russia proved that such a system can not last. China is proving now even that there are difficulties in making such a system work. Cuba is having the same problem, and so is Venezuela.
In this present secular society, how can it be assumed that everyone, including Natives, will follow the teachings of the Longhouse/Peace Maker? What makes you believe this will happen? There are many Natives who don't even support this concept. Will this be imposed on everyone or will there be the freedom of choice? Again your ideology assumes that the Christians, Hindus, Muslems, Buddists, Atheists, Secular Humanists, Shintos, Jews and more would be willing to "convert" to the religion of the Longhouse/Peace Maker, an assumption that is very dangerous in it self.
Again, I was intrigued by the ideology. It sounds very good and even sounds workable to a point. But there are too many things being taken for granted, believing that it would work.
You need a free market to export an import your products. As a result, there will have to be new treaties and trade agreements made. What makes you believe that the rest of the world would be willing to trade with a number of community governments instead of one national government? Would there be a national government or a body that represented the collective?
What about protection from outside invasion? Would there be a standing army? Would there be a police force? At one point, Ms. Horn's program suggested that there would be no need for a police force (pardon me - police services) nor a standing army. Do you believe that everyone would join forces to repel foreign invasion? With new military technology in the world, how would you defend yourself? Ms. Horn suggests that the military and weapons would be disolved. Very idealistic.
What about travel documents like passports and licenses. The list goes on and on, in areas that I believe assumptions are made without thinking outside the box of the community. Would each Native Nation be a sovereign state? Remember there are 55 main Native Nations in Canada. Would they all be responsible for providing passports to their people?
Oh yes, one more thing that just came to mind. Through out Ms. Horns paper, she referred to non-Natives as "squatters". Already she has established second class people. So from what I read, Natives are first class people, and the non-Natives are second class. Does that leave me, an amputee still being a third or fourth class person in this system? Do I some how move up to first class, or second class.
Again there is an assumption that people living on "Turtle Island" which makes up all of Ontario, parts of the northern United States and parts of Quebec (or is it all of Quebec?), will embrace this program. There is some mention though, and just a hint, that those who don't agree can just leave and live in some other area. Again an assumption.
Ms. Horn's paper is idealistic and has some really good ideas, but that is all. The reality is that Ms. Horn is calling for a revolution. Revolutions have a nasty habit of turning violent and unpredictable. A lot of innocent people die in revolutions, and once it is over, there are no real winners.
Again, I found Ms. Horn's paper to be fascinating and informative. Whether it will work or not is something else. There just appears to be too many assumptions.
Well I am saddened by the stupidity of many individuals.
Question 1 - Would you keep negotiations going until a resolution was obtained. 17% said yes, which equals 6,946 votes.
Question 2 - Would you set a deadline for negotiations to bear fruit. 4% said yes to this question which equaled 1,830 votes.
Question 3 - Would you prefer the province to buy out the home owners and assist them in relocating to another community. 6% said yes to this one, which equaled 2,310 votes.
Question 4 - Would you use force to remove the protesters (in other words would you send in the army to clear them out once and for all) Unfortunately 74% of the people voted yes for this question, which totaled some 30,872 votes.
One should understand that the Globe and Mail polls is an on line poll, however in saying that, one can only vote once on this poll as the G&M system tracks the computers address of those who vote, restricting the votes to just one per computer.
I read the "democratic agenda" as found in the Mohawk News Media by Ms. K. Horn. It sounded very interesting and very good. Barring her racial rhetoric, her ideology is a blend of communism and a very loose democracy, that has some traces of Marks/Engels, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, and a smattering of Fascism, all wrapped up and applied to the ideology of the religion of the Longhouse/Peace Maker, which by the way sounds a whole lot like the early Christian church ideology of having all things equal, living in a community that is independent of other communities.
It was interesting to read, but there was something about it that just didn't ring clear. So I am not sure how to say this. Unless I read the article wrong - one of the ideas was that there would be freedom of thought and expression, and then later on I understood the article to say that contrary thinking and speaking would not be tolerated. There were sections that were a bit confusing, so it will need to be re-read at least another time I am sure.
The idea that the community would purchase all industry, companies, etc. and that everyone would be treated equally, and everyone would receive an income of sorts, and the homeless would be given housing, and that there would be shelters for the homeless to use. Ms. Horn, the homeless don't like using the shelters that are free for them already. The ideology is interesting, but the socialism that is expressed is actually idealistic communism, something that not even Native business men (ie Grand River Enterprises) would accept.
There also appeared to be some confusion in the area of government. Ms. Horn expressed that the American and Canadian governments would cease to exist, and then some how assumed that these governments will still provide financial obligations as per agreements previously established. Again, unless I mis-read the article, it sounds confusing.
The Indian Act would be disbanded and all the government agencies stopped, and yet for some reason these people in the agencies and government would be allowed to continue to represent the people and serve the communal government? Not sure if I am understanding that right. As I said, I may have to go back and re-read this again.
Well as always, when a society has nothing to lose and anything to gain, these communistic ideals sound really good. So basically what Ms. Horn is suggesting is a revolution plain and simple. Ms. Horn suggested that the blueprint to follow would be that which has been established by the present day Hugo Chavez and his rebuilding of a socialist Venezuela. The concepts were interesting, but no matter how you paint this kind of socialism, it is really the ideal form of communism, which means that a revolution is necessary in order to bring about the ideological change that is being suggested. Interesting.
I have some questions though. Would only the basic needs of people be met, or would there be the idea that everyone would have more than just their basic needs met? Would there be room for research and development in new medicine, new technology, better education, a social net for everyone, better social services, and security? Would there be recreation facilities and would there be a continuation of sporting events lets say right up to the the NHL, Olympic levels etc.
What about the Physically Challenged (if that's the right phrase to use, there are so many), or the Mentally Challenged. What services would be granted to them. Would they be allowed to live in public or institutionalized so that only the "perfect people" are seen in public? Would their needs be met? Would there even be admission that such people are in the community. The reason why I say this, is that for years Russia, China, Cuba, and many other such states, including Iran proclaimed to the world that they had no disabled people. The all of a sudden in 1984 China admitted they had disabled people and presented a paralympic team. Since then every country seems to have admitted to disabled people. I just wonder if this new country would be similar?
How would you attract new industry to enter into the area, when the owners of the industry know that they will lose their control of their business. Ms. Horn speaks of getting rid of corruption and having a transparent community. We know for a fact that many of the reserves already are led by corrupt individuals of both hereditary councils and elected councils. We know already that many Native communities are not transparent in their operations. Would you, Ms. Horn, force your ideologies of openess on these people?
There is a lot of things that appear to have been taken for granted. It is assumed that things can be taken over without any problems. That people would be happy to live in these "conditions of equality". What if, for example the companies refused to sell? Once these companies are taken over by force, who would run them? Would there be incentives to work? If everyone gets all their basic needs met, and some sort of an income, free housing, etc. why work?
In other words, the kind of society that Ms. Horn is suggesting sounds really good on paper, and I am sure that there are those who wouldn't mind having some sort of government wipe their butts from birth until death. The fact is, your system is only idealistic, and even though it could work, it assumes too many things. Russia proved that such a system can not last. China is proving now even that there are difficulties in making such a system work. Cuba is having the same problem, and so is Venezuela.
In this present secular society, how can it be assumed that everyone, including Natives, will follow the teachings of the Longhouse/Peace Maker? What makes you believe this will happen? There are many Natives who don't even support this concept. Will this be imposed on everyone or will there be the freedom of choice? Again your ideology assumes that the Christians, Hindus, Muslems, Buddists, Atheists, Secular Humanists, Shintos, Jews and more would be willing to "convert" to the religion of the Longhouse/Peace Maker, an assumption that is very dangerous in it self.
Again, I was intrigued by the ideology. It sounds very good and even sounds workable to a point. But there are too many things being taken for granted, believing that it would work.
You need a free market to export an import your products. As a result, there will have to be new treaties and trade agreements made. What makes you believe that the rest of the world would be willing to trade with a number of community governments instead of one national government? Would there be a national government or a body that represented the collective?
What about protection from outside invasion? Would there be a standing army? Would there be a police force? At one point, Ms. Horn's program suggested that there would be no need for a police force (pardon me - police services) nor a standing army. Do you believe that everyone would join forces to repel foreign invasion? With new military technology in the world, how would you defend yourself? Ms. Horn suggests that the military and weapons would be disolved. Very idealistic.
What about travel documents like passports and licenses. The list goes on and on, in areas that I believe assumptions are made without thinking outside the box of the community. Would each Native Nation be a sovereign state? Remember there are 55 main Native Nations in Canada. Would they all be responsible for providing passports to their people?
Oh yes, one more thing that just came to mind. Through out Ms. Horns paper, she referred to non-Natives as "squatters". Already she has established second class people. So from what I read, Natives are first class people, and the non-Natives are second class. Does that leave me, an amputee still being a third or fourth class person in this system? Do I some how move up to first class, or second class.
Again there is an assumption that people living on "Turtle Island" which makes up all of Ontario, parts of the northern United States and parts of Quebec (or is it all of Quebec?), will embrace this program. There is some mention though, and just a hint, that those who don't agree can just leave and live in some other area. Again an assumption.
Ms. Horn's paper is idealistic and has some really good ideas, but that is all. The reality is that Ms. Horn is calling for a revolution. Revolutions have a nasty habit of turning violent and unpredictable. A lot of innocent people die in revolutions, and once it is over, there are no real winners.
Again, I found Ms. Horn's paper to be fascinating and informative. Whether it will work or not is something else. There just appears to be too many assumptions.
