And now:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (S.I.S.I.S.) writes: LAND CLAIM CHALLENGES PROPERTY RIGHTS IN N.Y Vancouver Sun, January 16, 1999 by Trevor Lautens [S.I.S.I.S. note: The following mainstream news article may contain biased or distorted information and may be missing pertinent facts and/or context. It is provided for reference only.] The Oneida are scaring non-Indian residents with their legal battle to regain lands ceded in treaties. The governments, federal and provincial, soothingly say the Indian land treaties don't threaten private property. Don't believe them. This quiet, reasonable little corner has scorned that spin for a long time. Glen Clark, Dale Lovick and the other New "Democrats" were probably too busy peddling the party line on the Nisga'a treaty in the legislature Wednesday to read a sensational party-pooping story in that day's New York Times. The United States isn't Canada, not yet, but a top-of-page-one article in the Times points to the flow with which we'll go, since we share the same kind of guilt-ridden retreat in the face of the confident Indian nationalists and their academic, political, judicial, bureaucratic and media sympathizers. The Oneida Indians of New York State near Syracuse are suing state and local governments, declaring that 270,000 acres of their land was illegally taken away from them -- between 1795 and 1840. Today they have only 32 acres. Take note: The Oneida didn't lose their lands through the freebooting of scoundrels who just grabbed it, as is the case in the official version of history in British Columbia. They dealt it away in treaties and land sales. Now, 150 years later, the Oneida claim those deals were unlawful because they weren't approved by Washington. Do you still think Nisga'a or any other treaty will be forever? But that isn't the item. The item is that the Oneida are seeking court approval to expand their suit against 20,000 private landowners. Which is incredible, right? Couldn't happen here. We have the bankable pledge of our B.C. government (has it lied to us before?) that only Crown land is up for grabs in the 50-odd Indian land claims currently in the pipeline. But that's still not all. The U.S. justice department has entered the fray -- on the side of the Oneida against New York State and the 20,000 landowners. That move has provoked "widespread anxiety and anger among the landowners," in the words of Times reporter James Dao. Ah, the Times has always been known for its understated reporting. Dao quotes a woman of 31 who says: "It's amazing that [Washington] basically sided with a foreign nation against us. You hit yourself on the head and ask where do my tax dollars go? Against me?" Canadian content: One of three Oneida groups in the suit lives in Ontario. At least the Oneida chief, who says he's just trying to hasten turtle-slow negotiations, sounds far more sympathetic to the property owners than Chief Ernie Campbell to his non-Indian lease-holders in Vancouver's Musqueam Park. Let's have no misunderstanding. The argument here isn't, never has been, "anti-Indian." Crammed into a small space, it is: Historically, racially based nationalist obsessions have caused huge, spillover problems in Italy, Germany, Spain, Greece, the Middle East, Quebec, and among American black extremists who reinvent Africa. One undivided citizenship works. The present nonsensical transition of aboriginal status from hereditary prejudice to hereditary privilege won't. Ever. :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: CANADIAN CORPORATE LAP-DOG MEDIA : LACKEYS FOR RACISM & THE SETTLER-STATE Letters to the Vancouver Sun - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Letters to Trevor Lauten - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
