Yesterday I asked the question as to where the coverage was of the Six Nations protest outside Caledonia, Ontario, Canada. While I am not sure which side I take on this issue, I would like to be informed, as most of the news I have seen on this conflict has come from bloggers. Most sites I have seen support the Six Nations protest, although a few have been anti-protest. NONE of the sites I have seen has provided an objective analysis of the situation, information I would sincerely like to have.

One of the responses to my article focused on my position on reparations. For the record, I am firmly against them, even to the point of personally believing they are unConstitutional, violating the prohibition against creating ex pos facto laws. But in any case, the argument for reparations differs from the argument for aboriginal rights.

As many of you know, the history of the settlement of this country was NOT a peaceful one. From shore to shore we met resistance from the natives who had lived in this land long before we arrived. Countless battles were fought, in which the natives waged a primitive form of guerilla warfare against which we were unlikely to prevail. To ensure the safety of our settlers, the government made treaties with the various tribes, offering them land, livestock, seed, cash settlements, or a combination of these things, along with other material good. We coerced their surrender with these treaties, promising them, among other things, possession of the land "as long as the grass grows and the river flows". We then proceeded to systematically violate every one of these treaties against a people we had disarmed under the white flag of truce. The Oklahoma land run is a prime example of the violation of these treaties.

I believe firmly that our government needs to be a government of its word. If we do not honor the treaties we make, we do not deserve respect as a nation. Our government's history is a history of broken promises and treaties, while the government has not been held accountable for breaking those treaties. It is about our honor as a nation.

While the Six Nations incident is specific to Canada, the political situation is hardly unique to our neighbour to the north. What we as a nation have lacked in military supremacy, we've more than made up for in chicanery and double dealing. While I detest the term, it would be small wonder that a minority studying our true history would come to the conclucion that we are a "white devil"; we've pretty much broken every treaty we've ever written, including our own Constitution.

As I stated in my previous article, the practice of slavery within the United States, while abhorrent and completely appalling, was legal within this country. Our own Constitution forbids us from making laws that punish someone for violating a law before it was actually a law. The practice of violating treaties with the various indigenous tribes was not legal, and in fact, was itself a violation of our own government's Constitution. While one could well argue these tribes were a conquered nation, they were conquered and disarmed under a flag of truce, and once disarmed, the treaties made to conquer the nations were broken. Therefore, we did not live up to the terms of these agreements.

Governments owe their indigenous tribes terms of the treaties they have made; nothing more, nothing less. When governments fail to meet these terms, they should be held accountable. I cannot say whether the Six Nations have a legitimate complaint against the Canadian government, but if, in fact, the government DID violate the terms of the treaty, they, too, should be held accountable.