Okwaho

Ok, time to cut off the welfare then. Don't deserve a dime if your not Canadian, we don't give yanks welfare. I think you should pay it all back too, if you indeed were never Canadian. Where's my moola? You have obviously not been paying attention in class.

I am from Grand River and I can asure you completely we are not subjects of the Crown. The Haldimand and Simcoe specifically refer to Six Nations at Grand River. Both of them state implictly friends and allies. If you have access to the Time Life book series on Native Americans look at the volume with Iroquois in it. You'll find that we have our own passport and it's recognized in 36 coutries. You are mistinterpreting the arcaic english. If what you are interpreting was fact our Confederacy wouldn't speaking with the government at this very moment. Yes it is a pickle with the valid Crown land patent issue or again the government wouldn't be wasting it's time talking and especially out of court! I hope that puts things into perspective for you. Indeed the Six Nations are subject to the laws of Canada. There is no misinterpretation. Denying that the Six Nations are subject to Canadian laws doesn't contradict that fact. To attempt to do so flies in the face of the very Deed which gave the Six Nations permission to settle that land. Passports do not imply nationhood or sovereignty. Sealand also issues passports. Another Caledonian in denial!

I was just in Lithuania last september. Not a problem! We have our own passports. If you look at the Time Life Native American series Vol. with the Iroquois there's a photo of one with all of the perticulars in it.

If I had said that against your people, I'd could face criminal charges. He's joking! I have a scalp lock and only weigh 155 lbs. and the tatoos aren't lead-based they're charcol-based.

Boy these Caledonains are keeping us busy!

You are totally wrong. If you'd like to take a ride to the U.S. I'll prove to you going back and forth accross the border. Our Conferacy exists today who do you think is sitting at the table over Caledonia? The Six Nations is something akin to a special type of municipality due to the Simcoe Deed, where special processes have to be maintained regarding land surrenders. Its simply a matter of who represents the municipality; traditional Confederacy leaders or band council, who cares: its the claim of sovereignty that doesn't hold water. Canadian law applies to those in Ohsweken as well as those in Caledonia, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, etc. Unless, by mentioning the existence of the Confederacy, you are trying to suggest that, say, the Senecas in New York State have some sort of say over land claims being made by the Six Nations of the Grand River in Canada? BTW, I went to Darien Lake a couple summers ago. I was able to cross the border too and simply on the basis of telling the customs officer where I am from, no ID required. I must have one of those trustworthy faces. Pretty sly for a white guy So did you tell him you were Rotinonshonni?

The Two Row was made with the Dutch, the French and the British. Within the Two Row is also the Silver Covenant Chain. It's a King's Proclamation to his British subjects. Show me the valid land patents of the Crown purchases as per the Royal Proclamation and the Simcoe then. You see? That's where the government is in bit of a pickle. The Two Row Wampum was made with the Dutch, period. The Covenant Chain was a separate ideal between the British and the Iroquois, along with some other native groups at the time. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Two Row Wampum automatically applied to all Europeans. But I am sure the ideals of the Two Row Wampum were incorporated into the metaphor of the Covenant Chain. As it concerns the Six Nations, the Proclamation stopped being a factor at the end of the American Revolution when the Six Nations lost their lands in New York State to the Americans and the act of the Crown purchasing land from the Mississaugas and the Six Nations settling that land under the Crown's protection. At that point, the Six Nations became subjects of the Crown (and I am referring specifically to those that settled at the Grand River). As for the documents pertaining to the land surrenders of portions of the Tract, I encourage you to visit canadiana.org and look up "Indian treaties and surrenders, from 1680 to 1890". It'll take some reading through but you'll find the relevant material. There is no pickle. Thats only in your mind. I am from Grand River and I can asure you completely we are not subjects of the Crown. The Haldimand and Simcoe specifically refer to Six Nations at Grand River. Both of them state implictly friends and allies. If you have access to the Time Life book series on Native Americans look at the volume with Iroquois in it. You'll find that we have our own passport and it's recognized in 36 coutries. You are mistinterpreting the arcaic english. If what you are interpreting was fact our Confederacy wouldn't speaking with the government at this very moment. Yes it is a pickle with the valid Crown land patent issue or again the government wouldn't be wasting it's time talking and especially out of court! I hope that puts things into perspective for you.

You'd better go back and read your posts on the assimulation issue your talking circles again. This is our land because it was our land. Your ancestors and all that followed came from some place else and enjoyed our generosity and hospitality. They decided they would like to stay and we as good neighbours accommodated them under several agreements. It just happens that we happen to be of a different genetic make up then you are. You're the one that is constantly using the "R" word and trying to make the vain attempt to connect everything to the "R" word. You have forever lost this argument so grow up and move on. Oh and you said the "R" word again.

Most certainly that is what protection referred to, that is why the Simcoe Deed required that land surrenders be made directly to the Crown, rather than direct sales to private parties. However, regardless of WHY they were under Crown's protection the wording is clear: the Six Nations settled that land under the protection of the Crown. As a result they went from being allies of the Crown to subjects of the Crown. Neither the Haldimand Proclamation nor the Simcoe Deed contain any mention of Six Nations sovereignty over the land as that was certainly not the intent of either document, in fact both are very explicit about the protection part. The Tract was simply to compensate the Six Nations for land lost in the American Revolution. The lack of sovereignty is keeping in line with the Royal Proclamation, which did not provide for Indian sovereignty either. In fact, the Crown considered all Indian lands to be under its domain but only those lands purchased from Indians by Crown officials could be settled by colonists. The fact that the Six Nations is settled on land that originally was not theirs (the Tract as outlined in the Simcoe Deed was purchased by the Crown from the Mississaugas) makes any land claims by the Six Nations distinct from any other claims by any other native bands in Canada. You are totally wrong. If you'd like to take a ride to the U.S. I'll prove to you going back and forth accross the border. Our Conferacy exists today who do you think is sitting at the table over Caledonia?

The Two Row Wampum was an agreement between the Iroquois and the Dutch, not the British. The Royal Proclamation makes no mention of any agreements with the Indians, it simply set out (non-permanent) boundaries of the colonies and lays out very explicit guidelines for the expansion of the colonies to only occur onto lands purchased from the Indians by Crown officials or ceded to the Crown (i.e. the colonists were not to purchase lands from the Indians directly). However, all Indian lands were considered to be under the domain of the Crown and the Proclamation did not extend any sovereignty to the Indians. BTW, its not so much the Haldimand Proclamation that should be used, its the Simcoe Deed which both partially re-affirmed and corrected the Haldimand Proclamation while laying down guidelines on how the Six Nations could dispose of the land (ie. only through land surrenders to the Crown, not through direct sales or leases). As for those surrenders not being valid, they were valid. If the proceeds of those surrenders were mismanaged thats a different matter. Today's protestors can't turn back the hands of time. The Two Row was made with the Dutch, the French and the British. Within the Two Row is also the Silver Covenant Chain. It's a King's Proclamation to his British subjects. Show me the valid land patents of the Crown purchases as per the Royal Proclamation and the Simcoe then. You see? That's where the government is in bit of a pickle.

If this thing is 1000 years old why wait til now to try and enforce it? It would appear that had you wanted this enforced it should have been done since the time of Cartier. It is too late now to tell everyone they need to pass a test to get in. You really need to learn your history. Every European country that came here knew about it. The United States and every modern governing system borrowed from it but only enough that they could still control and limit their people. I thought you looked up the Two Row?

Here we go giving deffinitions to that nasty "R" word again! I get warned for calling people imbiciles and you can still get away with calling us racists! We tell the truth, back it up repeatedly and we're still called racists. I've told you twice already about your Queen's debt. If you have an issue with it then take it up with her. I'm sure it won't be a problem since you've so elquently told us how great your "democratic system" is and think that we should opt to follow. Personally I don't think I'll be doing it. After researching it I find the following: a) If I am not one of the majority my voice will never be heard! If I am one of the majority my voice will never be heard! c) If I own a big business I can have the loudest voice of all! d) If I am not an at least an upper-middle class citizen I'll never be an MP much less Prime Minister! e) If I am middle or lower class citizen I must carry the burden of taxes while the upper-middle and upper classes that can afford it get all the tax breaks! f) The wealthier I am the more justice will be on my side! g) Equality means that I can only have equal opportunity because as I can see from the items above I'll never be equal! Nope...I think I'll stay within the Rotinonshonni!!! Thanks anyway! When you use race as the reason for why one group should be put ahead of another group that is racism. If your plan falls into this category, well perhaps you need to rethink your plan. No! That's your plan. To take us out of our way of life and assimulated with yours. What are you trying to pull a Riverbend? Go back and read the posts. It's quite clear what I was saying and you know it. Now matter what angle you try to approach in this issue your not going to change the facts. Your wrong now give it up and move on. By the way...you used the "R" word again!

Theology is another debate. I don't bring God into legal discussions, it's not a rational defence of an argument. You were the one that opened that door; "As a Christian I fear those that try to say God gave them a sole right to anything. The God I know doesn't pick and choose based on the colour of one's skin. It's right up there with Israel is the land God gave them so they have a right to it."

We're not claiming sovereignty...we have never lost it! As for your money you'll have to take that up with your Queen I'm afraid. Canada by way of Her Magesty is still paying her outstanding debts to us. Six Nations sovereignty was indeed lost. The Haldimand Deed AND the Simcoe Deed both clearly state that the Six Nations are settling the land under the protection of the Crown which made them subjects of the Crown as they then owed allegiance to the Crown. By extension, they are subject to the laws of Canada, even where those laws conflict with the Confederacy's traditional form of government. You are mistaken! The Haldimand and the Simcoe state "friends and allies of the Crown." Arcaic English; "under the protection of the Crown" means protected from the Crowns subjects intruding and squatting on our land. Read them again!

As a Christian I fear those that try to say God gave them a sole right to anything. The God I know doesn't pick and choose based on the colour of one's skin. It's right up there with Israel is the land God gave them so they have a right to it. Equally irrational, equally unjustified. They've got to at least come up with a decent reason, treaties were good, but God isn't one to give land based on race to anyone. The same argument was used in South Africa. Really? Does a non-believer enter the kingdom of heaven if they don't believe in Jesus? Did God give the promise land to the Arabs? Need I go on? I spent 7 years studying Christianity at Mac. Div. in Hamilton. I don't think you want to go there!

We don't have to have a village on the the land under the Haldimand Proclamation. We've danced this dance before. Your beloved Delgamuukw case doesn't hold any water on the Haldimand. Get over it and move on. I'm talking about defending our territory from an invading armed enemy that says they own our land when they don't and trying to steal our empty fields from us. My perception of things is exactly like yours.

I thought you live there? At least watch the news? We even have a cook house there. Straight up, you are extremists. What the hell else would you call road blocks and intimidation of an entire community, if not extreme? Damn right people are changing their minds. When the entire country finds out that the natives don't just want more, but they want it all, a heck of a lot more minds will be changed, right quick. There you go off half-cocked twisting the issues again. Why is it that it's O.K. for for everyone else to defend their property/territory but, when we do it we're extremists and terorists? Do you live in Caledonia? How do you know we're intimidating the entire community? What makes you think they aren't intimidating us? How do you know it's not both sides? It's always the natives. Want more? All we want is what under valid agreements belongs to us. I don't think your propaganda campaign will change many minds. Most people are to savvy to fall for your delusive rhetoric. You show me where the native village is, not was 500 years ago, but where it is now, on that land in Calidonia and you can have it. I'm talking about defending my home from an armed group who says they have rights to my land. Not blockading a road and holding some empty fields for ransom. Your perception of things is a bit off.

Straight up, you are extremists. What the hell else would you call road blocks and intimidation of an entire community, if not extreme? Damn right people are changing their minds. When the entire country finds out that the natives don't just want more, but they want it all, a heck of a lot more minds will be changed, right quick. There you go off half-cocked twisting the issues again. Why is it that it's O.K. for for everyone else to defend their property/territory but, when we do it we're extremists and terorists? Do you live in Caledonia? How do you know we're intimidating the entire community? What makes you think they aren't intimidating us? How do you know it's not both sides? It's always the natives. Want more? All we want is what under valid agreements belongs to us. I don't think your propaganda campaign will change many minds. Most people are to savvy to fall for your delusive rhetoric.

I have never said that that I feel that native culture should be assimilated into mainstream society. I have simply said that natives are not entitled to special rights simply because of who their ancestors are. I don't think you understand. We are them.

And you know what that makes you when you choose not to understand why there should be special rights for a race don't you?

Your rediculous demands are pure greed based. For example, asking that the entire annual GDP of Canada be turned over to a group 22,000 people has nothing to do with economic development and everything to do with greed. Not all. I am favour of negotiated deals that will require that the status quo be upset in different ways. However, I feel that any negotiated deal should be based on the realities of today and the text of old treaties is irrelevant. No one (other than aboriginals) have political powers that are passed down from generation to generation. I have no problem with land, property and other tangible assets being transferred from generation to generation. I have a big problem with rights and privileges being inherited. Oh come on Riverbend, would you be willing to give away a few acres of your property for nothing? The greed is purely in the hearts of those who seek to take our land. We are not and never where a conquered people. The treaty of Paris which established the border between Canada and the U.S. is as old as some of our treaties and agreements. Go and tell the Americans; "However, I feel that any negotiated deal should be based on the realities of today and the text of old treaties is irrelevant." Why have a border Canada isn't at war with the U.S.? It's obsolete have it taken out. No sense wasting tax payers money on a 300 year old treaty when you're no longer at war. You see the problem you have with our rights and priviliges is the fact that they are given to us not by you but, by the Creator or God if you will. They've been in place long before Europeans came to visit us here. What you seek to do with us has been tried for generations without success. Now it'll be even harder for you because we are educated this time.

We know you told us. You're ignorant how could you understand?

Aren't those treaties invalid though? That's your whole argument. If they are really invalid, then you don't deserve any of the money. It all needs to be paid back. You see...you really need to educate yourselves on these matters. I mean that sincerely not as a prod. The land issues are extremely complex. They differ from Nation to Nation and Territory to Territory. Treaty no. 6 for example was ceded with the "Medicine Chest" clause. They had medical coverage added into it. Some are valid while many are in valid. That is what is refered to as stolen or unceded/unsurrendered land. That is land that we are seeking restitution for. Everyone seems to think that our land issues, treaties, rights etc. are or can be all lumped together. The fact is that they are as diverse as the Nations involved. Some was legitimately bought and some legitimately leased only. Some has been paid off and some hasn't. That is where any money that our communities recieve comes from. What we're arguing is justice. It may not be fair in your mind but, just. I've seen many posts in which the author refers to morals. I can't see where reneging on an agreement whether it's 3 minutes old or 300 hundred years old contains any moral enlightenment or fairness for that matter. I've also read a post where the author stated; "posession is 9/10ths of the law. Tell that to the local constablitory when you're in posession of stolen property. I've seen posts where the author talks about defending their home if it were to be taken from them. Then in the same breath condemn us for doing the same. If you stopped or couldn't pay your rent or your mortgage on your home what would happen? Yet we are condemned for taking the same actions. However, I'm sure that we could come up with some kind of resolution with home owners just as some cottage owners in Ontario have done in the past.

What Riverbend is saying Native Charm is that he would be happy if we were assimulated into mainstream Canadian society. Sound familiar? They claim we are the "R" word because we will not comply! But we're the "R" word.

No this is my question: What other word would describe a person that insists that 500,000 people should be either evicted from their homes or forced to submit to gov't that taxes them but does not allow them the vote? I know you made the claim that anyone can become a citizen of Six Nations but we both know that citizenship rules can be manipulated to ensure that very few of those 500,000 people ever get the vote. Claiming that they could vote in theory means nothing - just the like the fact that people in the former USSR could vote in theory but in practice they had no rights.If you really believe in democratic rights for everyone regardless of ethnic background then you should make it clear that you would be perfectly happy to live in a Six Nations state where all of the economic decisions were made by the non-native majority. If you are not willing to make a statement like that then it is reasonable to conclude that you don't believe that everyone should have a right to vote. So it appears you are saying that those 500,000 people should not have any rights in a Six Nations state because "democracy is flawed" and the Six Nations people (or at least you and your immediate circle of friends) do not believe in it. Can you please be a little more coherent or maybe more direct at what you are trying to get at? I'm under the impression that you're trying to use the "R" word again because you're trying to take the focus off of your democracy flaws.