skyclad

Here's some perspective from people living right next door to the biggest land swindle in Canada, currently ongoing http://neighbour1.proboards66.com/index.cgi?board=general

There have been attempts to remove Brant from control on the 6N, Brant although not a sachem was allied with Tekariho:ken, who was the sachem of the 6N mohawks. link below: http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=37284 The traditionalists did try to depose Tekario:ken in the 1811's but failed, it was a case of the progressives and the traditionalists, of which the protestors on DCE today represent the traditionalists. Brant was a pinetree chief, because his mother was not of proper mohawk lineage. His fane came not only from fighting, but from his relationship with William Johnson the Indian Agent to whom Brant's sister Molly/Mary was married to. This allowed the 6N to get easy access to supplies as musket/ball/powder, blankets, iron knives/axes, and food in winter when it was scarce. In today's terms, musket /ball was equal to a F16 in devastating power , as well as making it easier to get food, so Brant was a very important man; thus he was elected pinetree chief. A pinetree chief was almost important as a clan chief, except he could be ignored at the Grand council which met every year at Onondaga, as well, he could not pass on hereditery role of chief to his children.

What is a Quebcois? quite simple, 1) your ancestors had to of come on the boats from France, up to the time of the Plains of Abraham battle. 2) must be able to trace both sides of your family back to that small group in point 1), no mixes as: French/Irish, French, French Hiatian etc... As for the USA, I foresee 5 separate nation within 200 years.

To help you out Riverwind, approx. 11,000 natives live on the reserve near Caledonia. Further, taxes are paid by the purchaser to the Ont/Canadian govt and 'collected by the manufacturer', the manufacturer is not being taxed. On the rez near Caledonia, non native people buy cigs. and gas taxfree and the natives do not collect taxes. That is a no,no as only natives with a taxfree card can buy gas/cigs without paying taxes.

Joseph Brant, his followers and others of the SN whom he extended an invitation to join him, came of their freewill. Their lands after Rev war were still theirs, and lived upon. As Brant believed himself to be friend of the British, wanted to live in a British colony. They (SN) accepted the agreement. And were aware the agreement did not allow land ownership. Which Joseph B, and his son John Brant fought later to change.

Elusive? no, the onus is upon you (Yam) to check the historical facts before presenting a rebuttal, As this subject has been discussed for a lengthy time, I would suggest you review previous posts to bring youself up to date on the context relating to any conditions applied. Oral tradition, while accepted in a court of law as a factor, is not a determining factor, but just a factor. This means the FN have to back the statements up with collaborating oral evidence that proves that the statement is correct. Oral evidence as: specific names, dates, boundaries, all of which is a central weakness of oral tradition, as it is based on generalities, and condensing of fact given by a one sided perspective. In reality, allowing oral tradition by the SCC, makes it tougher for the FN to prove it's case. If any elder/sachem/recordholder, deviates to any degree on the trail stand, it will mean the oral tradition is suspect and no longer is acceptable as evidence. Therefore all FN defense witnesses have to repeat the oral tradition and oral evidence verbatium and exactly !! the same, otherwise it will be ruled inadmissable.

No, the gift was: the right to live, and hunt there (no cigarette factories!!) conditional to the Royal Proclamation, but they did not own nor could sell land. Since the nature of gift was controlled by the Royal Proclamation, all lands were subject to the pleasure of the king, Therefore the abuse of land selling by 1835, caused the gift to be reviewed and modified to the present form it takes today. To review: the gift was the right to live and hunt there, that's it. To dispell the myth of Loyalist land grants, Loyalist were granted land, but they did not own it.

Indeed. There are times when taking a 'middle of the road' position is as useful as King Solomon's proposal to saw the baby in half. A good mediator must be willing to take sides when one side is taking a clearly absurd position. Some times the middle road is the only way, however Solomon had no access to conclusive evidence therefore, he choose that method. If DNA was available, the threat of sawing in half would not be necessary. The evidence in the Claim 406/95 which pertains to the Grand River issue, it is quite specific. Hence the SN, went to Specific Claims Resolution, even there they have stalled.

Oral tradition has it's flaws, for example the Peacemaker, One indian account has it: a huron from Quinte or a huron from Central Ont. or 2 Onondagas or 1 Onodaga and 1 Huron or 2 men and 1 women, which is it...? Further, oral tradition provides ones side's version of the event, whereas a written contract presents a version both sides agree to. In terms of free speech, this is a bit amusing. At council, when called once a year by Onondaga, the chiefs are: Mohawk 9 Oneida 9 Onondaga 14 Cayuga 10 Seneca 8 Tusarora 8 Total of 58. However at council, only 50 chiefs can speak and vote. Tus cannot speak or vote at council, they can pass their comments on by a represenative, a Seneca, I believe. But cannot vote. That leaves 50 chiefs Of which the Onondaga neither vote or discuss issues unless!! there is tie. That leaves 32 chiefs to discuss and vote on issues, so a vote of 19 to 17 decides all SN polices involving all the people. Thats 19 of 58 chiefs, that is not even a majority, 50% plus 1 In council, policy is set by the superiors that is the Mohawk and Seneca, of which the inferiors Cayuga and Oneida can discuss and vote on as well. But they cannot bring up issues. If you are an inferior/subject/adpoted tribe you cannot present any views or pass comments at all, So that's how Iroquois free speech works. With limitations

The Haldimand Tract was not an equal undertaking between two parties. The land was offered as a gift to those who helped the British in the Rev war. The British were under no obligation to provide any land, as no deal was made whatsoever between Britian and SN, in regards to win or loss. Nor, was the SN at any risk of living in their former lands as they had the rights to live there, but would have to live under an American govt, which Brant desired not to. In other words, the SN did not have to come to Caledonia. But, Brant insisted that he and other Mohawks move to Ontario, in which case, land was offered which Brant accepted, but at no time was Britain obligated to provide anything. During the Rev war, the British did not make contact with the conferacy, but appointed Brant as a captain (swore an oath to the King) instructions were given to Brant that certain actions were desired and Brant then of his own accord raised the volunteers, and implemented these desires or actions. A similiar example is Lawrence of Arabia, where direct involvement by the British gov did not occur, but suggested actions were posed in which the Arab league could implement or not implement. In this way, Britian did not have direct involvement in matters. Further, Joseph Brant was well articulaet in the English langauge, as was his son John Brant a lawyer, Jo Brant knew full well what documents he was signing and the meaning of such.

The Jay Treaty can be repudiated tomorrow by both the Parliment and Congress if they wish

I like freedom of speech as well, I like mine to apply to every one as well, especially freedom of life. http://www.dinsdoc.com/lauber-1-1.htm http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/w...ds-l&P=1627 Would that be fries or onion rings with your order?

I stand corrected, thought it was Harvard. Up to the 1850's 95% of Europeans could not read or write at upper grade school level. J. Brant was well above grade school in education,

At the surrender of 1841 the six nations were represented by John Brant whos was a lawyer and was fleunt in English. His father the famous Joesph Brant went to all the finest schools in N. America,as well as what later became known as Harvard. His education was better then 95 % of all Europeans. The surrender of 1841 came about, not because of the Plank Rd issue. But by the chiefs coming to the crown in 1835 and asking for help with a problem. The problem was simple, natives of the band were selling land to white settlers coming over from Europe. And the chiefs were powerless to stop it. The agreed solution was the surrender of 1841.

After the 6nations pushed the Eries and Neutrals out, the Seneca moved in , but disappeared after 2 decades +-approx. The area known as Teiaiagon www.toronto.ca/culture/history/history-natives-newcomers.htm Seneca gone in 2 decades area known as Tinaouataoua 72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:xhN48Rnie0UJ:https://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/FF39F14A-749A-4836-9D18-1E3450F11546/0/ASIExpressPart01.pdf+tinaouataoua&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=11 This was co written with the 6nations so if you have any complaints talk to them. Typical of conquoring groups to move in and take over, but didn't always work out.