mister_v

Don't bother with Tsi, the man is the native version of a white supremacist. Let him toil in his pig sty by himself.

An interesting point in the 1841 documents is the idea that some of the Six Nations chiefs were participating in the sale of Six Nations land to settlers. So on one hand they were selling land to settlers and on the other hand those same chiefs were appealing to the goverment to get those settlers off their land. Sounds almost like fraud committed by a segment of the Six Nations who were the architects of their own problem. In the end the goverment said basically, 'either surrender the land the settlers have purchased from you or we will manage your affairs for you since it is obvious you cannot control your own members'). The goverment could not be expected to remove the settlers (who were almost equal in number to the Six Nations) when the settlers would never be able to get their money back from the Indians. If the government did that, they'd be accomplices of certain members of the Six Nations in ripping off the settlers. To quote directly from the clarification to the Six Nations dated January 15, 1841:

The Iroquois had been exposed to the English for almost 200 years and the Six Nations were living on the Haldimand Tract for over 50 years when that document was prepared. In that 50+ years other land surrenders had been prepared and agreed upon by leaders such as Joseph Brant who were well versed in English processes and legalities. In the case of the Six Nations, at what point does oral tradition fall by the wayside and courts say "at this point your ancestors knew enough about what they were getting themselves into when they signed that document that the documentary evidence takes precedence over oral tradition". Picture this scenario: if there was an agreement reached and documented today with the Six Nations (and in these times they have access to lawyers, they speak english as a first language, there can be no claim of ignorance) will that also be subject to taking a backseat to oral tradition in 200 years when that agreement is contested?

You must have trouble reading, it specified a boundary but by the wording in the Proclamation, nothing about that boundary was permanent along the lines of "this is where the boundary will be now and forever". The Proclamation dictated guidelines under which the westward expansion of the colonies could occur (only through land surrenders to the Crown by the Indians). This is fact.

Wrong. By virtue of the wording in both the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Deed, which state that the Six Nations that are settling on the Haldimand Tract are under the protection of the Crown, the Six Nations are therefore subjects of the Crown. As a side note, the Royal Proclamation also extended the Crown's sovereignty over Indian lands. But don't take my word for it. Logan v. Styres, Ontario High Court 1959:

You must keep in mind that land surrenders with regards to the Six Nations on the Grand River did not require the involvement of other Iroquois bands that reside elsewhere (Tyendinaga, the USA, etc), the surrenders were simply agreed to with those residing at the Grand River. As a result, a much smaller consensus was needed for those land surrenders. The significant land surrenders involving Joseph Brant as the signatory on behalf of the Six Nations were due to Brant being given power of attorney by the Six Nations.

Come on Tsi, from your posts to these boards we all know you want to party like its the year 1600, that you want to relive the glory days of the Confederacy. Be a man, admit it. Here's some harsh truth for you: it isn't going to happen at the expense of the great nation of Canada.

"Adopted". Is that the Iroquois revisionist way to describe genocidal wars where the survivors either fled or were absorbed into the Confederacy? Another wonderful example of the "oral tradition" where the ugly stuff gets whitewashed by the elders as it passes from generation to generation?

Its good to be the chief.

It doesn't look like that citizensofcaledonia.ca website links to the actual Haldimand Proclamation. canadiana.org has a complete set of Indian land surrenders and, for convenience, citizensofcaledonia.ca links to some that are relevant to today's Six Nations shenanigans. The links can be found here. Document #9 is especially interesting since it covers the surrender of the land those wind turbines near Shelburne, Ontario are built upon. A thorough browsing of the land surrenders on canadiana.org could uncover more pertaining to the Six Nations. The text of the Proclamation, along with the Simcoe Deed can be found here (see Appendix "B" at the bottom of the page). What I'd really love to find is a map showing the various blocks of the Haldimand Tract that are covered in the land surrenders and sales (Joseph Brant carved up the Tract into blocks and sold them off).

You forgot to mention that I corrected you in that thread. The Proclamation was set to make any westward expansion of the colonies happen in an orderly fashion. It did not specify a permanent boundary. It simply indicated that any Indian land must first be ceded to agents of the Crown before it could be used by colonists. Nothing more, nothing less. Expansion was not forbidden, it was simply placed under guidelines. The influence of the Proclamation as one of the reasons for the American Revolution is questionable. There were significant Indian land surrenders after the Proclamation but before the start of the Revolution which opened up Kentucky and West Virginia to settlement, placating the colonists and reducing any tensions arising from the Proclamation.

To my fellow loyal and proud Canadians, I think what Tsi and his Six Nations fanatics are trying to say in all their blathering is that the Iroquois are the new Master Race and we are just the sub-human inhabitants of their domain. Haudenesaunee über alles baby!

The Proclamation indicated that expansion of the colonies was only to occur through land purchases by Crown officials of land ceded by the Indians. Hence my reference to orderly expansion. The Proclamation was in no way a permanent boundary. I have a feeling you Six Nations fanatics on these boards never actually read the documents in question. You must be learning about them from that 'oral tradition', taking the Clan Mothers' word at face value like obedient little drones.

When they start finding million year old skeletons of <i>homo erectus</i> in North America you might have a leg to stand on. Time to pull out your pick and shovel and start digging Okwaho, you may just find evidence contradicting all known knowledge of human evolution! The smart money is on the migratory model to North America. Your ancestors were immigrants too.

Canada is NOT a sovereign state. Six nations is. And the Crown's sovereignty is limited by the Royal proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. The Crown never held sovereignty over these lands by their own declarations! The fact that Canada refuses to recognize Six Nations' sovereign right becomes irrelevent since the Crown does and even prescribes that those rights exceed the right of Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are a sovereign and independent state. You neighbour doesn't have and land. He's actually standing on my land and try to asser t I have no right to it. O:nen GOOONNNGGG. Wrong again Tsi. The Royal Proclamation was simply the basis for making sure the westward expansion of the colonies happened in an orderly fashion (among other things it dealt with). The Crown considered all lands, including those Indians resided on, to be under its sovereignty: "And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid." You are mistaking the boundaries of the sovereignty of the Crown with the boundaries of the colonies. They are not the same thing. Its a forgivable mistake but now that its been pointed out to you, we shouldn't be reading you make the same mistake again. Now with the Haldimand Proclamation, and with the more relevant Simcoe Deed, both refer to the Six Nations being under the protection of the Crown (ding ding ding, there's that phrase again, "under our/his Protection"). Being under the protection of the Crown means Six Nations owed allegiance to the Crown, and therefore were subjects of the Crown. But you already know this because its been pointed out to you many times. Your sovereignty only exists in your mind. quod erat demonstrandum

Well done Tsi, another example of Orwellian doublespeak. "Defending" it is not. All land surrenders in the Tract were by the book, the documents readily available for you and yours to educate yourselves. Any acts by the Six Nations such as what is happening in Caledonia, are acts of aggression, well beyond the norms of civil disobedience. And such aggression must be met head on. Though I think you'd rather go down in flames wrapped in the cloak of your fake sovereignty. Such is the calling card of all fanatics.

Thats my favourite part

If this WAS truly the case, which it isnt...then this incident would not still be happening. If the government DID have jurisdiction on their"subjects" land, which they don't..then OPP would be allowed on Six Nations territory, which they are not, as with many other Native nations. The government knows this and THAT my dear watson wannabe is WHY there has been your so-called "lawlessness" in this particular region. Marshall's decision was nothing more than a public plea for more violence in a situation that has potential to be controlled. The only reason the OPP does not remove the protestors is because the Liberal government doesn't have the balls to do so. One does not have to be the Amazing Kreskin to see that. Even the province's negotiators know that historical fact is not on the side of the Six Nations and one of the negotiators has said as much at a recent community meeting in Caledonia. The OPP does not work on the reserve because, in agreement with the province, Six Nations has a police department which is subject to the provisions and level of service in the provincial Police Services Act. The same applies for any other reserve in the province which has its own police department. For those reserves which do not, they are policed by either the OPP or, possibly but I am not entirely sure of, the RCMP. The judge's ruling was the correct one. The Courts are not interested in whether progress was being made or even if there were any negotiations to begin with.

Wake up. They do apply to the Six Nations by virtue of those very documents. Sadly, with you and your ilk, whats probably needed is a harsh day of reckoning. Then, long after the smoke clears, your descendants (who will be prospering as Canadian citizens having not been subjected to your indoctrination of fake sovereignty) will be left scratching their heads wondering why those radicals from the Six Nations made such poor choices.

FYI, I live nowhere near Caledonia.

A masterpiece in historical revisionism. Someone who wants to mold history in order to fulfill their modern day agenda. Orwellian really. The Covenant Chain was a separate ideal from the Two Row Wampum which is natural since it was two different European nations, the British and the Dutch. The Mississaugas were the superintendants of the Iroqouis? That'd be funny if you weren't trying to be so serious about it. The Mississaugas held sway over southern Ontario at the time of the Haldimand Proclamation, that is fact. The Seneca settlements in what is now Toronto were abandoned by the late 1680's, that is fact. Moreover, when the Crown first went to the Mississaugas for the sale of their land in the Tract for the settlement of the Six Nations, the Mississaugas were very hesitant to have their former enemies live there. It was only after they had met with Joseph Brant that their fears were set aside. The Tract was not any sort of traditional Iroquois land. Hence the Crown having to purchase it from the Mississaugas. The Proclamation did not make any indication that the Six Nations had any sort of sovereignty, that was not the spirit of the document nor the intent. But both the Proclamation and the more relevant Simcoe Deed did explicitly say that the Six Nations were under the protection of the Crown. By settling the land under those documents, the Six Nations became subjects of the Crown. Your claim of sovereignty is fake. Listen, I can understand your frustration. If I was trying to rely on BS arguments and getting called on it, I'd be pretty pissed too.

Negotiations have stopped, as they should. When the appeal is denied the government will have no choice but to respect the court's decision and remove the protestors from the site. Because Canadian law applies to the Six Nations as I showed you last night. You are subjects of the Crown, not a sovereign nation. The land was surrendered, the documents are readily available. The Six Nations doesn't have a pot to piss in. You can jerk yourself off all you like but please, don't make us watch.

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.

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

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.