noahbody

Canada was in the war at the time. He committed an offense against our allies. Therefore, he committed an offence against Canada.

Of course it meant untrustworthy. I'm also aware of the theory you stated of "Indian" be equated to "false." Why I would lean towards the origin I quoted (if you think it's exclusive to the urban dictionary, you're mistaken) is because it referenced the first known usage of the actual phrase "Indian giver." As to your comment that "who better to understand it 'then' the people who were the target of it," that lacks common sense. Let me demonstrate. You're a hack.* Now, why did I call you this? *name calling for demonstration purposes only

Why would you assume elders and native teachers are experts on the origin of English language? A good example that oral history can be riddled with speculation. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=indian+giver

The origin of the term "Indian Giver" has to do with the native custom of gift-giving. When they gave a gift, they expected something in return. It's not about taking back of a gift. As far as the Simcoe Deed goes, it was done out of a request of Brant seeking a grant that gave them ownership, as he understood the Haldimand Proclamation did not.

That many still associate themselves with the Liberal brand would suggest it's fairly strong on an emotional level. Others realized the product they bought for 13 years was unsatisfactory and not worth their loyalty.

http://www.cambridgenow.ca/npps/story.cfm?id=163

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are both from the Caledonia region and you are native. If so, please explain your use of pronouns. Thanks.

Hands buddy. They're called hands.

LOL That's hilarious. And it would explain why the Mississauga originally said no.

Ohhhh! They're Peacekeepers just like our military.

The 'theirs before contact' case isn't valid due to displacement for a lack of a better term. Further, here is a letter from Joseph Brant where he states they wish to "settle again" and "call their own property." Also, if they believed the land was theirs, it seems funny Brant would have helped negotiate its surrender from the Mississauga.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=533 Here's an admission that the "Six Nation" doesn't know if the money was paid or not, or if it was what happened to it. Funny, how they fail to consider they paid money might have been stolen or squandered by natives. Actually, it's not funny, it's pathetic.

I guess 33% of natives decided to be Canadian on that day.

Any land that Brant sold where the money went to the Confederacy has to be viewed as a contract. There may be probable cause to reverse these contracts, but that means paying back their market value. Can't have both. Sorry.

Any land deal for which the Condederacy accepted payment should be considered a contract. For any of such land to be returned, the Conderacy should be required to pay back its market value. Agree?

If you read their Constitution it states "Should any man of the Nation assist with special ability." Some people would like to limit this to mean only a translator, but it does not. There is record of him being raised.

I think "chief of chiefs" may be a figure of speech. He was also called Indian King in Britian. I do think it is naive to dismiss him as a mere spokesperson. Yes, he was deposed. Guess the traditional chiefs had no problem with breaking their own laws.

This actually went to the Supreme Court 30 years ago. http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/HaldimandTract.htm Guess who was right? Here's a hint: Me

It would seem he was recognized as a chief by the Six Nations, wouldn't you agree?

quote name='jennie' date='Sep 20 2007, 10:53 AM' post='251562'] It was never 'owned' by the Crown. It was traditional Iroquois land. The Mississaugas understood that, though they did not refuse the government's compensation money when they were asked to move. - Haldimand Proclamation http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/fn/fn5.htmlIt's pretty clear it was sold it to the crown. It's not like he sold off the land all in one day. The Confederacy didn't have a problem with it back then. Regardless, the Six Nations would owe compensation equal to the value of the land if they were to try to get it back.

I'll debate that with you in a while. First, do you see how this land proclamation was out of the ordinary? That there are implications since it was owned by the crown, even if for a short while. Also, that 'for ever' would indicate the original intent of the proclamation was that the land was to be non-transferrable? This was not lived up to by both sides. And would you agree that the six nations has no claim to any land sold by Principal Chief Brant?

Haldimand Proclamation and 41 surrender documents: http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/PDFDocum...mand_County.pdf

If the land passed from native to native, I would agree with you. But this is a unique case. It was given by Governor Haldimand to the six nations for the mohawk contribution in the war. It passed from native ownership to Crown ownership when Haldimand purchased it in 1784. Yes, they have entitlement, but ownership is different. Legally, they were entitled to 'enjoy the land for ever.' This should mean the Simcoe Deed, that reduced their land base but granted them "ownership" should be declared invalid because there was no mutual agreement. Seeking compensation based on the original land base minus the land sold off (not leased) by Joseph Brant or transferred in future mutual agreements is fair.

That's the key word isn't it? So, what do the natives own, if anything? One thing they don't have any claim to is mineral rights. This is a certainty. The land in question was purchased by Haldimand from the natives occupying the area and set aside for the mohawks and any other of the six nations that wished to live there. Once the land became crown land, the crown would have to specified the transfer of mineral rights for the natives to had a claim. As to the question of ownership, the Haldimand Proclamation is unclear and left to interpretation. It proclaimed the six nations were to take possession of, settle upon and enjoy the land for ever. The problem is the word "possession" can mean ownership or usage without ownership. This is what left it up to interpretation. It may have been Haldimand's intent to grant title, but he left office the same year. When he left the the proclamation was still up for interpretation by the crown. The following year, Joseph Brant went to England and came home with compensation for the native's war effort, money for a church, but he failed to obtain a title. The King chose to interpret the proclamation as usage without ownership.

I would think he could be tried for treason up here as Canada was in the war at the time he the medic. I think in Canada that's 20 days, served on weekends.