CANADIEN

The amount of money held in trust, and whether or not ther was a trust, very from case to case. But the existence of a trust for the Six Nations, and how far it goes bak in time, means there is a lot of money to be accounted for (not the close to 1 trillion number put forward by CR). My point though, was more than since the talk was about money held in trust for the Six-Nations, any comparison to helth and education assitance should be based on the sums that go to these services to the Six Nations, not the First Nations as a whole.

Talking about the Six-Nations, I doubt it.

All thi provesw that First Nations land titles predates Crown land titles, that they are indeed nations, and that they have an inherent right to self-government. Nothing of this means that they are sovereign nations in the contemporary sense of the word.

Out of your context, not the context of the text. Actually, the Huron were a Confederacy. Looks (no suprise there) like your knowledge of First Nations is limited to only the Iroquois. the question is whether or not the Hunting Grounds in question only included the Michigan Peninsula. Reading of the text tells me it did not. Nope. Wrong. The Iroquois attacks of 1648-1650, which practically destroyed the Wendat Confederacy, were as much a factor as the epidemics. A large chunk of the Wendats were absorbed into the five (then) nations of the Iroquois Confederacy. Small groups of refugees fled west and, by 1701, were among the First Nations that, according to Lamothe-Cadillac, were living near... Detroit. I must be, I still believe you might start to think logically and place the Mitchell Map in its proper context. and what about Nanfan Treaty era interpretations of the Nanfan treaty? But well, you are too stuck into misunderstanding the Mitchell Map and the context of its creation. Feel free to show the text of any Supreme Court decision that says that the Royal Proclamation indicated what were the limits of any land surrenders done before 1763 More modern meaning not of the same time period of the treaty. As for accuracy... The text of the ONE ducment that counts, the Nanfan Treaty, contradicts the Mitchell Masp. Feel free to show documents or maps from the time of the treaty that support your theory. Like the Clewes map of 1701 (that's right the YEAR of the treaty) currently n the National Archives of Great Britain. Until then, I will rely on the authoritative source, the TREATY. nope, I have troubles with YOURS Come back when you can use sources CONTEMPORARY to the Treaty to support your theory.

Feel free to point to a map done more than FIFTY year after the Nanfan Treaty as a more authoritative source about the content of the treaty than the treaty itself. In the Treaty, the Five-Nations declare, and I quote that the land being surrendered was . The Aragatika are also known, as you know, as the Hurons. Before their defeat by the Five-Nations, the Hurons occupied the area around Georgian Bay. Their Iroquoian neighbours lived in southwestern Ontario.It is clear from the treaty that the surrendered land included the former territory of those nations, that is south-western Ontario. Unless of course you want to argue that the Hurons lived elsewhere vefore their defeat. Between the map and the treaty, I will refer to the original thank you very much (and yes, I have viewed the map, often enough to conclude that it contradicts the text of the treaty).

AS it has been said before, ask the Government. It was, and remains responsibkle for the money that was put in its trust. Or are we supposed to subscribe to a new theory of accounting that says that, as long as the holder of money in trust wilfully neglects his/her/its duty, then the fiduciary responsibility ceased to exist? Crooks and scam artists all over the place will worship you. Can already imagine the guy brought to court for defrauding investors: - Your Honour, I didn't defraud these people - Didn't they give you money to invest - Yes - Didn't you invest that money for them - Yes - Where's the money? - What money? - The money from their investment? - What investment? - The investment they did through you? - Ther is no such investment - But didn't you just tell that people invested money with you - True, and here are the books recording those investments. But as you can see, I stopped providing any account of those investments 3 years ago. Since there are no current account of these investments and there is nothing mentioning them in my books, they do not exist No judge in their right mind would buy such argument. Don't expect too many people will buy it in this case either

What is hidden very well is any reaction from you to the documented proof that money was held in trust by the Crown for the Six Nations (go back a few postings where I wrote it especially for you)

It is exactly BECAUSE you were the one who first brought the treaty in the argument that I pointed out text that you now dismiss because it doesn't fit your narrative. speaking of lame. what is lame is to brandish that treaty one minute, then to say the following minute that "using semantics" (your euphemism for quoting from the text) is wrong because the text was written by the British. BTW, your claim that the Five-Nations were only surrendering land SOUTH of Lake Ontario seems to be contradicted by this description of the land being surrendered:

I suggest you read again my latest posting. Very attentively and carefully. Especially the paragraph about the Nanfan Treaty.

dup

The problem is that your documentation is interpreted by you in a matter that has nothing to do with reality. Undisputable FACT is that actions and intents of the British Crown made it clear that they were assserting sovereignty in the Royal Proclamation. Interpreting documents the way First Nations saw them can only go to the extent that their understanding was rooted in reality. Call this a colonil mindset as much as you wnat, it is still better than claiming that "if the Six Nations say it, then it must be true" and then using (and misusing) all kind of sources to try to fit them in your theory. That the British Crown did not consider First Nations to be sovereign nations is examplified by the text of the treaty of Utrecht declaring the Iroquois to be the subject of the British Crown, and the fact that the First Nations were not invited by the table at the negotiation of any treaty between "white" countries that had an impact on their land, including the treaties of Paris (1763 and 1783) and the Treaty of Ghent (1814). Interesting, by the way, that you quote the Treaty of Nanfan. That would be the same treaty where representatives of the Iroquois Confederacy declared that they had "subjected [themselves] and lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake wholy to the Crown of England, and referred to King William III as, and I quote, their "great Lord and Master", "souveraigne Lord", and "Great King". That would also be the same treaty in which the Iroquois ceaded to the Crown a vast territory that included... the Haldimand Tract, meaning that in 1784 they no longer owned that land and it had to be granted to them. (text)

In some of his correspondence with colonial authorities, Brant claimed that the Six Nations had a right to sell parcels of the Haldimand Tract similar to the right of Loyalist settlers to sell their land. Different from a claim of soverignty. Besides, I doubt very much you would find a lot of non-Natives at the time who would have throught that buying or leasing land from the Six-nations would have put them under Six Nations sovereignty.

Ask the Government. They misapproriated the funds. But money was held in trust, as evidence by the following: - The first trustees were appointed by Order-in-Council in 1797 - An Act dated 1839 diredted that all sums collected from people illegally occupying Indian or Crown Land be held by the Receiver General and approriated for the benefit of the First Nations. - The investments of money held in trust for the Six Nations is documented up to at least 1855. (a bit of reading for you; now that I take at face value everything that is in there, or that expect you to accept any of it, but it includes way more historical research than "we prevailed, there's no trust")

Never a trust or account, right? Let's build a time machine so you can say that to the 1844 Royal Commission that found problems with the way money held in trust for the Six Nations were managed.

Canadian history is really not your strong suit, is it? Prejudice (not say worst, considering your "just be thankful your ancestors were left alive" stance), on the other end...

Through the Constitution Act of 1867, the federal government became responsible for Idian Affairs. Through the Statute of Westminster of 1931, Canada's assumed all the responsibilities and obligations of the Brtish Crown in regards to Canadian affairs (except changes to our Constitution, until 1982). Like it or not, this is Canada's, not Great Britain's responsibility to assume.

Any calculation would have to take in account what a lease or sale of land would have been worth AT THE TIME, with compounded interests, A lot of money, but I doubt seriously that an independent audit would arrive at 1 trillion dollars or so.

Hear, hear. Serious injustice has been done - and is still being do ne, against First Nations. But the idea that they are independant states in the contemporary sense of the word has no foundation in law or in facts.

On the basis of documents from the time, some from Brant himself, it can also be argued that he was asserting the right to dispose of land that had been granted, no different from other landowners.

Bring it any time, Then it will be my pleasure (along with anyone's with actual knowledge of Canadian and American history) to point out that the settlement of the Six Nations on the Grand River took place after the American REVOLUTION 9not the Civil War, your out by only 80 years or so), when part of the Iroquois Conferedracy (those who followed Brant to the Grand River) SIDED WITH the British.

His free time is his free time, and most people have better things to do that to get into a frenzy because of this, don't they?

Actually, the Bagot Report of 1844 noted problems with government's management of Indian funds (to use the terms of the day). (Bagot Commission 1844 for a pdf file that contains that info) While I find the figure of several hundred billions to over a trillion dollars to be a fantasy, the fact remain that money that was to be held in trust for the Six Nations "vanished", and nowadays the interests alone would exceed the cost of education, helath care and services provided.

Interesting theory about the land in question having been sold by legitimate representatives of the Six Nations. Let's measure it against facts, shall we? 1) NONE of 30 or so claims filed by the Six Nations with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is for land sold by them to white land speculators in the 1790's. In fact, it was the contention of the Six Nations AT THE TIME that they had the right to sell it directly to settlers. 2) The Six Nations claim that the General Surrender of their land signed on January 18, 1841, was invalid because those signing did not have authority to do so - and further, that they had been intimidated into signing it. This clai was raised in a petition from the Six Nations dated February 4, 1841, 17 DAYS after the alleged surrender. Not a new one, now is it? 3) The Six Nations agreed, in January 1835, to LEASE land along the Plank Road (including the disputed land in Caledonia). In 1845, the Government claimed that the land in question had been surrendered. Not tosay that these claims are to be taken at face value, bu they have been around long enough.

Feel free to keep not seeing in the Royal Proclamation things that are there, and have other people say things they did not say. The text of the Royal Proclamation clearly constitute both a guarantee of protection for First Nations and their rights, and a claim of sovereignty. I will not argue that the British Crown had a right to lay such a claim, but the fact remain that it did. BTW, care to show where one can find the map that came with the Proclamation? There is no hint to the existence of such a map in the Proclamation itself.

Hence my question.