Assimilation

[CANADIEN]

Two comments, first on the Royal Proclamation of 1763, second on the Haldimand Tract

From the Royal Proclamation:

(...) whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#6

The text mentions possession, which as limited as it may have been, implied ownership. Further, the very mention of cession and purchase implies than the British Crown considered that, while it had sovereignty over the land, First Nations had original possessions.

On the Haldimand Tract: from the Haldimand Provlamation of 1784:

Whereas His Majesty having been pleased to direct that in consideration of the early attachment to his cause manifested by the Mohawk Indians, and of the loss of their settlement which thereby sustained-- that a convenient tract of land under his protection should be chosen as a safe and comfortable retreat for them and others of the Six Nations, who have either lost their settlements within the Territory of the American States, or wish to retire from them to the British -- I have at the earnest desire of many of these His Majesty's faithful Allies purchased a tract of land from the Indians situated between the Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron and I do hereby in His Majesty's name authorize and permit the said Mohawk Nation and such others of the Six Nation Indians as wish to settle in that quarter to take possession of and settle upon the Banks of the River commonly called Ouse or Grand River (...)

The word posssession again...

[charter.rights]

I will admit it is entertaining to see people make foul of themselves by claiming that well-known efforts at wiping entire cultures were in fact generous actions that helped preserve those cultures.

That being said, having seen the Mitchell map and read around its background, I disagree with your interpretation of it. It should be noted the first edition of the map dates 1755, the date of the official declaration of war between Great Britain and France, and one year after the failure of the latest attempt at resolving issues arising of conflicting interpretations of the borders set by the Treaty of Utrecht. The Mitchell map was produced in this context, and should be considered first and foremost as British propagenda.

The map shows the limit of Iroquois territory as expending to most of the American mid-west and southern Ontario (not ALL of Ontario) for two reasons. First, the Iroquois Confederacy had destroyed most of the other First Nations in that area through the 17th century. Second. the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated that the Iroquois were now British subjects (a clause that the Iroquois themselves disputed); therefore Mitchell was essentially laying a claim of British sovereignty over the whole area by piggybacking on Iroquois conquests.

Furthermore, I would seriously question any claim that the Iroquois were occupying southern Ontario by the time of Mitchell's map, despite him referencing Northern Iroquois north of the Great Lakes. Beginning with the late 17th-early 18th century, Mississaugas and other Ojibwe nations gradually moved south, and by the time of Mitchell's map they, not the Iroquois Confederacy, had villages horth of the Great Lakes.

If we add to that the Mississaugas were never part of the Iroquois Confederacy (I have never heard that one until today) and that the British Crown later bought land north of the great Lakes from the Mississaugas, not the Iroquois, I doubt very much that any Iroquois claim to the whole or significant part of southern ontario would stand in an independant court (5the issue of the Haldimand tract aside).

The archaeology of the northern shore of Great Lakes proves that the Confederacy Iroquois were in southern Ontario since at least the 1200's. The Mississaugas moved down to the are after a treaty was struck in Taiaigon (Toronto) in about 1665, where parts of the souther territory were handed to the Mississauga for care-taking. However, not all the villages were vacated and many Confederacy Iroquois were still here during the next 100 or so years, until the Confederacy return late in the 18th century.

The Iroquois were never British subjects nor did they ever become British or Canadian subjects. The territory they held, shown in the Mitchell Map was clear evidence of the basis for the Royal Proclamation 1763, since all territories outside of the British colonies spotted along the St Lawrence and Lake Ontario were considered "Indian Lands" meaning Six Nations. The British knew they had to get in tight with Six Nations in order to harvest resources, since by this time Six Nations controlled all trade leaving the Great lakes, and the Ottawa River. The only way that could be done is if the British agreed to protect Six nations in Ontario from the same kind of expansion in New England, that was pushing the Confederacy westward and displacing them in their own homeland.

Go look at the map again, since it clearly states that the Mississaugas were the 8th member of the Confederacy - look above the north shore of Superior. There were in fact many other nations that also joined the Confederacy. There was never and huge extermination of other nations which is nothing more than a popular myth. At the time there were also a number of other alliances and Confederacies that worked together.

The evidence shows that Ontario belongs to Six Nations. Under the RC 1763, the British (and now Canada) must prove that there was a surrender. And believe it or not, the onus is not on Six Nations to prove it wasn't. It is on us, since we were the record keepers. That is the law.

[charter.rights]

Two comments, first on the Royal Proclamation of 1763, second on the Haldimand Tract

From the Royal Proclamation:

The text mentions possession, which as limited as it may have been, implied ownership. Further, the very mention of cession and purchase implies than the British Crown considered that, while it had sovereignty over the land, First Nations had original possessions.

On the Haldimand Tract: from the Haldimand Provlamation of 1784:

The word posssession again...

Its old English.... for gawd's sake...

Possession means "possession" in that they held sovereign possession over the territories "not having been ceded to or purchased by Us". You'll also note the the British confirm that the RC was to "protect" those nations from whatever, threat there might have been at the time. And since Six Nations was a formidable force, they had no need of military protection. The Iroquois only saw the settlers as a threat to the peace.

BTW you need to go back to the whole reason for the British wanting to be here in the first place. They had no interest in territory or land. Their greed was based totally on securing access to the rich resources in the interior, and nothing more...at least until much later...

[Leafless]

I see...You prefer the "la la la la...I can't hear you....la la la" to historical fact?

I don't abide by tyranny of the minority.

Just prior to the Royal Proclamation 1763 (which by the way is current law) the British mapped out what where "Indian Lands" were in order to be included in the Proclamation. Of course you didn't look at the map because it refutes your slimy opinions. Southern Ontario was Six Nations Territory in 1757 and the northern portion was held at least 100 years before the map was published. Citing an article from the racist site - CitizensofCalendonia only indicates that you might be in alliance with those racists.....Are you?

No more of a racist than you are, culture freak.

Do you shave your head and wear a hoodie?

And in a weird way jump around camp fires, grunting and making animal noises, like friends of yours.

No definitely not.

Of course the RC 1763 REQUIRES us to negotiate and obtain a surrender directly from the Nation whose territory we sought to the Crown and no one else. Perhaps you can demonstrate where that surrender of Ontario ever took place, since the legal historical fact shows that S.Ontario belongs to Six Nations. I'd be interested in you showing where Six Nations surrender that land? The truth is that your opinion is empty of facts, now isn't it, and only your racist little heart perpetuates that ignorance in your Jurassic brain.

The fact is, I have nothing to do with YOUR problem and the federal government would prefer not to have either, or your problem would have been settled years ago.

The Charter IS the law. You don't have to like it. But you do have to abide by it.

A purely democratic society abides by majority rule.

I condemn the charter as a racist inspired piece of cultural legislation to LEGALLY allow tyranny of the minority.

Canadians were well protected with rights prior to the implementation of this socialist piece of garbage.

And since Ontario belongs to Six Nations, we cannot legally put a shovel in the ground until we have asked for their permission. Get over it. You are wrong again, bucko.

I have nothing to do with it asshole and neither do you or your Indian friends until they obtain some kind of federal document that says that.

And (just for good measure) you should know...that it will never be reduced to loess than it is today, but it will very likely be strengthened as Canadians recognized that more rights need to be protected form the tyranny of the majority.

Nope, majority rule is what makes society work.

[CANADIEN]

The archaeology of the northern shore of Great Lakes proves that the Confederacy Iroquois were in southern Ontario since at least the 1200's. The Mississaugas moved down to the are after a treaty was struck in Taiaigon (Toronto) in about 1665, where parts of the souther territory were handed to the Mississauga for care-taking. However, not all the villages were vacated and many Confederacy Iroquois were still here during the next 100 or so years, until the Confederacy return late in the 18th century.

The Iroquois were never British subjects nor did they ever become British or Canadian subjects. The territory they held, shown in the Mitchell Map was clear evidence of the basis for the Royal Proclamation 1763, since all territories outside of the British colonies spotted along the St Lawrence and Lake Ontario were considered "Indian Lands" meaning Six Nations. The British knew they had to get in tight with Six Nations in order to harvest resources, since by this time Six Nations controlled all trade leaving the Great lakes, and the Ottawa River. The only way that could be done is if the British agreed to protect Six nations in Ontario from the same kind of expansion in New England, that was pushing the Confederacy westward and displacing them in their own homeland.

Go look at the map again, since it clearly states that the Mississaugas were the 8th member of the Confederacy - look above the north shore of Superior. There were in fact many other nations that also joined the Confederacy. There was never and huge extermination of other nations which is nothing more than a popular myth. At the time there were also a number of other alliances and Confederacies that worked together.

The evidence shows that Ontario belongs to Six Nations. Under the RC 1763, the British (and now Canada) must prove that there was a surrender. And believe it or not, the onus is not on Six Nations to prove it wasn't. It is on us, since we were the record keepers. That is the law.

The Iroquois Confederacy destroyed most of their neighbours as separate nations, and absorded most of their population (in other words, assimilated them). Quite different from extermination, but at the same time clearly not the same as the Iroquois Confederacy extending from five to eight or more nations.

In fact, only one nation joined the initial Five Nation Confederacy: the Tuscarora, who fled with is now North Carolina around 1715-1720, and were welcomed in the Confederacy as a sixth (non-voting) member. Other nations were linked to the Iroquois Confederacy through the Covenant Chain, but they were NOT part of the Confederacy. The Mississaugas, which were not to my knowledge part of the Covenant Chain, were at times allies and at times enemies of the Confederacy, but they wer NOT part of it.

I have seen the map, and know what Mitchell wrote on it. That he wrote it most certainly does not make true though. Nobody else, unless proven otherwise, left any text stating that the Mississaugas were part of the Iroquois Confederacy. There is on the contrary plenty of texts describing the Confederacy as comprised first of five, then six nations.

Context is everything. The Mitchell map is not a 18th-century equivalent of a National Geographic world map or a Perly's street atlas. The original map and the second edition were made at the request of the British Board of Trade, for one purpose, that of "proving" British claims at the expense of French claims. Claiming that Mississaugas were part of the Iroquois Confederacy, and that the Confederacy was subject to British Crown, or expending the borders of Massachusetts north to the St. Lawrence River, are only examples of how that map was not as much a geographic exercise as a propaganda tool.

it is one thing to state rightly, that First Nations posessed the land until cession or sale to the Crown, at that the Crown has the burden of proving that cession has occured. The burden of proving that a given First Nation occupied and therefore posessed the land falls on that First Nation. In the case of land surrendered by the Mississaugas to the Crown, it is up to those who claim the Iroquois Confederacy occupied that land at the time of the surrender to prove the land was Iroquois and not Mississauga. And the fallacy written on the Mitchell map does not cut it.

[CANADIEN]

Its old English.... for gawd's sake...

Possession means "possession" in that they held sovereign possession over the territories "not having been ceded to or purchased by Us". You'll also note the the British confirm that the RC was to "protect" those nations from whatever, threat there might have been at the time. And since Six Nations was a formidable force, they had no need of military protection. The Iroquois only saw the settlers as a threat to the peace.

BTW you need to go back to the whole reason for the British wanting to be here in the first place. They had no interest in territory or land. Their greed was based totally on securing access to the rich resources in the interior, and nothing more...at least until much later...

It's English, indeed, so read it.

Although you may feel welcome to use a different meaning of the word posession than the one used by the British Government in the Royal Proclamation, the FACT remains that it considered those lands as the Crown's Dominions and Territories, and therefore that they considered the Crown had sovereignty and the First Nations posssession on land not ceded or sold.

And it should also be clear that I believe that land not ceded or sold to the Crown is owned by whatever Nations occupying it.

[CANADIEN]

A Map of the British and French Dominions in North America with the Roads, Distances, Limits and Extent of the Settlements.

The title itself is a clue as to the aim of its author. The original map, as I stated, dates 1755 (here's a link to a page on the copy of the second print of the 1755 edition, held by the Library of Congress, [email=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/gmd:@field(NUMBER+@band(g3300+np000009))]http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/gmd:@field(NUMBER+@band(g3300+np000009))[/email]).

You make a lot of the fact the map was done a few years before the Royal Proclamation of 1763, as if the map had been made for the purpose of marking the boundary of the land possessed by First Nations. That was not its purpose. The map was drawn for the sole and clear purpose of backing British claims against French claims. The Royal Proclamation came AFTER the territorial dispute between the two European nations ended with the Treaty of Paris.

It is easy to read word on a map. Actually interpreting it in its proper context is another matter all together.

[CANADIEN]

AS for the topic of assimilation...

It is clear that most of our sets of reference for our laws, our political system and relationships between the various components of our society are British in origin. Newcomers should keep this in mind when INTEGRATING in our society. Integration, though, is not assimilation, that is the complete abandonment by individuals of their cultural identity and practice.

Immigrants should integrate into our society. They do not have or need to assimilate to do so.

Further, respect for the rights of the individuals is one of the hallmarks of our British and Canadian heritage, including the notion that these rights are not be trampled upon even in the name of the majority of citizens. Our Charter may not be perfect, but it examplifies the best of who we are as a society.

[charter.rights]

It is easy to read word on a map. Actually interpreting it in its proper context is another matter all together.

Exactly. And that is why you are out of your league. The map was the precursor to the Royal Proclamation. It was commissioned on behalf of the King so they could reference the lands to be covered under the Proclamation.

France and Britain were not in some legal dispute. They were in a battle for the resources and could have cared less for ownership of the land. Without the Confederacy as allies, the British never would have been able to displace the French in the Americas, and gain access to the riches.

Edited June 15, 2008 by charter.rights

[CANADIEN]

Exactly. And that is why you are out of your league. The map was the precursor to the Royal Proclamation. It was commissioned on behalf of the King so they could reference the lands to be covered under the Proclamation.

France and Britain were not in some legal dispute. They were in a battle for the resources and could have cared less for ownership of the land. Without the Confederacy as allies, the British never would have been able to displace the French in the Americas, and gain access to the riches.

Article 15 of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) reads (in the original French text)

Les habitans du Canada et autres sujets de la France, ne molesteront point à l'avenir les cinq nations ou cantons des Indiens soumis à la Grande-Bretagne (...)

The British interpreted it as meaning the Itoquois Confederacy and its lands were under British sovereignty, while the French contested that interpretation. French and British commissioners met first in 1715, then between 1750 and 1754, to settle questions arising from the treaty as to the borders of their mutual claims, without success (source: Historical Atlas of Canada, vol. 1). The two powers may have not sought posession of land (not a claim I would make anyway), but they were most certainly engaged in a dispute as to who had sovereignty over it.

As for the contention that Mitchell's map was commissioned in order to "reference the lands" that were covered in 1763 in the Royal Proclamation, it has no foundation in facts. First, Mitchell's stated intention was to show the extent of French and British claims in North America and point out what he considered to be French encroachments on British territory (more of this on the Web page by the Osher Map Library of the University of Southern Maine on their copy of Mitchell's map, [email=http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/mitchell/toc.html]http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/mitchell/toc.html[/email].

Second, as I have already pointed out, the title of the map itself is a clue as to the intent of its creator.

Further, the claim that Mitchell's map was commissioned in preparation for the Royal Proclamation ignores that more than two-thirds of the Proclamation said nothing about Indian land, but rather spoke about the creation of four new British colonies, Quebec, East and West Florida, and Grenada, out of territories acquired from France and Spain in the Treaty of Paris (1763). I doubt very that the British Government knew in 1755 that France would be so utterly defeated eight years later that it would have to surrender virtually all of its North American empire. The full text of the Proclamation can be found at [email=http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#2]http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#2[/email]

So far I have... the text of the Treaty of Utrecht, the text of the Royal Proclamation, Web information from academic sources, and the fact that Mitchell is (unless proven otherwise), the only 18th-century person claiming that the Mississaugas were part of the Iroquois Confederacy.

As for you, CR, you have even one 18th-century text supporting Mitchell's claim about the Misssissaugas? Or some academic sources supporting your claim that the map was prepared as part of the preparation for the Royal proclamation of 1763? I didn't think so.

I may be out of my league, but clearly your are not even near the ball park.

PS: You will note that I have not touched the issue of the role played by the Iroquois as allies of Great-Britain. And I won't, it has nothing to do with your ignorant claims about Mitchell's map.

[charter.rights]

Article 15 of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) reads (in the original French text)

The British interpreted it as meaning the Itoquois Confederacy and its lands were under British sovereignty, while the French contested that interpretation. French and British commissioners met first in 1715, then between 1750 and 1754, to settle questions arising from the treaty as to the borders of their mutual claims, without success (source: Historical Atlas of Canada, vol. 1). The two powers may have not sought posession of land (not a claim I would make anyway), but they were most certainly engaged in a dispute as to who had sovereignty over it.

As for the contention that Mitchell's map was commissioned in order to "reference the lands" that were covered in 1763 in the Royal Proclamation, it has no foundation in facts. First, Mitchell's stated intention was to show the extent of French and British claims in North America and point out what he considered to be French encroachments on British territory (more of this on the Web page by the Osher Map Library of the University of Southern Maine on their copy of Mitchell's map, [email=http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/mitchell/toc.html]http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/mitchell/toc.html[/email].

Second, as I have already pointed out, the title of the map itself is a clue as to the intent of its creator.

Further, the claim that Mitchell's map was commissioned in preparation for the Royal Proclamation ignores that more than two-thirds of the Proclamation said nothing about Indian land, but rather spoke about the creation of four new British colonies, Quebec, East and West Florida, and Grenada, out of territories acquired from France and Spain in the Treaty of Paris (1763). I doubt very that the British Government knew in 1755 that France would be so utterly defeated eight years later that it would have to surrender virtually all of its North American empire. The full text of the Proclamation can be found at [email=http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#2]http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#2[/email]

So far I have... the text of the Treaty of Utrecht , the text of the Royal Proclamation, Web information from academic sources, and the fact that Mitchell is (unless proven otherwise), the only 18th-century person claiming that the Mississaugas were part of the Iroquois Confederacy.

As for you, CR, you have even one 18th-century text supporting Mitchell's claim about the Misssissaugas? Or some academic sources supporting your claim that the map was prepared as part of the preparation for the Royal proclamation of 1763? I didn't think so.

I may be out of my league, but clearly your are not even near the ball park.

PS: You will note that I have not touched the issue of the role played by the Iroquois as allies of Great-Britain. And I won't, it has nothing to do with your ignorant claims about Mitchell's map.

The Treaty of Utrecht has no bearing on the relationship of Six Nations to Great Britian.

Les habitans du Canada et autres sujets de la France, ne molesteront point à l'avenir les cinq nations ou cantons des Indiens soumis à la Grande-Bretagne

"The habitants of Canada and other subjects of France, will not manhandle the five nations in future or districts of Indian subjected in Great Britain"

In fact, they sought guarantees that the French would not harass Six Nations for being allied with the British. Neither did they state that Six Nations was under their control, but rather confirmed that the French would not move into "Indian Lands" as the British needed access to the west and without Six Nations cooperation they could not gain an economic stronghold.

Secondly, the Royal Proclamation 1762 was a direct result of Six Nations being in the face of Great Britian. The Iroquois saw that colonial settlement was a threat to their lands. The theme runs through the Convenant Chain, the Royal Proclamation and then the Haldimand Proclamation. It also continued after SN settled at Haldimand (and Quinte) as there were a number of delegations and letters to the Governor protesting occupations of not only the Haldimand and Quinte, but of encroachments in adjacent lands. Brant and Deseronto had secured an agreement that settlers would not move close to them.

I have a copy of a 17th century account of the ceremony where the SN handed the land to the Mississauga and became one of the nations. (The Abenaki became the 7th nation before that.) This had been related to me by a number of Elders and Knowledge Keepers of the Cayuga and Mohawk as part of their oral history. Once the eye witness account (a courier du bois at Taiaigon) was sent to me it confirmed what I had been told earlier.

Your web based references only support popular myths. You have to dig a lot further than that to get at the truth. In addition to all the web-based resources I have examined, I also have studied a number of archaeology reports along the north shores of Ontario and Erie that confirm that the Confederacy was in southern Ontario as early as the 13th century. Archaeologists are just beginning to re-examine sites since they had also succumbed to the myth that the Confederacy Iroquois were late-comers. I'm told by an archaeologist who completed a number of digs in S.Ontario that they expect to find earlier occupations since a number of the sites were occupied multiple times, and it is apparent from the settlement patterns and the estimated populations that they did not just arrive all at once. Accordingly they now believe that the settlements (some as large as 8000-10,000 people with some farming settlements with populations of 1000-1,500 supporting the larger one) might have started as camps from the south and turned into full villages a few centuries earlier.

As well, I have access to lands claims documents (that go into the letters and agreements made with the British) that are not available on the web and have discussed at length with some of Six Nations and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte researchers. As well as a personal library full of information collected over the years on the history of the Iroquois.

The Mitchell Map is just one of the many documents that comprise a total collection of information that examines the truth. I don't put weight on the Mitchell Map as a sole source of information but when it is put together with other information and confirmed by British records, it becomes an important piece of the puzzle. It is an indicator of the what the British were contemplating at the time. It also graphically demonstrates that the British had a basic respect for the Iroquois, since it did not declare sovereignty over the lands (when as you indicated was a slam dunk) but full recognized the extent that Six Nations claimed as their territory and 6 years later declare the lands off limits to all settlers.

[CANADIEN]

The Treaty of Utrecht has no bearing on the relationship of Six Nations to Great Britian.

"The habitants of Canada and other subjects of France, will not manhandle the five nations in future or districts of Indian subjected in Great Britain"

In fact, they sought guarantees that the French would not harass Six Nations for being allied with the British. Neither did they state that Six Nations was under their control, but rather confirmed that the French would not move into "Indian Lands" as the British needed access to the west and without Six Nations cooperation they could not gain an economic stronghold.

Secondly, the Royal Proclamation 1762 was a direct result of Six Nations being in the face of Great Britian. The Iroquois saw that colonial settlement was a threat to their lands. The theme runs through the Convenant Chain, the Royal Proclamation and then the Haldimand Proclamation. It also continued after SN settled at Haldimand (and Quinte) as there were a number of delegations and letters to the Governor protesting occupations of not only the Haldimand and Quinte, but of encroachments in adjacent lands. Brant and Deseronto had secured an agreement that settlers would not move close to them.

I have a copy of a 17th century account of the ceremony where the SN handed the land to the Mississauga and became one of the nations. (The Abenaki became the 7th nation before that.) This had been related to me by a number of Elders and Knowledge Keepers of the Cayuga and Mohawk as part of their oral history. Once the eye witness account (a courier du bois at Taiaigon) was sent to me it confirmed what I had been told earlier.

Your web based references only support popular myths. You have to dig a lot further than that to get at the truth. In addition to all the web-based resources I have examined, I also have studied a number of archaeology reports along the north shores of Ontario and Erie that confirm that the Confederacy was in southern Ontario as early as the 13th century. Archaeologists are just beginning to re-examine sites since they had also succumbed to the myth that the Confederacy Iroquois were late-comers. I'm told by an archaeologist who completed a number of digs in S.Ontario that they expect to find earlier occupations since a number of the sites were occupied multiple times, and it is apparent from the settlement patterns and the estimated populations that they did not just arrive all at once. Accordingly they now believe that the settlements (some as large as 8000-10,000 people with some farming settlements with populations of 1000-1,500 supporting the larger one) might have started as camps from the south and turned into full villages a few centuries earlier.

As well, I have access to lands claims documents (that go into the letters and agreements made with the British) that are not available on the web and have discussed at length with some of Six Nations and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte researchers. As well as a personal library full of information collected over the years on the history of the Iroquois.

The Mitchell Map is just one of the many documents that comprise a total collection of information that examines the truth. I don't put weight on the Mitchell Map as a sole source of information but when it is put together with other information and confirmed by British records, it becomes an important piece of the puzzle. It is an indicator of the what the British were contemplating at the time. It also graphically demonstrates that the British had a basic respect for the Iroquois, since it did not declare sovereignty over the lands (when as you indicated was a slam dunk) but full recognized the extent that Six Nations claimed as their territory and 6 years later declare the lands off limits to all settlers.

Now that I finished laughing at some of the absurdities you post...

The correct translation of the text of the treaty of Utrecht would be "the Five Nations or districts of the Indians subjected to Great Britain" (actually, I am a translator ). This makes it very clear that the British Government considered the Iroquois as being their subjects, which implies a British claim of sovereignty (which you are clearly unable to distinguish from ownership); similarly, the fact that the British Crown referred to the Indian territory as ITS territory and dominion in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 makes their position very clear. As well as the fact that the Mitchell Map includes a claim of British sovereignty on the area they considered to be in the possession of the Six-Nations.

Which is not undermining the three things you got right: that the Six Nations (I thought they were at least eight... according to you) were an important allied of Great Britain, that there is eidence of Iroquoian settlement dating as far back as the 12th-13th centuries north of Lake Ontario (as well as evidence that they had been displaced by the Mississaugas by the middle of the 18th-century), and that one of the objectives of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was to respond to concerns by the Iroquois (and other First Nations) about encroachment by white settlers (while, as clearly stated in the text iteself, making a claim of British sovereignty over Indian territory).

I would be even be willing to give you kudos for (rightly) pointing out that the members of the Iroquois Confederacy who settled on the Haldimand Tract and the Bay of Quinte area were (rightly) concerned about white encroachment... if you were not shooting yourself in the foot in the process. If, as you claim, the Mississaugas were the eighth members in the Iroquois Confederacy (of six Nations), why did the British Government buy land from the Mississaugas (and therefore, according to you, the Iroquois Confederacy) so that Iroquois could settle on land which (to follow your "logic") they already owned?

Which lead me to... the big laugh. While there were treaties between the Iroquois Confederacy and the Mississaugas, the claim that it made them the eight member of the Iroquois Confederacy is based (at least if we follow your "logic") on the notion than the Abenakis had already become the seven Nation. Which would mean that both the 7th and 8th members of the Confederacy joined it BEFORE the known 6th members (the Tuscaroras, between 1715 and 1720). A fact that, among others, the British and French diplomats who wrote the Treaty of Utrecht must have not been told about, since they mention the FIVE nations... and a fact that (in regard to the Abenakis), Mitchell must have been unaware of since he placed traditional Abenaki land as part of New England colonies.

Do yourself a favour, and learn to read the information you have at your disposal.

Edited June 16, 2008 by CANADIEN

[charter.rights]

Now that I finished laughing at some of the absurdities you post...

The correct translation of the text of the treaty of Utrecht would be "the Five Nations or districts of the Indians subjected to Great Britain" (actually, I am a translator ). This makes it very clear that the British Government considered the Iroquois as being their subjects, which implies a British claim of sovereignty (which you are clearly unable to distinguish from ownership); similarly, the fact that the British Crown referred to the Indian territory as ITS territory and dominion in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 makes their position very clear. As well as the fact that the Mitchell Map includes a claim of British sovereignty on the area they considered to be in the possession of the Six-Nations.

Which is not undermining the three things you got right: that the Six Nations (I thought they were at least eight... according to you) were an important allied of Great Britain, that there is eidence of Iroquoian settlement dating as far back as the 12th-13th centuries north of Lake Ontario (as well as evidence that they had been displaced by the Mississaugas by the middle of the 18th-century), and that one of the objectives of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was to respond to concerns by the Iroquois (and other First Nations) about encroachment by white settlers (while, as clearly stated in the text iteself, making a claim of British sovereignty over Indian territory).

I would be even be willing to give you kudos for (rightly) pointing out that the members of the Iroquois Confederacy who settled on the Haldimand Tract and the Bay of Quinte area were (rightly) concerned about white encroachment... if you were not shooting yourself in the foot in the process. If, as you claim, the Mississaugas were the eighth members in the Iroquois Confederacy (of six Nations), why did the British Government buy land from the Mississaugas (and therefore, according to you, the Iroquois Confederacy) so that Iroquois could settle on land which (to follow your "logic") they already owned?

Which lead me to... the big laugh. While there were treaties between the Iroquois Confederacy and the Mississaugas, the claim that it made them the eight member of the Iroquois Confederacy is based (at least if we follow your "logic") on the notion than the Abenakis had already become the seven Nation. Which would mean that both the 7th and 8th members of the Confederacy joined it BEFORE the known 6th members (the Tuscaroras, between 1715 and 1720). A fact that, among others, the British and French diplomats who wrote the Treaty of Utrecht must have not been told about, since they mention the FIVE nations... and a fact that (in regard to the Abenakis), Mitchell must have been unaware of since he placed traditional Abenaki land as part of New England colonies.

Do yourself a favour, and learn to read the information you have at your disposal.

Your smugness is showing through and making your intelligence look transparent.

The British did not "buy" the land from the Mississauga. They paid them to relocate back to the north shore of Superior. There weren't many here by that time anyway since they couldn't stand living anywhere near the settlers. Their prophesy had told them centuries earlier that the colonial disease would come and they were to flee (their original homelands thousands of years earlier, were in the Florida panhandle according to their oral history) , look for the abundant rice fields and not look back.

Tuscaroa were never considered by the Confederacy to be the "sixth" nation, but were invited into the council as younger brothers to their Seneca who represent them in all business. The Cat Nation, Neutrals and Tobacco were represented in a similar way. It was the British that assumed they were "Six Nations" after the Tuscarora entered. The seventh nation was indeed added long before the Tuscaroras and there is oral record of there being 10 nations and more who were eventually incorporated under the Confederacy. The problem with record keeping is that the Great Law provided that once a nation was incorporated, they were no longer allowed to mention their nation of origin and they becamse their sponsoring nation. Understanding the way the Confederacy operated is key. They are not a nation but are Council comprised of many nations whose goal is to advance the peace. Their symbol of 5 bound arrows represents that in unity and strength, their alliances cannot be broken. Since the Confederacy controlled economic trade through-out North America (and evidence suggests even from South America to the north) the Confederacy alliance was an appealing organization for nations to willingly join. Those that didn't want to join would not have stood in their way for economic supremacy. So long as foreign nations were not a threat to the peace and the alliance, there was no conflict.

The British knew who the trade masters were and could not gain access without also finding some alliance. For this they created the Convenant Chain - The Treaty of Good Will and Friendship which was a series of treaties not only with the Iroquois but with other nations who might have an interest in the resources. This allowed the British to be recognized as a partner and ally of the Iroquois so that they could explore and then reconcile the profits with the Iroquois. The Wendat tried to create the same relationship with the French. However, because they were limited in territory they could not control the lands north of Lake Ontario and eventually were driven east to Montreal when the Iroquois gained control of the Ottawa River - the French route to the west.

Now you can laugh all you want, but as a simpleton all your laughter represents is an entrenchment in your ignorance. I would suggest that you get off the internet and do some solid research on the issue. The internet is ethereal and your dependence on it is as valuable as ship sailing in a fog. You've proven that already. Perhaps so as not to embarrass yourself further you should just move on. Like I said you are out of your league.

[CANADIEN]

Your smugness is showing through and making your intelligence look transparent.

The British did not "buy" the land from the Mississauga. They paid them to relocate back to the north shore of Superior. There weren't many here by that time anyway since they couldn't stand living anywhere near the settlers. Their prophesy had told them centuries earlier that the colonial disease would come and they were to flee (their original homelands thousands of years earlier, were in the Florida panhandle according to their oral history) , look for the abundant rice fields and not look back.

Tuscaroa were never considered by the Confederacy to be the "sixth" nation, but were invited into the council as younger brothers to their Seneca who represent them in all business. The Cat Nation, Neutrals and Tobacco were represented in a similar way. It was the British that assumed they were "Six Nations" after the Tuscarora entered. The seventh nation was indeed added long before the Tuscaroras and there is oral record of there being 10 nations and more who were eventually incorporated under the Confederacy. The problem with record keeping is that the Great Law provided that once a nation was incorporated, they were no longer allowed to mention their nation of origin and they becamse their sponsoring nation. Understanding the way the Confederacy operated is key. They are not a nation but are Council comprised of many nations whose goal is to advance the peace. Their symbol of 5 bound arrows represents that in unity and strength, their alliances cannot be broken. Since the Confederacy controlled economic trade through-out North America (and evidence suggests even from South America to the north) the Confederacy alliance was an appealing organization for nations to willingly join. Those that didn't want to join would not have stood in their way for economic supremacy. So long as foreign nations were not a threat to the peace and the alliance, there was no conflict.

The British knew who the trade masters were and could not gain access without also finding some alliance. For this they created the Convenant Chain - The Treaty of Good Will and Friendship which was a series of treaties not only with the Iroquois but with other nations who might have an interest in the resources. This allowed the British to be recognized as a partner and ally of the Iroquois so that they could explore and then reconcile the profits with the Iroquois. The Wendat tried to create the same relationship with the French. However, because they were limited in territory they could not control the lands north of Lake Ontario and eventually were driven east to Montreal when the Iroquois gained control of the Ottawa River - the French route to the west.

Now you can laugh all you want, but as a simpleton all your laughter represents is an entrenchment in your ignorance. I would suggest that you get off the internet and do some solid research on the issue. The internet is ethereal and your dependence on it is as valuable as ship sailing in a fog. You've proven that already. Perhaps so as not to embarrass yourself further you should just move on. Like I said you are out of your league.

Bizarre, isn't it, that archaelogical evidence shows that the Mississaugas came to southern Ontario from north of Lake Superior in the late17th and 18th centuries, and not the other way around at the end of the 18th century, unless of course they came south, then came back north, then came back south again -- gotta ask, since all the Missisauga reservations are in southern Ontario, not north of Lake Superior.

Bizarre, isn't it, that the Tuscaroras were a junior member of the Iroquois Confederacy and remained a distinct Nation but that the Neutrals, Cats, etc. were just absorbed in the Five-Nations and ceased to exist as distinct nations, yet in our "logic" that means they had the same status.

Bizarre, isn't it, that the Wyendats that fled east end up not in Montreal but just north of Quebec City.

Bizarre, isn't it, that there is a difference between the Iroquois Confederacy controlling much of the trade in the north-east part of North America, and therefore being a much-needed trade partner on a continental scale, and them controlling the trade across the continent. I am sure that the Aleut were secretly cursing themselves for not having allied with their iroquois trade partners before the Russians came in.

What is bizarre, though, is that you managed to have one good idea. I should indeed strive to learn more that I already know about the history of our First Nations. Which means I won't read any other postings you have on the topic. Because I'd rather learn from people who know something than from you.

[charter.rights]

Bizarre, isn't it, that archaelogical evidence shows that the Mississaugas came to southern Ontario from north of Lake Superior in the late17th and 18th centuries, and not the other way around at the end of the 18th century, unless of course they came south, then came back north, then came back south again -- gotta ask, since all the Missisauga reservations are in southern Ontario, not north of Lake Superior.

Bizarre, isn't it, that the Tuscaroras were a junior member of the Iroquois Confederacy and remained a distinct Nation but that the Neutrals, Cats, etc. were just absorbed in the Five-Nations and ceased to exist as distinct nations, yet in our "logic" that means they had the same status.

Bizarre, isn't it, that the Wyendats that fled east end up not in Montreal but just north of Quebec City.

Bizarre, isn't it, that there is a difference between the Iroquois Confederacy controlling much of the trade in the north-east part of North America, and therefore being a much-needed trade partner on a continental scale, and them controlling the trade across the continent. I am sure that the Aleut were secretly cursing themselves for not having allied with their iroquois trade partners before the Russians came in.

What is bizarre, though, is that you managed to have one good idea. I should indeed strive to learn more that I already know about the history of our First Nations. Which means I won't read any other postings you have on the topic. Because I'd rather learn from people who know something than from you.

No. The archaeology does not show an 18th century emergence of the Mississauga in southern Ontario. They have always been here in small numbers. In fact the archaeology of the north shore villages of lakes Ontario and Erie shows that the Mississauga co-habitated with the Confederacy villages during the 12th to 14th century.

No. It isn't bizarre because the Tuscarora were not "junior members" They were full members of the Confederacy represented by their constituent Seneca Royaner.

No. It isn't bizarre that the Iroquois controlled North and South America trade because there is a difference between controlling it and owning it. Six nations had control of the routes that everyone else had to travel to make contact. AND because they frequented trade with many nations, they created the open door that was needed by the British to gain access to interior resources.

You aren't interested in learning anything more because it conflicts with your myopic view that natives somehow owe you something. By breaking up those myths, it could risk your entire world view being destroyed. And like most entrenched colonial supremacists you would no longer exist in your own mind. But well enough that you leave alone. You have a very limited ability to listen - a pre-requisite for learning.

[CANADIEN]

No. The archaeology does not show an 18th century emergence of the Mississauga in southern Ontario. They have always been here in small numbers. In fact the archaeology of the north shore villages of lakes Ontario and Erie shows that the Mississauga co-habitated with the Confederacy villages during the 12th to 14th century.

No. It isn't bizarre because the Tuscarora were not "junior members" They were full members of the Confederacy represented by their constituent Seneca Royaner.

No. It isn't bizarre that the Iroquois controlled North and South America trade because there is a difference between controlling it and owning it. Six nations had control of the routes that everyone else had to travel to make contact. AND because they frequented trade with many nations, they created the open door that was needed by the British to gain access to interior resources.

You aren't interested in learning anything more because it conflicts with your myopic view that natives somehow owe you something. By breaking up those myths, it could risk your entire world view being destroyed. And like most entrenched colonial supremacists you would no longer exist in your own mind. But well enough that you leave alone. You have a very limited ability to listen - a pre-requisite for learning.

The First Nations don't owe me one thing, I actually see it the other way around, but of course to you anybody who don't agree with your misreading of the facts is a racist (of course,, it is very racist to know that the Mississauga themselves consider their ancestors moved into southern Ontario at the end of the 17th century and did not return north of Lake Superior and the 18th, 19th or 20th century).

And it is because I have been listening to you that I know that a pre-requisite to learning more about our First Nations past is to ignore you.

[charter.rights]

The First Nations don't owe me one thing, I actually see it the other way around, but of course to you anybody who don't agree with your misreading of the facts is a racist (of course,, it is very racist to know that the Mississauga themselves consider their ancestors moved into southern Ontario at the end of the 17th century and did not return north of Lake Superior and the 18th, 19th or 20th century).

And it is because I have been listening to you that I know that a pre-requisite to learning more about our First Nations past is to ignore you.

The Mississauga were always here, as mentioned earlier. They don't believe the myths that were created by the Canadian government that they returned here in the 18th century, either. According to local chiefs and my cousin's husband (who is a former chief, present councilor and lands claim researcher) they acknowledge the Confederacy membership. According to them (and "they" include most the bands in eastern, southern and south western Ontario) "they" have been here for a long time.

This is priceless:

about our First Nations

Anyone who promotes ownership of people must be a racist.

[White Doors]

Don't you get tired of calling everyone a racist? Have you ever disagreed with anyone on here without referring to them as a racist? Do you think having to resort to falsehoods and misrepresenting facts as weak? And on top of that, when someone points out your repeated errors, you call them a racist as even weaker?

If you are representing any first nations you are doing them a disservice.

[M.Dancer]

Anyone who promotes ownership of people must be a racist.

Slavery was a big part of aboriginal culture in days of yore...

[Oleg Bach]

Slavery was a big part of aboriginal culture in days of yore...

Slavery is alive and well. When America owes China a trillion bucks and sells the dept to the highest bidder..they are actually selling people..so what else is new? If you have a collection company calling and harrassing you it is because your de-fault that is covered by insurance anyway has been sold (the debt) to some former biker in a suit.. The reality is as I mentioned that when a debt is sold a person is sold..I would say that is a very slick form of slavery Take the influx of millions of Mexicans into the southern USA..These are slaves that have become to expensive to feed - seeing that their masters do not need them anymore...so the powers that be in Mexico call the powers that be in the USA and say - "can I dump my surplus slaves on your side of the boarder?" - and of course greedy people will accept what they don't really need.

[AngusThermopyle]

According to local chiefs and my cousin's husband (who is a former chief, present councilor and lands claim researcher)

This is unusual, but not unexpected.

Many times in the past on this forum you have claimed that you are not Native. The above statement would appear to make a lie of your claims. this is why I regard anything you have to say as being nothing more than sheer unmitigated bull shit. I've noted far too many contradictions in your statements to take anything you say with more than a grain of salt.

Sucks when you lie and then forget what you've lied about doesn't it, Shakespear nailed that one on the head for sure.

[charter.rights]

This is unusual, but not unexpected.

Many times in the past on this forum you have claimed that you are not Native. The above statement would appear to make a lie of your claims. this is why I regard anything you have to say as being nothing more than sheer unmitigated bull shit. I've noted far too many contradictions in your statements to take anything you say with more than a grain of salt.

Sucks when you lie and then forget what you've lied about doesn't it, Shakespear nailed that one on the head for sure.

Hey dickweed...my cousin is Scottish and English and became a teacher, moved to a reserve and married the guy. How you can derive that I am native from that is a pathetic attempt to dismiss my arguments.

[AngusThermopyle]

Hey dickweed...my cousin is Scottish and English and became a teacher, moved to a reserve and married the guy.

I stand corrected, thank you.

However that does not negate the previous scores of inconsistencies in your statements. therefore, I regret to say that I still think you're full of shit.

[DogOnPorch]

What's this? Cowboys and First Nation Aboriginals? Now, now...try to...assimilate.

-------------------------------

Now, Doc, let's not start splitting hares!

---Buggs Bunny

Edited June 18, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[charter.rights]

I stand corrected, thank you.

However that does not negate the previous scores of inconsistencies in your statements. therefore, I regret to say that I still think you're full of shit.

At least you are consistent in your denials and ostrich world view. I accept your apology and I am truly sorry you are such as ass.