An Indian Industry has emerged amid the wreckage

[Saipan]

it was held that Indians treaties must be construed, not according to the technical meaning of their words, but in the sense in which they would actually be understood by the Indians

That's what I want.

A law as I understand it.

Or at least as gun registration explained by Prime Minister Chretien.

[g_bambino]

The Six Nations simply have no case if they think they're going to be viewed in the same way that modern sovereign states are. Those lands are under the protection of the Crown, which effectively makes it Crown territory...

Yes, the Proclamation gives them a special status, like all the native peoples of the lands under the Crown, and required treating with them as sovereign states, but the intent was never to give them full sovereignty, but rather to protect them from colonial incursions, and more importantly to protect the Crown land on which they lived from the expansionist policies of some of the colonies.

Is CR still spouting off his fantasies about Six Nations being an independent country with international borders? It's amazing what power denial has; I have, about a dozen times, pointed out to him the very words of the Royal Proclamation:

And 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...

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.

It's pretty damn clear that the Aboriginal inhabitants of British North America were considered subjects of the King living on land that belonged to the Crown. Despite Canada's constitutional evolution since the late 18th century, with the British Crown becoming the Canadian Crown, the Royal Proclamation remains in-tact in the constitution, leaving no reason to believe the arrangement has changed in any way whatsoever.

[c/e]

Edited November 2, 2010 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

Incorrect. Brant was asserting Six Nations sovereignty over the land. By leasing or selling, alnd was not removed from the Confederacy. Rather the people who purchased the land became immigrants to the Confederacy.

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.

[CANADIEN]

Further, Nowegijick v. Her Majesty the Queen by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 25, 1983:

It is legal lore that, to be valid, exemptions to tax laws should be clearly expressed. It seems to me that treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and doubtful expressions resolved in favour of the Indians. If the statutes contains language which can be reasonably be construed to confer tax exemption, that construction, in my view, is to be favoured over a more technical construction which might be available to deny exemption. In Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S.1, it was held that Indians treaties must be construed, not according to the technical meaning of their words, but in the sense in which they would actually be understood by the Indians.

To the Indians, the Royal Proclamation 1763 was a treaty - one that came at least to Six Nations with promises that they would be allowed to retire to their Ontario Territory with the full protection of their allies Great Britain. And it is the oral promises that were made that in fact will alter the language of the Proclamation and not necessarily the letter of the law.

Clearly Six Nations did not agree that they were subjects of the Crown and that assertion has been brought forward to the present day. So we come back to the fundamental question: How can Canada assert sovereignty and authority over Six Nations when they would not accept it? There was no force or coercion that made Six Nations to capitulate. And when there is a disagreement, and or other promises made, the letter or words of the Proclamation cannot be taken de facto. Rather there is, as in disputes about lands claims and aboriginal rights a responsibility imposed on the Crown to interpret statutes "in the sense in which they would actually be understood by the Indians." at the time they were made.

There were a series of treaties and agreements, as well as hundred of correspondence with the Crown in the early 1800's where Six Nations demonstrate their disagreement with the Crown's claim of sovereignty. Joseph Brant's action to lease land (which he did successfully) is an action demonstrating their independence. Then we have the Queen today still referring to Six Nations as their faithful allies - not subjects but allies on the same standing as the US or any other ally of Great Britain....

We also have in our history the surrender of land to us by Six Nations under Nanfan 1701 and other various treaties, which before the Royal Proclamation was clearly an act of a sovereign nation who the British recognized had control of a vast tract of land from Mississippi to Nippissing and from the Allegheny Mountains to North Dakota. Yet someone, somewhere came up with the idea that they could claim sovereignty over the entire territory, they did not believe it, since in 1768 the British entered into the Treaty of Fort Stanwix to seek the readjustment of the boundary between the several nations of Indians and the settlers in New York.

I'm not claiming that there may have been some deal somewhere that may have had some nations recognizing the Crown sovereign. However it is clear that Six Nations did not recognize that the Crown held authority and challenged it on many occasions.

So it is clearly in dispute, regardless of what you might think the Proclamation says, cautioning that your colonial bias and 2010 interpretation might not be accurate. Being use to reading many of these treaties, reading the minutes of meetings leading up to such agreements and reading interpretations made at the time and more recently by legal experts, I still do not agree that the Royal Proclamation 1763 conveyed Crown sovereignty over Six Nations or their territories.

So to go beyond this impasse I invite you to provide further proof of your opinion through supporting documentation (as I have done). Your simple reading and interpretation of the Proclamation is lacking and without further proof, your opinion stands still. Using circular reasoning is by suggesting that the proof that sovereignty was given in the Proclamation is contained in the Proclamation itself is a useless exercise. The British were much smarter than that and always had their minutes and correspondence to back up what was agreed upon - even if it sinks today's challenges.

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)

Edited November 2, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

dup

Edited November 2, 2010 by CANADIEN

[charter.rights]

Undisputable FACT is that actions and intents of the British Crown made it clear that they were assserting sovereignty in the Royal Proclamation.

That's where your problem lies. It is not an "undisputed fact". It is and has been disputed ever since it was declared. And the other problem it that I am not making a claim using the Proclamation alone, like you are. I have provided supporting evidence. The fact that Six Nations has asserted their sovereignty for 500 years is also evidence under which the Supreme Court says must be considered to the benefit of the Indians.

[CANADIEN]

That's where your problem lies. It is not an "undisputed fact". It is and has been disputed ever since it was declared. And the other problem it that I am not making a claim using the Proclamation alone, like you are. I have provided supporting evidence. The fact that Six Nations has asserted their sovereignty for 500 years is also evidence under which the Supreme Court says must be considered to the benefit of the Indians.

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

[g_bambino]

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

I love the basis of his argument: We must all accept as the final interpretation of a treaty whatever interpretation the small group of First Nations CR agrees with makes of the treaty, even if that interpretation of the treaty completely ignores specific clauses of the treaty. Hillarious!

[+]

Edited November 2, 2010 by g_bambino

[charter.rights]

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

I was the one that cited the Nanfan 1701, not you. And in fact you forget all treaties were written by British so using semantics as your argument is lame.

You might very well read the entire Nanfan instead of taking bits and pieces like you are prone to do. The refer to the Mitchell Map 1757 which also delineates the boundaries of the Six Nation surrender under Nanfan. One would think that if the British were really using the Mitchell Map as propaganda, as you claim they did that they could have easily included the Ontario lands as part of their surrender. They didn't because they recognized Six Nations sovereign right to surrender a part of their territory and retain the other under Six Nations sovereign right.

"...lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake" refers to the land south of Lake Ontario. Nanfan was signed in New York. Ontario lands remain the sovereign territory of Six Nations.

[Shwa]

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

I did, and here is where it teeters on the rails a bit.

Firstly, one has to be careful of making legal generalizations about all First Nations based upon the specifics of one or a few specific cases. In fact, one has to be careful about making any sort of generalizations about Native people as a whole, their lifeways, language, culture, etc., especially when such generalizations may impede legal processes. Practically no rational person equates Europeans as being responsible for the Holocaust even though the perpetrators were most definitely Europeans.

Secondly, one also has to be careful in mistaking "Native culture" - at any point in time - as static or as an end-form somehow 'ready' for 'necessary' assimilation into what we might think as the mainstream. There is simply no evidence anywhere to indicate that Native cultures were ever static. In other words, it is a mistake to confuse acculturation for assimilation as it is to mistake appearances for reality.

So these two points - a generalization about some fictional cultural stasis - the Noble Indian if you will - comes up against a legal apparatus that itself is specific and continually evolving over the past few centuries with regard to interpretation, intent and outcomes. What I mean by 'legal apparatus' is the entire treaty process as a whole which is known by all the treaties individually. For example, this process has spawned a department of the federal government as well as provincial bodies and other government institutions; it has spawned many policies, rules and processes to address those treaties. In other words - and this is very clear - one side of the treaty management process has been subject to evolution and development; interpretation and re-interpretation; vision and revision, etc.

So it would only make sense that, if one side of a treaty were to apply their own definitions to this or that clause, the other side would have the same opportunity right? Did the US tell us that the various clauses of NAFTA will only be defined and interpreted according to the wishes of their courts and government? No, that would be ridiculous.

The Americans, for their part, are perfectly within their right to mull over some bit or piece of NAFTA as they see fit, but whatever they come up with regard to definition or interpretation is only going to be, their definition or interpretation. What is important to realize here is that it doesn't matter how many Americans agree with their government's position, what counts the most in the treaty process is that Canadians agree too. Otherwise, the issue is unresolved or it goes to international arbitration.

Now I am not suggesting that Indian Treaties need to go to international arbitration, but the first recourse is to recognize that both sides of any treaty process have the right to interpret, define, realize and negotiate the terms of those treaties within their modern perspective that they bring to the table.

Up until about 50 years ago, it was illegal for an Indian to be a lawyer. That is, once they became a lawyer, they lost their Indian status and rights. I don't think this was actually enforced to any degree, but it might have kept quite a few smart folks from becoming lawyers and engaging the government on equal footing when it came time to negotiate land claims and treaty rights and such. The government became used to having free reign over what those treaties and claims actually meant and they did a good job of entrenching that view in popular Canadian thought. That is not to say they acted in poor faith all the time, but it means that real representation from the other side was not a regular occurrence other than to agree to the terms as dictated. But things have changed quite drastically over the past 50 years with regard to the 'Indian problem' right?

Now, we have the other side asserting their right to offer their interpretation of what certain words and clauses mean to them with regard to treaties and this includes the words 'sovereignty' 'nation' 'protection' and any other word in a treaty we can point to and say, 'ah ha! but...' Regardless of how many of us may agree with some aspect of the governments position, the force of logic comes into play here. Over the years the federal government has greatly revised many of their definitions and positions on what the specifics of treaties mean; sometimes they did it on their own, sometimes the court force them to. So to quote what George III or Joseph Brant had in mind is meaningful only to the degree that the two sides of the process agree. Otherwise to reach an agreement with regard to treaty issues or land claims requires complex negotiations, rational compromise and consensus seeking in all cases. All of this should be done in good faith of course.

Which leads me to my last point about Canada. There will never be a citizens-plus or a solving of the 'Indian problem' or the end of all treaties and reserves. Never. The fabric of our country is such that treaties, reserves, land claims, and such will always exist and be a part of our culture, and that requires Canadians to understand, or at least accept, things which may appear abstract and contentious to them. Similar in which we view the evolution of the social and political needs in any other province of our dominion. What we, as Canadians, ought to be doing, is charging those in the negotiation process to act in good faith for the benefit of everyone and not succumb to popular cynicism, petty appearances or economic greed.

[charter.rights]

Well put.

[CANADIEN]

I was the one that cited the Nanfan 1701, not you. And in fact you forget all treaties were written by British so using semantics as your argument is lame.

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:

that vast Tract of land or Colony called Canagariarchio beginning on the northwest side of Cadarachqui lake [Ontario] and includes all that vast tract of land lyeing between the great lake of Ottawawa [Huron]and the lake called by the natives Cahiquage and by the Christians the lake of Swege [Erie] and runns till it butts upon the

Twichtwichs and is bounded on the westward by the Twichtwichs by a place called Quadoge [head of Lake Michigan] conteining in length about eight hundred miles and in breath four hundred miles

including the Country where Beavers and all sorts of wild game keeps and the place called

Tjeughsaghrondie alias Fort de tret or Wawyachtenock [Detroit?]and so runns round the lake of

Swege till you come to a place called Oniadarundaquat which is about twenty miles from

the Sinnekes castles including likewise the great falls oakinagaro [Niagara]

Edited November 2, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Saipan]

Ontario lands remain the sovereign territory of Six Nations.

Veeery funny

[charter.rights]

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:

The interpretations are wrong. That is why I told you to go look at The Mitchell Map 1757.

According to linguist Carl Mastay, the the etymology of the word "Canagariarchio" (Kanakta'riha'tsyo) comes from Mohawk (the second being the most correct spelling) Kanakta - the place, bed or the flat place 'riha' meaning "in the middle of" and 'tsyo" meaning "at the end of the lakes". Put together it translates the "flat place in the middle of the lakes", best describe today as the Michigan Peninsula.

Now go to them Mitchell Map and follow along:

..beginning on the northwest side of Cadarachqui lake [Ontario]....

Beginning around Hamilton.

...and includes all that waste Tract of Land lyeing between the great lake of Ottowawa...

Lake Superior...look at the spot between Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan where the Outauowacs or Outawa Nation lies...ie the great lake of the Outauowac

...and the lake called by the natives Sahiquage and by the Christians the lake of Swege...

Lake Erie. So Nanfan described the land between the Great Lake Superior and Lake Erie as being included in the surrender.

...and runns till it butts upon the Twichtwichs...

The forks of the Wabache River and the Ohio River. If you find the bold words starting with S I X N A T I O N S, the work Twigh Twies shows up just below. The etymology of this name comes from the Iroquoian word for "Pig" which describes where wild boar hunting was prolific.

...and is bounded on the right hand by a place called Quadoge...

Chicago. Look at the bottom of Lake Michigan to find Quadoghe which is near where Chicago is today.

...conteigning in length about eight hundred miles and in bredth four hundred miles including the country where the bevers the deers, Elks and such beasts keep and the place called Tieugsachrondio

Tieugsachrondio (The Beaver Hunting Grounds), or

...alias Fort de Tret or wawyachtenok....

its alias "Fort Detroit". The Beaver Hunting Grounds were located on the west side of Lake Huron near where Detroit stands today.

...and so runs round the lake of swege..

.

Runs back around Lake Erie.

...till you come to place called Oniadarondaquat...

Irondequoit, New York

...which is about twenty miles from the Sinnekes Castles...

20 miles from Seneca Castles, New York.

So if you have been referencing the map we can take the "Coles Notes" approach by looking first at Quodoghe on the map for the line that goes south which is labelled "Western Bounds of Six Nations, sold and surrender to Great Britain" then follow that line up on the east side of Lake Michigan to the top of the Michigan Peninsula going round the lake (and then the line changes to a smaller dash) on the west side of Lake Huron down to Detroit. Then according to the Treaty the surrender goes south to the west end of Lake Erie, "round the lake" past Canahogue making a straight line to Oniadarondaquat (Irondequoit), New York.

Now what confirms that the surrender is in the Michigan lands is the text that follows:

...which said seaven nations our predecessors did four score years agoe

totally conquer and subdue and drove them out of that country and had peaceable and

quiet possession of the same to hunt beavers (which was the motive caused us to war for

the same) for three score years it being the only chief place for hunting in this parte of the

world that ever wee heard of and after that wee had been sixty years sole masters and

owners of the said land enjoying peaceable hunting without any internegotion, a remnant of

one of the seaven nations called Tionondade whom wee had expelled and drove away

came and settled there twenty years agoe disturbed our beaver hunting against which

nation wee have warred ever since and would have subdued them long ere now had not

they been assisted and succoured by the French of Canada

So they are saying that the Wendat, Tobacco, Neutral and Cat Nations were expelled from southern Ontario by The Haudenosaunee and 20 years previous to the Nanfan the Tionondades came back to the Beaver Hunting Grounds and harassed the Iroquois and set off a war with them, that would have been successful if they had not been assisted by the French.

As well the Six Nations Confederacy added 2 more nations - the Nicariages (see the top end of Michigan on the Mitchell Map) and the Messesagues (see north of Lake Huron) - which gave them sovereign authority to surrender it to the British.

Soooo. If you are still following along, go back on the map to the top of Lake Michigan and follow that line that we were following before eastward through Nipissing (past Lake Nipisfin) where the label now changes to "Bounds of the Six Nations" all the way to Montreal. And if you study the map below that line you will find all sorts of notes and labels that define the land to the lakes as Six Nations Territory or the Northern Iroquois(which is the same thing).

Six Years later, the Royal Proclamation 1763 is issued and the map that was provided still shows Southern Ontario as Six Nations Territory"

So where does it say on that map that the land in what is now Canada belonged to the British, again?

[CANADIEN]

The interpretations are wrong. That is why I told you to go look at The Mitchell Map 1757.

According to linguist Carl Mastay, the the etymology of the word "Canagariarchio" (Kanakta'riha'tsyo) comes from Mohawk (the second being the most correct spelling) Kanakta - the place, bed or the flat place 'riha' meaning "in the middle of" and 'tsyo" meaning "at the end of the lakes". Put together it translates the "flat place in the middle of the lakes", best describe today as the Michigan Peninsula.

Now go to them Mitchell Map and follow along:

Beginning around Hamilton.

Lake Superior...look at the spot between Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan where the Outauowacs or Outawa Nation lies...ie the great lake of the Outauowac

Lake Erie. So Nanfan described the land between the Great Lake Superior and Lake Erie as being included in the surrender.

The forks of the Wabache River and the Ohio River. If you find the bold words starting with S I X N A T I O N S, the work Twigh Twies shows up just below. The etymology of this name comes from the Iroquoian word for "Pig" which describes where wild boar hunting was prolific.

Chicago. Look at the bottom of Lake Michigan to find Quadoghe which is near where Chicago is today.

Tieugsachrondio (The Beaver Hunting Grounds), or

its alias "Fort Detroit". The Beaver Hunting Grounds were located on the west side of Lake Huron near where Detroit stands today.

.

Runs back around Lake Erie.

Irondequoit, New York

20 miles from Seneca Castles, New York.

So if you have been referencing the map we can take the "Coles Notes" approach by looking first at Quodoghe on the map for the line that goes south which is labelled "Western Bounds of Six Nations, sold and surrender to Great Britain" then follow that line up on the east side of Lake Michigan to the top of the Michigan Peninsula going round the lake (and then the line changes to a smaller dash) on the west side of Lake Huron down to Detroit. Then according to the Treaty the surrender goes south to the west end of Lake Erie, "round the lake" past Canahogue making a straight line to Oniadarondaquat (Irondequoit), New York.

Now what confirms that the surrender is in the Michigan lands is the text that follows:

...which said seaven nations our predecessors did four score years agoe

totally conquer and subdue and drove them out of that country and had peaceable and

quiet possession of the same to hunt beavers (which was the motive caused us to war for

the same) for three score years it being the only chief place for hunting in this parte of the

world that ever wee heard of and after that wee had been sixty years sole masters and

owners of the said land enjoying peaceable hunting without any internegotion, a remnant of

one of the seaven nations called Tionondade whom wee had expelled and drove away

came and settled there twenty years agoe disturbed our beaver hunting against which

nation wee have warred ever since and would have subdued them long ere now had not

they been assisted and succoured by the French of Canada

So they are saying that the Wendat, Tobacco, Neutral and Cat Nations were expelled from southern Ontario by The Haudenosaunee and 20 years previous to the Nanfan the Tionondades came back to the Beaver Hunting Grounds and harassed the Iroquois and set off a war with them, that would have been successful if they had not been assisted by the French.

As well the Six Nations Confederacy added 2 more nations - the Nicariages (see the top end of Michigan on the Mitchell Map) and the Messesagues (see north of Lake Huron) - which gave them sovereign authority to surrender it to the British.

Soooo. If you are still following along, go back on the map to the top of Lake Michigan and follow that line that we were following before eastward through Nipissing (past Lake Nipisfin) where the label now changes to "Bounds of the Six Nations" all the way to Montreal. And if you study the map below that line you will find all sorts of notes and labels that define the land to the lakes as Six Nations Territory or the Northern Iroquois(which is the same thing).

Six Years later, the Royal Proclamation 1763 is issued and the map that was provided still shows Southern Ontario as Six Nations Territory"

So where does it say on that map that the land in what is now Canada belonged to the British, again?

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

formerly

posest by seaven nations of Indians called the Aragaritka whom by a fair warr wee subdued

and drove from thence

. 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).

Edited November 3, 2010 by CANADIEN

[charter.rights]

There you go again. Taking things out of context.

...which said seaven nations our predecessors did four score years agoe totally conquer and subdue and drove them out of that country and had peaceable and quiet possession of the same to hunt beavers (which was the motive caused us to war for the same) for three score years it being the only chief place for hunting in this parte of the world that ever wee heard of and after that wee had been sixty years sole masters and owners of the said land enjoying peaceable hunting without any internegotion, a remnant of one of the seaven nations called Tionondade whom wee had expelled and drove away came and settled there twenty years agoe disturbed our beaver hunting against which nation wee have warred ever since and would have subdued them long ere now had not they been assisted and succoured by the French of Canada...

The Huron were one nation of the seven nations that the Iroquois chased out of the Beaver Hunting Grounds (Detroit and the Michigan Peninsula) and while they did possess around Georgian Bay they also possessed the other side of the river (what? you think there was an imaginary border then?) and drove them out of the Beaver Hunting Grounds 60 years earlier. Most of the Huron (which by their real name is Wendat) went to Quebec in 1656 with the French after disease decimated their populations, but the remaining 7 nations fled to west. Southern Ontario was not included in the Nanfan.

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).

You are incredibly naive. The map presents a Royal Proclamation 1763 era interpretation of the Nanfan surrender, and just like the Supreme Court of Canada has been refining what the Royal Proclamation really meant, the Mitchell Map provides a much more modern and accurate rendition of the surrender...especially since you have trouble with your interpretations in light of the supporting evidence I have provided on numerous occasions proving you could (and like are in my mind) be wrong.

[Saipan]

And that's why Americans own the Moon. They were there first.

[ToadBrother]

You are incredibly naive. The map presents a Royal Proclamation 1763 era interpretation of the Nanfan surrender, and just like the Supreme Court of Canada has been refining what the Royal Proclamation really meant, the Mitchell Map provides a much more modern and accurate rendition of the surrender...especially since you have trouble with your interpretations in light of the supporting evidence I have provided on numerous occasions proving you could (and like are in my mind) be wrong.

The Supreme Court has never said they were independent nation states. No nation recognizes them as such. No one will accept their ambassadors in any meaningful diplomatic sense. They have no right to raise their own army and have that recognized as a national army. Being a nation is much more than just saying "We're a nation!", otherwise we'd have an independent Quebec and Kurdistan.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Supreme Court has never said they were independent nation states. No nation recognizes them as such. No one will accept their ambassadors in any meaningful diplomatic sense. They have no right to raise their own army and have that recognized as a national army. Being a nation is much more than just saying "We're a nation!", otherwise we'd have an independent Quebec and Kurdistan.

Well said.

[Saipan]

ToadBrother, on 03 November 2010 - 09:27 AM, said:

The Supreme Court has never said they were independent nation states. No nation recognizes them as such. No one will accept their ambassadors in any meaningful diplomatic sense. They have no right to raise their own army and have that recognized as a national army. Being a nation is much more than just saying "We're a nation!", otherwise we'd have an independent Quebec and Kurdistan.

and the same goes for "sudetens" or "palestinians" or "ozarkians"

Unlike country like Tibet for example.

[charter.rights]

The Supreme Court has never said they were independent nation states. No nation recognizes them as such. No one will accept their ambassadors in any meaningful diplomatic sense. They have no right to raise their own army and have that recognized as a national army. Being a nation is much more than just saying "We're a nation!", otherwise we'd have an independent Quebec and Kurdistan.

And you know this: ~how~? Because you said so? Because you are a Supreme Court judge? Or maybe you can use your crystal ball to see the future?

They have no right...

Think again.

The Supreme Court has stated that the Proclamation is not the origin of aboriginal rights but is the pivot point in history where all rights previous are recognized from that point forward.

The Royal Proclamation however, IS the point in law where all British right of sovereignty, law, and jurisdiction stems from....that before the Proclamation they had not right whatsoever over Indians or their land, except where treaties were made and land was surrendered. Do you follow?

So as Sovereign nations over land and body, Indians were self-governing (as they have always been) and as such the SCoC regonizes their right to self-government. However attempting to restrict that self-government to our constitutional umbrella has no basis in law, or in the Proclamation itself. Simply declaring sovereignty and jurisdiction over Indians doesn't wash since by their own admission only conquest over other nations gives them authority to rule.

So what we have is by all accounts "legal magic" where the Crown of Canada has attempted to assert a claim that really isn't there, nor one supported by the Crown of Great Britain when it was indivisible.

Lord Dennings 1982 High Court Judicial Review stated:

“Our long experience of these matters taught us how to treat the indigenous peoples. As a matter of public policy,

it was of the first importance to pay great respect to their laws

and customs,

and never interfere with them

except when necessary in the interests of peace and good order.

It was the responsibility of the Crown of England,

and those representing the Crown,

to see that the rights of indigenous people were secured to them

,

and that they were not imposed on by the selfish or the thoughtless or the ruthless.

Witness the impeachment of Warren Hastings in Westminister Hall for his conduct of affairs as Governor General of Bengal.”

So I would say that unless the Crown of Canada recognizes that First Nations are still autonomous, independent and sovereign the the Crown of Canada is itself the "the selfish or the thoughtless or the ruthless" that the Proclamation was designed to protect against. From the perspective aboriginal people, their status before the Proclamation was the same after as it was before, since the Proclamation was clearly aimed at British subjects, and not aboriginal people. It was a declaration - a clarification - FOR the British subjects and not at the Indians who by treaty had already resolved their differences with the Crown. It was the settler himself who was the problem and the target of the Proclamation, who ignored Crown rule in the new country and whose constant and persistent encroachments on the land and way of life of the Indians that caused so many Indian grievances against Crown.

It was the 1754 Treaty of Loggstown that was the final straw when after many encroachments and breeches of previous treaties that Six Nations finally refused to relinquish any more land. While they allowed settlement in areas that had already been occupied on the east side of the Ohio River, they made it clear that there would be no more surrenders, and no more encroachments onto their lands. And while the British were not happy with half of the land they were asking for they agreed to abide by the terms of that Treaty. Their only option was to tell the British settlers in bold where they could and could not settle.

Indian lands were "reserved for them" exclusively and under force of penalty if any British subject attempted to buy, lease, use or occupy. They could not even hunt west of the Ohio and so through the Proclamation the British set it aside. No matter what you think was in their mind at the time it is irrelevant to the basis of the law of Canada.

25.

The guarantee in this Charter

of certain rights and freedoms

shall not

be construed so as to

abrogate or derogate

from any aboriginal, treaty or other

rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples

of Canada including

(a)

any rights

or freedoms that have been

recognized

by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(

any rights

or freedoms

that now exist

by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.(94)

35. (1) The

existing aboriginal and treaty rights

of the aboriginal peoples of Canada

are hereby recognized and affirmed

.

And that would include any rights - the right of autonomous self-government - that were in existence before the Proclamation, as well as after.

There was no surrender of lands by Six Nations to any of their lands in Ontario and they have never capitulated treatied or surrendered their Confederacy Government to the British, ever. So at a minimum leaves the Crown's ability to apply "legal magic" against Six Nations or any other Indian nation in a DISPUTE that must be reconciled.

Edited November 3, 2010 by charter.rights

[ToadBrother]

And you know this: ~how~? Because you said so? Because you are a Supreme Court judge? Or maybe you can use your crystal ball to see the future?

I know this because the tendency of both domestic and international law has been not to recognize the level of sovereignty you assert.

The Six Nations are not an independent country. They enjoy none of the rights conferred on sovereign states. Their sovereignty, like the sovereignty of all native peoples in Canada, is of a limited kind. You can continue tooting this horn, but you have absolutely nothing to base it on.

When the Six Nations can issue independent passports that other nations will recognize, when they can send out ambassadors who will be accepted by foreign nations, when they can have an independent seat on international organizations like the United Nations, when they can have an internationally-recognized citizenship independent of Canada, when they can sign treaties independent of the Crown, when they can make internationally-recognized declarations of war, and all those other trappings of other sovereign states, we'll talk.

But you know it as well as I do that these are things that the Six Nations, nor any other First Nation in Canada, will ever enjoy. Their sovereignty is of a limited nature under the protection and guarantee of the Crown. If another nation's perpetual guarantee is required for any kind of sovereignty, then those claiming sovereignty are not in either the dejure or defacto sense a sovereign state. And the Supreme Court has no power to confer that upon them, not by precedence or by constitutional framework.

Edited November 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

When the Six Nations can issue independent passports that other nations will recognize, when they can send out ambassadors who will be accepted by foreign nations, when they can have an independent seat on international organizations like the United Nations, when they can have an internationally-recognized citizenship independent of Canada, when they can sign treaties independent of the Crown, when they can make internationally-recognized declarations of war, and all those other trappings of other sovereign states, we'll talk.

But you know it as well as I do that these are things that the Six Nations, nor any other First Nation in Canada, will ever enjoy. Their sovereignty is of a limited nature under the protection and guarantee of the Crown. If another nation's perpetual guarantee is required for any kind of sovereignty, then those claiming sovereignty are not in either the dejure or defacto sense a sovereign state. And the Supreme Court has no power to confer that upon them, not by precedence or by constitutional framework.

He won't listen; you'll just get told again that you know nothing, followed by another diatribe outlining CR's personal reading of the law as supported by his misinterpretations of court rulings. Oh, that and - now that you've raised the subject - he'll tell you Six Nations does issue "very valid," "internationally recognised" passports.

From what I remember of CR (and see in the familiar utterances I'm catching in the snippets of his posts contained in people's replies to them), he believes self-government automatically equals full sovereignty. Of course, that isn't the case, as much evidence shows. I mean, even in the specific case of Canadian First Nations, the very system of government used by the various bands to govern themselves is stipulated by an act of the Canadian parliament, as per the constitution that gives the federal parliament the power to legislate for "Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians". It’s anyone’s guess how CR can, in light of such facts, keep believing First Nations are sovereign entities like Brazil or India. Denial, denial, denial.

[punct]

Edited November 3, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

He won't listen; you'll just get told again that you know nothing, followed by another diatribe outlining CR's personal reading of the law as supported by his misinterpretations of court rulings. Oh, that and - now that you've raised the subject - he'll tell you Six Nations does issue "very valid," "internationally recognised" passports.

But they don't issue passports. Some countries, like the UK, as a courtesy, will play along, but most will not. You sure the hell couldn't get into China on one of those "passports".

From what I remember of CR (and see in the familiar utterances I'm catching in the snippets of his posts contained in people's replies to them), he believes self-government automatically equals full sovereignty. Of course, that isn't the case, as much evidence shows. I mean, even in the specific case of Canadian First Nations, the very system of government used by the various bands to govern themselves is stipulated by an act of the Canadian parliament, as per the constitution that gives the federal parliament the power to legislate for "Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians". It’s anyone’s guess how CR can, in light of such facts, keep believing First Nations are sovereign entities like Brazil or India. Denial, denial, denial.

[punct]

That's right. Their rights, even their limited "sovereignty" stems from the Crown's willingness to accept it. The Supreme Court would have no power over a truly sovereign state, so the mere fact that he keeps looking to some magical future ruling indicates just how far off the mark he is.

[charter.rights]

But they don't issue passports. Some countries, like the UK, as a courtesy, will play along, but most will not. You sure the hell couldn't get into China on one of those "passports".

About 50 countries world-wide have recognized the Haudenosaunee passport for over 50 years.