Skin colour matters in access to good jobs: study

[Saipan]

Six Nations does. It comes in the form of the Nanfan Treaty 1701 which shows that it surrendered Ohio, and Michigan to the British

The funniest in a long time

OK, let the British take Ohio. But how many slaves can one own in Michigan?

[Saipan]

Not any more than you snuggle yourself with the likes of European racists.

The "racist" there allow First Nation, Second Nation, and Third Nation all same hunting and fishing rights. And same taxes. Wouldn't that piss you off?

One far better than the shit-hole you fled with tail between legs.

So why are you STILL ashamed to name the hole?

Zundel paid taxes too

Not anymore. He was sent to the European "racists" for punishment. Too bad Chief Ahenakew croaked, he would deserve the same.

[WWWTT]

Real good piece there Chipp.

I enjoyed your last comment and this should put some rest to the debate.

WWWTT

[Saipan]

The Ojibwe had 1500 canoes that came across the bay from Manitoulin Island, and helped defeat the Mohawks. The famous part of this battle was the Ojibway left one survivor and told him to look at the "Skull Mound" of Mohawks, and tell his people that this would happen to them if they tried again.

True. Ojibway also exterminated Lakotas from Red Lake area (of Minnesota) recently. Like Hamas or Hezbolah, they do NOT take prisoners.

Big Chippewa on your shoulder.

with there tails between there legs".

In English there's a diference between Their and There. Back to Residential school.

Immigrants need to apply for Ojibwe, Chippewa, or Cree Citizanship

And a passport for each citizan so they can visit Quebec, right?

Most Treaties should be considered broken contracts

They are in fact invalid. Soon as the indians drank alcohol on a Reserve they broke the treaty..

[Chippewa]

True. Ojibway also exterminated Lakotas from Red Lake area (of Minnesota) recently. Like Hamas or Hezbolah, they do NOT take prisoners.

Big Chippewa on your shoulder.

In English there's a diference between Their and There. Back to Residential school.

And a passport for each citizan so they can visit Quebec, right?

They are in fact invalid. Soon as the indians drank alcohol on a Reserve they broke the treaty..

Go back to your trailer, the park office should be sick of you by now.

[Saipan]

Go back to your trailer, the park office should be sick of you by now.

We have three homes in two towns, collecting rent. Only boat trailers here

[Chippewa]

We have three homes in two towns, collecting rent. Only boat trailers here

My link

Yep Ricky and Bubbles

[Saipan]

So much for the Skin colour matters in access to good jobs: study

I could post pictures of run down housing with no running water, kitchen sink full, "bucket" in bedroom..... on Reserves but wise man once told me; 'Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it'

[guyser]

I could post pictures of run down housing with no running water, kitchen sink full, "bucket" in bedroom.....

Keep those to show the family back home how you live. We dont need to see it.

[Moonlight Graham]

I value research studies. But i'm pretty sure anyone could have guessed the outcome of this one. Not exactly news.

[Michael Hardner]

I value research studies. But i'm pretty sure anyone could have guessed the outcome of this one. Not exactly news.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, there are some questions as to the conclusions though.

[charter.rights]

What makes the Royal Proclaimation Legal?

The Royal Proclamation 1763 is legalized under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Supreme Court of Canada has spent the last 30 years unraveling the complicated mess the Family Compact put us in by ignoring it so many years ago.

What makes sale by Joseph Brant of the Halidman Tract illegal?

J. Brant did not sell any land. He created 99 year leases for land with the intent of having the settlers clear the land for Six Nations benefit and prove a means for agricultural produce for Six Nation people. The Crown tried to declare the leases invalid, but had no legal control over J. Brant, or Six Nations, since it is the sovereign territory (not a reserve as per treaty) of Six Nations. Sames goes for all of southern Ontario, which was held by SN at the time of the Proclamation, but has since been claimed by Canada without any surrender having taken place. That was illegal, and remains illegal today.

What makes the various treaties illegal for instance

The British High Court in 1982, Lord Denning clarified the status of "Indian Lands" proclaimed in the Royal Proclamation as a "plenum dominum" until such time the land was surrendered to the Crown. The Supreme Court, J. Laskin provided in DELGAMUUKW v. BRITISH COLUMBIA that aboriginal title was as sui generis that cannot be fully explained under common laws of real property but had various dimensions such as inalienability in that aboriginal lands could only be transferred to the Crown (accordingly Laskin wrote: "...this does not mean, however, that Aboriginal title "is a non-proprietary interest which amounts to no more than a licence to use and occupy the land and cannot compete on an equal footing with other proprietary interests..."); source, in that aboriginal title arises from the occupation of Canada prior to the Royal Proclamation 1763 and; it is communal in nature in that it is held by all members of an aboriginal nation.

The problem is that while the British (read Family Compact) might have wanted to take full control of the land away form Aboriginal people, they failed to realize that many dimensions and layers to title. Territories overlap, and as such a surrender cannot give away the land belonging to another nation. At the same time those nations who entered into treaty with the Crown, also reserved perpetual rights over the land listed in the treaty. The result of this "mistake" by the Crown left land as a sui generis ownership, now shared but not owned by the Crown. All particular First Nations did it seems, was surrender some of their rights to certain tracts without giving up the land ownership.

"By 1812, 14 treaties covered the shorelines of the lower Great Lakes and the upper St. Lawrence. Some of these treaties covered extremely large areas. For example, a 1790 treaty with the Ojibwe covered some 2 million acres of land between the Thames River and Lake Erie. (In return, the Ojibwe received £1200.)22 Some 75,000 non-Aboriginal people then lived in what is now Ontario"

See above. In 1757 the Mitchell Map identified Six Nations territory as extending north to the Ottawa River, east to Montreal and the Ohio River, west to The Mississippi River and Detroit and south to the forks of the Mississippi and the Ohio. However, they brokered lands surrenders for other First Nations, so had a huge cache of land at their disposal.

Of particular interest to this discussion the Mitchell Map clearly displays a number of labels centred in Southern Ontario describing the Six Nations territory. Then in 1763 the Royal Proclamation was issued with an accompanying map that also recognized the SO was under Six Nations Territory. To clarify how the Mississauga were able to enter into the Robinson-Huron Treaty and the Williams Treaty we fall back not only on the sui generis title but also the plenum dominum declaration by the then Crown of Canada and Great Britain. 100 years earlier (about 1656), Six Nations entered into the Two Spoons-One Bowl Treaty with the Mississauga that invited them into southern Ontario to help protect the land. In essence, the Mississauga were given a "use permit" having been friendly towards Six Nations and this friendship eventually resulted in the Mississauga becoming the 8th member nation of the Iroquois Confederacy (The 7th was the Nicariage who resided in what is not Michigan).

So land was NOT surrendered, nor could it have been with the Crown fully aware that southern Ontario was Six Nations Territory. So to get around it and given that Six Nations refused to surrender any of their lands, the Tories (Family Compact - VicTorians) sought a surrender form the Mississauga. However, given the fact that the Mississauga did not hold title to SO, that Treaty is somewhat void.

Also didn't Iroquois just come in and take the land and enslave the other six nations through war to get that land? Did you sign a treaty with the tribes you enslaved? If it is your custom just to "capture" people then why can't the British do the same to you? If you can throw a stickball into a fort and kill the occupants by guile why can't the British do that to you?

In a word: no. Archaeologists have found a number of Six Nations member communities up and down the St. Lawrence, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie and date back to over 1000 years ago (the latest excavation at Burlington, a Seneca village site has been preliminarily dated back to 750 AD). Throughout the contact with the Jesuits Six Nations people have always been along the north shores as they have occupied the south shores, and the Jesuit Relations describes numerous visits to their villages. The fact is that Six Nations has always been in southern Ontario - at least for over 1000 years.

The Wendat (or people mistakenly call the Huron) occupied territory around Georgian Bay, along with the Neutrals and Tobacco Nations whichi inhabited the Lake Huron, St. Clair regions. During the Jesuits Missions, small pox and other diseases brought by the missionaries decimated the populations of these nations so much that other nations - the Mississauga and Six Nations - were making uncontested hunting excursions into their territory and harassing their hunters. Many of the Wendat fled Ontario finding refuge in Quebec where they reside today. Many other fled to Michigan into the "Beaver Hunting grounds" where they harassed any nation coming there to hunt. many Neutrals and Tobacco fled with them while others joined the Iroquois Confederacy as adoptees of the Seneca Nation. Once the resident nations vacated Georgian Bay area, Six Nations moved in, leaving most of the territory to the Mississauga for their use and settlement. By the late 17th century Six Nations had control of most of Ontario and the continental US outside of the 4 British colonies and the territory claimed by the Hudsons Bay Company. In 1763 when their ownership was certified by the British Crown, recognizing that Six Nations could not be removed, nor could settlers or land speculators occupy their Ontario territory.

Then they got kicked out of the USA by the Americans?

Only the Mohawks were expelled by the US after the American Revolution. The Iroquois Confederacy officially remained neutral throughout the Revolutionary War. However, a number of Mohawks commanded by Captians Joseph Brant and John Deseronto fought for the British and the newly formed US government saw the Mohawks as a continuing threat. Capts Brant and Deseronto petitioned the King to give the protection in their Ontario lands and so set aside a tract that prohibited all settlers and land speculators from entering into, and provide a safe place for resettlement of the Mohawks and those who want to resettle there with them. Then Governor wanted them to settle at the Bay of Quinte being capable of responding to any threat by an anticipated US invasion. However, Joseph Brant demanded that their lands along the Grand River be set aside under the Kings protection and all present settlers and occupiers were to be evicted upon their arrival. Capt. Deseronto retreated with a number of Mohawks that were not loyal to Brant, first to Kahnawake and Kanesatake, and then eventually to the Bay of Quinte.

What makes your claim legitimate if you killed the people who had claim to the land to "have that land" That isn't the "modern standard", it is actually against current international law to annex other countries. Your claim seems to be based on a standard that isn't seen as moral in the modern world. Why should the law recognize evil and corruption as a root of ownership? Do you not even know your own history of how the Iroqouis came upon that land, and if you don't, how do you know it is yours?

This is a straw man argument not worth responding to. You are subscribing to myth and speculation without any basis in fact. Read the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights for a clearer picture of what Canada has endorsed. The Supreme Court has provided that land cannot be alienated, except in a free and voluntary surrender that meets the tests for a surrender set out in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada. While the layers of lands claims runs pretty thick today, Six Nations has a legitimate claim not only to all of the Halidmand Tract, but to the rest of Southern Ontario. How that gets resolved is a matter for negotiation, but I assure you that we cannot afford a financial settlement. Six Nations wants their lands back and were are pretty much in the position that land transfer will be the only affordable solution.

Keep in mind that the Government of Canada holds an Indian Trust account on behalf of Six Nations that is estimated today to be worth more than $1 trillion. We still have that whole issue to deal with and given the current compound interest rates paid on those accounts it will be worth about $2 trillion by 2025.

Edited March 28, 2011 by charter.rights

[Saipan]

Keep those to show the family back home how you live. We dont need to see it.

Sorry to snow on your parade, it was by CBC from a Reserve.

[Saipan]

The Royal Proclamation 1763 is

....boring and has as much value as contract to sell slaves - from the same era.

[charter.rights]

....boring and has as much value as contract to sell slaves - from the same era.

I didn't expect you to read it anyway. Anything that contradicts you, you seem just to skip over.

History isn't always blood and guts excitement. But sometime is it necessary to set the legal record straight and the fact is Canada belongs to the Indians.

[Saipan]

Back to the stone age, eh

[charter.rights]

Back to the stone age, eh

Ya i guess. I had you pegged for Clovis. You just confirmed it, thanks.

[WWWTT]

Ya i guess. I had you pegged for Clovis. You just confirmed it, thanks.

I wouldn't waste your time with this guy anymore charter.

I think he has served his purpose and we can can discard him for the time being.

We can easily bring him back into the discussion whenever it suits our purpose.

He's very predictable.

WWWTT

[ZenOps]

There is also cultural perception.

"Government job" is not considered to be a very high profession in many cultures. Many cultures actually place the high paying job of "Lawyer" far below that of a real profession, haha.

I know that I consider Rob Anders(MP) to be a drain on society, not exactly criminal - but definitely below that of say a breadbaker or carpenter. As always you have people who are good at their job and bad at their job too. Its that much worse when both are compounded, a bad lawyer or corrupt politician is worse than a noble theif in my book (although there is sometimes little difference)

[Bryan]

J. Brant did not sell any land. He created 99 year leases for land with the intent of having the settlers clear the land for Six Nations benefit and prove a means for agricultural produce for Six Nation people. The Crown tried to declare the leases invalid, but had no legal control over J. Brant, or Six Nations, since it is the sovereign territory (not a reserve as per treaty) of Six Nations. Sames goes for all of southern Ontario, which was held by SN at the time of the Proclamation, but has since been claimed by Canada without any surrender having taken place. That was illegal, and remains illegal today.

The old 99 year lease trick. The Russians are still crying about that one with regards to Alaska. Cuba says it about Guantanamo too.

[charter.rights]

The old 99 year lease trick. The Russians are still crying about that one with regards to Alaska. Cuba says it about Guantanamo too.

Except Six Nations has the paper trail where patents were illegally made for the land before the leases were up. And funny enough the 1763 Royal Proclamation provided that that kind of trickery was illegal. Even funnier that it is still the law today.

[Bryan]

Except Six Nations has the paper trail where patents were illegally made for the land before the leases were up. And funny enough the 1763 Royal Proclamation provided that that kind of trickery was illegal. Even funnier that it is still the law today.

And yet people still occupy that land. Funny that.

[charter.rights]

And yet people still occupy that land. Funny that.

That means there is a valid land claim for all of Southern Ontario. And given the current market value it would be impossible for us to buy them out, even at a fraction of the real value. The only way to settle such a claim will be to provide equivalent land in return - good fertile farm land, and like BC parts of cities where Six Nations can set up businesses and developments to their benefit.

But then...funnier than your thought, the government holds a trust account for Six Nations that is worth over $1 trillion. It hurts to think how we might begin to pay just the modest interest of $35 billion a year out to Six Nations without even touching the principle....

Edited March 29, 2011 by charter.rights

[Smallc]

That is all.

[ZenOps]

There is no trick to owning Crown land. Just squat it. Newfoundlanders did it (and still do it, which is probably why the land is worthless compared to say Manhattan)

In Alberta, all you had to do was squat land. The four OH ranches were obtained that way.

http://www.ohranch.com/oh-ranch-history.htm

BTW: OH Longview has been up for sale for a considerable amount of time now. $49.2 million. Many square miles of land, that no one person can really use or afford or bring up to a level to actually make it of net worth. So it goes unused, unprofitable, unbuyable and unsellable. Just like it has for the last century+.

Edited March 29, 2011 by ZenOps