White People Can't Live Here - Six Nations Racism

[Accountability Now]

It was a royal proclamation - ie, law - that recognized their rights in the Haldimand tract in perpetuity.

No...royal proclamations come from the highest authority. Haldimand was a Governor that had no authority to make such a claim which even the Six Nations agreed was not possible. Their rights were to only occupy the land...not to the land itself. Here is a quote from the 2012 committe hearings from the Ontario Provinical government:

Haldimand’s document was a unilateral announcement. He was an agent of the crown, the governor. He was the only one that signed the document, other than his secretary R. Mathews. It was not signed by any Six Nations person, was not a treaty in any conventional sense of the term. It was not an official proclamation, was not presented in public on the three separate occasions as required by crown rules and instructions. He did not apply the great seal of the province of Quebec to the document. Haldimand’s document is not considered a patent or a deed, again, from the perspective of Garry Horsnell, who has summarized a lot of this material. In his view, the Haldimand announcement was simply a licence from the governor of Quebec for Six Nations people to occupy crown-owned land—it was owned by the crown—until a final, legal land transfer could be made

Link?

I thought it was 1845 when they agreed to allow the feds to lease some lands in the Plank Road tract, but the feds sold it instead and never put the money in Six Nations account.

No money, no deal.

The above link walks through a little bit of the timeline again showing that the SIx Nations Iroquois had given up rights to the land in 1700 to the Missisauga Obijwa as an offer of peace. In the next year the Iroquois surrendered the land AGAIN but this time to the British Crown through the Nanfan Treaty which was signed by the Iroquois. Of course...how do you give up land that you already give up?

In 1784 the Crown purchased this tract of land from the Missisauga Obijwa for 1,180 pounds and allowed the exiled Iroquis to occupy the land via the Haldimand claim. It was not a a transfer of title or ownership. It was the right for them to have a place to exist after the American Revolution. According to the link, the Iroquis and Obijwa leaders agreed to the sale to the British.

A limited deed was provided by Simcoe to the Iroquois from which the Iroquis turned around and sold off the parcels of land. 1844 is when the Six Nations agreed to sell the Plank Road settlement.

Regardless...its ironic that they are making claims to lands that they gave up twice on and were still able to sell once they did so.

[jacee]

I don't buy all you say, and I concede that there's little point in wading through it ... again.

I'm just glad they are pursuing litigation.

The claim going forward is for an accounting of Six Nations funds held in trust by the federal government - including all treaty related land sales, leases, etc, money in money out.

It matters not what's on the paper if the money wasn't paid.

No money, no deal.

It's a great one to litigate, because it will tell the tale of multiple claims.

Six Nations have been asking for such an accounting for over 200 years.

http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/ClaimSummaries.htm

Six Nations claims are based on the following breaches:

The non-fulfillment of a treaty or agreement between Indians and the Crown;

A breach of an Indian Act or other statutory responsibility;

A breach of an obligation arising out of Government Administration of Indian funds or other assets;

An illegal sale or other disposition of Indian land by government under historic treaties or its administration of First Nation lands or other assets under the Indian Act; and

Fraud in connection with the acquisition or disposition of Indian reserve land by employees or agents of the Federal Government, in cases where the fraud can be clearly demonstrated.

Edited June 25, 2014 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

I don't buy all you say, and I concede that there's little poinr in wading through it.

but I'm

I'm not selling it. Just reading what was reported at the Ontario provincial hearings. You don't have to agree with it and you most likely won't because it doesn't agree with your theories.

[jacee]

I'm not selling it. Just reading what was reported at the Ontario provincial hearings. You don't have to agree with it and you most likely won't because it doesn't agree with your theories.

I'll happily await the litigation thanks ... or ...

Here's where it stands.

In July and September 2012, Six Nations delivered to Canada and Ontario a Request to Admit (RTA) Documents relating to specific documents being identified and a Request to Admit Facts describing various persons identified in certain relevant documents.

In July, August, 2012 and February, 2013, Canada and Ontario responded to the specifics of the RTA which verifies the authenticity of documents and the people involved, including what positions they held and when, but Canada is refusing to Admit the Facts establishing any wrong (past) doing; thus placing Six Nations to provide strict facts proving that those individuals committed fraud, theft or negligence in depriving Six Nations of its lands and money.

Predictable.

Who investigates fraud?

... Would that be the RCMP?

.

Edited June 25, 2014 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

I'll happily await the litigation thanks.

Here's where it stands.

Here's where is stands? This of course is according to your Six Nations website. Like I said, you have no interest in actually looking at both sides of the story to make an informed opinion.

How about you find out where it stands in the eyes of the courts?

[Remiel]

Hmmm... http://globalnews.ca/news/1416321/city-of-vancouver-formally-declares-city-is-on-unceded-aborginal-territory/

[jacee]

Here's where is stands? This of course is according to your Six Nations website.

They would be the plaintiff, yes.

Like I said, you have no interest in actually looking at both sides of the story to make an informed opinion.

Been there, done that.

No matter how many treaties and documents we look at, we don't have access to all the evidence - letters, minutes of meetings, etc - to know all relevant info.

Pointless.

How about you find out where it stands in the eyes of the courts?

Litigation ... agreement on facts ... in process.

As reported above.

They don't get to court until they agree upon facts.

.

[jacee]

Hmmm... http://globalnews.ca/news/1416321/city-of-vancouver-formally-declares-city-is-on-unceded-aborginal-territory/

Underlying all other truths spoken during the Year of Reconciliation is the truth that the modern city of Vancouver was founded on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations and that these territories were never ceded through treaty, war or surrender, reads part of the motion from the city.

Isn't that interesting!

.

Edited June 25, 2014 by jacee

[Rue]

I believe Accountability is dead on. That proclamation is about occupying not owning land. To start with there is no equivalent in aboriginal laws (customs) that define land as "owned". They don't have such a legal concept and never did. What they can and have discussed is the right to occupy or share or use the land. They would use those three words. Aboriginal laws or customs dont' conceive that any human owns land. They would not agree to such a term. They would find it absurd. The concept that any human owns land or in reality has exclusive right to title subject to the crown is a non aboriginal legal concept. I do not speak for aboriginals but their customs define the earth as its own living element and we humans are said to coexist on it temorarily. We are basically only on this planet for a finite period of time so how could we own it?

In fact the crown in the past had no problems understanding that aboriginals did not think anyone owned land. They realized there was a large conceptual difference and to avoid conflict used neutral words that don't mention words like ownership but words instead such as trust, fiduciary relationship, duty owed to protect land, use of land, occupation of land when they engaged in treaties.

What Accountability said is legal fact not fiction and is based in the framework of the treaties we entered into.

Land Title is a fiction to start with. We say in our legal "crown land". It means our land title rights are subordinate to the crown's. But we don't own the land. We in fact are allowed exclusive use of it subject to the crown(state). The state can confiscate our land unilaterally and not even compensate us for it.

Even more absurd is most of us have the illusion we own our land. Who are we kidding, its mortaged. A bank owns it until we pay it off.

Mortgages are not an aboriginal legal concept. Neither is private property, property ownership, trespassing. Those are all non aboriginal laws. Aboriginals can buy into them but they would do so off the reservations and even then all land rights through the crown deal with aboriginal competing rights as two equals.

From a legal perspective if an aboriginal treaty exists, its pretty much impossible to think the Supreme Court of Canada will not enforce it.

The only exception I can think of is a state emergency during an earthquake or flood or maybe during a war or terrorist attack.

There are abuses on both sides of the law on this issue. Some see aboriginals using their status to sell liquor and tobacco yes. Some think its unfair they have certain rights non aboriginals do not have with hunting or fishing or access to certain lands.

Point is those are as a result of the aboriginals giving up other rights in the past.

I am not sure where the strong emotional feelings come from by some that appear to look like resentment that aboriginals have certain

rights. Its a result of treaties we entered into where both sides gave up certain rights in exchange for others.

I don't get people who are jealous of aboriginal rights. They seem jealous of certain rights but ignore the other rights aboriginals were forced to give up and the hardships that has caused them collectively and individually.

I mean you want to be jealous of aboriginal rights? Really? Well then take the whole package back not just the good things, take on the crap that goes with aboriginal living as well if you are so sure they have it so good. In fact exchange places with them.

Anyone going to go live in Sioux Lookout for example?

[dre]

Sure - but the government is entitled to tax the money the black person makes on the deal and when the person who signed the contract dies taxes are assessed on market value of the asset represented by the contract. If the contract placed in a trust the a deemed disposition occurs every 21 years and taxes must be paid.

In short, no one other than an aboriginal can enter into a contract, make a profit and not have the profits taxed back by the government over the generations. This lack of taxation is what make these race based privileges so onerous and it is frankly dishonest for you to pretend that they are remotely comparable to normal contract between parties.

Finally, if the government enters into a contract it can terminate it at any time and pay compensation that it, alone, deems to be fair. The only time that someone has a recourse to the courts is if the government does not bother to pass a special law indicating that the normal rules don't apply (i.e. there is no constitutional right to property in the charter). The fact that aboriginals alone have "contracts" that require constitutional amendments to repeal is a racist provision in itself.

Taxation is being addressed in modern treaties.

In short, no one other than an aboriginal can enter into a contract, make a profit and not have the profits taxed back by the government over the generations.

Thats because nobody else had the rights to 9,984,670 square kilometers to trade to the crown for considerations. I assure you that if anyone else did, they would get a pretty sweet and special deal regardless of their race.

The fact that aboriginals alone have "contracts" that require constitutional amendments to repeal is a racist provision in itself.

No thats not racist in any way. The special considerations given to natives are there because the crown got so much out of the deal. The aggregate treaties represent by far the biggest realestate/resource deal in the history of mankind. We got a STEAL of a deal, and we (or anybody else for that matter) would make that deal again in a second if given the chance.

At the end of the day those treaties represent the best deal anyone has ever gotten in history for a piece of land. We made out like absolute bandits!

Edited June 26, 2014 by dre

[-1=e^ipi]

I am not sure where the strong emotional feelings come from by some that appear to look like resentment that aboriginals have certain

rights. Its a result of treaties we entered into where both sides gave up certain rights in exchange for others.

I don't get people who are jealous of aboriginal rights. They seem jealous of certain rights but ignore the other rights aboriginals were forced to give up and the hardships that has caused them collectively and individually.

I mean you want to be jealous of aboriginal rights? Really? Well then take the whole package back not just the good things, take on the crap that goes with aboriginal living as well if you are so sure they have it so good. In fact exchange places with them.

It's not about 'jealousy', it is about being opposed to racism and racist laws.

Also, who is this 'we' you keep referring to. Define 'we'.

[dre]

It's not about 'jealousy', it is about being opposed to racism and racist laws.

Also, who is this 'we' you keep referring to. Define 'we'.

It has nothing to do with racism or racist laws. Not a thing.

[jacee]

It has nothing to do with racism or racist laws. Not a thing.

No, just law.

But there's a significant element of white supremacists who attach themselves to the anti-Aboriginal rights cadre and play the race card ad nauseam.

Their mind is made up.

They don't change it.

You're right.

But don't beat your head against that brick wall too many times.

.

Edited June 26, 2014 by jacee

[Bonam]

It has nothing to do with racism or racist laws. Not a thing.

Whether one benefits from the provisions of the treaty that ascribe certain rights to aboriginals is dependent on one's bloodline, that is one's race.

[Remiel]

I am not sure where the strong emotional feelings come from by some that appear to look like resentment that aboriginals have certain

rights. Its a result of treaties we entered into where both sides gave up certain rights in exchange for others.

I don't get people who are jealous of aboriginal rights. They seem jealous of certain rights but ignore the other rights aboriginals were forced to give up and the hardships that has caused them collectively and individually.

I mean you want to be jealous of aboriginal rights? Really? Well then take the whole package back not just the good things, take on the crap that goes with aboriginal living as well if you are so sure they have it so good. In fact exchange places with them.

Anyone going to go live in Sioux Lookout for example?

The problem is not indigenous rights per se, it is governing authority and foresight. We do not have the leisure of making a temporary "fix" to smooth things over in the present: to do this right the solution must also produce a relationship that could be palatable 50, 100, or 200 years from now, when indigenous poverty is no longer out of control.

If we just accept indigenous arguments about sovereignty, suddenly we might find ourselves in a situation where hundreds of thousands or millions of people live in "indigenous lands" and are subject to a political authority that has absolutely zero responsibility to them even in theory; where they are second class citizens at best, even on paper. All other things being equal, a tyranny of the majority will always be superior to a tyranny of the minority.

[dre]

You state-institutionalized racism apologists keep referring to 'we'.

This has nothing to do with state-institutionalized racism, it has to do with breach of contract. I would be of the opinion that the government should honor those treaties no matter who they were made with or what race they are.

Guess what? I didn't sign these 'deals', neither did my parents, or my grandparents, or my great grandparents, etc. Who is this 'we'? I often see people use it to refer to European Canadians, but what about everyone else? Where do Chinese Canadians fit into this for example?

When you became a Canadian citizen by birth or immigration you became connected with the countries assets AND its liabilities.

[TimG]

Taxation is being addressed in modern treaties.

Only for the few native bands with enough understanding of the issues to accept the inevitability of taxation. One of the reasons why deals are so hard to get is native bands refuse this and the government has no choice but to walk away.

Thats because nobody else had the rights to 9,984,670 square kilometers to trade to the crown for considerations. I assure you that if anyone else did, they would get a pretty sweet and special deal regardless of their race.

Actually, the normal process is move in, kill or absorb the existing inhabitants. That is what the natives did when successive waves moved in from Asia. That is what happened in South America. That is what happened in every other country on the planet. The British used the feudal approach where you cut a deal with the existing feudal lords which makes them feudal lords subjects of your kingdom. The trouble is 200 years later the British feudal lord have been reduced to figureheads but we have natives running around demanding that their feudal privileges be respected even though they have no more merit than the feudal privileges of the now defunct British aristocracy.

At the end of the day those treaties represent the best deal anyone has ever gotten in history for a piece of land. We made out like absolute bandits!

Stop using "we". It is complete nonsense. The benefits of having sovereignty over the landmass of Canada accrues to all citizens - native and non-native alike. If "we" have benefited then so have natives. The distinction you want to make is completely false.

The trouble is you want to shower unearned privileges on a subset of Canadians because of who they are descended from. This is the same logic used by feudal lords and their privileges have been stripped away without compensation around the world because such privileges are not consistent with the values of an egalitarian democray. Natives should have their privileges stripped away for the exact same reason.

Bottom line: there is nothing moral or just about native privileges even though the current legal framework in Canada does make it difficult to get rid of them. That does not mean we should not agree that they are morally wrong and in the long term they need to go.

Edited June 26, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

That's not uncalled for. Their website is full of half truths or less.

You have to substantiate that with evidence, not just your opinion.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

Still waiting for a definition of 'we'...

But there's a significant element of white supremacists who attach themselves to the anti-Aboriginal rights cadre and play the race card ad nauseam.

So all my non-white non-native friends that opposite state institutionalized racism are white supremacists?

This has nothing to do with state-institutionalized racism, it has to do with breach of contract. I would be of the opinion that the government should honor those treaties no matter who they were made with or what race they are.

So if the hypothetically government made a contract that black people should indefinitely be slaves of white people then that should be honored?

How about North Korea's system of punishing people for the 'crimes' of their parents and grand parents? Is that moral?

Can I make a contract with another individual and sell my grandchildren into slavery to the grandchildren of the other individual? Should my grandchildren honor such a contract?

[-1=e^ipi]

you cannot claim that something is moral or just just because it happens to be the law.

This concept is too difficult for many posters to comprehend.

[Bonam]

This concept is too difficult for many posters to comprehend.

Indeed, I have often seen a number of posters equate legality and morality, which is puzzling to me, since we can all come up with countless examples throughout history (including recent history) of immoral laws. Just because something is the law does not mean it ought to be the law.

[On Guard for Thee]

This concept is too difficult for many posters to comprehend.

Apparently arrogance is a little befuddling to some posters as well.

[Smallc]

You have to substantiate that with evidence, not just your opinion.

.

The Six Nations claim to not be part of Canada...show me their country on a map. Lets start there.

[jacee]

The problem is not indigenous rights per se, it is governing authority and foresight. We do not have the leisure of making a temporary "fix" to smooth things over in the present: to do this right the solution must also produce a relationship that could be palatable 50, 100, or 200 years from now, when indigenous poverty is no longer out of control.

If we just accept indigenous arguments about sovereignty, suddenly we might find ourselves in a situation where hundreds of thousands or millions of people live in "indigenous lands" and are subject to a political authority that has absolutely zero responsibility to them even in theory; where they are second class citizens at best, even on paper. All other things being equal, a tyranny of the majority will always be superior to a tyranny of the minority.

Hmmm ... sovereignty ... of lands and peoples are two different things.

It is agreed (via the UN Declaration) that Indigenous Peoples and their rights exist within States - thus within Canada.

The Crown in Canada is sovereign over the lands of Canada.

Indigenous Peoples rights include self-determination and self-government, sovereignty as Peoples that they never surrendered. (Currently at odds with the 'Indian' Act)

And they have rights and interests in management of their traditional territories, to varying degrees, involving agreements via the Crown with business interests, and the Crown can use lands for public infrastructure, etc. too.

So ... the scenario you paint isn't the way it is structured. Indigenous Peoples are sovereign over themselves, within Canada.

I hope that puts your mind at rest somewhat.

There are a lot of unknowns to a lot of people, and unknowns bring fear, and sometimes rancor.

Thanks for the opportunity to dial it down a bit.

.

[Smallc]

Aboriginal people fall under the Federal

Crown represented by the Government of Canada. They are only sovereign within that context.