Six Nations Crisis- “Canada’s Pandora’s Box?”

[Okwaho]

I choose not to understand why there should be special rights for certain races.

And you know what that makes you when you choose not to understand why there should be special rights for a race don't you?

[Okwaho]

What Riverbend is saying Native Charm is that he would be happy if we were assimulated into mainstream Canadian society.

I have never said that that I feel that native culture should be assimilated into mainstream society. I have simply said that natives are not entitled to special rights simply because of who their ancestors are.

I don't think you understand. We are them.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Native people have no more rights - let alone any ~special~ rights more than anyone else. The problem is that by participating in your government system and authorizing your politicians to do anything they choose after they are elected, you have allowed them to limit your rights in the form of the Constitution, laws and regulations. As non-Canadians and Onkwehon:we we recognize the rights bestowed upon us just for being human beings and our political system is such that they cannot remove them unless we expressly consent to it.

Having lost or compromised your basic humans rights and through the imposition of laws you prescribed to control others you, as Canadians have seriously limited yourselves.

Speeding is against the law, no? And yet you have laws that say going over a certain speed limit is unlawful and subject to a penalty. You all speed. So your complaints are not unlike trying to state that Germans have ~special~ rights because their government has chosen not to place any speed limit on the Autobaun.

There is nothing more that we would like as Onkwehon:we than for you to enjoy freedom the way we do. However, since you have demonstrated time and time again that you are incapable of taking the responsibility to regulate and control yourselves, the government has taken it upon themselves to do it on your behalf.

No we have no more rights than you do. You are just more limited. As non-Canadians we are not subject to those limitations anymore than an American is limted by them in his everyday affairs.

O:nen

[Who's Doing What?]

As an Athiest I resent the Idea that some god can give anything to anybody.

[Okwaho]

I sure get a kick out of the pople that mention land for " way of life" and "ncient customs". What if we want OUR LAND BACK for economical purposes. If we want to make money, then you label us as greedy. WTF we do with our land is our business. Seriously, thats what many of you are scared of, the fact that we will surpass you with success, you claim EQUALITY but only when you are in a position of the majority. No one likes to be wrong, and I don't think any of you (THAT ARE) will have the gonads to admit it. Like my dahlin Riv, who has a serious issue with Native pople having ANY eco-power at all. They can not stomach Native people having ANY power, whether its financial, political or even spiritual.

Don't label us as extremists when we are only doing the best we can to get our points across to those with closed eyes and ears. Pretending we don't exist will not make the issues go away. Many of you "CLAIM" to be or once were supporters but ONLY when you thought we wanted sympathy, which we don't. Now you say we are too extreme and will not support any of our issues. Frankly, that suits us fine for in the long run, it's YOUR childredn and great grand children you are subjecting to generations of racism, for you lack the ability to come to a table of discussion with eyes and ears open at the same time.

Straight up, you are extremists. What the hell else would you call road blocks and intimidation of an entire community, if not extreme?

Damn right people are changing their minds. When the entire country finds out that the natives don't just want more, but they want it all, a heck of a lot more minds will be changed, right quick.

There you go off half-cocked twisting the issues again. Why is it that it's O.K. for for everyone else to defend their property/territory but, when we do it we're extremists and terorists? Do you live in Caledonia? How do you know we're intimidating the entire community? What makes you think they aren't intimidating us? How do you know it's not both sides? It's always the natives. Want more? All we want is what under valid agreements belongs to us. I don't think your propaganda campaign will change many minds. Most people are to savvy to fall for your delusive rhetoric.

[Who's Doing What?]

I sure get a kick out of the pople that mention land for " way of life" and "ncient customs". What if we want OUR LAND BACK for economical purposes. If we want to make money, then you label us as greedy. WTF we do with our land is our business. Seriously, thats what many of you are scared of, the fact that we will surpass you with success, you claim EQUALITY but only when you are in a position of the majority. No one likes to be wrong, and I don't think any of you (THAT ARE) will have the gonads to admit it. Like my dahlin Riv, who has a serious issue with Native pople having ANY eco-power at all. They can not stomach Native people having ANY power, whether its financial, political or even spiritual.

Don't label us as extremists when we are only doing the best we can to get our points across to those with closed eyes and ears. Pretending we don't exist will not make the issues go away. Many of you "CLAIM" to be or once were supporters but ONLY when you thought we wanted sympathy, which we don't. Now you say we are too extreme and will not support any of our issues. Frankly, that suits us fine for in the long run, it's YOUR childredn and great grand children you are subjecting to generations of racism, for you lack the ability to come to a table of discussion with eyes and ears open at the same time.

Straight up, you are extremists. What the hell else would you call road blocks and intimidation of an entire community, if not extreme?

Damn right people are changing their minds. When the entire country finds out that the natives don't just want more, but they want it all, a heck of a lot more minds will be changed, right quick.

There you go off half-cocked twisting the issues again. Why is it that it's O.K. for for everyone else to defend their property/territory but, when we do it we're extremists and terorists? Do you live in Caledonia? How do you know we're intimidating the entire community? What makes you think they aren't intimidating us? How do you know it's not both sides? It's always the natives. Want more? All we want is what under valid agreements belongs to us. I don't think your propaganda campaign will change many minds. Most people are to savvy to fall for your delusive rhetoric.

You show me where the native village is, not was 500 years ago, but where it is now, on that land in Caledonia and you can have it.

I'm talking about defending my home from an armed group who says they have rights to my land. Not blockading a road and holding some empty fields for ransom.

Your perception of things is a bit off.

[Okwaho]

I sure get a kick out of the pople that mention land for " way of life" and "ncient customs". What if we want OUR LAND BACK for economical purposes. If we want to make money, then you label us as greedy. WTF we do with our land is our business. Seriously, thats what many of you are scared of, the fact that we will surpass you with success, you claim EQUALITY but only when you are in a position of the majority. No one likes to be wrong, and I don't think any of you (THAT ARE) will have the gonads to admit it. Like my dahlin Riv, who has a serious issue with Native pople having ANY eco-power at all. They can not stomach Native people having ANY power, whether its financial, political or even spiritual.

Don't label us as extremists when we are only doing the best we can to get our points across to those with closed eyes and ears. Pretending we don't exist will not make the issues go away. Many of you "CLAIM" to be or once were supporters but ONLY when you thought we wanted sympathy, which we don't. Now you say we are too extreme and will not support any of our issues. Frankly, that suits us fine for in the long run, it's YOUR childredn and great grand children you are subjecting to generations of racism, for you lack the ability to come to a table of discussion with eyes and ears open at the same time.

I thought you live there? At least watch the news? We even have a cook house there.

Straight up, you are extremists. What the hell else would you call road blocks and intimidation of an entire community, if not extreme?

Damn right people are changing their minds. When the entire country finds out that the natives don't just want more, but they want it all, a heck of a lot more minds will be changed, right quick.

There you go off half-cocked twisting the issues again. Why is it that it's O.K. for for everyone else to defend their property/territory but, when we do it we're extremists and terorists? Do you live in Caledonia? How do you know we're intimidating the entire community? What makes you think they aren't intimidating us? How do you know it's not both sides? It's always the natives. Want more? All we want is what under valid agreements belongs to us. I don't think your propaganda campaign will change many minds. Most people are to savvy to fall for your delusive rhetoric.

You show me where the native village is, not was 500 years ago, but where it is now, on that land in Calidonia and you can have it.

I'm talking about defending my home from an armed group who says they have rights to my land. Not blockading a road and holding some empty fields for ransom.

Your perception of things is a bit off.

[Who's Doing What?]

What was that?

[mister_v]

The Two Row Wampum Treaty (1600s) specified nation-to-nation status. It was incorporated into the Royal Proclamation (1763) which also addressed land rights. The Royal Proclamation was incorporated into the Canadian Constitution (1982). The legality of the Haldimand Proclamation (1784) which granted 6 miles deep on either side of the Grand to the Haudenosaunee is not in question. It is the legality of the surrenders that is questioned ... but International Law, current Canadian Law and even the law at that time renders most or all surrenders invalid.

The Two Row Wampum was an agreement between the Iroquois and the Dutch, not the British. The Royal Proclamation makes no mention of any agreements with the Indians, it simply set out (non-permanent) boundaries of the colonies and lays out very explicit guidelines for the expansion of the colonies to only occur onto lands purchased from the Indians by Crown officials or ceded to the Crown (i.e. the colonists were not to purchase lands from the Indians directly). However, all Indian lands were considered to be under the domain of the Crown and the Proclamation did not extend any sovereignty to the Indians.

BTW, its not so much the Haldimand Proclamation that should be used, its the Simcoe Deed which both partially re-affirmed and corrected the Haldimand Proclamation while laying down guidelines on how the Six Nations could dispose of the land (ie. only through land surrenders to the Crown, not through direct sales or leases).

As for those surrenders not being valid, they were valid. If the proceeds of those surrenders were mismanaged thats a different matter.

Today's protestors can't turn back the hands of time.

[geoffrey]

As an Athiest I resent the Idea that some god can give anything to anybody.

As a Christian I fear those that try to say God gave them a sole right to anything. The God I know doesn't pick and choose based on the colour of one's skin. It's right up there with Israel is the land God gave them so they have a right to it.

Equally irrational, equally unjustified.

They've got to at least come up with a decent reason, treaties were good, but God isn't one to give land based on race to anyone. The same argument was used in South Africa.

[Okwaho]

You show me where the native village is, not was 500 years ago, but where it is now, on that land in Caledonia and you can have it.

I'm talking about defending my home from an armed group who says they have rights to my land. Not blockading a road and holding some empty fields for ransom.

Your perception of things is a bit off.

We don't have to have a village on the the land under the Haldimand Proclamation. We've danced this dance before. Your beloved Delgamuukw case doesn't hold any water on the Haldimand. Get over it and move on.

I'm talking about defending our territory from an invading armed enemy that says they own our land when they don't and trying to steal our empty fields from us.

My perception of things is exactly like yours.

[Okwaho]

As an Athiest I resent the Idea that some god can give anything to anybody.

As a Christian I fear those that try to say God gave them a sole right to anything. The God I know doesn't pick and choose based on the colour of one's skin. It's right up there with Israel is the land God gave them so they have a right to it.

Equally irrational, equally unjustified.

They've got to at least come up with a decent reason, treaties were good, but God isn't one to give land based on race to anyone. The same argument was used in South Africa.

Really? Does a non-believer enter the kingdom of heaven if they don't believe in Jesus? Did God give the promise land to the Arabs? Need I go on? I spent 7 years studying Christianity at Mac. Div. in Hamilton. I don't think you want to go there!

[Who's Doing What?]

You show me where the native village is, not was 500 years ago, but where it is now, on that land in Caledonia and you can have it.

I'm talking about defending my home from an armed group who says they have rights to my land. Not blockading a road and holding some empty fields for ransom.

Your perception of things is a bit off.

We don't have to have a village on the the land under the Haldimand Proclamation. We've danced this dance before. Your beloved Delgamuukw case doesn't hold any water on the Haldimand. Get over it and move on.

I'm talking about defending our territory from an invading armed enemy that says they own our land when they don't and trying to steal our empty fields from us.

My perception of things is exactly like yours.

Try to stay on the right page here. I was pointing out the difference between defending ones home and what is happening in Caledonia.

If you think there is any similarities, then we definitely don't have the same perception.

[geoffrey]

Really? Does a non-believer enter the kingdom of heaven if they don't believe in Jesus? Did God give the promise land to the Arabs? Need I go on? I spent 7 years studying Christianity at Mac. Div. in Hamilton. I don't think you want to go there!

Theology is another debate. I don't bring God into legal discussions, it's not a rational defence of an argument.

[Who's Doing What?]

Really? Does a non-believer enter the kingdom of heaven if they don't believe in Jesus? Did God give the promise land to the Arabs? Need I go on? I spent 7 years studying Christianity at Mac. Div. in Hamilton. I don't think you want to go there!

Trick question there O.

A non-believer doesn't believe in a heaven or hell, so whether or not they would enter it is irrelevant.

Nice try though.

[Okwaho]

Really? Does a non-believer enter the kingdom of heaven if they don't believe in Jesus? Did God give the promise land to the Arabs? Need I go on? I spent 7 years studying Christianity at Mac. Div. in Hamilton. I don't think you want to go there!

Theology is another debate. I don't bring God into legal discussions, it's not a rational defence of an argument.

You were the one that opened that door;

"As a Christian I fear those that try to say God gave them a sole right to anything. The God I know doesn't pick and choose based on the colour of one's skin. It's right up there with Israel is the land God gave them so they have a right to it."

[Who's Doing What?]

Really? Does a non-believer enter the kingdom of heaven if they don't believe in Jesus? Did God give the promise land to the Arabs? Need I go on? I spent 7 years studying Christianity at Mac. Div. in Hamilton. I don't think you want to go there!

Theology is another debate. I don't bring God into legal discussions, it's not a rational defence of an argument.

You were the one that opened that door;

"As a Christian I fear those that try to say God gave them a sole right to anything. The God I know doesn't pick and choose based on the colour of one's skin. It's right up there with Israel is the land God gave them so they have a right to it."

Someone said god gave the natives the rights to the land.

[geoffrey]

Actually I was invalidating the God gave us this land argument, but whatever. Religion isn't a rational defence in a secular society.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

No one said God gave us the land. I mentioned that human beings had rights. Our rights have not been limited - yours have.

O:nen

[Okwaho]

The Two Row Wampum Treaty (1600s) specified nation-to-nation status. It was incorporated into the Royal Proclamation (1763) which also addressed land rights. The Royal Proclamation was incorporated into the Canadian Constitution (1982). The legality of the Haldimand Proclamation (1784) which granted 6 miles deep on either side of the Grand to the Haudenosaunee is not in question. It is the legality of the surrenders that is questioned ... but International Law, current Canadian Law and even the law at that time renders most or all surrenders invalid.

The Two Row Wampum was an agreement between the Iroquois and the Dutch, not the British. The Royal Proclamation makes no mention of any agreements with the Indians, it simply set out (non-permanent) boundaries of the colonies and lays out very explicit guidelines for the expansion of the colonies to only occur onto lands purchased from the Indians by Crown officials or ceded to the Crown (i.e. the colonists were not to purchase lands from the Indians directly). However, all Indian lands were considered to be under the domain of the Crown and the Proclamation did not extend any sovereignty to the Indians.

BTW, its not so much the Haldimand Proclamation that should be used, its the Simcoe Deed which both partially re-affirmed and corrected the Haldimand Proclamation while laying down guidelines on how the Six Nations could dispose of the land (ie. only through land surrenders to the Crown, not through direct sales or leases).

As for those surrenders not being valid, they were valid. If the proceeds of those surrenders were mismanaged thats a different matter.

Today's protestors can't turn back the hands of time.

The Two Row was made with the Dutch, the French and the British. Within the Two Row is also the Silver Covenant Chain.

It's a King's Proclamation to his British subjects.

Show me the valid land patents of the Crown purchases as per the Royal Proclamation and the Simcoe then. You see? That's where the government is in bit of a pickle.

[Who's Doing What?]

screw it.

[mister_v]

The Two Row Wampum was an agreement between the Iroquois and the Dutch, not the British. The Royal Proclamation makes no mention of any agreements with the Indians, it simply set out (non-permanent) boundaries of the colonies and lays out very explicit guidelines for the expansion of the colonies to only occur onto lands purchased from the Indians by Crown officials or ceded to the Crown (i.e. the colonists were not to purchase lands from the Indians directly). However, all Indian lands were considered to be under the domain of the Crown and the Proclamation did not extend any sovereignty to the Indians.

BTW, its not so much the Haldimand Proclamation that should be used, its the Simcoe Deed which both partially re-affirmed and corrected the Haldimand Proclamation while laying down guidelines on how the Six Nations could dispose of the land (ie. only through land surrenders to the Crown, not through direct sales or leases).

As for those surrenders not being valid, they were valid. If the proceeds of those surrenders were mismanaged thats a different matter.

Today's protestors can't turn back the hands of time.

The Two Row was made with the Dutch, the French and the British. Within the Two Row is also the Silver Covenant Chain.

It's a King's Proclamation to his British subjects.

Show me the valid land patents of the Crown purchases as per the Royal Proclamation and the Simcoe then. You see? That's where the government is in bit of a pickle.

The Two Row Wampum was made with the Dutch, period. The Covenant Chain was a separate ideal between the British and the Iroquois, along with some other native groups at the time. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Two Row Wampum automatically applied to all Europeans. But I am sure the ideals of the Two Row Wampum were incorporated into the metaphor of the Covenant Chain.

As it concerns the Six Nations, the Proclamation stopped being a factor at the end of the American Revolution when the Six Nations lost their lands in New York State to the Americans and the act of the Crown purchasing land from the Mississaugas and the Six Nations settling that land under the Crown's protection. At that point, the Six Nations became subjects of the Crown (and I am referring specifically to those that settled at the Grand River).

As for the documents pertaining to the land surrenders of portions of the Tract, I encourage you to visit canadiana.org and look up "Indian treaties and surrenders, from 1680 to 1890". It'll take some reading through but you'll find the relevant material.

There is no pickle. Thats only in your mind.

[Okwaho]

The Two Row Wampum was an agreement between the Iroquois and the Dutch, not the British. The Royal Proclamation makes no mention of any agreements with the Indians, it simply set out (non-permanent) boundaries of the colonies and lays out very explicit guidelines for the expansion of the colonies to only occur onto lands purchased from the Indians by Crown officials or ceded to the Crown (i.e. the colonists were not to purchase lands from the Indians directly). However, all Indian lands were considered to be under the domain of the Crown and the Proclamation did not extend any sovereignty to the Indians.

BTW, its not so much the Haldimand Proclamation that should be used, its the Simcoe Deed which both partially re-affirmed and corrected the Haldimand Proclamation while laying down guidelines on how the Six Nations could dispose of the land (ie. only through land surrenders to the Crown, not through direct sales or leases).

As for those surrenders not being valid, they were valid. If the proceeds of those surrenders were mismanaged thats a different matter.

Today's protestors can't turn back the hands of time.

The Two Row was made with the Dutch, the French and the British. Within the Two Row is also the Silver Covenant Chain.

It's a King's Proclamation to his British subjects.

Show me the valid land patents of the Crown purchases as per the Royal Proclamation and the Simcoe then. You see? That's where the government is in bit of a pickle.

The Two Row Wampum was made with the Dutch, period. The Covenant Chain was a separate ideal between the British and the Iroquois, along with some other native groups at the time. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Two Row Wampum automatically applied to all Europeans. But I am sure the ideals of the Two Row Wampum were incorporated into the metaphor of the Covenant Chain.

As it concerns the Six Nations, the Proclamation stopped being a factor at the end of the American Revolution when the Six Nations lost their lands in New York State to the Americans and the act of the Crown purchasing land from the Mississaugas and the Six Nations settling that land under the Crown's protection. At that point, the Six Nations became subjects of the Crown (and I am referring specifically to those that settled at the Grand River).

As for the documents pertaining to the land surrenders of portions of the Tract, I encourage you to visit canadiana.org and look up "Indian treaties and surrenders, from 1680 to 1890". It'll take some reading through but you'll find the relevant material.

There is no pickle. Thats only in your mind.

I am from Grand River and I can asure you completely we are not subjects of the Crown. The Haldimand and Simcoe specifically refer to Six Nations at Grand River. Both of them state implictly friends and allies. If you have access to the Time Life book series on Native Americans look at the volume with Iroquois in it. You'll find that we have our own passport and it's recognized in 36 coutries. You are mistinterpreting the arcaic english. If what you are interpreting was fact our Confederacy wouldn't speaking with the government at this very moment. Yes it is a pickle with the valid Crown land patent issue or again the government wouldn't be wasting it's time talking and especially out of court! I hope that puts things into perspective for you.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

The Two Row was extended by the British as the Conenant Chain. It is the same treaty in essence.

The British never purchased the tract from the Mississaugas. The Haldimand Tract, as well as the North Shores of Erie to Georgian Bay and Ontario to the Trent and Ottawa Rivers was already Confederacy territory. The Mississaugas had a treaty with us to manage the lands in our absence . The agreement was witnessed in Taiagon (Toronto) in about 1664. The Mississaugas were paid a sum to return to their traditional lands on the north shore of Superior, that's all.

The return to the Haldimand Tract was a reoccupation of traditional lands. The Proclamation was a guarantee that Haudensaunee had absolute autonomy and authority over the lands and that no settlers would be permitted to settler the area. The proclamation was not necessary on our behalf since we knew our territorial limits but it was a law to prohibit setters from landing there. The British and the Crown recognized our sovereignty as allies. There was never any agreement, assumption or capitulation that made us subjects. Nada. None!

Our soveriengty is intact as is our traditional government. We don't need Canadian rule nor are we willing to compromise our land or our autonomy for the sake of friendship.

O:nen

[geoffrey]

She:kon!

No one said God gave us the land. I mentioned that human beings had rights. Our rights have not been limited - yours have.

O:nen

Are you justifying how you have more rights? I'm confused by that statement.

Should I have limited rights? Should we have equal rights?

What's up?