Freedom Of Speech,An Iroquoian Tradition

[yam]

when somebody is hospitable to you then, do you say there place is a shit hole all over the forum?

Do you describe your 'buddies' place as this that and the other when the whole point is allegedly speaking of their selfless (hard to believe) hospitality.

Perhaps you do. It actually is derivative of a 'false class consciousness'. The 'Ikea' mentality. Billions suffer from it - materialistic/plastic souls that they are.

As you say . . . why beat about the bush ayyy!

[g_bambino]

when somebody is hospitable to you then, do you say there place is a shit hole all over the forum?

Do you describe your 'buddies' place as this that and the other when the whole point is allegedly speaking of their selfless (hard to believe) hospitality.

Perhaps you do. It actually is derivative of a 'false class consciousness'. The 'Ikea' mentality. Billions suffer from it - materialistic/plastic souls that they are.

As you say . . . why beat about the bush ayyy!

Someone's hospitality is not reliant on the state of their residence - one can live in a dump and be hospitable, and one can live in a palace and be a prick. So, I can comment on their residence without making observations about their hospitality, and vice versa. But, yes, I can combine the two and say someone's home was a shit hole while also saying they were very hospitable. The point in a statement like that is: despite their poor living conditions, they had the generosity to give some of the little they had to me. I can also say someone's home was gorgeous while also saying they were rude. The point in that statement is: despite their superior living conditions, they lacked the generosity to spare even some of their vast resources for me. It has nothing to do with false class consciousness, and everything to do with making a simple observation about someone's generosity, and emphasising it by further elaborating that they were generous despite the meagre surroundings in which they lived. "Shit hole" isn't the most delicate of terms to describe meagre surroundings, but the use of more brut language doesn't mask the point.

The fact that you immediately interpret a simple observation as an insult, and exaggerate it (all over the forum?), shows a hyper-sensitivity on your part.

[watching&waiting]

I have stayed out of this thread so far because just its title makes me want to shout"so what is the big deal ". Free speech was not invented by the Iroquios, it is just a description of the way things may have been done. But just like here, what you say can and will be used against you by others, and I imagine it was even by the Iroquios.

What I find though is that there are just as many dumb and halfwitted Native people as we have in our non native communities. There are just so many things that people do not understand in the native land claims that both sides are in the wrong much of the time. It is when you get some of the real idiots from either side yapping about things they have been told, that have really no basis in life or law, then you breed the making of racists. Racism will only favour the non native population, idf and when push comes to shove. So I find it really strange that the more robust posters here have been all about racism then anything else.

I am what would be considered a mutt, when it comes to heritage. I am part german, french, irish, native Iroquois, and Austrian. My family tree has so many branches that I could not find one time the family memebers married into their own nationalities. I am proud not to be pure blood, and I do not think I should be looked down upon by anyone, no matter what their birth. I now call myself a Canadian and I am a contributing member of this country, and I hold no special will to any pasts and traditions. I am proud to be me. It just seems like everyone here has forgot that pure blood pretty much does not exist in the country anymore. Even in the reserves and the like it is no different outside of them.

The courts will soon put an end to all the land claim stuff and it will not make anyone happy, as there will be no payooffs and it will not be protested by violence or occupation. What is going on here is the fact that when the government is pushed to settle this, it will simply enact it by law and take away all the claims by law and that will be that. The native population will not be happy but considering that they are just a very small minority, and the rest is a vastly voting majority, just how do you see the going, and if new laws are needed to whom do you expect them to favour?

I for one believe this has gone on far too long and the end should be sooner rather then later.

[yam]

Greetings Tsi

Yes and this actually does sum up the position well -first paragraph

She:kon!

"Chuck U. Farlie demonstrates just how ignorant he is. A "northern Ontario" reserve is not Six Nations Territory and the Ojibwa up north of superior are not Haudenosaunee. His example is nothing more than a german going to italy and then proceeding to explain the customs of the hungarians based on his experience. Totally stupid example and an equally irelevent story".

And again - as a relevant detail.

"ANYone knows that at Six Nations or any other Haudenosaunee territory we serve our guests fried baloney sandwiches and corn soup! I bet he thinks all was good where he was because his sandwich was on "white" bread...... He should get with the culture!"

CUF chucked these details into the melting pot of the Canadian stereo types of "natives". In fact what he really did was subvert the point of hospitality in order to bring out the surrounding irrelevant details to the front as best he could in a PC fashion ( hospitality was his emotive conjecture). In fact the whole of his post could easily be deconstructed to show his original intention.

Im not going to bother. But i have no doubt about it his motive. Why? Because i have read the 'nature' of his posts before which are uninformed and certainly NOT bothered with surrounding details. But i'll give you an example of what we have of his person and the choice of his projection on to others.

Look at the name he chose for himself - does that not give you any clues?

1) his message is he could not give a hoot to anybody but himself - he is hostile

2) Yet he subverts it because a) he's afraid to be bold and outright so he uses what minimal pc he can and he thinks its 'rebellious' - when really it is something he aspires too and yet is afraid to be.

Why am i not letting this go as "going on for far too long" is because it has been going on for hundreds of years and not the length of time it takes to read a post.

It might not sound much to you guys but this carelessness/lazyness is what speeds up the process of assimilation. If speaking of SNs or any f/ns people to any Canadian in any province, they ALL share the SAME picture as CUF.

And believe me you are not presenting a good image of Canadians in the international community. You might not have to care that 'when in Kanada speak as the canadians do" but you soon would feel the ass you are when 'them there foreigners over the seas' start asking you questions about the diversities amoung f/ns say in relation to geography and the economy and you cannot answer ANYTHING intelligently!

Tsi is being very considerate here with his forgveness whereas im not so forgiving:

"That's ok. I forgive him for his ignorance. The interbreeding of "dumb" hicks always produces at least one regressive gene in the family line. He can't help it if he is genetically prone to be slow".

O:nen

As bambino says

"Why mince words and pretend things are all hunky dory when they are not?

My point exactly so im not going to stop just because you and you buddies feel a little tired and a little bored that we have to labour the collective racism of canada.

" is Iroquoian free speech only free when it is politically correct" you ask.

To be FREE is to be informed. It is not the slave of a lazy mind. Freedom is hard work.

If you want to know what Iroquoian FS is, best ask them.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Unfortunately, people like Bumbino come into discussion believing they are debating between their racist / bigotted conclusions and the assertions that their prejudice is ill informed. They tend to ignore facts when thet don't fit their conclusions and so their entire response is dedicated to debunking truth and replacing it with their myths.

Being stuck in a myopic conclusion he is an example of the general lack of cognitive thought that is prevelent in the mainstream. Of course freedom of thought (and in fact personal freedom) does not come by relying upon the past prejudice, conclusions and myths they have been conditioned to believe. Instead it can only come by challenging the myths (one must assume that every "first" reaction to a statement is not true) and then rethinking how the truth they are presented with could be true.

Freedom of speech in our terms is not placing personal prejudices and opinions above the "possibility" of other explanations but seeks out additional truths that "bend" our thoughts and conclusions in the direction of absolute truth. The more we hear others speaking their truth and add it to our understanding of the facts the greater possibility that what we are discussing will not only lead to a righteous decisions, but that our understanding of issues and each other grows likewise.

And so the KEY to freedom of speech, is to listen to what others have to say, and to try to find consensus in our understanding. Written history is a collection of prejudices while oral history is a number of versions of the same truth - a huge difference which certifies why it is more reliable than the written versions.

(Of course when one does not bend their understanding in the face of overwhelming information to the contrary then their opinion becomes useless and their position is adversarial to the peace - not contributing to it. They then become enemies of truth and are treated as such until they decide to join the peace by listening instread of spouting their unfactual rhetoric. Very quickly, they are dismissed by the listener and so even if they had a valuable contribution, it is not heard.)

O:nen

[g_bambino]

She:kon!

Unfortunately, people like Bumbino come into discussion believing they are debating between their racist / bigotted conclusions and the assertions that their prejudice is ill informed. They tend to ignore facts when thet don't fit their conclusions and so their entire response is dedicated to debunking truth and replacing it with their myths.

Being stuck in a myopic conclusion he is an example of the general lack of cognitive thought that is prevelent in the mainstream. Of course freedom of thought (and in fact personal freedom) does not come by relying upon the past prejudice, conclusions and myths they have been conditioned to believe. Instead it can only come by challenging the myths (one must assume that every "first" reaction to a statement is not true) and then rethinking how the truth they are presented with could be true.

Freedom of speech in our terms is not placing personal prejudices and opinions above the "possibility" of other explanations but seeks out additional truths that "bend" our thoughts and conclusions in the direction of absolute truth. The more we hear others speaking their truth and add it to our understanding of the facts the greater possibility that what we are discussing will not only lead to a righteous decisions, but that our understanding of issues and each other grows likewise.

And so the KEY to freedom of speech, is to listen to what others have to say, and to try to find consensus in our understanding. Written history is a collection of prejudices while oral history is a number of versions of the same truth - a huge difference which certifies why it is more reliable than the written versions.

(Of course when one does not bend their understanding in the face of overwhelming information to the contrary then their opinion becomes useless and their position is adversarial to the peace - not contributing to it. They then become enemies of truth and are treated as such until they decide to join the peace by listening instread of spouting their unfactual rhetoric. Very quickly, they are dismissed by the listener and so even if they had a valuable contribution, it is not heard.)

O:nen

What this comes down to, in reality, is that you feel your myths are fact and our facts are myths. Frankly, I never stated that anything you said was false, that is, until I asked for proof and was given none. That's been your achiles heel all along - you have no evidence to back up what you say. In the absence of supporting proof, you state your "oral history" is evidence enough. Well, sorry, that may be an element of the overall story, but it doesn't fully cut it - not enough to counter the evidence against you.

My conclusions may well be myopic, but in the absence of anything tangible on which to base any alterations or additions, myopic they must remain. I would rather have a rational limited view than broad conclusions based on fantasy and stories. You, on the other hand, claim you have an open, broad view, but are actually closed to any alternative to your hatred-fuelled, self-promulgating, culturalist conclusions. And therein lies the difference between us - I was (and am) willing to learn something new; even hoped you could shed some light on the issue of treaties and the Crown. But, instead, you rammed baseless propaganda down our throats and unendingly inflated your own self-righteousness by ranting about how your pure and innocent people have been beaten down by us racist, ignorant, bigots. Perhaps your people were subjugated, perhaps not. Perhaps it was partly your own fault, perhaps not. But, we never discussed such things. You had an opportunity to teach in a public forum, and failed. In the end, I did learn more about First Nations, treaties, and the Crown (even Six Nations in particular), but, ironically, it all debunked every one of your assertions.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions - the freedom of thought you're allowed in this kingdom does permit you to do so, regardless of what those thoughts are based on or how they are formed. However, I will stick to believing what I have ascertained from the evidence I've gathered, and, like the others here, simply leave you to your beliefs.

I sincerely hope that others are able to bridge gaps better than Tsi, Gayogoho, and Yam. I really do.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

You are in error...still.....

...is that you feel your myths are fact and our facts are myths.

First of all our facts are facts based not solely on oral history but on oral history that has been confrimed by thousands of written documents - from the Jesuit Relations on down to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The collections of oral history confirm the truth often going against the history bending re-interpretations of historical texts based on modern principles. What you keep trying to do is to use today's myths to confirm history and in the end when we present factual accounts all you do to protect those myths is to demand more and more "proof" (as if the internet is anything of "proof")

Secondly, you have no facts. All you have are a collection of prejudices. Taken out of context you take single statements from historical texts and trying to apply them generally. You fail the very nature of history to confirm from many sources (since we all know that the written record is nothing more than one or two peoples viewpoint. Our proof has been not only confirmed over and over again by many people. This includes looking at things like the Letters and Articles of the Jesuit Relations, the transactions recorded by the French and British while they were here and even local papers which again record the prejudice of the editor but that confirm the truth of the oral history once the template of hate is removed from the story.

The fact is that being myopic your opinion is "irrational" since rationalilty cannot exist in seclusion. Going only as far as it supports your myths present the worst of errors in your thinking since what in fact you are doing is creating a conclusion and then attempting to find informatin that only supports your conclusion. That is not only irrational but is hysterical and paranoid. You have filled your replies with generalities and examples that we have pointed out time and time again are irrelevent. Yet you insist on repeating your prejudice as if saying it over and over again will protect you from the truth.

If you had believed that freedom of thought is guaranteed in your society then I suggest that you anchor in for a fight against the commercial advertisers, school systems, churches and government all who have subjected you and small children on up to mass conditioning. If freedom of thought were protected in your "kingdom" then children would not be singing cereal jingles, or playing video games in the darkness of their bedrooms. If freedom of thought were something that was even comtemplated here then the word "rootkit" would not be a basis for banning. Yet every part of your society, your institutions and even your entertainment is geared to making you thoughtless and distracted - mostly to encourage you to consume and behave according to someone else's ideas of security. The fact is that you have been brainwashed. And if you really possessed the freedom of thought, you would recognize it as much as we do, having been subjected to it all our lives but being free to ignore its limitations.

So if you are going to go to a doctor and profess to be more knowledgable than he then you are an idiot. Otherwise anyone with any sense would realize that when talking about something you know little about they would be asking the experts for their opinions of the situation and not prescribing absolute "take it or leave it" solutions. WE ARE the experts having been Haudenosaunne all of my life, having lived like you for about 30 of my young years and realizing the hypocrisy and insanity behind your thinking. We are the knowledge keepers and the medicine keepers that know the land and its need for reparation and isolation from the petulance of the western insanity. We are the farmers who taste the soil and recognize its souring under the constant attack of greed and ignorance. We are the men and the women of Six Nations who no longer accept the government's attempts to protect the theft of our territory. If you want truth then ask the experts (there are many among us). If you want myopia and insanity keep thinking the way you have been. That road has been paved in preparation of your arrival by the millions of people who came our way over the last 500 years.

If you want a lesson from your past, make it be this one. We are Haudensaunee, If you meet us on the path, we don't move. If you bump us in the night you will have to lift yourself off the ground. Our roots are firmly planted there!

O:nen

[yam]

It is unfortunate that g.bamboozled got all defensive in the end. I finished reading the first sentense and then the rest of his response was to use key issues as a personal defense. So again contextualisation and issues have been thwarted.

However not with me. You really have hit on an incredibly important point/s concerning the problem of written history. As you say - that principly historians bend the truth and context of history because their understanding is steeped in their modern principles.

So true.

And reading what the Haudenosaunee say about the subject is something to behold.

I did philosophy for three yrs which dealt with history/ideology and the principles of distortions ages ago. One particular philosopher called Maurice Merleau-ponty . . .focuses upon the problems of historical analysis per se. . . actually ALL that you have pointed out. His strategy seeks to avoid the VERY problems you have stipulated in paragraph two which then roles into paragraph three - myoptic visions as irrational. Things REALLY are not one- dimensional as too our understanding should not be.

Hence it makes our stupid ideas of freedom the very key to our own bondage as you further explained.

Perhaps Merleau- ponty plagarised from the Haudenosaunee (i do believe it has been done before)?

Im not exagerating but the logic is astonishingly similar to what you have described - as far as i can remember anyway

Ill try and find out the book title/date because you might want to compare them (I would like to but am stuck without any access to books whatsoever so i'll have to wait).

But what is the title/author and date of your peoples book since they were speaking about these issues way before western philosophy (just in case i can get it at some point) ?

I know it goes into this debate and way of life. . . .

ahhh its something, something 'An Iroquois way of life'?

If i cant get it i'll keep LISTENING . .

[yam]

Iv found a wasase site that deals with this.

I dont know if this is your 'cup of tea' to put it crudely - but just in case-

'Adventures of the Dialectic' (1973) Maurice Merleau-Ponty

[g_bambino]

You really have hit on an incredibly important point/s concerning the problem of written history. As you say - that principly historians bend the truth and context of history because their understanding is steeped in their modern principles.

I hope when you speak of the bias of historians you include the Six Nations orators within such a criticism as much as you do non-Native writers. Whether written or spoken, history is unavoidably tainted by the modern context in which it is being viewed. Archaeologists, Anthropologists, and others who work in the "science" of history may try to minimise that bias as much as they can, but it's never completely avoidable. This goes for any historian - regardless of the method with which he communicates.

In this instance we have the oral history of Six Nations vs. the written history of the "whites." The former tells, supposedly, that the Six Nations are a sovereign people and their land along the Grand River an independent state under no authority other than their own. Firstly, the tale is as much steeped in modern principals as any other take on history is, as well as being further used to support the modern, personal view of a certain group of Six Nations and to forward their cause. Secondly, the whole affair points to a serious flaw with oral history: the story passed on from generation to generation may well have been wrong right from the very beginning. For the Six Nations and the Haldimand Tract, this seems to have been the case.

We have tangible verification in hand: the original legal documents themselves, and the written letters of those who discussed and drafted them. These documents state clearly that this land was bought by the Crown from the Mississaugas. The Crown then told the Six Nations that they could settle on this tract in compensation for their assistance to the Crown in the American revolutionary war, and for the loss of their original lands then buried within the new United States. These documents also make clear that in no way did the Crown cede sovereignty over these lands to the Six Nations - right in the Haldimand Proclamation is says specifically that the territory is under the sovereignty of the Crown. It has also been noted, right from the early days after the signing of the Haldimand Proclamation that Joseph Brant mistakenly believed that the proclamation gave sovereignty to the Six Nations, and that the British Government said then and there that he was wrong. That wrong interpretation of the document has continued to persist amongst Six Nations since that time over 200 years ago.

I've acknowledged that the Royal Proclamation does indeed bar non-Natives from settling on lands designated by the Crown to be for First Nations only, and I won't comment on whether the lands of Haldimand Tract have been sold off legally or not (I never have), but written, concrete data tells us that the belief in Six Nations sovereignty is misguided. Further, other modern evidence points out clearly that such a claim is wrong.

It's only ever been the evidence that mattered; that's what everyone here has been asking for. You can listen as long as you want, but without anything to back up what's being said, it's just a story. Because they say its true doesn't make it so.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Our oral history tradition IS more reliable than your written history, laws and letters. Without the oral history your documents are all suspect. That is the ruling of your Supreme Court.

Oral history is valid because it is not limited to little stories of one or two people (like your written history is). It is the recollection of the witnesses to an event passing on that knowledge to their descendents. So if 20 people witness the event then each one tells 20 others and inturn when they get together with the other 400 story keepers and collaberate, the histroy is acutely accurate save and except small ineventual details. UNLESS it can be confirmed by other knowledge keepers the details are glossed over as individual opinions and perspectives. That does not alter the final meat and potatoes of the event.

In contrast written history relies upon the conclusions of one or two historians. They enter their research with a bias. Sometimes it is a bias towards colonization and Christian conquest. Sometimes it is a bias against the French or the Indians, but always there is a bias. A historian makes a predetermined conclusion based on his bias and then sets out to "prove" his argument (all historical texts are arguments) and will rarely provide the information that refutes his original standing on the issues and always provides overwhelming information to support his conclusion. Yet texts contradict themselves, oral history does not save and except again for the details.

In the Marshall case the government tried the same bunk that you do, by presenting signed treaties and presenting them as absolute fact. However, your Supreme Court rejected their argument that treaties are irrefutible fact and instead stated that the oral history must be given equal or better weight since the documents were written by the British long after the discussions (the oral history recollecting the discussions during the treaty negoitiations) were finalized. The British abused their authority in recording the treaties with a bias against what was discussed. There is no paper evidence between us until it has been confirmed by our oral history.

However, we do not need to rely upon your courts to determine our title to all those lands. All one need do is go back to pre-contact and realize that we have always been in possession of those lands. It is up to YOU to prove that we ever gave you leases or ownership and that all payments have been made in full. That is why your governmne is in such a calamity. They can't prove anything without also being held liable for all the damages incurred as as result of their failures to live up to the agreements. So whether or not it amounts to buying out all of those that live on the Haldimand Tract - our territory - or whether it means that lands were sold and leased and we never received payment, the bill still amounts to about $1.5 Trillion dollars. But you can't have it both ways.

O:nen

[geoffrey]

Since Canada doesn't recognize your passport, and you don't have international flights from your reservation, my question to you... how the hell do you get home from your trips overseas?

I repeat my question, as I'd like to bury this idea that you've used your passports for good. Since Canada doesn't recognize your passport, how do you return after your voyage? You need a proof of citizenship to return to Canada, or to "visit" here from another nation. What do you use then?

[yam]

Bumblingbambi

I was speaking of the problem of written history. However, i was adopting a western/european approach. Adopting, because i was reitterating a problem that has been recognised down through the ages in Europe concerning the misinterpretation of 'their own' history. Needless to say other countries in the world have had this problem too and have jumped upon the philosophical tradition of unravelling their written history (which includes the US by the way) - i dont know about Canada per se. But by all accounts the latter's written history has abandoned the history of Canadian geography/borders one way or another.

However, I was endeavouring to pick up on the points Tsi made because they quite simply reminded me about Merleau - Ponty which further bounced into other european philosophers. And in doing so i was making a comparrison of Tsi's points with theirs which have been engaged with historically, through the meidum of philosophy. Now philosophy is the tool which digs deep into every single assumption made in history in its written form due to its alleged duty in being the gate keeper of truth while succumbing to its propensity for misinterpretation, much political bias and the interpretation of language between borders.

I was NOT including the possibility of sns oratators misinterpretations or otherwise. It was NOT the point or purpose of my response to Tsi. Rather, to elaborate that misinterpretation of history is a documented WORLD phenomenon. I dont just dive in. Tsi may have wanted to engage with the above or not. If he had we would have no doubt broached the pluses and minuses of the oral tradition that he has outlined numerous times - remember?.

But i guess Tsi's getting sick of having to wade through defensive canadians even though we are speaking of an issue recognised the world over!! Such defense disables thorough communication and becomes self gratuitous as a weapon. It drasticallycheapens what would otherwise be a valuable endeavour to truth.

What i do know of the Mohawk tradition is not grounded yet in consciousness (due to the fickle nature of the forum) but i do know 9as you should too by the`way) that interpretation of every single historical event is safely guarded by three Royaners present for the sake of the clan mothers and the whole community. It is more complicated than how i have jotted this down. But they have cared greatly about this down through the ages, indeed its the core of their existence. How could they be what they are today without what they were in history?

ALL of this he has written for you and I by the way!

Why do you think everything is a personal attack on Canada? Europeans easily admit to misinterpretation of their histories and are compelled to debate it and seek to contextualise even as we speak despite the end product as truthful or otherwise - many now say written history = partial truths (especially the 'critical realist' school of thought).

You canadians (in general) are always of the opinion that you never make errors and your egos get mighty prickly and defensive. I was expanding the problem out of shear delight not to have a moronic bar brawl.

But ohh no you have to wade in with your stupid maple leaf flag sticking out of your a$$ with a passive/aggressive warning in your opening sentense . . . "I hope you are including Six Nations blah blah blah". However you did not dare to put "or else" . . .

Iv got news for you buddy . . . i was NOT including Sns . . . at that point!!

I was drawing upon the incredibly similar insights of the Haudenosaunee in engaging a deeply philosophical awareness of interpretations and contexts way BEFORE the european enlightenment period endeavoured to deal with it in the late fifteenth to eighteenth century, regardful of current philosophers too!!

Now you cannot expect me to just jump in from the 15th century of europe and challenge sns oral tradition like any village idiot would . . . all progressive steps and complexity would be abandoned because of YOUR chosen and biased ORDER of things. You cannot just leap accross issues to prove your points about sovereignty when we have not concluded the other issues

Now if you want to pick bones with that good luck. . . . . in your quest for fellow rednecks

You share the same soil as sns and fns guys and you dont even know them. You would have thought you would have been proud because it is a history of canada though born out of Kanada somehow and shows how you got here.

Oh but wait a minute; your historical side through the ages has a record of genocidal practices. . . though not always historically recorded! Canadian history here is 'hidden' and found in many a 'redundent' government institution.

Your history is still being 'patched up' in its major details. Therefore how can we engage it here when we are speaking of the problems of what has`already been established?

[g_bambino]

But i guess Tsi's getting sick of having to wade through defensive canadians even though we are speaking of an issue recognised the world over!! Such defense disables thorough communication and becomes self gratuitous as a weapon. It drasticallycheapens what would otherwise be a valuable endeavour to truth.

I'm sure you can easily note that there was never a denial of the actual issue. In fact, if you wade back to the beginning of this mess you'll see that the only defensiveness that arose came from Tsi and Gay after being asked to provide evidence for their assertions of sovereignty and independence. Yes, some were insulting towards them, but those idiots are not important. What matters is that, like cornered animals, they both lashed out whenever a logical question was asked, throwing insults along the way at people who had never directed similar treatment towards them. You're right that such behaviour degrades the discussion and blocks the road to truth. However, you're looking the wrong direction when placing your blame for the degradation - it's obvious that every non-Native, and even some Natives, besides me it seems, left this discussion because they were sick of battling against defensive Indians.

What i do know of the Mohawk tradition is not grounded yet in consciousness (due to the fickle nature of the forum) but i do know 9as you should too by the`way) that interpretation of every single historical event is safely guarded by three Royaners present for the sake of the clan mothers and the whole community. It is more complicated than how i have jotted this down. But they have cared greatly about this down through the ages, indeed its the core of their existence. How could they be what they are today without what they were in history?

This doesn't address the point that the truth safely guarded by the Royaners was, in this case, untrue right from the very beginning.

Why do you think everything is a personal attack on Canada? Europeans easily admit to misinterpretation of their histories and are compelled to debate it and seek to contextualise even as we speak despite the end product as truthful or otherwise - many now say written history = partial truths (especially the 'critical realist' school of thought).

If you're speaking of me specifically, I'd like to know where I treated Tsi and Gay's claims as a threat to Canada. Further, I never said non-Native history was untainted. But, I've been working off the actual texts from the time - so I'm reading these things through no gauze of interpretation, meaning there's no possibility of historical bias. Tsi says the historical texts are backed up by First Nations' oral history, but, in this specific instance what's contained within the documents contradicts what Tsi is claiming. He's been asked to explain this, amongst other things, and never did.

I was drawing upon the incredibly similar insights of the Haudenosaunee in engaging a deeply philosophical awareness of interpretations and contexts way BEFORE the european enlightenment period endeavoured to deal with it in the late fifteenth to eighteenth century, regardful of current philosophers too!!

The only way such analysis would matter is if you're attempting to assert that the supposedly superior awareness of the Six Nations caused them, back in 1784, to interperet the words "sovereignty of the Crown" in a different manner to the agents of the Crown with which they were dealing. Perhaps this was the case, the misinterpretation of the Haldimand Proclamation we still see today had to stem from somewhere. But, even if it were true, what does it mean now? The Lieutenant Governor worked out a deal with the Six Nations - it was not imposed on them; it was a conclusion reached through discussion with the chiefs, and the chiefs consented to it. That means the Six Nations are still bound by the proclamation, despite any misinterpretation. That’s a basic tenet of law - if you sign a contract you don't understand, you're still bound by that contract. Any court of law will uphold that fact, as they have been doing with this Grand River issue since the mid 1800s.

Now if you want to pick bones with that good luck. . . . . in your quest for fellow rednecks

I might venture to suggest that you adhere to your own criticism of others: "Such defense disables thorough communication and becomes self gratuitous as a weapon. It drastically cheapens what would otherwise be a valuable endeavour to truth."

You share the same soil as sns and fns guys and you dont even know them. You would have thought you would have been proud because it is a history of canada though born out of Kanada somehow and shows how you got here.

No, I don't know them, but then, I don't know Ukrainian-Canadians either, though I share the same land with them; one can't know everything. That, of course, doesn't mean I don't want to know, and in this instance I thought I might learn something - there seemed to be a window of opportunity. Admittedly, my immediate reaction to Tsi's assertions of Six Nations sovereignty was that they were baseless, I had never heard of any such thing as another, unknown, independent state on the North American continent. So, I challenged them by asking questions and presenting contrary evidence - that's what debate is all about. In any debate I am willing to be proven wrong. But not once was a sufficient answer or counter argument given. All I got was oral history, oral history, oral history - but not once were any specific excerpts of the oral history actually quoted. Futher, questions about the proclamations and modern passports, financing, laws, etc. were simply ignored or dismissed with one line, further baseless answers like 'political prisoners" and "Canada is a colony of Britain." Why then, in the absence of any real, supported alternative, should I believe anything other than what I already know?

Your history is still being 'patched up' in its major details. Therefore how can we engage it here when we are speaking of the problems of what has`already been established?

From what I've seen here it seems the Six Nations history of the Haldimand Tract needs a good bit of patching up as well. History is, generally, a summing up of past events based on the evidence we have in hand today. As Tsi has pointed out, on occasion First Nations oral history has supported what has been written of history by non-Natives - it has been used as a form of confirmation. But, in this specific case of the sovereignty of the Haldimand Tract and the Six Nations who live on it, the evidence in hand (read: not the historical interpretation), from past and present, contradicts what the oral history is stating. Therein lies the biggest problem for Tsi and his compatriots - it has nothing to do with the philosophical nature of human interpretations of history, and everything to do with the concrete proof that can't be denied. As they say on CSI: "the evidence doesn't lie."

So, still, we wait for the data that undeniably affirms that Six Nations are a sovereign people living in an independent state beyond the laws of Canada.

[skyclad]

I like freedom of speech as well, I like mine to apply to every one as well, especially freedom of life.

http://www.dinsdoc.com/lauber-1-1.htm

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/w...ds-l&P=1627

Would that be fries or onion rings with your order?

[Gayogoho]

I like freedom of speech as well, I like mine to apply to every one as well, especially freedom of life.

http://www.dinsdoc.com/lauber-1-1.htm

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/w...ds-l&P=1627

Would that be fries or onion rings with your order?

"Our Indians Have Outdone the Romans"

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

The Five Nations have such absolute Notions of Liberty that they allow no kind of Superiority of one over another, and banish all Servitude from their Territories.

-- Cadwallader Colden, 1727

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

http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/6Nations/FFchp3.html

[geoffrey]

Another topic without relevance to Federal Politics,

quoted from other sources,

no comment or reason for posting. :angry:

LOL your federal politics are based on our system of governance which was fully functional 300 years before contact.Your rights and freedoms are taken from our society, or perhaps you would prefer remaining a commoner. If it makes you angry to read about your history than remain ignorant and ignore it.

Our rights and freedoms didn't come from the Indians that for sure. You are delusional and insolent.

[yam]

But i guess Tsi's getting sick of having to wade through defensive canadians even though we are speaking of an issue recognised the world over!! Such defense disables thorough communication and becomes self gratuitous as a weapon. It drasticallycheapens what would otherwise be a valuable endeavour to truth.

I'm sure you can easily note that there was never a denial of the actual issue. In fact, if you wade back to the beginning of this mess you'll see that the only defensiveness that arose came from Tsi and Gay after being asked to provide evidence for their assertions of sovereignty and independence. Yes, some were insulting towards them, but those idiots are not important. What matters is that, like cornered animals, they both lashed out whenever a logical question was asked, throwing insults along the way at people who had never directed similar treatment towards them. You're right that such behaviour degrades the discussion and blocks the road to truth. However, you're looking the wrong direction when placing your blame for the degradation - it's obvious that every non-Native, and even some Natives, besides me it seems, left this discussion because they were sick of battling against defensive Indians.

What i do know of the Mohawk tradition is not grounded yet in consciousness (due to the fickle nature of the forum) but i do know 9as you should too by the`way) that interpretation of every single historical event is safely guarded by three Royaners present for the sake of the clan mothers and the whole community. It is more complicated than how i have jotted this down. But they have cared greatly about this down through the ages, indeed its the core of their existence. How could they be what they are today without what they were in history?

This doesn't address the point that the truth safely guarded by the Royaners was, in this case, untrue right from the very beginning.

Why do you think everything is a personal attack on Canada? Europeans easily admit to misinterpretation of their histories and are compelled to debate it and seek to contextualise even as we speak despite the end product as truthful or otherwise - many now say written history = partial truths (especially the 'critical realist' school of thought).

If you're speaking of me specifically, I'd like to know where I treated Tsi and Gay's claims as a threat to Canada. Further, I never said non-Native history was untainted. But, I've been working off the actual texts from the time - so I'm reading these things through no gauze of interpretation, meaning there's no possibility of historical bias. Tsi says the historical texts are backed up by First Nations' oral history, but, in this specific instance what's contained within the documents contradicts what Tsi is claiming. He's been asked to explain this, amongst other things, and never did.

I was drawing upon the incredibly similar insights of the Haudenosaunee in engaging a deeply philosophical awareness of interpretations and contexts way BEFORE the european enlightenment period endeavoured to deal with it in the late fifteenth to eighteenth century, regardful of current philosophers too!!

The only way such analysis would matter is if you're attempting to assert that the supposedly superior awareness of the Six Nations caused them, back in 1784, to interperet the words "sovereignty of the Crown" in a different manner to the agents of the Crown with which they were dealing. Perhaps this was the case, the misinterpretation of the Haldimand Proclamation we still see today had to stem from somewhere. But, even if it were true, what does it mean now? The Lieutenant Governor worked out a deal with the Six Nations - it was not imposed on them; it was a conclusion reached through discussion with the chiefs, and the chiefs consented to it. That means the Six Nations are still bound by the proclamation, despite any misinterpretation. That’s a basic tenet of law - if you sign a contract you don't understand, you're still bound by that contract. Any court of law will uphold that fact, as they have been doing with this Grand River issue since the mid 1800s.

Now if you want to pick bones with that good luck. . . . . in your quest for fellow rednecks

I might venture to suggest that you adhere to your own criticism of others: "Such defense disables thorough communication and becomes self gratuitous as a weapon. It drastically cheapens what would otherwise be a valuable endeavour to truth."

You share the same soil as sns and fns guys and you dont even know them. You would have thought you would have been proud because it is a history of canada though born out of Kanada somehow and shows how you got here.

No, I don't know them, but then, I don't know Ukrainian-Canadians either, though I share the same land with them; one can't know everything. That, of course, doesn't mean I don't want to know, and in this instance I thought I might learn something - there seemed to be a window of opportunity. Admittedly, my immediate reaction to Tsi's assertions of Six Nations sovereignty was that they were baseless, I had never heard of any such thing as another, unknown, independent state on the North American continent. So, I challenged them by asking questions and presenting contrary evidence - that's what debate is all about. In any debate I am willing to be proven wrong. But not once was a sufficient answer or counter argument given. All I got was oral history, oral history, oral history - but not once were any specific excerpts of the oral history actually quoted. Futher, questions about the proclamations and modern passports, financing, laws, etc. were simply ignored or dismissed with one line, further baseless answers like 'political prisoners" and "Canada is a colony of Britain." Why then, in the absence of any real, supported alternative, should I believe anything other than what I already know?

Your history is still being 'patched up' in its major details. Therefore how can we engage it here when we are speaking of the problems of what has`already been established?

From what I've seen here it seems the Six Nations history of the Haldimand Tract needs a good bit of patching up as well. History is, generally, a summing up of past events based on the evidence we have in hand today. As Tsi has pointed out, on occasion First Nations oral history has supported what has been written of history by non-Natives - it has been used as a form of confirmation. But, in this specific case of the sovereignty of the Haldimand Tract and the Six Nations who live on it, the evidence in hand (read: not the historical interpretation), from past and present, contradicts what the oral history is stating. Therein lies the biggest problem for Tsi and his compatriots - it has nothing to do with the philosophical nature of human interpretations of history, and everything to do with the concrete proof that can't be denied. As they say on CSI: "the evidence doesn't lie."

So, still, we wait for the data that undeniably affirms that Six Nations are a sovereign people living in an independent state beyond the laws of Canada.

Bamboozled bambi

We are not on the Caladonia specific thread!!!

We are on the thread that engages 'Freedom of Speech, An Iroquoian Tradition!!!

Hence what i addressed in the post that you challenge IS the problem of Written history and ITS consequences to FREEDOM let alone freedom of SPEECH per se!

So when you point out to me that the Haudenosaunee tradition of protecting the truth is IRRELEVANT to what is at issue, it may be for you but not to the topic at hand!! For YOU the issue is of CALADONIA, for the thread topic it is the issue of the tradition of freedom of speech - you can see how not only have you misinterpreted my point but also the entire thread.

I brought up the Iroquian tradition and you went straight into sovereign title deads - what gives?

My point was about philosophy and freedom/fact and interpretation world wide from BEFORE the enlightenment period - again what gives?

How you read my point was in the following way " The only way such an analysis matters " . . . Who the phuck are you anyway/ have you read the whole history of philosophy and the philosophy of history and have you read anything of the Iroquoian tradition? You literally say IT IS ONLY RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF THE HALDIMAN TRACT.

Tut, tut - i should have realised that world history was written to relflect Caladonia and the Haldiman tract!!

You further assert:

" If you are trying to show the supposedly superior awareness of six nations and how they misinterpreted the words sovereignty and the crown blah blah blah . . . . .".

Again yet another over defensive exceedingly poor strategy. YOU ATTACHED CROWN AND SOVEREIGNTY to what was a point concerning the making of history and its interpretation.

I was making a point that the METHOD of the Haudenosaunee people for guarding the truth (of all things - not just the ruddy sovereignty and crown issue) was and is remarkably advanced concerning INTERPTETATION and MEANING of HISTORY not just Caladonian issues.

You next point is to try and venture to call me a redneck - why venture/ Just call me it if you want to - i dont particularly care - simply because:

You dont know the meaning of redneck. In order to save face dont venture an opinion about my assertions being redneck. . . . actually a redneck opinion would be calling me a "commie bastid"

For North Americans anybody that stands their corner alone and does not 'believe' or follow the nations propoganda is a redneck or a commie (because they do not know the difference).

You next refer to the law and contracts. You say that if a contract is signed (in reference to property ownership) by mistake or without comprehension of its meaning (such as revoking ownership without the signee knowing this), it then is tough s*it or appeal is null and void.

Now YOU are speaking of an external law to the six nations. A Canadian law belonging to the new arrivals, that was imposed years after the six nations occupation, but nonetheless imposed by the new sqatters to take ownership and title deeds away from the original occupiers of the land.

An act of changing history yet again. . . oh but you think that is irrelevent

PERHAPS they were signed ( i dont really think so though) and without full comprehension as other nations have accidently done so. However, what you fail to realise is that those signing had to deal with the archaic English language!! How on earth could those targeted know the pitfalls here? We are essentially speaking of a "con job" and lies to the six nations. Which would be proved by them SIGNING something to their disadvantage and would`NOT sign if they knew the meaning. It would be that obvious and could be appealed on compassionate grounds. Again, I DO NOT THINK THIS IS THE CASE AT POINT.

Besides, the treaty should have been written and spoken in the Mohawk language ALSO for a start. . . .You only think this assertion is absurd because you doff ya little cap to colonialism. With that in mind i will` give you an analogy to make the point.

When YOU signed your title deeds i bet they were NOT written in JAPANESE and you did not have to quickly go on a seven year course to learn japanese ( it takes about seven yrs to learn english - thoroughly) in order to be able to know what you were signing did you?

IF and i mean it more hypothetically since the sns do possess records, anything was signed by six nations that throws the issue of land ownership out, they still can fly the banner of attempted or outright FRAUD by the government . . .not to mention COERCION and THREATS of taking the lAND AWAY IF THEY DONT.

When i mentioned that Canadian history is STILL undergoing a 'patch up jobby' or a 'face lift' (to save face in the international community) i really mean it and it is true.

Now if you read Gayogoho's most recent posts you will see exactly HOW the government is going to ATTEMPT that.

In a nut shell it is going to pass a law that denies any investigation of treatise rights beyond 40 years!!!!

THAT WILL ENABLE THEM TO :

1) Appropriate ALL the disputed lands in Canada

2) to re-write canadian history for the next generations to come

3) to wipe out any written validation for any fn and sns very existence (let alone property).

It is a VIOLENT act of cultural genocide - nothing more or nothing less.

Now can you see the importance of history and its interpretation and the problems of interpretation?

Do you STILL think that this is irrelevent?

History see's historians, philosophers, sociologists and more see the relevance but none MORE SO than its VICTIMS. Still irrelevant to you?

Who is the redneck again?

Your next muddled tactic is to switch back to the problem of oral history and ownership rights of the Haldiman tract.

You say the problem is not interpretation it is to do with evidence. Id STILL argue the opposite.

The way new laws and policy are formed around old laws, policies and treatise is completely reliant upon ARCHAIC and shoddy imcomplete wording. It is a ticket for double meaning and misinterpretation which allows for there CONTINUAL ammendements.

By the way Evidence does not lie but its misinterpretation does - there is a complete sociological school of thought in this There is also a philosophical school of thought in this. There is a linguistic school of thought in this. There is a school of thought in law in this . . not to mention a school of thought in communications, global studies, media studies . . . shall i go on?

Real hard and factual evidence is supplied by science and the social`sciences. But the idiots/greedy merchants etc that sponsor the research OFTEN "misinterpret" (twist) the real facts to suit there own ends. This is how corporate business functions. If it paid attention to truth they would be out of business. This is how the lumber industry works, this is how fishing laws work and more. Evidence can simply be rewritten just as history IS re-written.

[skyclad]

The Haldimand Tract was not an equal undertaking between two parties. The land was offered as a gift to those who helped the British in the Rev war. The British were under no obligation to provide any land, as no deal was made whatsoever between Britian and SN, in regards to win or loss.

Nor, was the SN at any risk of living in their former lands as they had the rights to live there, but would have to live under an American govt, which Brant desired not to. In other words, the SN did not have to come to Caledonia. But, Brant insisted that he and other Mohawks move to Ontario, in which case, land was offered which Brant accepted, but at no time was Britain obligated to provide anything.

During the Rev war, the British did not make contact with the conferacy, but appointed Brant as a captain (swore an oath to the King) instructions were given to Brant that certain actions were desired and Brant then of his own accord raised the volunteers, and implemented these desires or actions. A similiar example is Lawrence of Arabia, where direct involvement by the British gov did not occur, but suggested actions were posed in which the Arab league could implement or not implement. In this way, Britian did not have direct involvement in matters.

Further, Joseph Brant was well articulaet in the English langauge, as was his son John Brant a lawyer, Jo Brant knew full well what documents he was signing and the meaning of such.

[skyclad]

Oral tradition has it's flaws, for example the Peacemaker,

One indian account has it:

a huron from Quinte

or

a huron from Central Ont.

or

2 Onondagas

or

1 Onodaga and 1 Huron

or

2 men and 1 women,

which is it...?

Further, oral tradition provides ones side's version of the event, whereas a written contract presents a version both sides agree to.

In terms of free speech, this is a bit amusing.

At council, when called once a year by Onondaga,

the chiefs are:

Mohawk 9

Oneida 9

Onondaga 14

Cayuga 10

Seneca 8

Tusarora 8

Total of 58.

However at council, only 50 chiefs can speak and vote.

Tus cannot speak or vote at council, they can pass their comments on by a represenative, a Seneca, I believe. But cannot vote.

That leaves 50 chiefs

Of which the Onondaga neither vote or discuss issues unless!! there is tie.

That leaves 32 chiefs to discuss and vote on issues, so a vote of 19 to 17 decides all SN polices involving all the people. Thats 19 of 58 chiefs, that is not even a majority, 50% plus 1

In council, policy is set by the superiors that is the Mohawk and Seneca, of which the inferiors Cayuga and Oneida can discuss and vote on as well. But they cannot bring up issues.

If you are an inferior/subject/adpoted tribe you cannot present any views or pass comments at all,

So that's how Iroquois free speech works.

With limitations

[yam]

Ok Skyclad

Im not being akward so i still have to ask this

Lets just say/ pretend for argument sake (to straighten this out a little) that the land was given as a gift by the British . . as you have said. Then it still surely means that all these years later that gift still remains in the hands of the six nations as owners since the gift would be ownership of these lands. Thereby it is still not the property of Canada. Thus as you say land was offered and nobody was obligated = a gift. So Brandt signed the papers. Good. I dont have a problem with this so what is the problem with the canadians here if what you say is the case?

However, without pretence and in truth the mohawks did own the haldiman track even though they lived in the US for a while. It certainly was not new to them since they hunted and farmed these lands earlier ( i think sometimes seasonal rotations etc). And these lands were always occupied one way or another they were never fully abandoned were they?

So the land still belongs to the Haudenosaunee despite the govener general's later interpretation of events when they returned from US to arrive at Canada's subsequent ownership ammendments i presume?

[skyclad]

No,

the gift was: the right to live, and hunt there (no cigarette factories!!) conditional to the Royal Proclamation, but they did not own nor could sell land.

Since the nature of gift was controlled by the Royal Proclamation, all lands were subject to the pleasure of the king,

Therefore the abuse of land selling by 1835, caused the gift to be reviewed and modified to the present form it takes today.

To review: the gift was the right to live and hunt there, that's it.

To dispell the myth of Loyalist land grants, Loyalist were granted land, but they did not own it.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

It makes me laugh at how so many of you fail the test. History is not a collection of predudicies written in internet texts. It is a compilation of events that lead up to the paperwork. The Haldimand Tract documentation is a perfect example.

For 3 years Brant negotitiated with the British to keep settlement out of the North Shore lands. When the governor suggested that Six Nations could have the Quinte area Brant complained that it was too crowed already since the British had begun to resettle Loyalist in that area. Our Roayner knew that itwould only be matter of time before the same problems that were happening in the south shore lands would be happening there. As well the lands were poor for agriculture.

Brant DEMANDED and succeeded at having the British proclaim the 6 miles on either side of the Grand River, knowing that it had good agricultural soils and was far enough away from the settled areas to enusre the settlers kept their distance. However, the British settlers had no intention on staying away fomr the Grand River and within about 6 years of Six Nations resettlement, settlers were already squatting. The Roayner and Brant made numerous protests to have the squatters removed and the response was for the new governor to shrink the Haldimand Tract (without any authority).

The Haldimand Tract lands were not owned by the Mississaugas but they were Six nations territory long before the British ever showed up. (Just check out the local archaeology). Thae fact is that the Mississaugas were on that tract with our permission, having treatied with us some 60 years earlier. By the time that Six Nations resettled to the Grand River, most of the Mississaugas had returned to their home lands on the North Shore of Superior. The payment that was made was simply a relocation fee that Brant demanded and received on behalf of the Mississaugas. There was no purchase - that would be foolish to have us purchase our own land.......

Now since then the land majority of the land has been settled and squatted on without any permission. Brant did attempt to lease some lands but in the end a lease is still a tenancy and all rental agreements eventually end. The Plank road lands was a lease that has never been paid for and it was again converted to title without our permission. That makes them all illegal occupations. And even if we do grant you that some of those leases were converted with our permission, the fact remains that they were never paid for, and a default mortgage nullifies the deal. And when a property become occupied and there is no authority to occupy then the owner has the ability to claim for full rent due as if there was a rental agreement. That should amount to about $1 trillion give or take a few thousand.

So we are not negotiationg for our own lands - that would be equally as foolish. We are at the table because you government realizes how difficult it will be for settlers and squatters once we start reclaiming all the tract. And they realize they don't have a leg to stand on to defend the illegal squatting. So they are intent on producing an agreement and an understanding that will protect the interest of all of those illegal squatters while recognizing our inherent ownership of the lands. Certainly our goal is to retrieve all the lands and put them back under our full control. But I reckon that given your government's penchant for throwing money at a problem, we will not only recieve all the land back under our control, but that in order to allow the settlers to stay there will be a huge payout in back rent and a guarantee of future rent to be paid on time and in full. Otherwise our need will shift to remove all of those that oppose us and to assimilate all those willing to stay under our goverment system, with them paying income, sales and property taxes to us.

We didn't create this problem but we sure as hell will no let it go on any longer.

O:nen

[yam]

Skyclad you are being very elusive here.

You have just admitted that the gift was reviewed due to the abuse of land selling.

A gift is a gift. You never said in the first instance that it was conditional now you do.

Now you seem to be saying that this tract of land was not given for helping the Brits in the war, rather that it was lent out for hunting and fishing?

The Royal proclamation did not state the above. The proclamation as far as i can gather, has been dumped by canada to put it crudely to favour the GGs control. Perhaps he should have represented it. But no, he rather took control over and beyond it. Hence what we are debatibg now.

As for what you wrote concerning freedom of speech, see the links Gayo listed in post 10. Also ask Tsi to help. He's got news for you concerning the freedom and consensual nature of the clan mother system. I picked at him elsewhere and he still kept coming back with info that flys inthe face of what you described.

This area is his/her forte.

[Riverwind]

A gift is a gift. You never said in the first instance that it was conditional now you do.

The issue is not whether the land was granted to six nations - the issue is whether it was subsequently sold back to the gov't. There is overwhelming documented evidence that the land was, in fact, sold back to the gov't. The only way that Six Nations can claim the land today is if they can show that the people who authorized the sales were not authorized to do so. This is a difficult thing to do since much of the land was sold by Brant himself. That said, Brant was not involved in the final 1841 transfer so there _could_ be an argument that the 6 people who authorized the transfer did so fraudulently. However, even here the Six Nation's case is far from a slam dunk and depends entirely on how the SCC would interpret various legal precedents. The SCC upheld a land sale by the Ipperwash band in 1924 even though there was evidence that some band members opposed the sale - in other words, the SCC could decide that those 6 people did have the authority to sell the land even if the the oral tradition evidence shows some Six Nations chiefs opposed the sale.

In short, the Six Nations claims on the land are tenuous at best and depends on complicated legal arguments that can only be properly evaluted by judges and lawyers with expertise in these issues.

One final comment: the 1841 transfer explicitly excluded some lands around Brantford so Six Nations likely has a strong case for the return of those lands if those lands have been expropriated by the gov't (I am not sure because the 1841 legalese is hard to understand). However, those lands represent a small fraction of the Haldimand tract and would probably be a suitable basis for a compromise.