We pay while Indians live in luxury

[charter.rights]

Well, I must agree that smallpox had a great deal to do with the drastic fall in population. However I was not speaking directly to that point when I said that the superior culture of Europeans displaced the native culture. Stone knives and bear skins are simply not effective against muskets and cannon. At that point in time when violence broke out the technological advantage of the Europeans precluded any real hope for victory by the natives. At least in terms of armed resistance anyhow. The native culture was totally destroyed, which is of course the European pattern. This did not change for many years.

Contrary to popular belief, the colonies were a way to get rid of the scum of the earth and undesirable elements. To a large degree those poor folks made up a significant portion of immigrants to North America. They were not the only ones to move here mind you, there were many others that choose to move here and settle into the New World.

On the other hand the natives were extremely advanced in social terms in spite of their lack of technological advancement. That is amazing in as much as their environment dictated the requirement for adaptability which as far as our culture at the time dictated was the limiting factor in our own development. The natives were far more attuned to nature than the Europeans. I suspect that the tribal nature of their cultural heritage was actually responsible for the lack of technological advancement as well as the reason for the advanced state of social development. Harsh conditions create the need for mutual assistance within the group in order to preserve the group, nothing new there. That little fact also caries over to society in general when considered in political terms, oppressed peoples become politically united in efforts of common cause.

Sadly much of the native culture that was lost could be said to have superior social theories than our own culture. The morals and ethics of that culture were designed around a far smaller political union than our own and I believe they were based on solid fundamental concepts that are still valid to this day. Unfortunately these things are likely to never see the light of day again, and that in itself is a tragic loss.

When many hunt and farm for their communities, technological advancements are not necessary. However, when one only hunts for his own survival lots of tools are necessary for survival.

Today however, we must work 3 times as hards as early natives did, and twice as hard as 20th century farmers did because we must pay someone else to feed and cloth us. That's really not advancement in any form but more today's men are more like spoiled babies who demand to be fed and catered to at their convenience. If any of you really understood what an honest day's work was, you would have walked away from your corporate enslavement long ago.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You are delusional if you think that voters make policy or can change laws. In the 26 years that the Constitution was repatriated there has only been the Supreme Court strengthening the rights outlined, despite claims from people like you screaming that it is flawed and should be changed.

Secondly your delusion is even more apparent if you believe that rights "recognized" by the Charter can be removed. The fact is that the Charter only recognizes rights that are inherent, or acquired as a result of society and no where can a government or organization reduce those rights. Try telling a Black man he is no longer black because you say so. Try telling a Jew that he can't practice his religion because it violates your impractical sense of fairness. It can't be done. Countries have been invaded for the types of things you think parliament can do. It will never happen because it can't in a democratic society.

Acts of Parliament can be changed that is true, but it becomes redundant when those acts are found to violate the Charter of Rights. So again your twisted opinion doesn't meet the test of being in reality.

No one cares what you ar your redneck friends think, nor should I or anyone else. These are legal issues, held in high esteem by the Crown that owns us and our government. These issues are about charter rights that over ride your petty sour grapes, or anything you think you can put your equally biased Mp's up to. Maybe once you get a reality check too, you will realize how impotent voters are in the scheme of things where the people you vote for have other agendas, and those that don't realize pretty quickly how equally impotent they are.

There are the "White" doors. Now try if you think you can, to prevent any person of colour from walking through it......and you'll find yourself bitch-slapped with a constitutional lawsuit. This is NOT your country. It is ours - all of ours regardless of race, religion, creed, or gender. Get used to it.

Not once in the Charter are natives mentioned, only citizens of Canada. With that in mind you need to extend the logic. Since natives of the "First Nations" lay claim to independence from the Government of Canada and also claim to be independent citizens of their own "free" native nations, how can you seize a provision under a charter of which you deny citizenship? While it can be argued that citizens of Canada are protected in this nation by the charter, when you deny citizenship how is it that you have any entitlement to the terms and conditions of citizenship under the recognized law of the land. Either you are citizens of Canada and entitled to the benefits of that citizenship or you are not. So which is it?

Lets go way back to 1763 with a Royal Proclamation that was the root of the problem we are now faced with. The problem is that according to the law of this land this Royal Proclamation determined that the crown would be the only authority with the power to negotiate the transfer of native lands to colonial settlers. There was good reason for this, the natives were being screwed over. From that time forward the government of Canada has several times confirmed this proclamation and its intent. Then as it is today, native rights could only be surrendered by treaty negotiations. The thing of it is, the natives entered into negotiations and gave away the farm. They were bought off or ripped off or call it what you want, but the fact remains that they agreed to the changes. They sought and received compensation for those changes. Those were and are done deals according to the law of the land. That is not to say that there are no outstanding claims, or for that matter any new claims which have not been filed. However the claims that have been settled are just that. There will be no change to these existing settlements, there is no "trust fund" there is no debt to contend with.

Lets get real here shall we, if you are citizens then the government has an obligation to deal with you under the charter, if you are not then the government has no authority or responsibility either over or for you. That is the law. Argue it till the cows come home if you want but it will not change the facts. The treaties already signed represent a full and complete settlement as agreed to by the representatives that the natives sent to deal with the government. The government did not appoint those people, the natives did. Their agreement with the government constitutes a contract whether you like it or not.

If the truth be known, it is the natives that wish to renege on some of these contract isn't it?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

When many hunt and farm for their communities, technological advancements are not necessary. However, when one only hunts for his own survival lots of tools are necessary for survival.

Today however, we must work 3 times as hards as early natives did, and twice as hard as 20th century farmers did because we must pay someone else to feed and cloth us. That's really not advancement in any form but more today's men are more like spoiled babies who demand to be fed and catered to at their convenience. If any of you really understood what an honest day's work was, you would have walked away from your corporate enslavement long ago.

What is it that you do for a living? What makes you think that you earn your keep? What is an honest days work to you?

[DangerMouse]

I will just say what we all are thinking SHUT UP. We are all tired of your verbal diarrhea you try to pass off as intelligible which it is not you rely on the same tired argument and say nothing you are either a politician or an invalid either way it is the same thing, you and DM can live in your quaint little world of make believe but unless you can start to back up anything, answer some basic questions posed or be constructive keep it shut.

Hey...Charter knows the issues as they are...the legal side of it...something most others haven't a clue about....you guys as well as many right wing politicians don't even have a clue about...and if they ever find out the truth, they'll look like a bunch of fools...that's why they have to lie in the media and make the indians look bad....so snap out of your quaint world and learn the basoc facts....watch out--DM is going to get serious now ;-)

[JCAN]

Well then...I'll say it for you! STFU, FOAD!

And then go back to sleep. Reality doesn't look good on you.

Thanks for making my point clear as for you and DM you can both get as serious as you like it will still amount to nothing, and still have no point.

[DangerMouse]

Thanks for making my point clear as for you and DM you can both get as serious as you like it will still amount to nothing, and still have no point.

Like all other rightwingers, you're worse than little kids....how can you trust all the other so called faithful knowing that your all plastic and will use each other?

[charter.rights]

Not once in the Charter are natives mentioned, only citizens of Canada. With that in mind you need to extend the logic. Since natives of the "First Nations" lay claim to independence from the Government of Canada and also claim to be independent citizens of their own "free" native nations, how can you seize a provision under a charter of which you deny citizenship? While it can be argued that citizens of Canada are protected in this nation by the charter, when you deny citizenship how is it that you have any entitlement to the terms and conditions of citizenship under the recognized law of the land. Either you are citizens of Canada and entitled to the benefits of that citizenship or you are not. So which is it?

Lets go way back to 1763 with a Royal Proclamation that was the root of the problem we are now faced with. The problem is that according to the law of this land this Royal Proclamation determined that the crown would be the only authority with the power to negotiate the transfer of native lands to colonial settlers. There was good reason for this, the natives were being screwed over. From that time forward the government of Canada has several times confirmed this proclamation and its intent. Then as it is today, native rights could only be surrendered by treaty negotiations. The thing of it is, the natives entered into negotiations and gave away the farm. They were bought off or ripped off or call it what you want, but the fact remains that they agreed to the changes. They sought and received compensation for those changes. Those were and are done deals according to the law of the land. That is not to say that there are no outstanding claims, or for that matter any new claims which have not been filed. However the claims that have been settled are just that. There will be no change to these existing settlements, there is no "trust fund" there is no debt to contend with.

Lets get real here shall we, if you are citizens then the government has an obligation to deal with you under the charter, if you are not then the government has no authority or responsibility either over or for you. That is the law. Argue it till the cows come home if you want but it will not change the facts. The treaties already signed represent a full and complete settlement as agreed to by the representatives that the natives sent to deal with the government. The government did not appoint those people, the natives did. Their agreement with the government constitutes a contract whether you like it or not.

If the truth be known, it is the natives that wish to renege on some of these contract isn't it?

Some native people consider themselves Canadian. Many others do not. However, the Charter doesn't just apply to Canadians. It defines the way that we treat each other and imposes on us certain restrictions that we cannot violate another's protected rights - especially we cannot violate aboriginal rights.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 was the result of a longer historical relationship between the Crown and Native peoples. In my research I am convinced that the Royal Proclamation was a final declaration based on the Covenant Chain with the Iroquois. It is also based on the Nanfan Treaty 1702 which saw that Iroquois give up any claim to the Ohio Valley and the Michigan hunting lands so the British could have access for hunting and resources. A map by Mitchell in 1757 clearly shows the extent of Six Nations Iroquois territory as being as far north as the Ottawa River and west to Lake Huron, south to New York and east to Quebec. And then suddenly in 1763 the King proclaims that all this territory is off limits to British subjects for the exclusive and perpetual use of native people. That would indicate that Six Nations had a strong hold on a vast area and it was advantageous for the British to abide by an agreement to keep its people off those lands.

The RC 1763 did not subjugate native people nor did it take their lands. The legacy that we are left with is that we must prove that native people ceded their land before we can use it any further, and even if it is found that the Crown lawfully purchased it, we must consult and accommodate their concerns if it affects them. That isn't being done even though the Supreme Court has ruled we must because of the Royal Proclamation. Being able to prove ownership is a problem for us since after 1763 the best we have are some numbered treaties that did not take the land from natives nor make them citizens but agreed that native people could hunt, fish and remove resources for their own use from the treaty area, in perpetuity. That still gives them an interest in virtually every piece of land in Canada save and except a few colonies that were present along the St Lawrence during the implementation of the Quebec Act 1774.

There was never a time in the history of the colonization of North America where native people became subjects of Great Britain and in fact every dealing with them has been on a nation to nation basis, including treaties and settlements. So we are stuck with the fact that First Nations could legally see themselves and their territory as independent from Canada. Laws laid out for our ancestors were designed for us and had no bearing on any First Nations people including the sale of land. You see our grandfathers were told they could not buy land from natives, but did not prohibit natives from selling land to non-British subjects. They could not make such a prohibition because they were not British subjects. And even when the Haldimand Proclamation 1784 was proclaimed that was still patently clear - that Six Nations territory was off limits to anyone in the British empire forever. That nation to nation relationship has been entrenched in the Charter today. It does not subjugate the Six Nations Confederacy, nor declare that all native people are Canadian. That is an assumption that has been made over the years - one that is based on myth and not any bona fide legal argument. Legally Six Nations people are their own nation of people. They did not sign any of the numbered treaties nor sign away any of the territory described in Mitchells map 1757, the basis of the Royal Proclamation 1763.

And since the Covenant Chain is the binding agreement made with the British it would seem that for over 200 years we have been in violation of that agreement, not them. If there is guilt to be laid for the failures it is ours and ours alone. By squatting on Six Nations lands, by leasing lands and then making quit claims for it, by removing their traditional governments at gun point and by stealing their children in the night we not only violated the Royal Proclamation 1763 but violate any sense of human rights they migh have had. And now that we have a chance to make it right there are still people like you who would want to jump all over them because our power over their lives is diminished. We have no right under Charter law or the law of conquest to further use their land, or deny their rights. That is the fact of law. Only ignorance prevails.

So the real issue now that we realize we are in a pickle because the natives never ceded their lands is how can we respectfully consult with them, accommodate their interests and perhaps share in the benefits we derive from the illegal use of their lands? We can no longer expect that we will run roughshod over their rights over their lands or their aboriginal rights. We must comply. There is no other way.

[Wild Bill]

Thanks for making my point clear as for you and DM you can both get as serious as you like it will still amount to nothing, and still have no point.

Indeed. It finally came to me why CR never seemed to make sense. Take away the native aspect and his posts are really just warmed-over marxism. He's not calling for political solutions that would WORK! He calls for solutions that first of all fit his catechism.

You can't win against an argument based on Marxist theory. It's like arguing with a Creationist.

Save your breath.

[charter.rights]

Indeed. It finally came to me why CR never seemed to make sense. Take away the native aspect and his posts are really just warmed-over marxism. He's not calling for political solutions that would WORK! He calls for solutions that first of all fit his catechism.

You can't win against an argument based on Marxist theory. It's like arguing with a Creationist.

Save your breath.

Argumentum ad hominem. A poorly constructed rebuttal.

Edited May 3, 2008 by charter.rights

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Some native people consider themselves Canadian. Many others do not. However, the Charter doesn't just apply to Canadians. It defines the way that we treat each other and imposes on us certain restrictions that we cannot violate another's protected rights - especially we cannot violate aboriginal rights.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 was the result of a longer historical relationship between the Crown and Native peoples. In my research I am convinced that the Royal Proclamation was a final declaration based on the Covenant Chain with the Iroquois. It is also based on the Nanfan Treaty 1702 which saw that Iroquois give up any claim to the Ohio Valley and the Michigan hunting lands so the British could have access for hunting and resources. A map by Mitchell in 1757 clearly shows the extent of Six Nations Iroquois territory as being as far north as the Ottawa River and west to Lake Huron, south to New York and east to Quebec. And then suddenly in 1763 the King proclaims that all this territory is off limits to British subjects for the exclusive and perpetual use of native people. That would indicate that Six Nations had a strong hold on a vast area and it was advantageous for the British to abide by an agreement to keep its people off those lands.

The RC 1763 did not subjugate native people nor did it take their lands. The legacy that we are left with is that we must prove that native people ceded their land before we can use it any further, and even if it is found that the Crown lawfully purchased it, we must consult and accommodate their concerns if it affects them. That isn't being done even though the Supreme Court has ruled we must because of the Royal Proclamation. Being able to prove ownership is a problem for us since after 1763 the best we have are some numbered treaties that did not take the land from natives nor make them citizens but agreed that native people could hunt, fish and remove resources for their own use from the treaty area, in perpetuity. That still gives them an interest in virtually every piece of land in Canada save and except a few colonies that were present along the St Lawrence during the implementation of the Quebec Act 1774.

There was never a time in the history of the colonization of North America where native people became subjects of Great Britain and in fact every dealing with them has been on a nation to nation basis, including treaties and settlements. So we are stuck with the fact that First Nations could legally see themselves and their territory as independent from Canada. Laws laid out for our ancestors were designed for us and had no bearing on any First Nations people including the sale of land. You see our grandfathers were told they could not buy land from natives, but did not prohibit natives from selling land to non-British subjects. They could not make such a prohibition because they were not British subjects. And even when the Haldimand Proclamation 1784 was proclaimed that was still patently clear - that Six Nations territory was off limits to anyone in the British empire forever. That nation to nation relationship has been entrenched in the Charter today. It does not subjugate the Six Nations Confederacy, nor declare that all native people are Canadian. That is an assumption that has been made over the years - one that is based on myth and not any bona fide legal argument. Legally Six Nations people are their own nation of people. They did not sign any of the numbered treaties nor sign away any of the territory described in Mitchells map 1757, the basis of the Royal Proclamation 1763.

And since the Covenant Chain is the binding agreement made with the British it would seem that for over 200 years we have been in violation of that agreement, not them. If there is guilt to be laid for the failures it is ours and ours alone. By squatting on Six Nations lands, by leasing lands and then making quit claims for it, by removing their traditional governments at gun point and by stealing their children in the night we not only violated the Royal Proclamation 1763 but violate any sense of human rights they migh have had. And now that we have a chance to make it right there are still people like you who would want to jump all over them because our power over their lives is diminished. We have no right under Charter law or the law of conquest to further use their land, or deny their rights. That is the fact of law. Only ignorance prevails.

So the real issue now that we realize we are in a pickle because the natives never ceded their lands is how can we respectfully consult with them, accommodate their interests and perhaps share in the benefits we derive from the illegal use of their lands? We can no longer expect that we will run roughshod over their rights over their lands or their aboriginal rights. We must comply. There is no other way.

My research indicated that one Joseph Brant, the certified representative of the Six Nations took possession of the Haldimand tract of land and then subsequently sold off pieces at his leisure. He later died in a nice house in Burlington Bay. That argument doesn't hold water CR, he was the one named in the paperwork and disposed of the land as he saw fit as was his right.

[charter.rights]

dbl post

Edited May 3, 2008 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

My research indicated that one Joseph Brant, the certified representative of the Six Nations took possession of the Haldimand tract of land and then subsequently sold off pieces at his leisure. He later died in a nice house in Burlington Bay. That argument doesn't hold water CR, he was the one named in the paperwork and disposed of the land as he saw fit as was his right.

No he didn't. Brant let long term "leases" to people to clear the land without authorithy of the Confederacy Council. Those leases were converted through quit claims that were and are totally illegal. He was eventually exiled to Hamilton and died at Burlington. In fact his own son tried to kill him for his attempted control (British educated) over the Haldimand. The land was proclaimed as territory of "the Mohawks and other bands of Indians", not Brant.

[margrace]

This is in fact another of the Conservative Government agendas, Get rid of those pesky natives.

[Wild Bill]

Argumentum ad hominem. A poorly constructed rebuttal.

After your post #725 you accuse ME of ad hominem?!!

I meant no rebuttal. I made an observation, one that I believe fits the philosophy behind your postings. Your implied vision of a utopian native society fits this view, at least to me.

Since I believe my observation to be true I see no point in making any rebuttal at all.

[jbg]

Well, I must agree that smallpox had a great deal to do with the drastic fall in population. However I was not speaking directly to that point when I said that the superior culture of Europeans displaced the native culture. Stone knives and bear skins are simply not effective against muskets and cannon. At that point in time when violence broke out the technological advantage of the Europeans precluded any real hope for victory by the natives. At least in terms of armed resistance anyhow. The native culture was totally destroyed, which is of course the European pattern. This did not change for many years.

Not really. The Europeans had little impact in Asia and Africa, and did not replace their populations, for the reason that smallpox and other European diseases were common to the Europe/Asia/Africa landmass. The natives in the Americas and Australia, having no resistance, suffered serious losses which were enough to demoralize their culture. Muskets and cannon are more powerful than bow and arrows, or stone knives, but a shipload of a few hundred Europeans would have been puny against 30 million native Americans. Their numbers had to be slimmed down for the Europeans to take over.

Contrary to popular belief, the colonies were a way to get rid of the scum of the earth and undesirable elements. To a large degree those poor folks made up a significant portion of immigrants to North America. They were not the only ones to move here mind you, there were many others that choose to move here and settle into the New World.

Actually the colonists in the Americas were the cream of the crop, the entreprenurial types that resented the guild restrictions and lack of opportunities in their native England and, in the case of the US South, Scotland. Australia was initially peopled by prisoners, to be sure, but later arrivals came voluntarily, especially when gold was discovered in what is now the State of Victoria. Also, many former prisoners, tamed and matured by the rigors of the frontier became model citizens.

Sadly much of the native culture that was lost could be said to have superior social theories than our own culture. The morals and ethics of that culture were designed around a far smaller political union than our own and I believe they were based on solid fundamental concepts that are still valid to this day. Unfortunately these things are likely to never see the light of day again, and that in itself is a tragic loss.

That's the popular story line but I have my doubts. Warfare was endemic, as was environmental degradation, even before Columbus.

[DangerMouse]

This is in fact another of the Conservative Government agendas, Get rid of those pesky natives.

They'll also get "rid of their hair" in the process and come out as "cranky-ole-bald-headed-farts!"

[charter.rights]

After your post #725 you accuse ME of ad hominem?!!

I meant no rebuttal. I made an observation, one that I believe fits the philosophy behind your postings. Your implied vision of a utopian native society fits this view, at least to me.

Since I believe my observation to be true I see no point in making any rebuttal at all.

When your perceptions are wrong, your observations and conclusions are wrong too.

I'm not a Marxist nor do I support that ideology. Rather I consider myself a humanist in a state of understanding the real workings of the world that extends beyond the myths and false conclusions reached by most Canadians.

But it was ad hominem. Mine in post 725 was not since we were discussing JCAN's reluctance to say shut up, so I did it for it.

I suggest my friend that you may be out of your league. Maybe you should try one of the many discussion boards that allow you to repeat sophomoric rhetoric hoping it will be true. That seems to be your style.

[Wild Bill]

When your perceptions are wrong, your observations and conclusions are wrong too.

I'm not a Marxist nor do I support that ideology. Rather I consider myself a humanist in a state of understanding the real workings of the world that extends beyond the myths and false conclusions reached by most Canadians.

But it was ad hominem. Mine in post 725 was not since we were discussing JCAN's reluctance to say shut up, so I did it for it.

I suggest my friend that you may be out of your league. Maybe you should try one of the many discussion boards that allow you to repeat sophomoric rhetoric hoping it will be true. That seems to be your style.

Arrogance seems to be a universal trait of marxists, or at least socialists. If your comment wasn't ad hominem then I don't know what is.

Anyhow, enough. Life's too short. Time for the "ignore" button.

[DangerMouse]

Arrogance seems to be a universal trait of marxists, or at least socialists. If your comment wasn't ad hominem then I don't know what is.

Anyhow, enough. Life's too short. Time for the "ignore" button.

We will really miss you! Im sure that once you've crawled under your rock another snake will surface....you in ignore because you are defeated

[charter.rights]

Arrogance seems to be a universal trait of marxists, or at least socialists. If your comment wasn't ad hominem then I don't know what is.

Anyhow, enough. Life's too short. Time for the "ignore" button.

Speaking truth always appears arrogant to those who fight to maintain their ignorance.

[nothinarian]

We will really miss you! Im sure that once you've crawled under your rock another snake will surface....you in ignore because you are defeated

Why does nobody debate with DM - he offer such valid points - why are you all bald? why are you all right wingers? why are you all cold-blooded? why can't you be more like him (non-bald, non-white,non-right,non-snake) - new to this thread but nice to know the those that are on the stage and those that throw tomatoes from the cheap seats

Look forward to debates (and not personal attacks) with all the players on the stage

[DangerMouse]

Why does nobody debate with DM - he offer such valid points - why are you all bald? why are you all right wingers? why are you all cold-blooded? why can't you be more like him (non-bald, non-white,non-right,non-snake) - new to this thread but nice to know the those that are on the stage and those that throw tomatoes from the cheap seats

Look forward to debates (and not personal attacks) with all the players on the stage

See! This nothin guy surfaced!!

[noahbody]

No he didn't. Brant let long term "leases" to people to clear the land without authorithy of the Confederacy Council.

The first rule of native activism must be to villanize Joseph Brant,dismiss his role in history and claim he was a mere translator. Your claims that Brant only "let long term leases" and he had no authority are both incorrect. Before the 999-year leases, there were land sales due to a famine. Who was in charge of these? Joseph Brant. After the leases, Brant sold off large tracts of land, mainly because he was pissed of the crown would not grant him a deed for Haldimand. These sales didn't occur in a single afternoon. Yes eventually the council got pissed off at Brant and sent notice to the government stating he was no longer a representative. But for the time he was, he did have authority. The story was likely something like "We said that you could sell off land, but we didn't mean ALL that land." Sorry, no mulligans allowed.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Not really. The Europeans had little impact in Asia and Africa, and did not replace their populations, for the reason that smallpox and other European diseases were common to the Europe/Asia/Africa landmass.

The British Empire had no effect on either Africa or Asia? You have got to be joking! They did not replace their populations, that is true they dominated them. However in terms of colonies, the British did in fact replace the inhabitants to the degree possible where ever they went by driving out the inhabitants and claiming the land as vacant. The Empire sought small bit of the best locations in their opinion, locations where there was real strategic value to them and in their specific case it was usually deep protected harbours to begin with.

The natives in the Americas and Australia, having no resistance, suffered serious losses which were enough to demoralize their culture. Muskets and cannon are more powerful than bow and arrows, or stone knives, but a shipload of a few hundred Europeans would have been puny against 30 million native Americans. Their numbers had to be slimmed down for the Europeans to take over.

So in fact we agree that resistance was in fact futile, and the technology also overwhelmed them. The disease was a major factor yes, arguably the determining factor in the way you suggest. Then again, resistance tin that manner was futile as well.

Actually the colonists in the Americas were the cream of the crop, the entreprenurial types that resented the guild restrictions and lack of opportunities in their native England and, in the case of the US South, Scotland. Australia was initially peopled by prisoners, to be sure, but later arrivals came voluntarily, especially when gold was discovered in what is now the State of Victoria. Also, many former prisoners, tamed and matured by the rigors of the frontier became model citizens.

That's the popular story line but I have my doubts. Warfare was endemic, as was environmental degradation, even before Columbus.

Initially the colonies of North America were seeded with rugged yet viable types of settlers. Many colonies failed, and the groups of folks wishing to tempt fate depleted. At that point individuals of lesser value to the colony owners were used. In fact there was little interest in moving to the boondocks for the upper classes. However the poor had nothing to lose and everything to gain. More importantly it cost less to transport prisoners into imposed exile than to take care of them at home at public or crown expense, so it was a natural that they would be shipped out.

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that the cream of the crop were responsible for the successful settlement of North America. In terms of the rest of the world, the majority of colonization occurred after the industrialization period and consequently represent a source of natural resources for the use of factories and consumption of food for the citizens.

There was a reason for the whole colonization period. Nations were into land grabbing in those days. Empires rose and fell with the British ending up as the dominant player. The British do not have clean hands, neither do the French and all involved including Russia played a part in the creation of the world as we know it now.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Jerry J. Fortin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No he didn't. Brant let long term "leases" to people to clear the land without authorithy of the Confederacy Council. Those leases were converted through quit claims that were and are totally illegal. He was eventually exiled to Hamilton and died at Burlington. In fact his own son tried to kill him for his attempted control (British educated) over the Haldimand. The land was proclaimed as territory of "the Mohawks and other bands of Indians", not Brant.

Fact;

1) He was a designated representative of the Six Nations.

2) He was legally empowered to make legal decisions to dispose of lands deemed under his control.

3) His position as a native representative to the crown was not contested until years after the fact.

4) The Six Nations never sought the assistance of the crown to repudiate Brants' actions.

5) The entire quit claim issue is a red herring.