We pay while Indians live in luxury

[charter.rights]

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.

Fact:

1) No he wasn't. He was not authorized by the Confederacy Council to do anything other than talk with the British.

2) No he wasn't. He leased many lots without authorization of the Confederacy Council. The British tried to snooker him into selling but never approached the community as was required under the Haldimand Proclamation

3) His position was under constant challenge. His son even attempted to murder him because he would not stop trying to take control of Six Nations.

4) The Confederacy Council sent memos and letters to the Crown disputing Brant's actions. On many occasions those letters demanded that the Crown stop dealing with him.

5) No it isn't. Taking an lease and then applying for a quit claim was illegal then and is illegal now.

Go read a book or something Gawd! Where do you come up with this misinformation?

[noahbody]

Fact:

2) No he wasn't. He leased many lots without authorization of the Confederacy Council. The British tried to snooker him into selling but never approached the community as was required under the Haldimand Proclamation

Fact:

You keep proving you have no idea what you're talking about. The Haldimand Proclamation had nothing to do with requirments of land sales. In fact it suggested that the land was not transferable. Read up on this and on Brant.

[jbg]

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.

You miss my point. Asia is still overwhelmingly Asian in population. Ditto Africa. Australia and the Americas are overwhelmingly European in population. There is no comparison between the taking of a harbor such as Hong Kong and the taking of a continent.

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.

Without smallpox, diptheria (sp) and typhoid resistance would have been far more successful.

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.

Then how was the Province of New York described by British troops arriving to fight the Yanks in 1775-6 among the most prosperous places in the world, and far wealthier than Britain?

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.

No dispute there. But an additional reason, at least for the colonization of Africa and the Near East, was to rope down safe passage to the Americas and the Orient.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Fact:

1) No he wasn't. He was not authorized by the Confederacy Council to do anything other than talk with the British.

2) No he wasn't. He leased many lots without authorization of the Confederacy Council. The British tried to snooker him into selling but never approached the community as was required under the Haldimand Proclamation

3) His position was under constant challenge. His son even attempted to murder him because he would not stop trying to take control of Six Nations.

4) The Confederacy Council sent memos and letters to the Crown disputing Brant's actions. On many occasions those letters demanded that the Crown stop dealing with him.

5) No it isn't. Taking an lease and then applying for a quit claim was illegal then and is illegal now.

Go read a book or something Gawd! Where do you come up with this misinformation?

So according to you Brandt was not a representative of the Six Nations at all. He had no authority whatsoever. If that is so, how is it that his position was challenged at all? Where are those letters the council sent, where can they be read?

I will say it again, the quit claims are a red herring. Even you should be able to figure out what really happened there. You were sold out be Brandt. The way the law at the time was written the lands could only be transfered to the crown, not other citizens. With that in mind a way was found to circumvent the law.

Lets not be shy about this. The Six Nations were not originally from the area were they? They were Americans, weren't they? So now where is the so called traditional title? Wasn't this merely another red herring?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You miss my point. Asia is still overwhelmingly Asian in population. Ditto Africa. Australia and the Americas are overwhelmingly European in population. There is no comparison between the taking of a harbor such as Hong Kong and the taking of a continent.

Without smallpox, diptheria (sp) and typhoid resistance would have been far more successful.

Then how was the Province of New York described by British troops arriving to fight the Yanks in 1775-6 among the most prosperous places in the world, and far wealthier than Britain?

No dispute there. But an additional reason, at least for the colonization of Africa and the Near East, was to rope down safe passage to the Americas and the Orient.

The British Empire ruled more than a hundred million people in India with only a few thousands of troops. Firepower was and is relevant. There was no need to eliminate the population, that would be wasteful and counter productive to the entire purpose of the empire at the time. In fact it was very similiar to what America is now doing around the world, bringing peace by means of the sword. Bringing prosperity by means of government. Not new concepts at all.

The case of Hong Kong is unique, yet very insightful. The entire nation of China was to a very real extent controlled through that single port because sea lanes were everything at the time.

New York was wealthy, but more so than Great Britian ? I will need something to back that up JBG.

[charter.rights]

So according to you Brandt was not a representative of the Six Nations at all. He had no authority whatsoever. If that is so, how is it that his position was challenged at all? Where are those letters the council sent, where can they be read?

I will say it again, the quit claims are a red herring. Even you should be able to figure out what really happened there. You were sold out be Brandt. The way the law at the time was written the lands could only be transfered to the crown, not other citizens. With that in mind a way was found to circumvent the law.

Lets not be shy about this. The Six Nations were not originally from the area were they? They were Americans, weren't they? So now where is the so called traditional title? Wasn't this merely another red herring?

Is it how they say.... "ignorance is bliss"?

Six Nations has documents and letters that go back to prior to the resettlement that challenge Brant's dealings with the British. When they arrived at the Grand River location the Mohawks had it out with him and divided the settlement almost in two. Thus since that time we have what were known as the Upper Mohawk and the Lower Mohawk (who supported Brant) at Six Nations. Brant was not a condoled Royaner (or chief) and only Royaner could speak on behalf of the nation. That is what irritated som many people there.

Six Nations had been in the area long before first contact. In fact their territory extended to the Ottawa River, Nipissing, west side of Lake Huron, into Michigan and Ohio, New York and Quebec long before the British entered the area to displace the French. (Mitchell Map 1757). In 1702 they offered the British access to Michigan and parts or the Ohio valley under the Nanfan Treaty 1702 in exchange for continued right to hunt and fish there unmolested. So let's get serious here. Six Nations were not visitors or immigrants as they had always been located along the north shores of Erie, Ontario and the St Lawrence, as well as New York (and Ohio when the Cat Nation was incorporated)...at least over a thousand years or so. North shore archeology confirms it.

Like I said you really should read a book. Too many comic books really don't give an accurate historical concept and most of what you hear amongst your xenophobic friends really doesn't count as fact.

[jbg]

New York was wealthy, but more so than Great Britian ? I will need something to back that up JBG.

The authority of David McCollough's book 1776, which I just finished reading, and whatever his reference materials were.

[JCAN]

The authority of David McCollough's book 1776, which I just finished reading, and whatever his reference materials were.

It is too bad there is not more intelligent conversationalists out here, I guess it is easier to be crass and stupid than to come up with something intelligent to say, to bad for us I guess there was some interesting people to Talk to Angus and the rest I mean but I understand their lack of interest due to the lack of intelligence we have all witnessed cheap shots and childish names aside DM, CR keep the Indian race down with their lack of smarts and scope wisdom. I grew up in the north on & near reserves I have always believed we were equal all given the same opportunities some more than others, and as Darwin said survival of the fitst I have no patience for welfare cases including my white sister we all have a chance to be better do with it what you will. If you do not take advantage than you deserve what you get no mater race or birth right, those that whine about what is owed should remember that as before we can take what we want when we want again any time weather it is right or not and leagaly or not it can and will happen your ancestors gave away the farm get used to it we owe nothing because they were to stupid to understand what was happening welcome to the world of ebay and as I have said before which you are to stupid to understand or argue against we all come from Africa genetically so you have no more claim to this land than any white or black person so shut up or eventually we will shut you up. you are stupid CR & DM so accept it and go back to the minor leagues where you belong

[charter.rights]

It is too bad there is not more intelligent conversationalists out here, I guess it is easier to be crass and stupid than to come up with something intelligent to say, to bad for us I guess there was some interesting people to Talk to Angus and the rest I mean but I understand their lack of interest due to the lack of intelligence we have all witnessed cheap shots and childish names aside DM, CR keep the Indian race down with their lack of smarts and scope wisdom. I grew up in the north on & near reserves I have always believed we were equal all given the same opportunities some more than others, and as Darwin said survival of the fitst I have no patience for welfare cases including my white sister we all have a chance to be better do with it what you will. If you do not take advantage than you deserve what you get no mater race or birth right, those that whine about what is owed should remember that as before we can take what we want when we want again any time weather it is right or not and leagaly or not it can and will happen your ancestors gave away the farm get used to it we owe nothing because they were to stupid to understand what was happening welcome to the world of ebay and as I have said before which you are to stupid to understand or argue against we all come from Africa genetically so you have no more claim to this land than any white or black person so shut up or eventually we will shut you up. you are stupid CR & DM so accept it and go back to the minor leagues where you belong

No doubt a northern hick born in the oil sands where your mother and father are also your aunt and uncle?

Get a dictionary so you can learn how to spell. That way we might know what you are trying to say. Intelligence isn't your strong suit , now is it....?

Edited May 6, 2008 by charter.rights

[noahbody]

Brant was not a condoled Royaner (or chief) and only Royaner could speak on behalf of the nation.

Brant Deposition, 1805

Brethren. It is (erst?) a few words that we, the Six Nations, wish to inform at this time, it is what have been saying at our fireplace in Buffalo Creek. As it is customary for the Six Nations to call Councils for the misconduct of chiefs so as to have all faults related here before such councils, we have learned from information that Captain Brant has not conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Six Nations and according to our Indian customs he is no more a chief. And we the Six Nations all of us agree is no longer to be noticed as a chief in the Six Nations. The following are the names of the principle chiefs in the Six Nations.

http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/singl...s%2Fnews3.php%3

Flang%3Den%26layout%3Dmnn%26sortorder%3D0&srcscript=/news/news3.php

Now should we believe the oral history version where Brant is a mere translator or the written word of the chiefs of the time?

[charter.rights]

http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/singl...s%2Fnews3.php%3

Flang%3Den%26layout%3Dmnn%26sortorder%3D0&srcscript=/news/news3.php

Now should we believe the oral history version where Brant is a mere translator or the written word of the chiefs of the time?

Good catch. It shows you have been doing your homework. But alas it is irrelevent and you obviously didn't read the whole article - especially the first part....

Brant was NOT as I said, a Royaner (a condoled Chief). He was what was known as a "Pine Tree Chief" who was raised up to do only certain tasks and had no authority at the Confederacy Council except as an adviser on certain matters. Royaner hold their title for life and cannot have their title removed in until at the brink of death (no one will die with title). The act of deposing Brant as a Pine Tree Chief was not really permitted but once he had exhausted his usefulness they chose to silence his voice and never call him chief again from that point onward.

From the same site:

A Pine Tree Chief has no authority to name a successor nor is his title hereditary. His sole responsibility was to translate. The British and their marionette, Brant, illegally sold and signed away large tracts of Mohawk land in New York State and Ontario. He and the British knew full well he had no authority to do this. Therefore, all his transactions were and are fraudulent.

Do try to read and comprehend a little more before you try to make a point. What you have proven is that you really don't understand the point you were trying to make. But thanks for the laugh, anyway.....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So you admit that Brandt sold you out, how nice. That infers that he had the power to do so doesn't it?

Face the reality here CR, you screwed yourselves over and now choose to blame others. The white race can say that Vikings were in North America a thousand years ago. They lived, hunted and fished and died here. So what of any claim they wish to make? The Jews threw out their opposition in Israel some thousands of years ago but now lay claim to their land in spite of the Palestine position. The international community recognizes Israel. Nearly every European country has been run over a dozen times and borders have changed time and again with countries appearing and disappearing all the time. The truth is simply possession is the prime concern. That and the ability to defend your own turf. Title is not the issue. The natives lost a series of wars and negotiations and lost the lands as well. Get over it.

While I would truely like to see a resolution for natives in Canada, I will certainly not give away the farm. That is not reasonable, as is your unreasonable position. To take your position on the opposite side of the fence you would see citizens of Canada lose all they have without a battle in some bleeding heart court concerning itself with politics instead of rights.

To return to the question of rights, you should have no more right or privilege than any other citizen of this nation to advocate otherwise merely proves your racist tendencies. You would have to be a fool to entrench yourself in that position.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Good catch. It shows you have been doing your homework. But alas it is irrelevent and you obviously didn't read the whole article - especially the first part....

Brant was NOT as I said, a Royaner (a condoled Chief). He was what was known as a "Pine Tree Chief" who was raised up to do only certain tasks and had no authority at the Confederacy Council except as an adviser on certain matters. Royaner hold their title for life and cannot have their title removed in until at the brink of death (no one will die with title). The act of deposing Brant as a Pine Tree Chief was not really permitted but once he had exhausted his usefulness they chose to silence his voice and never call him chief again from that point onward.

From the same site:

A Pine Tree Chief has no authority to name a successor nor is his title hereditary. His sole responsibility was to translate. The British and their marionette, Brant, illegally sold and signed away large tracts of Mohawk land in New York State and Ontario. He and the British knew full well he had no authority to do this. Therefore, all his transactions were and are fraudulent.

Do try to read and comprehend a little more before you try to make a point. What you have proven is that you really don't understand the point you were trying to make. But thanks for the laugh, anyway.....

Think again you dingbat. If it was that simple it would have been resolved years ago now wouldn't it. Contest this little quote please.

"On February 5, 1798, Captain Joseph Brant, the agent or attorney of the Six Nations, sold large tracts of land as follows:

Block 1

Dumfries Township, 94,305 acres, sold to P. Steadman for £8,841. This tract passed into the ownership of William Dickson who paid the price and opened the land for settlement.

Block 2 Woolrich and Pilkington Townships, sold to Richard Beasley, James Wilson and John Rousseau, 94,012 acres for £8,887.

Block 3 Waterloo Township, sold to William Wallace, 86,078 acres for £16,364.

Block 4 Nichol Township, sold to the Hon. Thomas Clark for £3,564 payable in 1,000 years from the date of the bond, the interest to be paid annually.

Block 5 Moulton Township, sold to W. Jarvis for £5,775, then sold to Lord Selkirk, who in turn sold it to Henry J. Boulton.

Block 6 Canboro Township, given to John Dockstader, sold for the benefit of his Native children to Benjamin Canby.

The Six Nations subsequently sold additional parts of their land to new settlers.."

Your contention that he was not an agent and that the crown knew it is simply false. Add that to the reality that your natives didn't contest the authority until at least several years after the fact. Seven years is a long time in terms of contracts to be contested don't you think?

[noahbody]

Good catch. It shows you have been doing your homework. But alas it is irrelevent and you obviously didn't read the whole article - especially the first part....

Sure I read it. It's propaganda (expected given the source). What is factual and you can't dispute are the words of the chiefs and their need to supply the Briish with a list of principal chiefs.

The act of deposing Brant as a Pine Tree Chief was not really permitted but once he had exhausted his usefulness they chose to silence his voice and never call him chief again from that point onward.

It was against their Constitution. That's why the chiefs' words "Captain Brant has not conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Six Nations and according to our Indian customs he is no more a chief." To depose of a Pine Chief was against their customs.

Do try to read and comprehend a little more before you try to make a point. What you have proven is that you really don't understand the point you were trying to make. But thanks for the laugh, anyway.....

Sure, if you can explain to me why over 60 years after his death the Six Nations chiefs felt the need to ask for a monument to be raised for a mere translator. Note the words "great chief" and "distinguished chief."

http://books.google.ca/books?id=TYaQkzcKWb...hl=en#PPA142,M1

[charter.rights]

So you admit that Brandt sold you out, how nice. That infers that he had the power to do so doesn't it?

Face the reality here CR, you screwed yourselves over and now choose to blame others. The white race can say that Vikings were in North America a thousand years ago. They lived, hunted and fished and died here. So what of any claim they wish to make? The Jews threw out their opposition in Israel some thousands of years ago but now lay claim to their land in spite of the Palestine position. The international community recognizes Israel. Nearly every European country has been run over a dozen times and borders have changed time and again with countries appearing and disappearing all the time. The truth is simply possession is the prime concern. That and the ability to defend your own turf. Title is not the issue. The natives lost a series of wars and negotiations and lost the lands as well. Get over it.

While I would truely like to see a resolution for natives in Canada, I will certainly not give away the farm. That is not reasonable, as is your unreasonable position. To take your position on the opposite side of the fence you would see citizens of Canada lose all they have without a battle in some bleeding heart court concerning itself with politics instead of rights.

To return to the question of rights, you should have no more right or privilege than any other citizen of this nation to advocate otherwise merely proves your racist tendencies. You would have to be a fool to entrench yourself in that position.

Brant had no authority to do what he did. He made a few unauthorized leases but after that he was stopped and booted out. However, the British used him to try to manipulate Six Nations. There are reams of letters and memos between the Confederacy and the British that not only make it clear Brant had no authority but that there were not going to be manipulated by the British. There is clear evidence that the British stole lands without the Confederacy's or the people's consent.

According to all the legal documentation, the lands under claim BELONG to Six Nations and were never ceded. Brant did not screw them out of anything. They hold legal claim and jurisdiction over the entire Haldimand Tract, as well as all of sourthern Ontario south of the Ottawa River.

Your ignorance is mounting...Six Nations NEVER lost a war against anyone. However, the British, your ancestors lost quite a few. If not for Six Nations we would probably be speaking Amarrican right now.

It is nice to see you would like a resolution. You can't give away the farm, because you don't own it in the first place. Six Nations does if you live in southern Ontario. That's all there is to it.

[charter.rights]

Think again you dingbat. If it was that simple it would have been resolved years ago now wouldn't it. Contest this little quote please.

"On February 5, 1798, Captain Joseph Brant, the agent or attorney of the Six Nations, sold large tracts of land as follows:

Block 1

Dumfries Township, 94,305 acres, sold to P. Steadman for £8,841. This tract passed into the ownership of William Dickson who paid the price and opened the land for settlement.

Block 2 Woolrich and Pilkington Townships, sold to Richard Beasley, James Wilson and John Rousseau, 94,012 acres for £8,887.

Block 3 Waterloo Township, sold to William Wallace, 86,078 acres for £16,364.

Block 4 Nichol Township, sold to the Hon. Thomas Clark for £3,564 payable in 1,000 years from the date of the bond, the interest to be paid annually.

Block 5 Moulton Township, sold to W. Jarvis for £5,775, then sold to Lord Selkirk, who in turn sold it to Henry J. Boulton.

Block 6 Canboro Township, given to John Dockstader, sold for the benefit of his Native children to Benjamin Canby.

The Six Nations subsequently sold additional parts of their land to new settlers.."

Your contention that he was not an agent and that the crown knew it is simply false. Add that to the reality that your natives didn't contest the authority until at least several years after the fact. Seven years is a long time in terms of contracts to be contested don't you think?

Nope. It never happened. The Royal Proclamation forbade it. None of those guys could own Six Nations land because it never passed to the Crown first. Too bad you lose this one and the next.

Nope. Brant was deposed shortly after they arrived. Leases are not sales. So you might want to backtrack a bit. Since Six Nations arrived they complained to the British about removing squatters from their lands. All those "sales" are bogus.

[charter.rights]

Sure I read it. It's propaganda (expected given the source). What is factual and you can't dispute are the words of the chiefs and their need to supply the Briish with a list of principal chiefs.

It was against their Constitution. That's why the chiefs' words "Captain Brant has not conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Six Nations and according to our Indian customs he is no more a chief." To depose of a Pine Chief was against their customs.

Sure, if you can explain to me why over 60 years after his death the Six Nations chiefs felt the need to ask for a monument to be raised for a mere translator. Note the words "great chief" and "distinguished chief."

http://books.google.ca/books?id=TYaQkzcKWb...hl=en#PPA142,M1

The words of the Royaner are saying that Brant was deposed because they could no longer trust him. You had better go back and read it again sunshine. It says exactly what I told you it says. Brant was silenced and had no authority.

Brethren. It is (erst?) a few words that we, the Six Nations, wish to inform at this time, it is what have been saying at our fireplace in Buffalo Creek. As it is customary for the Six Nations to call Councils for the misconduct of chiefs so as to have all faults related here before such councils, we have learned from information that Captain Brant has not conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Six Nations and according to our Indian customs he is no more a chief. And we the Six Nations all of us agree is no longer to be noticed as a chief in the Six Nations. The following are the names of the principle chiefs in the Six Nations.

All Brant was, was a "Pine Tree Chief" brought in to translate for the Confederacy Chiefs and advise on certain dealings with the British. He had no authority, just as other Pine Tree Chiefs had no authority outside of their specific duties.

From the Great Law of Peace - The Iroquois Constitution:

Election of Pine Tree Chiefs

35. Should any man of the Nation assist with special ability or show great interest in the affairs of the Nation, if he proves himself wise, honest and worthy of confidence, the Confederate Lords may elect him to a seat with them and he may sit in the Confederate Council. He shall be proclaimed a 'Pine Tree sprung up for the Nation' and shall be installed as such at the next assembly for the installation of Lords. Should he ever do anything contrary to the rules of the Great Peace, he may not be deposed from office -- no one shall cut him down -- but thereafter everyone shall be deaf to his voice and his advice. Should he resign his seat and title no one shall prevent him. A Pine Tree chief has no authority to name a successor nor is his title hereditary.

When Brant took exile, he had effectively resigned his seat.

[noahbody]

All Brant was, was a "Pine Tree Chief" brought in to translate for the Confederacy Chiefs and advise on certain dealings with the British. He had no authority, just as other Pine Tree Chiefs had no authority outside of their specific duties.

So why was it again the six nations' chiefs requested a monument for a translator 60 years after his death? And why was the monument inscribed with the words "principal chief"?

[charter.rights]

So why was it again the six nations' chiefs requested a monument for a translator 60 years after his death? And why was the monument inscribed with the words "principal chief"?

When Brant was deposed, it split Six Nation loyalties down the middle. Those who followed Brant became known as the lower Mohawk and those who did not became the Upper Mohawk. On Six Nations reserve today the two faction still exist. However, Brant's /colonial's supporters only represent about 5% of the total population. The inscription was wrong. He was never a "principle chief and only ever a Pine Tree that was silenced.

[noahbody]

When Brant was deposed, it split Six Nation loyalties down the middle.

Deposing a translator split the Six Nations? Think about that for a bit. Does it sound probable?

The inscription was wrong. He was never a "principle chief and only ever a Pine Tree that was silenced.

The inscription was actually on his tomb, not the monument, just to keep the facts straight. As far as the monument goes, wouldn't the requesting of such a honour make more sense if Brant was in fact more than a Pine Tree Chief? Wouldn't that make sense of the split of the Six Nations, why Brant travelled to meet the King and why Brant was referred to as the Indian King? I doubt it was because he was the King of Translating. I don't think they paint your portrait for that one.

[charter.rights]

Deposing a translator split the Six Nations? Think about that for a bit. Does it sound probable?

The inscription was actually on his tomb, not the monument, just to keep the facts straight. As far as the monument goes, wouldn't the requesting of such a honour make more sense if Brant was in fact more than a Pine Tree Chief? Wouldn't that make sense of the split of the Six Nations, why Brant travelled to meet the King and why Brant was referred to as the Indian King? I doubt it was because he was the King of Translating. I don't think they paint your portrait for that one.

Wrong again.

The split was really those against colonialism and the teaching of the Code of Handsome Lake (an attempt to integrate Christianity into a Native belief system), which Brant adhered to. The rejection of Brant was as a symbol of all he stood for - assimilation into colonial ways etc.

Brant was admired by the British because being British educated and with a command of the English language, he broke the stereotypical image of "Indians". However, he was not well like within the Confederacy. It is well documented both in written history and oral that Brant was nothing more than Pine Tree - still an esteemed position but nonetheless he violated the Great Law and was sanctioned for it.

Six Nations honours many of their citizens for various achievements. It wouldn't be unusual to have your portrait painted.

Tom Longboat is one example of being idolized not only by Six Nations but other First Nations as well Dr. Oronhyatekha. They painted both of their portraits and neither one was a Chief - not even a Pine Tree Chief.

Brant was raised up as Pine Tree because he spoke good English and knew the ways the British thought. He was used to give Six Nations an advantage in negotiations, but when he and John Deseronto got caught with their hand in the till.....so to speak......they quickly silenced him and he lost all confidence of the Confederacy.

[jbg]

It is too bad there is not more intelligent conversationalists out here, I guess it is easier to be crass and stupid than to come up with something intelligent to say...

What did I say to earn that cheap shot?

[jbg]

No doubt a northern hick born in the oil sands where your mother and father are also your aunt and uncle?

Get a dictionary so you can learn how to spell. That way we might know what you are trying to say. Intelligence isn't your strong suit , now is it....?

Name calling. Come on, "northern hick"?

[M.Dancer]

No doubt a northern hick born in the oil sands where your mother and father are also your aunt and uncle?

Get a dictionary so you can learn how to spell. That way we might know what you are trying to say. Intelligence isn't your strong suit , now is it....?

Two spelling mistakes....bet if I looked at most of your posts I would find quite a few typos too...

Don't tell me though, your strong suit is polyester?

[noahbody]

Nope. It never happened. The Royal Proclamation forbade it. None of those guys could own Six Nations land because it never passed to the Crown first. Too bad you lose this one and the next.

Nope. Brant was deposed shortly after they arrived. Leases are not sales. So you might want to backtrack a bit. Since Six Nations arrived they complained to the British about removing squatters from their lands. All those "sales" are bogus.

Wrong again.

I suggest you research the block B transaction in particular, in which a crown deed was issued (meaning the land passed though the crown). Yes, that means it was sold, not leased. Sorry.