Jump to content

The myths of Caledonia


Recommended Posts

What do people make of land acknowledgments?

It’s very common in Ontario workplaces and schools now to hear something along the lines of, “We’d like to acknowledge that we are on the sacred territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit and we’d like to thank them for being the stewards of this land.”   I have a couple of questions:

1. What is the purpose of a land acknowledgement?

2. Are these acknowledgments of facts or falsehoods?

I know for fact that the Mississaugas are not the stewards of the town in which I live.  They do not police the area, remove snow from roads, collect taxes, or address any of my concerns.  To my understanding the Credit River was so named because the French would often trade items with the Indigenous along the River on credit   What’s more, the land between Burlington and Toronto was part of the Toronto Purchase.  If there is some outstanding land claim being made by the Mississaugas, what is the basis for it?  As others have mentioned, the Mississaugas were not the only group to come through and settle for periods in Southern Ontario. Haudenosaune are who exactly?  When were they the dominant group in southern Ontario and for how long? Were there disputes over land, and if so, how were they settled?  If there were no disputes during the time of settlement, it’s wrong to suddenly seek them long after the formation of municipalities.  It seems like land acknowledgments were handed to us to read and accept without explanation or justification.  There are consequences for expounding inaccurate narratives.  

Are the descendants of United Empire Loyalists laying claim to property lost in the US during the Revolution?  Are the descendants of New France demanding compensation for land that France ceded to Britain in 1763?  What is the real status of our lands in Canada apart from the lands on reserves?  It is extremely dubious at this stage of history, I think, to be giving away land or to be paying Indigenous bands out for land unless there is a clear and good reason, such as continuous and exclusive occupation by one group.  Of course in that case the government wouldn’t buy such land as it isn’t occupied by people outside the group.  Title would be handed over or it would become a reserve.   

The mentality of being owed something for something that happened well over a century ago, especially when coupled with not having to pay taxes, is problematic.  Who gets free land today?  On what basis?  

We could go much further: Who doesn’t have to pay taxes, gets free tuition, etc.?   What is the price a group pays in terms of pride and self-esteem for receiving the support of other people?  It’s neither healthy or sustainable for an ethnic group to be taken care of.  Who would want that for themselves?  Not paying taxes just ensures that money must continuously pass from taxpayers to non-taxpayers.  I think it’s right to accept a certain amount of this to prevent desperate hardship.  What is the statute of limitations on land transfer?  What is the ceiling on allocation of budget to reserves and Indigenous affairs?

 I know I’ve said a lot and people will have very different opinions.  Feel free to address any of these questions.

 

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

What do people make of land acknowledgments?

Generally I feel complete contempt for the people and organizations making them. I think that it would be appropriate that any organization which made such an acknowledgement should be required to turn over its land to the native group they claim to be on the land of. Except for government lands. For government lands the individual bureaucrats or politicians who wish to make such an acknowledgement can have their pensions given to the natives instead.

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s very common in Ontario workplaces and schools now to hear something along the lines of, “We’d like to acknowledge that we are on the sacred territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit and we’d like to thank them for being the stewards of this land.”   I have a couple of questions:

1. What is the purpose of a land acknowledgement?

2. Are these acknowledgments of facts or falsehoods?

1. To make wishy-washy, hand-wringing liberals feel good about themselves and allow them to virtue signal.
2. They rarely have a lot to do with historical or legal truth.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2019 at 2:42 PM, Zeitgeist said:

What do people make of land acknowledgments?

It’s very common in Ontario workplaces and schools now to hear something along the lines of, “We’d like to acknowledge that we are on the sacred territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit and we’d like to thank them for being the stewards of this land.”   I have a couple of questions:

1. What is the purpose of a land acknowledgement?

2. Are these acknowledgments of facts or falsehoods?

I know for fact that the Mississaugas are not the stewards of the town in which I live.  They do not police the area, remove snow from roads, collect taxes, or address any of my concerns.  To my understanding the Credit River was so named because the French would often trade items with the Indigenous along the River on credit   What’s more, the land between Burlington and Toronto was part of the Toronto Purchase.  If there is some outstanding land claim being made by the Mississaugas, what is the basis for it?  As others have mentioned, the Mississaugas were not the only group to come through and settle for periods in Southern Ontario. Haudenosaune are who exactly?  When were they the dominant group in southern Ontario and for how long? Were there disputes over land, and if so, how were they settled?  If there were no disputes during the time of settlement, it’s wrong to suddenly seek them long after the formation of municipalities.  It seems like land acknowledgments were handed to us to read and accept without explanation or justification.  There are consequences for expounding inaccurate narratives.  

Are the descendants of United Empire Loyalists laying claim to property lost in the US during the Revolution?  Are the descendants of New France demanding compensation for land that France ceded to Britain in 1763?  What is the real status of our lands in Canada apart from the lands on reserves?  It is extremely dubious at this stage of history, I think, to be giving away land or to be paying Indigenous bands out for land unless there is a clear and good reason, such as continuous and exclusive occupation by one group.  Of course in that case the government wouldn’t buy such land as it isn’t occupied by people outside the group.  Title would be handed over or it would become a reserve.   

The mentality of being owed something for something that happened well over a century ago, especially when coupled with not having to pay taxes, is problematic.  Who gets free land today?  On what basis?  

We could go much further: Who doesn’t have to pay taxes, gets free tuition, etc.?   What is the price a group pays in terms of pride and self-esteem for receiving the support of other people?  It’s neither healthy or sustainable for an ethnic group to be taken care of.  Who would want that for themselves?  Not paying taxes just ensures that money must continuously pass from taxpayers to non-taxpayers.  I think it’s right to accept a certain amount of this to prevent desperate hardship.  What is the statute of limitations on land transfer?  What is the ceiling on allocation of budget to reserves and Indigenous affairs?

 I know I’ve said a lot and people will have very different opinions.  Feel free to address any of these questions.

 

No need to address anything you've said. You ask questions that can be answered by researching and understanding the laws of Canada.

Do that.

Start with this: Canada has 3 founding peoples - Aboriginal, French, British - and 3 legal systems:

Aboriginal Law

French Civil Code

British Common Law

All are relevant and in force today. 

Understanding Canada's laws is understanding Canada.

You have much to learn. You can answer all of your own questions, and come to understand Canada in the process.

You could start by understanding:

* that all of Canada was Aboriginal Title before European 'contact', and remains so today, except where use of the land was formally and legally ceded to the Crown, under the rules laid out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. 

* that even on land ceded for the use of the Crown, Indigenous peoples retain Aboriginal rights - the right to sustain themselves from that ceded land, whether by hunting, fishing, etc. OR by sharing in revenues earned from the land (logging, mining, oil/gas, building, farming, etc).

* Haudenosaunee people are the Six Nations who have occupied both sides of the Great Lakes for more than a thousand years, including Southern Ontario. (Some other nations resided there, by agreement with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy.) 

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jacee said:

No need to address anything you've said. You ask questions that can be answered by researching and understanding the laws of Canada.

Do that.

Start with this: Canada has 3 founding peoples - Aboriginal, French, British - and 3 legal systems:

Aboriginal Law

French Civil Code

British Common Law

All are relevant and in force today. 

Understanding Canada's laws is understanding Canada.

You have much to learn. You can answer all of your own questions, and come to understand Canada in the process.

You could start by understanding:

* that all of Canada was Aboriginal Title before European 'contact', and remains so today, except where use of the land was formally and legally ceded to the Crown, under the rules laid out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. 

* that even on land ceded for the use of the Crown, Indigenous peoples retain Aboriginal rights - the right to sustain themselves from that ceded land, whether by hunting, fishing, etc. OR by sharing in revenues earned from the land (logging, mining, oil/gas, building, farming, etc).

* Haudenosaunee people are the Six Nations who have occupied both sides of the Great Lakes for more than a thousand years, including Southern Ontario. (Some other nations resided there, by agreement with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy.) 

You are making many assumptions and falsehoods.  The Mohawk who were the dominant group in the Iroquois Confederacy were a warring people, like many peoples, who came through Southern Ontario.  Groups were swept out of the south at different times by peoples such as the Ottawas, who are not part of that Confederacy.  As mentioned elsewhere on this site, the primary homeland of the six Nations Confederacy was around the Finger Lakes, but as the Brits retreated north of the Great Lakes, a reserve was established along the Grand River in Upper Canada.  Fair enough. Since that time many different peoples, Indigenous and non-Indigenous have lived in Southern Ontario.  Purchases were made; deeds and titles were established under law.  

When you say all land in Canada was Aboriginal Title, you are lumping thousands of different Indigenous groups together, some of which were at war with each other.  Establishing a land claim is much more complex than you seem to think.  A direct and continuous link must be made between a people and an area of land, and that use must be exclusive and continuous.  

Harkening back a century or more to a time when there weren’t other settlers around or trying to lay claim to an area that other groups have occupied at different times won’t work.  Who gets to inhabit such territory? Who is up for a leadership position on Band Council?  A group that took it from another group?  Once we have municipalities and privately owned land, you can’t come along and try to collect payment for that.  Can I collect money from the US government for land my ancestors left behind when they came here as Loyalists during the American Revolution?  Of course not.  Move on from money grabs and create money for yourselves in businesses like everyone else, and like everyone else, set aside some of the money for community development, like taxes.  The healthiest and most successful bands understand this. That’s part of what the “Trust Fund” is about. The goal must be self-suffiency. If the land won’t provide, leave it.  No one can take it from you.  It’s treaty protected. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were not one nation back then, it was many and they were all trying to kill each other off. It was pretty well genocide that was happening when the white man showed up. Nations are built by the victors. They lost we won and we have been very good to the losers ,compared to other parts of the world. The biggest problem with natives is their own leadership. Just as corrupt as any liberal government. Now I do want to have every problem fixed, people should not have to suffer living in this country. Talk to well  drillers and make a deal and bring in the chinooks to move drillers and equipt around to where they are needed. And when making a deal, it is fair prices not gouging like every government project. Where they bring in their buddies and all get rich and nothing gets done. IMO a lot of these problems can be fixed, if people the government leaderships and native are all for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2019 at 2:32 PM, Zeitgeist said:

You are making many assumptions and falsehoods.  The Mohawk who were the dominant group in the Iroquois Confederacy were a warring people, like many peoples, who came through Southern Ontario.  Groups were swept out of the south at different times by peoples such as the Ottawas, who are not part of that Confederacy.  As mentioned elsewhere on this site, the primary homeland of the six Nations Confederacy was around the Finger Lakes, but as the Brits retreated north of the Great Lakes, a reserve was established along the Grand River in Upper Canada.  Fair enough. Since that time many different peoples, Indigenous and non-Indigenous have lived in Southern Ontario.  Purchases were made; deeds and titles were established under law.  

When you say all land in Canada was Aboriginal Title, you are lumping thousands of different Indigenous groups together, some of which were at war with each other.  Establishing a land claim is much more complex than you seem to think.  A direct and continuous link must be made between a people and an area of land, and that use must be exclusive and continuous.  

Harkening back a century or more to a time when there weren’t other settlers around or trying to lay claim to an area that other groups have occupied at different times won’t work.  Who gets to inhabit such territory? Who is up for a leadership position on Band Council?  A group that took it from another group?  Once we have municipalities and privately owned land, you can’t come along and try to collect payment for that.  Can I collect money from the US government for land my ancestors left behind when they came here as Loyalists during the American Revolution?  Of course not.  Move on from money grabs and create money for yourselves in businesses like everyone else, and like everyone else, set aside some of the money for community development, like taxes.  The healthiest and most successful bands understand this. That’s part of what the “Trust Fund” is about. The goal must be self-suffiency. If the land won’t provide, leave it.  No one can take it from you.  It’s treaty protected. 

You're opinions merit some further investigations of law and fact.

Get back to us with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2019 at 11:18 PM, Zeitgeist said:

If you have a problem with any of these assertions, feel free to disprove.  

It's up to you to prove your assertions. I've provided evidence to the contrary   that you've ignored, and you've continued with your false assertions, so I question whether you are genuinely interested in truth. I certainly won't accept your assertions as truth. Lol 

Nor do I claim to know the whole truth or have expertise, but I have informed myself of some Supreme Court precedents - ie, relevant Canadian law - and I don't dismiss the possibilities as you do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanfan_Treaty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dish_With_One_Spoon

Some hunting grounds were shared among Indigenous Nations. Distinctions are made by the courts between Aboriginal Title (right of ownership) and Aboriginal Rights (right of use). 

Establishing Aboriginal Title via the courts is a long, complex and expensive process, as you say, entirely dependent on occupation and use at the time of European contact and since.

However, Aboriginal Rights still exist on all of Canada, as all of Canada was Aboriginal Territory at contact, and some rights continue despite 'ceding' territory to the Crown. Those continuing rights include the right to sustain themselves from the land. The courts have interpreted this as Aboriginal rights to a say in development and a share in revenues from development, and the Crown's Duty to consult and to accommodate those rights. Again, there are some legal and evidentiary complexities in establishing the nature and extent of those residual Aboriginal rights, but, for one example, Haudenosaunee Six Nations people have now negotiated hunting rights in conservation areas within city limits. 

Some of the questions you've asked above will only be answered by the courts via the criteria they have established, and some already have been. You can investigate those yourself. 

You ignore the fact that Indigenous Nations managed themselves here for thousands of years, including communities, laws, treaties, governance, trade routes and agreements etc etc, before their civilizations were disrupted by European occupation and genocide. 

It's been a very slow process of settling our debts to Indigenous Peoples, due to government foot-dragging and lack of political will, and the financial inaccessibility of the courts. However, the debts just get bigger every year as interest accrues. We'd be wise to settle sooner than later, so Indigenous communities can once again achieve independence.

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jacee said:

It's up to you to prove your assertions. I've provided evidence to the contrary   that you've ignored, and you've continued with your false assertions, so I question whether you are genuinely interested in truth. I certainly won't accept your assertions as truth. Lol 

Nor do I claim to know the whole truth or have expertise, but I have informed myself of some Supreme Court precedents - ie, relevant Canadian law - and I don't dismiss the possibilities as you do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanfan_Treaty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dish_With_One_Spoon

Some hunting grounds were shared among Indigenous Nations. Distinctions are made by the courts between Aboriginal Title (right of ownership) and Aboriginal Rights (right of use). 

Establishing Aboriginal Title via the courts is a long, complex and expensive process, as you say, entirely dependent on occupation and use at the time of European contact and since.

However, Aboriginal Rights still exist on all of Canada, as all of Canada was Aboriginal Territory at contact, and some rights continue despite 'ceding' territory to the Crown. Those continuing rights include the right to sustain themselves from the land. The courts have interpreted this as Aboriginal rights to a say in development and a share in revenues from development, and the Crown's Duty to consult and to accommodate those rights. Again, there are some legal and evidentiary complexities in establishing the nature and extent of those residual Aboriginal rights, but, for one example, Haudenosaunee Six Nations people have now negotiated hunting rights in conservation areas within city limits. 

Some of the questions you've asked above will only be answered by the courts via the criteria they have established, and some already have been. You can investigate those yourself. 

You ignore the fact that Indigenous Nations managed themselves here for thousands of years, including communities, laws, treaties, governance, trade routes and agreements etc etc, before their civilizations were disrupted by European occupation and genocide. 

It's been a very slow process of settling our debts to Indigenous Peoples, due to government foot-dragging and lack of political will, and the financial inaccessibility of the courts. However, the debts just get bigger every year as interest accrues. We'd be wise to settle sooner than later, so Indigenous communities can once again achieve independence.

I disagree about compensating people who point to distant ancestral ties to land that non-Indigenous people now occupy. Who should obtain land free that wasn’t recognized as theirs since European settlement began?  Indigenous peoples should move on from this mentality of getting free stuff.  They’ll get little sympathy from the public because we all have to work for and buy what we have. This is how intergenerational dependence happens.  I don’t think most people have a problem with the idea of traditional hunting grounds being maintained.  I don’t think Indigenous people will really thrive until they treat their land as saleable private property, get jobs, and pay taxes like everyone else.  Most Indigenous people are not living as they did 500 years ago, nor do they want to.  Most of them want to have modern comforts and decent health and education.  Having those things requires income and taxation.  It also sometimes means leaving remote, sparsely populated areas that can’t sustain the amenities people want.  Hunting and cultural practices are more likely to thrive when people thrive economically.  Waiting for other people to pay for and fix problems is a self-defeating mindset.  If bands choose to maintain their reserves as a kind of communal non-saleable affair, that’s their choice, but they have to maintain them with self-generated income: leases, resource development, etc.   Outside help is welfare, no matter how you slice it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I disagree about compensating people who point to distant ancestral ties to land that non-Indigenous people now occupy. Who should obtain land free that wasn’t recognized as theirs since European settlement began?

You have much to learn about Canadian law, but let's just start with this: If you did know the laws of Canada, would you respect the laws? Does that matter to you at all? 

Canada made treaties. Canada broke treaties. Compensation is legally warranted. That's the law, whether you "disagree" or not.

If you have a written agreement to sell land to someone, then they occupy the land without paying the agreed-upon amount ... who owns the land? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jacee said:

You have much to learn about Canadian law, but let's just start with this: If you did know the laws of Canada, would you respect the laws? Does that matter to you at all? 

Canada made treaties. Canada broke treaties. Compensation is legally warranted. That's the law, whether you "disagree" or not.

If you have a written agreement to sell land to someone, then they occupy the land without paying the agreed-upon amount ... who owns the land? 

You have to make reference to specific examples for me to weigh in.  Nevertheless I think generally that such claims are extortionate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You have to make reference to specific examples for me to weigh in.  Nevertheless I think generally that such claims are extortionate.  

Sometimes settlers did pay for the land, but the government embezzled the money from Indigenous Trust Funds. 

So who committed the illegal acts?

The government has fiduciary duty to account for and replace those funds.

Extortion? The only power Indigenous people hold over our governments is our own laws. 

You don't respect the law? 

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Sometimes settlers did pay for the land, but the government embezzled the money from Indigenous Trust Funds. 

So who committed the illegal acts?

The government has fiduciary duty to account for and replace those funds.

Extortion? The only power Indigenous people hold over our governments is our own laws. 

You don't respect the law? 

It’s not a matter of the law.  In the early 20th century there was an attempt by government to compensate for unjust taking/using of land.  The result was similar to such attempts today:  Some say it isn’t enough.  Others say it’s too much.  The bottom line is that you’re asking today’s taxpayers who weren’t alive a century ago to right certuries’ old wrongs.  The Loyalists moved on from this.  What does an immigrant to Canada owe the great-great-great grandchild of someone who lived in the area a century or more ago?  Not only does it become nearly impossible in most of the country to determine which specific plot of land is exclusively and continuously occupied by which clan(s), it pits people against each other who are either making the claim or trying to retain access or ownership.  It’s a dangerous game.  

The only result of fights like Caledonia is home developers and citizens running scared.  If the Indigenous group manages to convince the court that it should be added to their reserve/territory, it will have no value in the marketplace.  It could be a farm or place to build a home, but how fair is it to wrench that from a developer who bought the land, had title, and invested in the construction, let alone the home buyer?  It’s extortion.  No one gets a free ride except in a charitable way as welfare to prevent the worst kinds of desperation.  Move on.  Get a good education and employment.  Build what you can like everyone else.  Your land is yours.  Do what you can with it.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s not a matter of the law.

It is only a matter of law.

If you are so concerned about the legality of your property in Caledonia, research the title history and consult with Six Nations BEFORE proposing or investing in property development.It's not rocket science. It's just smart business.

Impact-Benefit Agreements (IBA's) are signed all the time between Indigenous Nations and companies wishing to do business on their traditional territories where they still have Aboriginal rights to a say in development and a share in revenues. With good intentions and ethical business practices, all kinds of agreements are being created - e.g., including jobs or housing for the Indigenous community, etc.

It only takes knowledge of the law,  respect and good will. If you don't have those, you will fail. Your choice.

I would suggest that referring to legal Aboriginal rights as "extortion" is not likely to be a successful business plan ... in this century.  B)

Banks should not be funding projects if due diligence has not been done in creating a viable business plan.

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2007 at 1:15 PM, sideshow said:

Good point. This whole land claim issue is sickening. The issue needs to be settled once for and all, country wide and then move on. How much more can society keep giving? And who should we all keep giving it to?

Settle the "debt", pass legislation to keep it that way, and stop with the handouts, special treatment, etc. If we are all to be members that are equal in society, then treat us all as equals. If there is a debt-pay it. And move on. That means EVERYONE pays taxes, no more handouts, etc.

I would rather see a lump sum payment to go towards aboriginal land claims that comes out of all of our pockets and finalize things, rather than bleed us all dry for another hundred years or so and still leave things unresolved.

They've been paid more than enough already. Send in the army with flamethrowers. That will get rid of these protesters once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2019 at 2:16 PM, Argus said:

Just like any other citizen...

And no more than any other citizen.

Canada has 3 legal traditions - Indigenous Law, French Civil Code, British Common Law.

There are differences, and always will be. 

Complexity is just part of life.

 

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2019 at 5:27 PM, Hates politicians said:

Where's my share of revenu'es. What it's becaue I'm white, I'm not entitled to any. But I pay taxes and I work for a living. It's my land too.

It depends which of Canada's legal traditions you are subject to. 

It's a complexity that escapes some minds, but that's Canada. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jacee said:

Canada has 3 legal traditions - Indigenous Law, French Civil Code, British Common Law.

There are differences, and always will be. 

Complexity is just part of life.

There is no indigenous legal tradition. The indigenous people are not a homogeneous group. They had a freaking wide variety of beliefs and traditions.

What matters now is Canadian law, not native law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...