Petition to Abolish the Indian Act

[Posit]

Wrong. The quote is wrong too.

The archeology of the Great Lakes - especially the north shore prove that the Confederacy was up here long before europeans came on the scene. Although, the government would have you believe this land was vacant or populated with migrants, it was not. There is evidence of clearly established Seneca, Cayuga and Mohawk villages dated over 1000 years ago.

Get a new reference. This one is misleading you.

And at the first time the Europeans arrived here there was no such thing as the US, Canada, New England etc. They were formed by entering into agreements with the Iroquois,and others.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Posit

[guyser]

Not for the government or the SCoC. That's all that matters. And while I respect your right to have an opinion in the issue, in the end it has no value.

Oh bless you for for respecting me. My day would not be as fine without your approval.

Sadly , at least for your smug ways, it is not my opinion but none other than the Supreme court which decided this.

In order to prove an aboriginal title to traditional lands, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the important Delgamuukw case (1997) that such claims to title had to show exclusive occupation of the territory by a defined aboriginal society as of the time the British Crown asserted sovereignty over that territory. In the same case, the Court ruled that the oral histories of the aboriginal peoples were to be accepted as evidence proving historic use and occupation.

http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.c...ams=A1SEC815556

So, in other words , ...................

[jennie]

Oh bless you for for respecting me. My day would not be as fine without your approval.

Sadly , at least for your smug ways, it is not my opinion but none other than the Supreme court which decided this.

So, in other words , ...................

The Constitution states "existing aboriginal and treaty rights". Aboriginal title is one aboriginal right. there are other aboriginal rights that can exist on land to which they do not have title. "Aboriginal rights" means they have an interest in the land, and a say in the use of the land, even though they may not have aboriginal title.

In the Lake Sharbot case, though, aboriginal title is clear as that is the ancestral home of those Algonquins, for millenia.

[White Doors]

Wrong. The quote is wrong too.

The archeology of the Great Lakes - especially the north shore prove that the Confederacy was up here long before europeans came on the scene. Although, the government would have you believe this land was vacant or populated with migrants, it was not. There is evidence of clearly established Seneca, Cayuga and Mohawk villages dated over 1000 years ago.

Get a new reference. This one is misleading you.

And at the first time the Europeans arrived here there was no such thing as the US, Canada, New England etc. They were formed by entering into agreements with the Iroquois,and others.

wrong cause you say so? I see.

How abotu this one:

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0110072/reports1/iroquois.htm

The Iroquois Indians lived in what is now New York State along the St. Lawrence River. The Iroquois Indians were know as the "Five Civilized Tribes". These tribes included the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca.

[jennie]

wrong cause you say so? I see.

How abotu this one:

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0110072/reports1/iroquois.htm

You will never find the 'truth' about Indigenous Peoples in Euro writings, wd.

A Mohawk said to me: The French came to Quebec, looked down the shores of the St Lawrence and decreed that the 'Indians' on the north side were 'Huron' (rogues, savages) and the South side were Iroquois (black snakes). In truth they were all Iroquoian peoples and they spanned the border (which did not exist), for hunting, trading, living, etc. They moved their communities every 20 years or so to let the earth revive.

Edited September 6, 2007 by jennie

[White Doors]

You will never find the 'truth' about Indigenous Peoples in Euro writings, wd.

A Mohawk said to me: The French came to Quebec, looked down the shores of the St Lawrence and decreed that the 'Indians' on the north side were 'Huron' (rogues, savages) and the South side were Iroquois (black snakes). In truth they were all Iroquoian peoples and they spanned the border (which did not exist), for hunting, trading, living, etc. They moved their communities every 20 years or so to let the earth revive.

hahaha

'to let the earth revive'.

The huron and Iroquois never got along. they fought many wars against each other.

Who's lack of history is showing now?

btw, they moved on because the earth went fallow from over use. no choice.

but to you it's 'to let the earth revive'

haha

Well, I'm off to learn about Nazi Germany from a former, unrepentant, Waffen SS member. I'm sure I will get the full, accurate story of what really happened from this fella.

[jennie]

hahaha

'to let the earth revive'.

The huron and Iroquois never got along. they fought many wars against each other.

Who's lack of history is showing now?

btw, they moved on because the earth went fallow from over use. no choice.

but to you it's 'to let the earth revive'

haha

Well, I'm off to learn about Nazi Germany from a former, unrepentant, Waffen SS member. I'm sure I will get the full, accurate story of what really happened from this fella.

As posit says, the archeology tells the story that the Confederacy existed above and below the lakes. (If you were making war on a northern tribe, would YOU leave the northshore undefended? hardly.)

I am sure you will enjoy hobnobbing with the Nazi.

Ps ... fal·low (fl)

adj.

1. Plowed but left unseeded during a growing season: fallow farmland.

2. Characterized by inactivity: a fallow gold market.

n.

1. Land left unseeded during a growing season.

2. The act of plowing land and leaving it unseeded.

3. The condition or period of being unseeded.

They moved regularly to allow the land to lie fallow.

Edited September 6, 2007 by jennie

[M.Dancer]

hahaha

'to let the earth revive'.

The huron and Iroquois never got along. they fought many wars against each other.

They got along fine, they used to get together before the harvest and danced the danse macabre....then after entire villages were put to the stake, tortured and killed, the harvest could come in and there would be more food for everyone.

See, they were stewards of the environment even then

[jennie]

They got along fine, they used to get together before the harvest and danced the danse macabre....then after entire villages were put to the stake, tortured and killed, the harvest could come in and there would be more food for everyone.

See, they were stewards of the environment even then

This is intriguing. Can you provide a reference?

It is, of course, of no relevance to land disputes with the government ... but interesting.

Incidentally ... this thread was about the CTF's proposal to get rid on the Indian Act. I guess if we have concluded anything it is that perhaps there are other matters to be attended to first ... like Canada's responsibility for land repatriation.

Edited September 6, 2007 by jennie

[M.Dancer]

Population

If combined with populations of the Neutrals, Tionontati, and Wenro, the Huron in 1535 probably numbered somewhere between 30,000 and 45,000. French estimates of the four core tribes of the Huron Confederacy in 1615 varied from 20,000 to 30,000 and 16 to 25 villages. After European contact, the Huron population loss was dramatic. By 1640 epidemic and war had reduced them to less than 10,000. After their dispersal in 1649 by the Iroquois, only 300 Huron were able to relocate safely at Lorette near Quebec. Another 1,000, mixed with Tionontati and Neutrals, escaped to the western Great Lakes to become the Wyandot.

http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html

[Posit]

The "huron" (Atoharonaron) were Confederacy Mohawk, Seneca and Cayuga living on the north shores with the Mississauga in villages that housed approximately 4-5000 people. The huron were not the same as the Wendat. They were located well up the Bruce Peninsula. The Jesuits were sent into the wilderness without understanding the language or the people and the only way they could identify them was to describe them on the basis of the land marks. The St Lawrence and lake Ontario were adequate.

However, when the Jesuits traveled to southern Ontario they came with Mohawk guides. That would not be possible, nor would the Jesuits make it to their destinations unless the villagers were friendly to the Mohawk.

Archaeolgically speaking Southern Ontario is rife with villages connected through lithics and ceramics with the Confederacy Iroquois thought only to be located in what is now New York State. 50% of the chert located in these villages and surrounding areas (used for tools and arrow points) came from the Mohawk Valley in New York. 25% came from the shores of the Trent River - a common trail from the south to a number of Seneca villages. The remainder came from upper Lake Superior. It is widely know among historians that the Confederacy controlled the trade from BC to Quebec City and from Mexico to James Bay. The villages also demonstrate shells from the west coast, whale bone, copper from Lake Superior and soft goods from the south.

[geoffrey]

It is widely know among historians that the Confederacy controlled the trade from BC to Quebec City and from Mexico to James Bay.

I'd love to read an academic source on that, can you provide a reference? That's truly fascinating.

[jennie]

The "huron" (Atoharonaron) were Confederacy Mohawk, Seneca and Cayuga living on the north shores with the Mississauga in villages that housed approximately 4-5000 people. The huron were not the same as the Wendat. They were located well up the Bruce Peninsula. The Jesuits were sent into the wilderness without understanding the language or the people and the only way they could identify them was to describe them on the basis of the land marks. The St Lawrence and lake Ontario were adequate.

However, when the Jesuits traveled to southern Ontario they came with Mohawk guides. That would not be possible, nor would the Jesuits make it to their destinations unless the villagers were friendly to the Mohawk.

Archaeolgically speaking Southern Ontario is rife with villages connected through lithics and ceramics with the Confederacy Iroquois thought only to be located in what is now New York State. 50% of the chert located in these villages and surrounding areas (used for tools and arrow points) came from the Mohawk Valley in New York. 25% came from the shores of the Trent River - a common trail from the south to a number of Seneca villages. The remainder came from upper Lake Superior. It is widely know among historians that the Confederacy controlled the trade from BC to Quebec City and from Mexico to James Bay. The villages also demonstrate shells from the west coast, whale bone, copper from Lake Superior and soft goods from the south.

I think I see the light, Posit ... the Wendat were also called Huron by the French, though. (I grew up in 'Huronia', near Wendake) ... as, apparently, were any Iroquoian people above the St Lawrence/Lake Ontario (and below the Algonquins).

They did not distinguish Wendat from and Seneca, Cayuga, Mohawk, etc:

all Iroquoian peoples above the natural border were call Huron (savages), and those south of the natural border were called Iroquois (black snakes).

Makes sense to me, along with the archeology.

I have found a fairly-good-for-a-Euro account of the Confederacy.

http://www.nefac.net/anarchiststudyofiroquois

Some here will question the 'publisher' (not just anarchist! but anarchist! COMMUNIST!! omigod!!! )

But information is just information for one's own musings and judgement, and this, I think is fairly-good-for-a-Euro information. It fits some things I have been told by Haudenosaunee people, and clarifies my own 'oral history' from 'Huronia'.

I have no idea who (author) Stephen Arthur is.

Let me know what you think ...

[M.Dancer]

They did not distinguish Wendat from and Seneca, Cayuga, Mohawk, etc:

all Iroquoian peoples above the natural border were call Huron (savages), and those south of the natural border were called Iroquois (black snakes).

Makes sense to me, along with the archeology.

If the "they" are the europeans, of course they did. The French allied themselves with the Huron and the English with the Huron's blood enemies the Iroquois.

1649-50

Destruction of Huronia by the Iroquois. The Huron, Neutral and Petun nations were scattered. Of a population of 12,000, about 3,000 were massacred or captured, 2,000 surrendered to the enemy, and 400 took refuge first on Orléans Island and then at Lorette. The others scattered over the western territories.

http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_217.asp

[jennie]

If the "they" are the europeans, of course they did. The French allied themselves with the Huron and the English with the Huron's blood enemies the Iroquois.

http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_217.asp

You missed the first part of the discussion. You might want to read back because posit gave some interesting information about the archeological evidence found on the north shore - evidence the Six Nations Confederacy (Iroquois) people lived there historically, while the Wendat were further north. It appears that the French and then the English accounts do not reflect this, apparently because they mistakenly called all of the Iroquoian people above the lake "Huron", not distinguishing between Confederacy and Wendat, who are all Iroquoian peoples.

Another interesting thing in a link I posted somewhere ... will find it ... the Hurons did not 'scatter' but rather different clans joined different groups to whom they were related by clan ... The Bear Clan Wendat joined Six Nations (Iroquois), etc., one clan went to Quebec, one to the US, one clan to the Objibwa, to whom that clan was related.

The link is just a few posts up this thread.

Edited September 7, 2007 by jennie

[M.Dancer]

You missed the first part of the discussion. You might want to read back because posit gave some interesting information about the archeological evidence found on the north shore - evidence the Six Nations Confederacy (Iroquois) people lived there historically, while the Wendat were further north.The link is just a few posts up this thread.

I read it, I just don't happen to think it's credible.

[jennie]

I read it, I just don't happen to think it's credible.

This map and article gives some of that information... but it does not account for the earlier evidence of habitation by Haudenosaunee, found in the archeological studies. It does, however, show 'Iroquois' on the north shore at a time when they would have been seen by the French. However, it appears that the French had decided they were 'Huron'.

http://counterweights.ca/cms/content/view/153//

http://www.counterweights.ca/cms/images/stories/ztg08.jpg

Edited September 7, 2007 by jennie

[noahbody]

Isn't it traditional native belief that land cannot be owned?

[jennie]

Isn't it traditional native belief that land cannot be owned?

That's my understanding too: In their law they have collective responsibility for the land, different than our concept of ownership.

They knew, and know, where their land was/is, what was exclusive and what was shared with other communities - travel routes, etc.

Edited September 7, 2007 by jennie

[Army Guy]

Im no legal expert,and have not read all the posts in this thread. But there seems to be alot missing from Posits explanation of what is required for a land claim. Could this site wrong. See Chap 2 page 8 for more details.

Indian affairs land claims.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Army Guy

[M.Dancer]

Crap!

Edited September 11, 2007 by M.Dancer