Caledonia

[kengs333]

I am interested in the archeological evidence.

What our Euro ancestors said just might be biased a bit, so I'm interested in knowing more about the science part.

The Brits and French had a bad habit of making up their own names for groups of Indigenous Peoples, and clumping them together wrong, confusing the history. They called Iroquoian peoples above Lake Ontario 'Hurons' (Fr. savages) and those below the lake 'Iroquois' (Fr. snakes). However there were multiple peoples above the lake, as you point out, but many of them were Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy, one or more of the Six Nations, and farther north were the Wendat, another Iroquoian people who were also called 'Huron'.

It is much more complex than what I ever learned before this year, that's for sure.

In any case, in the 1600's communities of the Confederacy were on the north shore too.

(Seriously, if you were them would you leave the north shore unprotected?)

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

The link that you provide substantiates what I and others here have been saying. Yeah, there were Five Nations Iroquois on the north shore of Lake Ontario after they defeated the Huron and Neutral Nation in the 1640s. ("Yet by the middle of the 17th century the Iroquois conquest of Huronia had at least put the Five Nations Confederacy in command north of the Great Lakes for the time being. The rise of the Iroquois villages on the north shore of Lake Ontario during the 1660s confirmed the point.")

Don't confuse the archeologist of the late 19th-century with his modern counterpart. The 19th-century archeologist was usually an amateur, more of a collector than anything else. Unfortunately, they destroyed much and yes, came up with wild theories that have since been proven wrong. But the modern archeologist is quite different; the whole disipline has become much more sophisticated and scientific in the last 50 or 60 years, and nothing that I've read suggests that there is now any attempt to interpret the data in anything but an objective manner.

[Posit]

The link that you provide substantiates what I and others here have been saying. Yeah, there were Five Nations Iroquois on the north shore of Lake Ontario after they defeated the Huron and Neutral Nation in the 1640s. ("Yet by the middle of the 17th century the Iroquois conquest of Huronia had at least put the Five Nations Confederacy in command north of the Great Lakes for the time being. The rise of the Iroquois villages on the north shore of Lake Ontario during the 1660s confirmed the point.")

Don't confuse the archeologist of the late 19th-century with his modern counterpart. The 19th-century archeologist was usually an amateur, more of a collector than anything else. Unfortunately, they destroyed much and yes, came up with wild theories that have since been proven wrong. But the modern archeologist is quite different; the whole disipline has become much more sophisticated and scientific in the last 50 or 60 years, and nothing that I've read suggests that there is now any attempt to interpret the data in anything but an objective manner.

The archaeology performed by professional archaeologists in the last 50 years of the north shore dates to the 11th century. One of the obstacles archaeologists have up here is that the high acidity of the land quickly erodes bone and other organics. However, the examination of cherts and ceramics definitely link the north shore peoples with the Confederacy and the carbon-dating of charred corn and soils where successive fires were built prove the dates. These recent findings in addition to new information (debunking the common myth that that Iroquois are newcomers) has caused archaeologists and anthopologists to revisit their first premise. Now it is provincial law that an archaeological survey must be conducted pre-development because they are aware that Iroquois settlements pre-date any settler occupations and their occupations were extensive through all of southern Ontario.

The Tobacco were located in small villages around Windsor / Lake St. Clair. The Neutrals were located between them and them and the Wendat who were located up the Bruce Penninsula and all were relatively small nations comprising of about 50,000-80,000 people. This was overshadowed by the expansion of the Iroquois Confederacy, who by the mid-1500s had reached a total population of about 1,000,000 people in about 250 villages primarily focused in the central south shore region but scattered throughout the north shore regions extending as high as the Kawarthas (Apsley / Bancroft Area) East to Montreal and West to where present day London is.

The North Shore was a strategic gateway to the northern trade routes and the Confederacy had always maintained a presence there. In about 1660, the Confederacy hand over the care-taking of the North Shore West region to the Mississauga and many moved south to the Council Fire areas to bolster and help protect villages that had been diminished by sickness and conflict. However, there remained substantial populations of Confederacy people on the central and east region of the North Shore. When the Confederacy returned in the late 1700s to reclaim the land, the Mississauga had no problem relocating to the North Shore of Superior where the majority of the Mississauga had retreated away from the British settler expansions. There were many that stayed and lived in the North Shore villages. A check of family genealogy for the region, family names and nations shows there were lots of intermarriages between nations. The Mississauga, Algonquin, Wendat, Petun, Neutrals and Erie and Iroquois were not at war as Hollywood types like to proselytize. The reduction of populations that seemed to occur during the period coincide with the increase in populations of the Confederacy as each of the remaining nations on the north shore came under the protection of the Great Law. Neither were they "forced" to join but found it practical when the French abandoned them and retreated to Quebec in the mid 1600s.

[M.Dancer]

I find it hillarious the population numbers bbeing quoted. Of coursenthe natives, being in tune with the earth kept herds of tame deer and fish lept out of the waters into their nets. No one ever starved and warfare was for exercise and entertainment only.

[Posit]

I find it hillarious the population numbers bbeing quoted. Of coursenthe natives, being in tune with the earth kept herds of tame deer and fish lept out of the waters into their nets. No one ever starved and warfare was for exercise and entertainment only.

Silly goose. The Iroquois didn't need herds of deer. Meat only made up about 15% of their diet. And for the most part they grew most of what they needed, practicing no-till corn cultivation, companion planting and crop rotation eons before the old world cabbage farmers understood the concepts. And their practice of harvesting resources from the land allowed the under storey to prosper and small animals, deer and other game actually came to them. They preserved and stored vegetables in root cellars that would sustain an entire community of 5000 people through the winter. They had access to medicines that still are not understood fully in the mainstream today. They had farming communities comprised of 100 to 500 people that provided the major villages with produce and they even cultivated apples, strawberries, grapes, raspberries, and a number of other fruits and vegetables. While corn, beans and squash made of the majority of their diet, they also had amaranth grain, carrots, potatoes, and quite a few other things that they traded with other nations. Also cultivating tobacco was a major trade item to woodland peoples and in return the received technologies and other trade goods that they then traded for other goods.

Your ignorance is telling of a person who never studied Canadian history beyond the 3rd grade. Instead of looking like a blob of empty inventive, why not get yourself a bonafide education and learn a little about Canadian history, instead of trying to invent it using your xenophobia as a guide.

Try "Indian Givers - How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World" , Jack Weatherford. Its available at most Canadian libraries and is an eye opener on just how much we owe the natives for the world food supply and other technologies.

[jennie]

The link that you provide substantiates what I and others here have been saying. Yeah, there were Five Nations Iroquois on the north shore of Lake Ontario after they defeated the Huron and Neutral Nation in the 1640s. ("Yet by the middle of the 17th century the Iroquois conquest of Huronia had at least put the Five Nations Confederacy in command north of the Great Lakes for the time being. The rise of the Iroquois villages on the north shore of Lake Ontario during the 1660s confirmed the point.")

Don't confuse the archeologist of the late 19th-century with his modern counterpart. The 19th-century archeologist was usually an amateur, more of a collector than anything else. Unfortunately, they destroyed much and yes, came up with wild theories that have since been proven wrong. But the modern archeologist is quite different; the whole disipline has become much more sophisticated and scientific in the last 50 or 60 years, and nothing that I've read suggests that there is now any attempt to interpret the data in anything but an objective manner.

These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological,

I am interested in the modern archeological evidence, but you have provided no links.

[Rue]

What are you on? Certainly not "truth serum". First of all, the "Five Nations" Iroquois were not settled along the Grand River in the 1600s. The so-called Neutral Nation, who were settled in the Head-of-the-Lake area, were a distinct group with about 30,000 people. The Neutral Nation was eventually destroyed by the "Five Nations," as were the Huron. The Ojibway in turn drove out the Iroquois and occupied the land for about a century. The Ojibway and Iroquois were never exactly on friendly terms, and their battles were quite brutal. These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological, and to completely distort the truth the way you are doing only serves to make you look like a complete fool. I can't think of a better example of why Indian oral history is not a credible source of historical fact.

You mind explaining to me how any of the above changes the legal issues pertaining to the collective rights of any of these people you mentioned?

[Rue]

These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological,

I am interested in the modern archeological evidence, but you have provided no links.

There is none. "Reliable sources" is a lot like the guy who is always quoted in National Inquirer when they want to say some actor is gay or has a drug problem, etc.

More to the point even if Indiana Jones does show up to prove this archeological claim being advanced it does not change the legal issues.

[Rue]

I find it hillarious the population numbers bbeing quoted. Of coursenthe natives, being in tune with the earth kept herds of tame deer and fish lept out of the waters into their nets. No one ever starved and warfare was for exercise and entertainment only.

So? Again the population number, what-ever one you would agree on, does not change the legal issues in dispute.

[Rue]

LOL That's hilarious. And it would explain why the Mississauga originally said no.

Why is the concept of caretaker hilarious? Then again maybe you also don't understand the non native legal concepts of guardianship or trusteeship as well? How about the cept "fiduciary relationship"? Is that funny too?

[Rue]

Mr. Thermoopyle states and I quote; " oral tradition and primitive accounting methods are notoriously unreliable. As has been seen

time and time again these methods become contaminated and incaccurate due to the passing of time alone."

Perhaps Mr. Themopyle you are unaware that int he United Kingdom as is the case in Canada and other nations, many legal doctrine, i.e., constitutional doctrine, have been passed down orally and are not considered to have been contaminated.

More to the point Christians have proven even if you write something down, i.e., in a Bible, it most certainly gets contaminated as by the time it is written, it has in fact been re-written and re-edited so many times it also has been contaminated.

Your sweeping assumption that oral traditions necessarily become contaminated is based on your Western conceptualization of truth and history. The fact that we Westerners tend to be unable to repeat anything without changing it does not mean aboriginals do.

In fact some would argue maintaining historic records through oral passage is more accurate as it requires more disciplined training and teaching that one takes for granted when something is written.

More to the point Sir, what someone writes and how it becomes interperated over the years of course changes. Being in writing is no guarantee of accuracy.

"At root they all depend on someone telling someone else something"

Are you describing the British case precedent system we inherited by any chance? Because if you want to criticize aboriginals for passing things down, you better first look at how your own common law system works and how it originated.

You stated;

"I'm sure everyone is aware of the old experiment. Take a group of people, tell one of them something, tell them to pass it on to the next. By the time it gets to the last person it usually bears very little resemblance to what was originally said."

Yes this is true of how Christians have behaved with their WRITTEN religion and WRITTEN LAWS, but there are numerous cultures whose laws and traditions were passed orally and still remain the foundation of their cohesive societities. Your comments necessarily make cultural assumptions based on your belief that all cultures thing and speak the same way. They do not.

If you took the time to find out how rich and complex and developed aboriginal oral tradition is rather then assuming what it is and making pronouncements based on your assumptions as to what it is, you might just find the clarity and richness in the oral message far more poignant and understandable then many of our written codes and written words.

Or put in a cultural reference you might understand, listening to a drama on the radio may seem absurd to someone brought up to watch t.v., just as reading a book may be absurd to someone brought up on 10 second inter-net sound bites, but it doesn't make it inferior or less meaningful, it simply means you yourself may not understand it.

The fact you in this case don't understand it doesn't make it inferior.

I say this as someone who comes from a tradition of the Talmud, where laws were written down. The Talmud it would be absurd to say, is no better or worse a system of passing on tradition then oral tales. In fact the Talmud may be written, but you can't just read it - it depends on oral tradition as well.

As for the Bible, look at it. Do you really think its being written makes it capable of being trusted and accepted verbatum?

[kengs333]

The archaeology performed by professional archaeologists in the last 50 years of the north shore dates to the 11th century. One of the obstacles archaeologists have up here is that the high acidity of the land quickly erodes bone and other organics. However, the examination of cherts and ceramics definitely link the north shore peoples with the Confederacy and the carbon-dating of charred corn and soils where successive fires were built prove the dates. These recent findings in addition to new information (debunking the common myth that that Iroquois are newcomers) has caused archaeologists and anthopologists to revisit their first premise. Now it is provincial law that an archaeological survey must be conducted pre-development because they are aware that Iroquois settlements pre-date any settler occupations and their occupations were extensive through all of southern Ontario.

The Tobacco were located in small villages around Windsor / Lake St. Clair. The Neutrals were located between them and them and the Wendat who were located up the Bruce Penninsula and all were relatively small nations comprising of about 50,000-80,000 people. This was overshadowed by the expansion of the Iroquois Confederacy, who by the mid-1500s had reached a total population of about 1,000,000 people in about 250 villages primarily focused in the central south shore region but scattered throughout the north shore regions extending as high as the Kawarthas (Apsley / Bancroft Area) East to Montreal and West to where present day London is.

The North Shore was a strategic gateway to the northern trade routes and the Confederacy had always maintained a presence there. In about 1660, the Confederacy hand over the care-taking of the North Shore West region to the Mississauga and many moved south to the Council Fire areas to bolster and help protect villages that had been diminished by sickness and conflict. However, there remained substantial populations of Confederacy people on the central and east region of the North Shore. When the Confederacy returned in the late 1700s to reclaim the land, the Mississauga had no problem relocating to the North Shore of Superior where the majority of the Mississauga had retreated away from the British settler expansions. There were many that stayed and lived in the North Shore villages. A check of family genealogy for the region, family names and nations shows there were lots of intermarriages between nations. The Mississauga, Algonquin, Wendat, Petun, Neutrals and Erie and Iroquois were not at war as Hollywood types like to proselytize. The reduction of populations that seemed to occur during the period coincide with the increase in populations of the Confederacy as each of the remaining nations on the north shore came under the protection of the Great Law. Neither were they "forced" to join but found it practical when the French abandoned them and retreated to Quebec in the mid 1600s.

Another total whitewashing. Of course there was occupation of the North Shore at about that time, but the evidence suggests that the people that did later evolved into the Huron, and were forced to concentrate in the Midlands region in order to protect themselves from the Iroquois.

As for "the Confederacy hand over the care-taking" and "the Mississauga had no problem relocating to the North Shore of Superior" this is complete rubbish; the Ojibway and Iroquois fought each other and the Ojibway won. I don't know where "Hollywood types" comes from, this is based on eyewitness accounts.

Interesting how you again totally bs about the Iroquois destroying the Huron and Neutrals.

[kengs333]

These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological,

I am interested in the modern archeological evidence, but you have provided no links.

Go to any university in Ontario, and you will find papers, reports, journals, theses and books on the archeology of Ontario. I know it may be a little daunting, but give it a try anyway. Keep in mind, though, due to the scientific nature of the field, many of the articles/reports etc. will be quite technical.

[Rue]

No, they do not speak with fork tongue! What's more, they are gaurdians of the environment, have deep spiritual insights we can never hope to have, never steal, resort to violence, oppress any living thing and never comitt a sexual indiscretion.

That's why the 3000+ aboriginals in federal prison are all there for political reasons...

The above is bull shit. You want to discuss the legal issues do so. Why is it this always evolves into racist taunts? Why?

Have you seen anyone when advancing arguements as to the collective rights of aboriginals referred to themselves as superior to you? Well?

Now I will say this loud and clear - no aboriginal has ever portrayed their spirituality to you in a way that suggests they will not share it and it makes them feel superior to you and you know that.

More to the point, whether you wish to try understand their spiritual values depends solely on you not them. Certainly your above comments would indicate you ridicule them so its doubtful you would ever open your mind to them.

Some of us to though and I can assure you I may never understand many of their spiritual insights but it is a privilege when I am allowed to try learn some of them and for those of us that try, it makes us humble not arrogant.

Now you want to try change the subject and insult aboriginal people on this forum I am asking you to stop because I know you have a wonderful mind and are better then that. Don't go that level Dance. You have too good a mind to do that.

Now just so you know the most heavily represented people in our criminal legal system are young black men, followed by aboriginals.

Most aboriginals are arrested and convicted of non violent offences related to drug and alcohol abuse with sentences of 30 days or less.

Our criminal system simply reflects the fact that there is a very real social problem. Taunting people who see their fellow people engaged in self-destructive behaviour because of despair directly related to socio-economic conditions that flow from the breached treaties and failure of federalism to properly define aboriginal collective rights so they can get on with their lives nad become self-sufficient does what?

The people in jail because of drinking and drugs are sick people. I would hope we would all be more concerned with trying to find a way to change the conditions that lead to the despair that causes them to drink rather than ridicule them and use it as an opportunity to ridicule an entire people.

The last time I looked no one people had a monopoly on its members being alcoholic, drug addicted, unemployed, etc. The difference in this case though is what you ridicule is most certainly a cause and effect phenomena of the very same laws we now need to reform.

This is not an us against them situation. If you think you can create a Canadian identity by trying to ridicule such an essential part of it, you have missed the point entirely.

[Rue]

Go to any university in Ontario, and you will find papers, reports, journals, theses and books on the archeology of Ontario. I know it may be a little daunting, but give it a try anyway. Keep in mind, though, due to the scientific nature of the field, many of the articles/reports etc. will be quite technical.

There we just could not resist the taunt could we. You of course we would assume are technical and scientific. Then we must assume after that this knowledge of science and technicality makes you superior.

The problem is some of us are from your same world and we do read and we are scientific and we are technical and we find what you say racist bullshit. Is that too technical?

Either provide a specific reference to the archeological information you refer to, or admit you don't have any. It is absolutely unacceptable for you to try avoid providing references to back up what you say with racist taunts.

[Rue]

Another total whitewashing. Of course there was occupation of the North Shore at about that time, but the evidence suggests that the people that did later evolved into the Huron, and were forced to concentrate in the Midlands region in order to protect themselves from the Iroquois.

As for "the Confederacy hand over the care-taking" and "the Mississauga had no problem relocating to the North Shore of Superior" this is complete rubbish; the Ojibway and Iroquois fought each other and the Ojibway won. I don't know where "Hollywood types" comes from, this is based on eyewitness accounts.

Interesting how you again totally bs about the Iroquois destroying the Huron and Neutrals.

Just what do you base your assumption your version of historic events is the only one to be believed? Or am I being to scientific and technical with you?

Provide me some historic references for your version. I am making it a point to call you out on it, because this assumption your version is the only version of what happened is something once and for all perhaps we should bring out in the open.

It seems anytime some of you discuss history, you just can't resist referencing it in a way that taunts and ridicules and infers your version is the only version and any other version is to be dismissed.

Excuse me if I do not simply assume your version as absolute gospel. The last time I looked not only was I not sure what you were quoting since you refer to provide specifics as to your historic references, but I am also tempted to state right now without knowing what you quote, that what you quote is probably based on some Eurocentric version of history that tends to present only one side of the story.

You bet I have problems with people who pose as superior and absolute when discussing history.

[ScottSA]

The above is bull shit. You want to discuss the legal issues do so. Why is it this always evolves into racist taunts? Why?

Have you seen anyone when advancing arguements as to the collective rights of aboriginals referred to themselves as superior to you? Well?

Now I will say this loud and clear - no aboriginal has ever portrayed their spirituality to you in a way that suggests they will not share it and it makes them feel superior to you and you know that.

More to the point, whether you wish to try understand their spiritual values depends solely on you not them. Certainly your above comments would indicate you ridicule them so its doubtful you would ever open your mind to them.

Some of us to though and I can assure you I may never understand many of their spiritual insights but it is a privilege when I am allowed to try learn some of them and for those of us that try, it makes us humble not arrogant.

Now you want to try change the subject and insult aboriginal people on this forum I am asking you to stop because I know you have a wonderful mind and are better then that. Don't go that level Dance. You have too good a mind to do that.

Now just so you know the most heavily represented people in our criminal legal system are young black men, followed by aboriginals.

Most aboriginals are arrested and convicted of non violent offences related to drug and alcohol abuse with sentences of 30 days or less.

Our criminal system simply reflects the fact that there is a very real social problem. Taunting people who see their fellow people engaged in self-destructive behaviour because of despair directly related to socio-economic conditions that flow from the breached treaties and failure of federalism to properly define aboriginal collective rights so they can get on with their lives nad become self-sufficient does what?

The people in jail because of drinking and drugs are sick people. I would hope we would all be more concerned with trying to find a way to change the conditions that lead to the despair that causes them to drink rather than ridicule them and use it as an opportunity to ridicule an entire people.

The last time I looked no one people had a monopoly on its members being alcoholic, drug addicted, unemployed, etc. The difference in this case though is what you ridicule is most certainly a cause and effect phenomena of the very same laws we now need to reform.

This is not an us against them situation. If you think you can create a Canadian identity by trying to ridicule such an essential part of it, you have missed the point entirely.

Rue, this is a very ornate and piously organized apologia for Indians, but you seem to miss the point that it is precisely the alleged "legal issues," based on collective RACIAL characteristics -themselves often based on a specious re-interpretation of treaties long before satisfied to the letter - that has caused this problem. People like Jennie, who is obviously an Indian activist even though she claims to be white, have found that it's very lucrative for them to become indignant and keep this kettle boiling as long as possible; even when it means they are contemning their own people to a life steeped in victim mentality and alcohol. Yeah, it's a real problem, but they have it, and if they are going to continue claiming that "the white man," who is responsible for few of their problems but all of their luxuries, is the cause of it, you can hardly be surprised when people call them on it and get angry. As far as spiritual insights, go back beyond history and you'll find the same ones that underwrite your own religion, BEFORE they evolved beyond worshipping everything that moved.

You have too good a mind to fall into this blind liberal apologia for the darker side of truth.

[Posit]

Rue, this is a very ornate and piously organized apologia for Indians, but you seem to miss the point that it is precisely the alleged "legal issues," based on collective RACIAL characteristics -themselves often based on a specious re-interpretation of treaties long before satisfied to the letter - that has caused this problem. People like Jennie, who is obviously an Indian activist even though she claims to be white, have found that it's very lucrative for them to become indignant and keep this kettle boiling as long as possible; even when it means they are contemning their own people to a life steeped in victim mentality and alcohol. Yeah, it's a real problem, but they have it, and if they are going to continue claiming that "the white man," who is responsible for few of their problems but all of their luxuries, is the cause of it, you can hardly be surprised when people call them on it and get angry. As far as spiritual insights, go back beyond history and you'll find the same ones that underwrite your own religion, BEFORE they evolved beyond worshipping everything that moved.

You have too good a mind to fall into this blind liberal apologia for the darker side of truth.

Another useless opinion from a sport who feels inferior. I sense lots of fear in this boy. Anyone else?

[Posit]

Another total whitewashing. Of course there was occupation of the North Shore at about that time, but the evidence suggests that the people that did later evolved into the Huron, and were forced to concentrate in the Midlands region in order to protect themselves from the Iroquois.

As for "the Confederacy hand over the care-taking" and "the Mississauga had no problem relocating to the North Shore of Superior" this is complete rubbish; the Ojibway and Iroquois fought each other and the Ojibway won. I don't know where "Hollywood types" comes from, this is based on eyewitness accounts.

Interesting how you again totally bs about the Iroquois destroying the Huron and Neutrals.

Wrong again chap. The Mississauga and the Iroquois were in tight together. They lived together and hunted the same territory without incident and trade goods back and forth. There was some trouble with the Blackfeet pushing into the north Superior at which the Iroquois occasionally offered their services. However, for the most part they were on friendly terms. The same thing with the Algonquin (and you would be surprised to know that many Iroquois were actually trilingual and some were even quadralingual). If you were really up on all those university documents you would have known that but since you don't I call your "evidence" bullshit.

In fact I have quite a few archaeology reports for the north shore, and I know for a fact that they will not release them just to anyone - especially non-natives. Nor are they contained in university libraries. They are considered sensitive materials and you require a valid reason to obtain them. I know because I remember what I had to do and whose names to drop to get copies.

So bullshit on the second account.

And thirdly the Huron "extermination" is a fabrication. As I said the Jesuits made up a name for the North Shore Confederacy Iroquois to distinguish them from the South Shore Confederacy Iroquois. They are not the same as the Wendat who fled to Montreal when disease decimated their populations and after the French left them exposed to the British wrath.

So interesting isn't it that you come here without any historical knowledge and try to bullshit a third time.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Posit

[ScottSA]

Another useless opinion from a sport who feels inferior. I sense lots of fear in this boy. Anyone else?

I'm sorry you find it hard to reply with any substance, but do be a good chap and bugger off without displaying your ignorance quite so publically.

[kengs333]

There we just could not resist the taunt could we. You of course we would assume are technical and scientific. Then we must assume after that this knowledge of science and technicality makes you superior.

The problem is some of us are from your same world and we do read and we are scientific and we are technical and we find what you say racist bullshit. Is that too technical?

Either provide a specific reference to the archeological information you refer to, or admit you don't have any. It is absolutely unacceptable for you to try avoid providing references to back up what you say with racist taunts.

Tsk, tsk. So quick to use the R-word. People like you are a perfect example of how the R-word is used as a device by certain peoples to further their agenda. Two things to keep in mind. First, Racism goes all ways--you can't deny that it is something ingrained in the Indian psyche, as well. Second, "jennie" has worded her arguments on occasion in a manner that suggests that she's non-Indian. Whatever the case, what I said can't be construed as a "racist taunt" even if she is Indian.

[kengs333]

In fact I have quite a few archaeology reports for the north shore, and I know for a fact that they will not release them just to anyone - especially non-natives. Nor are they contained in university libraries. They are considered sensitive materials and you require a valid reason to obtain them. I know because I remember what I had to do and whose names to drop to get copies.

Don't think that you're fooling anyone with this, as for the rest of what you had to say, well, more bs as usual.

[kengs333]

Another useless opinion from a sport who feels inferior. I sense lots of fear in this boy. Anyone else?

That's the best you can do? Well, I suppose given what other nonsense you've posted here, I suppose that it is.

[Rue]

Since I am feeling scientific and technical I thought it time once and for all to provide once again summary of the relevant issues pertaining to the land claim dispute in Caledonia which some of you continue to try revise.

First off, aboriginal peoples, Inuit, Metis and First Nations have distinct histories and therefore all have different legal issues behind their respective land claims. Within the 633 First Nation Bands (52 nations, 50 languages) each have their own spiritual, political and historic traditions and many with different claims and legal concerns.

The Haudenosaunee ( 6 Nations Confederacy) have always had their own laws, customs, territories, polical organization and economy. It is a fact that the Great Law of Peace which comes from this confederacy was used as a reference and basis for the U.S. Constitution and for that matter in certain Canadian constitutional precepts, contrary to the beliefs of some of you that aboriginal legal traditions are inferior.

It is also a fact that the status of aboriginal peoples legal rights including their constitutional status have yet to be fully defined in our constitution and that their collective rights to land pre-date the Constitution Act and did not end once the Constitution Act was passed.

The aboriginal peoples maintain they are a nation that signed treaties with the Canadian government and its predecessor, and so that it deals with Canada on a government-to-government basis no different then when their ancestors negotiated as equals with Britain in the 1700’s.

It is an historic fact that the British signed treaties with the aboriginal peoples guaranteeing native rights to land and self-government which were incorporated in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and then subsequently in Canada’s constitution. Those rights continue and the Supreme Court of Canada has said so.

It is a fact that the Haldimand Tract consisting of 385,000 hectares was granted to the 6 Nations of the Grand River by the crown in 1784 as pay-back for their support during the American Revolution. This tract of land consists of 6 miles from either side of the Grand River to Lake Erie.

That grant stated and I quote; ”which them & their Posterity are to enjoy for ever."

It was given to the aboriginal peoples forever.

Isn't it interesting we Westerners coined the racist term " Indian Giver " because in this case we certainly acted like "European givers" because in 1792, Simcoe unilaterallyreduced the size of the land granted tio 1,110 km² or 111,000 hectares.

We then know in 1796, 6 Nations Chief Joseph Brant was given a power of attorney to sell some of the land and invest the proceeds of that sale. WE then know in 1825, the Crown then approached the 6 Nations because it wanted to develop what is now Highway 6 and was then called Plank Road. The Six Nations then agreed to lease half a mile of land on each side for the road, but it never agreed to sell the land.

Lt.-Gov. John Colborne then agreed to this lease but his successor, Sir Francis Bond Head, interestingly became upset witht he aboriginals for refusing to sell it and did not.

In 1840 the government then recommended the creation of an 8,000 hectare reserve on the south side of the Grand river and the rest of the land sold or leased. Then on January 18, 1841, the Crown claims the 6 Nations Council agreed to sell all the lands outside the ones set for the reserve based on an agreement the government would sell the land and invest the money for them.

The Crown’s claim that the aboriginal peoples agreed to sell the land was of course an out and out lie evidenced by the fact that on both Feb. 4 and July 7, 1841 , the 6 Nations petitioned against the surrender insisting they never agreed to sell the land only lease it.

In fact in 1843, they again petitioned the Crown stating they needed a 22,000-hectare reserve and repeating their express intent to keep and lease a tier of lots on each side of Plank Road (Highway 6) as well as additional tracts of land in the Haldimand area.

In 1844, suddenly a document surfaces which was supposed to evidence that 47, 6 Nations Chiefs signed a document authorized the sale of land to build Plank Road.

Once again faced with the aboriginal peoples refusing to sell the land the Crown engages in tactics to try get the land away from the aboriginal peoples.

We then know after 1845, despite the protests of the Six Nations people, the government unilaterally sold Plank Road and surrounding lands to third parties.

Apparently in 1848 the land allegedly comprising the current development in dispute, was sold to George Marlot Ryckman for the amount of 57 pounds and 10 shillings.

We then know in 1850 the Crown passed a proclamation setting the extent of reserve lands to about 19,000 hectares, which was agreed to by the Six Nations chiefs.

In 1992, Henco Industries Ltd. purchased 40 hectares of land it named Douglas Creek Estates.

The Six Nations in 1995, then sued the federal and provincial governments over the land.

We also know the subdivision plan for Douglas Creek Estates was registered with title to the property guaranteed by the province of Ontario in 2005.

The 6 Nations have contended from day 1 they never authorized sale of the land and that alleged document where the Chiefs allegedly sold the land was signed under false pretenses, i.e., the document was misrepresented as a lease not a sale.

The alleged document that would be needed to prove the aboriginal Chiefs authorized the sale of land to then make the Henco claim legitimate would not hold up in a court of law and everyone except some of the posts on this forum realize that and this is precisely why the Ontario and Federal governments won't enforce the land title Henco has. They know Henco was given a land title without clear title being transferred.

What we do know despite the references to irelevant archeological findings and racial taunts,

is that the aboriginal peoples have continually maintained their collective rights to the land and are doing what any one of us would do if we feel someone was trying to steal what is rightfully ours, take it to court.

The people who bought the sub-division did nothing wrong but their land title is not legitimate as it was not free and clear when it was given to them. It is important to note, if the 6 Nations win their claims which they will, nothing preclclude Henco froms eeking compensation from the government.

The aboriginal collective claim will not simply go away because some of you believe governments can engage in fraud and lies to illegallyontain land. Lying by a government won’t change history or vitiate the collective rights in this case.

What I find interesting is that the 6 Natiions are portrayed as racist or unreasonable in this situation simply because they choose to defend what is legally their land and protect themselves from a government that lied and acted under false pretenses against them.

Of course some of us believe when government breaks a law to justify stealing and selling stolen land that this is acceptable.

Others such as myself who were brought up to believe in constitutionalism believe no government is superior to the law and governments must abide by the law and can not create new laws based on breaking other laws.

To some of us this is not an issue where we ridicule aboriginal peoples because as civilized law abiding people we do not wish to be party to an historical legacy that was created by cheating and stealing.

[kengs333]

To some of us this is not an issue where we ridicule aboriginal peoples because as civilized law abiding people we do not wish to be party to an historical legacy that was created by cheating and stealing.

I have no qualms about not felling responsible for what others did before me. Why should I? The sad irony of this situation is that it is motivated by what Indians perceive the "white man" did to them 150 years ago, and thus anyone who happens to be "white" and/or proud to be Canadian is somehow suddenly deemed to be a member of the "racist" "oppressor" faction in Canadian society. You can't expect the government to give in to such an argument; they represent the people of Canada and Ontario in the year 2007, not 1784 or 1841. Certainly if Canada can be held to account for what happened in previous generations, so can the Six Nations for the atrocities and unfair dealing that they committed in the past.

[jennie]

Go to any university in Ontario, and you will find papers, reports, journals, theses and books on the archeology of Ontario. I know it may be a little daunting, but give it a try anyway. Keep in mind, though, due to the scientific nature of the field, many of the articles/reports etc. will be quite technical.

These are facts which we have because of a variety of reliable sources, both written and archeological

Since you cannot validate your statement of "facts", I can dismiss your opinion as such.