Caledonia

[ScottSA]

It's hard to fathom how we ever arrived at this schizophrenic state of affairs, with our schools peddling the nonsense that we are all exactly the same, while at the same time practicing "affirmative action" for "visible minorities," and racial rights for "first nations." What it all appears to mean is that the people who built this country are the big losers, while the kids of the kids of the kids of the stone age savages who were here before the country was built, and the 3rd world beggars who arrived after it was built, get all sorts of kudos by virtue of racial justification. Even though we're all the same. Or something.

[AngusThermopyle]

Maybe people should consider the HUGE role that natural resource wealth brings to EVERY Canadian EVERY day (including 8 straight federal budget surpluses.)

So which band or bands was/were occupying the Alberta tar sands region? Which band used to frolic in glee-full bliss harvesting lollipops and stalking the wild Gummi Bear on this territory? A significant chunk of Canada's wealth comes directly from this area, do we owe that too. Have we deprived the Natives of their right to drill for oil and set up their traditional refineries?

For all intents and purposes Canada"s natural wealth was non existant before the white man came along, found it, developed it and established markets for it. Or will you now tell me that if left alone a stone age culture that had not even discovered the wheel and still believed in Polytheism could have done so?

[jbg]

For all intents and purposes Canada"s natural wealth was non existant before the white man came along, found it, developed it and established markets for it. Or will you now tell me that if left alone a stone age culture that had not even discovered the wheel and still believed in Polytheism could have done so?

Since the UN came to the fore, there has been a total divorce between the wish for political "self-determination" (really rule by strongest thug) and economic viability.

[Posit]

So which band or bands was/were occupying the Alberta tar sands region? Which band used to frolic in glee-full bliss harvesting lollipops and stalking the wild Gummi Bear on this territory? A significant chunk of Canada's wealth comes directly from this area, do we owe that too. Have we deprived the Natives of their right to drill for oil and set up their traditional refineries?

For all intents and purposes Canada"s natural wealth was non existant before the white man came along, found it, developed it and established markets for it. Or will you now tell me that if left alone a stone age culture that had not even discovered the wheel and still believed in Polytheism could have done so?

Perhaps you have "scored a point" on this one? It is true that the Alberta tar sands were inhabitable lands.

However, the roads to access the tar sands cross First Nations land. The gravel used to build those roads came from First Nations lands. The steel to build equipment to mine the tar sands came from First Nations lands. The oil and water used to operate the tars sands extraction process came from First Nations lands. etc etc.'

So you see the tar sands which you think contributes to Canadian economy would not have been possible if we did not exploit First Nations lands fro our own benefit.

Back to the future....Canada's "natural" wealth does not BELONG to Canada. The "natural" wealth all belongs to First Nations, save and except you single point on the uninhabited tar sands region. And in fact before us "whities" showed up First Nations enjoyed a vast trade with other nations across the Americas. They had everything they needed when they needed it. For the most part there was no poverty because one held out over another and one nation struggled to survive, other nations shared what the had and struggled right along side them. And you know what. The lived happily and prosperously without producing tons of radioactive and other wastes, water and air pollution. Their methods of living with the land were sustainable and practical. And when a resource was harvested it didn't destroy the rest of the ecosystem in the process. The land shared and natives shared the land.

So with all our affluence and prosperity, where does all that wealth we toil for actually go? With 90% of the wealth being held by 5% of the population, it means that 95% of us are fighting and working for a small slice of that remaining 10%. Seems to me we are not better off for it. We're just above slavery and running from poverty because of it.

[White Doors]

Their methods of living with the land were sustainable and practical. And when a resource was harvested it didn't destroy the rest of the ecosystem in the process. The land shared and natives shared the land.

Wow.. A new age marxist red book. Now the Indians are the ones that we should look to to emulate.

Too bad it's not true they sat around the campfire and sang kumbaya like this joker would have us believe.

They didn't resolve their 'differences' in a knitting circle either. In fact, they were poor stewards of the land as well.

Indians tore up the lands and made it useless for crops. When that happened they simply moved on to do it all over again. They also are responsible for many many extinction events that pre-date the arrival of the white man.

In any case, my post is not to disparage the 'aboriginals' it is meant to get the point across that they are humans just like Europeans are. They are not some sort of superior culture to be emulated. Studied, for sure, but their stone age culture was much the same as the European stone age culture, except for the wheel part.

What posit is really saying is that he is a marxist and wants human civilization to revert back to the time of grunts and tribes. He not only hates the white man, he hates all modern society.

He does not accept that society in which he lives, in fact he hates it. His energies are spent disparaging it and one of the ways he can accomoplish this is through bizarre fantasies perpetuated through the convenient vehicle of the North American Indians.

He is not a friend of the North American Indian, he is a friend of the enemy of his enemy.

He hates himself and society and this is the ideology that he MUST cling to in order for this hatred to make sense to himself, even if his ideology is plainly whacky.

It is not the ideology that has to make sense, it's the hatred that must.

That is his agenda. That is what drives every person to believe the unbelieveable.

~Hatred~

[AngusThermopyle]

First Nations enjoyed a vast trade with other nations across the Americas. They had everything they needed when they needed it. For the most part there was no poverty because one held out over another and one nation struggled to survive, other nations shared what the had and struggled right along side them. And you know what. The lived happily and prosperously without producing tons of radioactive and other wastes, water and air pollution. Their methods of living with the land were sustainable and practical. And when a resource was harvested it didn't destroy the rest of the ecosystem in the process. The land shared and natives shared the land.

Where or how do you come up with this none-sense? So according to you there was no war or strife, no famine and starvation, total equality between all the tribes. What a steaming moist pile of dung!

I guess the practice of sending the old off to die was just a myth. I guess infant mortality rates were super low and Dr. Spock would have been out of buisness. I guess a broken leg or other such injury actually wasn't an almost sure fire death sentence.

They were hunter gatherers, most tribes had no concept of farming and crop rotation. As stated earlier, they used the land until depleted then moved on to do it again. You know; every one tied sticks to dogs backs, loaded up their crap and off they went. The wheel being so high tech other civilizations had only just begun to use it thousands upon thousands of years before.

You really have a fuzzy Utopian view of Native life don't you. Too bad it isn't grounded in fact or reality, just wishfull thinking.

[jennie]

So which band or bands was/were occupying the Alberta tar sands region? Which band used to frolic in glee-full bliss harvesting lollipops and stalking the wild Gummi Bear on this territory? A significant chunk of Canada's wealth comes directly from this area, do we owe that too. Have we deprived the Natives of their right to drill for oil and set up their traditional refineries?

For all intents and purposes Canada"s natural wealth was non existant before the white man came along, found it, developed it and established markets for it. Or will you now tell me that if left alone a stone age culture that had not even discovered the wheel and still believed in Polytheism could have done so?

Perhaps you have forgotten that the Euro conquest of North America happened at the end of the 'Dark Ages' when our so-called 'civilized' ancestors shat in the streets, ate with their hands and stuck heads on pikes.

A better understanding of your own ancestry is in order. YOU ain't so 'civilized' as you want to pretend!

This is a non-argument that has absolutely nothing relevant to say about land rights.

An argument about the 'superiority' of the white race has no place in civil discourse.

[AngusThermopyle]

An argument about the 'superiority' of the white race has no place in civil discourse.

Ahhh! I see! It's o'kay though to blabber on about how superior Native culture is. I get it now. Even though those blatherings have pretty much nothing at all to do with the actual facts. Okay, I'll just be accepting of the revisionist truth.

It's true, Native life was a pure Utopian existence before the arrival of the white Devils.

I love the double standards I see you and Posit trotting out constantly.

Oh, by the way. I would venture that I know just as much about my heritage as you do of yours, most likely a sh*t load more actually.

[kengs333]

Perhaps you have forgotten that the Euro conquest of North America happened at the end of the 'Dark Ages' when our so-called 'civilized' ancestors shat in the streets, ate with their hands and stuck heads on pikes.

Actually, the "Euro conquest" occured towards the end of the Middle Ages, with the so-called "Dark Ages" ending c. 800 AD. The whole theory about the Dark Ages has essentially been debunked, though, since there is now considerable archeological evidence to show that European society prospered during the "Dark Ages" period.

I'm not sure that you really want to go down the path of being critical of how European society functioned, because there's much evidence to suggest that Indians were not model human beings. I'm not saying that Europeans didn't have their faults, but relatively speaking Europeans were much more advanced than the Indians in just about every respect. It was, after all, the Europeans who came to this continent on large sailing vessels; while all the Indians were capable to making were bark or dugout canoes. Also, in terms of eating with their hands, I'm quite certain that Europeans had long used wooden bowls & plates and spoons & knives to eat. Naturally, some foods were more easily eaten with hands, such as bread. And in reference to shitting in the streets, I believe in actually shitting was done in private and then the waste was discarded in the streets. Whatever the case, this only occured in larger urban centres, and eventually scientific knowledge allowed for solutions to this problem. One thing's for sure, though, Europeans didn't display their dead family members in their longhouses and then bury them in the floor once all of the flesh rotted away. And I could go on and on....

[jbg]

Ahhh! I see! It's o'kay though to blabber on about how superior Native culture is. I get it now. Even though those blatherings have pretty much nothing at all to do with the actual facts. Okay, I'll just be accepting of the revisionist truth.

It's true, Native life was a pure Utopian existence before the arrival of the white Devils.

Even Farley Mowat didn't go as far as the people you're responding to.

[jennie]

Yes the wealth is coming from hard working people making a honest living & doing something with their lives. EVERY Canadian EVERY day those honest Canadian Tax Payers that deserve to benefit in this country that they built. Not on the backs of people but the sweat from thier work.

Hard work deserves credit for sure.

Ownership must be respected too, though.

These are the kinds of treaties that are being negotiated these days: Revenue sharing.

Makes total sense to me, but it may be only just at the thinking stage.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/s-d2003/02399bk_e.html

[noahbody]

Ownership must be respected too, though.

That's the key word isn't it? So, what do the natives own, if anything? One thing they don't have any claim to is mineral rights. This is a certainty. The land in question was purchased by Haldimand from the natives occupying the area and set aside for the mohawks and any other of the six nations that wished to live there. Once the land became crown land, the crown would have to specified the transfer of mineral rights for the natives to had a claim.

As to the question of ownership, the Haldimand Proclamation is unclear and left to interpretation. It proclaimed the six nations were to take possession of, settle upon and enjoy the land for ever. The problem is the word "possession" can mean ownership or usage without ownership. This is what left it up to interpretation. It may have been Haldimand's intent to grant title, but he left office the same year. When he left the the proclamation was still up for interpretation by the crown. The following year, Joseph Brant went to England and came home with compensation for the native's war effort, money for a church, but he failed to obtain a title. The King chose to interpret the proclamation as usage without ownership.

[jennie]

That's the key word isn't it? So, what do the natives own, if anything? One thing they don't have any claim to is mineral rights. This is a certainty. The land in question was purchased by Haldimand from the natives occupying the area and set aside for the mohawks and any other of the six nations that wished to live there. Once the land became crown land, the crown would have to specified the transfer of mineral rights for the natives to had a claim.

As to the question of ownership, the Haldimand Proclamation is unclear and left to interpretation. It proclaimed the six nations were to take possession of, settle upon and enjoy the land for ever. The problem is the word "possession" can mean ownership or usage without ownership. This is what left it up to interpretation. It may have been Haldimand's intent to grant title, but he left office the same year. When he left the the proclamation was still up for interpretation by the crown. The following year, Joseph Brant went to England and came home with compensation for the native's war effort, money for a church, but he failed to obtain a title. The King chose to interpret the proclamation as usage without ownership.

Aboriginal title does include mineral rights, and it precedes any claim the 'Crown' may have.

Aboriginal rights may include sharing revenues from the land, whether real estate, minerals, etc.

All of your opinions are interesting, and I think already addressed in negotiations perhaps.

At least, the government has validated the Haldimand Proclamation by making an offer for 4 claims in the Haldimand Tract.

Six Nations entitlement in the Haldimand Tract seems to be recognized by the federal government.

That is the basis for the Six Nations Confederacy asserting jurisdiction over land use in the entire Haldimand Tract, as they did recently.

[AngusThermopyle]

At least, the government has validated the Haldimand Proclamation by making an offer for 4 claims in the Haldimand Tract.

From your statement it appears the Government has made an offer relating to four claims. Do these four claims encompass the entire Haldimand Tract? Or are more in dispute? If so the Government has not validated the entire claims/Haldimand question at all, just four claims.

[M.Dancer]

An argument about the 'superiority' of the white race has no place in civil discourse.

Quite right. The argument should be framed concerning the superiorty of the civilised literate races. No one questions the ability of the 17th century europeans to create wealth and to feed millions even during lean times...or does anyone argue that 16th century Asians faced famine simply because the water bufaloo didn't migrate on time.

No one should even try to equate stone age hunter gathering societies and claim they are on par with industrial, agrarian, civilised, literate societies. It may not be racist to do so, I don't know. But it would certainly be stupid. Unless of course, metrics like infant mortality rates and life expectancy count for naught.

[noahbody]

Aboriginal title does include mineral rights, and it precedes any claim the 'Crown' may have.

If the land passed from native to native, I would agree with you. But this is a unique case. It was given by Governor Haldimand to the six nations for the mohawk contribution in the war. It passed from native ownership to Crown ownership when Haldimand purchased it in 1784.

At least, the government has validated the Haldimand Proclamation by making an offer for 4 claims in the Haldimand Tract.

Six Nations entitlement in the Haldimand Tract seems to be recognized by the federal government.

Yes, they have entitlement, but ownership is different. Legally, they were entitled to 'enjoy the land for ever.' This should mean the Simcoe Deed, that reduced their land base but granted them "ownership" should be declared invalid because there was no mutual agreement. Seeking compensation based on the original land base minus the land sold off (not leased) by Joseph Brant or transferred in future mutual agreements is fair.

[noahbody]

Haldimand Proclamation and 41 surrender documents:

http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/PDFDocum...mand_County.pdf

[M.Dancer]

Their methods of living with the land were sustainable and practical. And when a resource was harvested it didn't destroy the rest of the ecosystem in the process. The land shared and natives shared the land.

Wow.. A new age marxist red book. Now the Indians are the ones that we should look to to emulate.

All that is true if you assume that sustainability means the very old and the very young die from malnutition or from warfare because of limited resources.

[jennie]

Haldimand Proclamation and 41 surrender documents:

http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/PDFDocum...mand_County.pdf

There are questions about the validity of the 1841 surrender, and the 1844 surrender too. It remains to be seen what evidence the government provides to try to uphold its validity.

Just because a document exists does not mean it is valid.

The Toronto surrender existed too and the government claimed it was valid too, but it was little more than a blank piece of paper and eventually the government had to concede it was not obtained in good faith, and concede the Toronto Purchase to the Mississaugas.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

From your statement it appears the Government has made an offer relating to four claims. Do these four claims encompass the entire Haldimand Tract? Or are more in dispute? If so the Government has not validated the entire claims/Haldimand question at all, just four claims.

All 28 claims in the tract are based on the Haldimand Proclamation.

The only way the government would consider ANY claim in the Haldimand Tract valid is if the Haldimand Proclamation itself is considered valid.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

Quite right. The argument should be framed concerning the superiorty of the civilised literate races. No one questions the ability of the 17th century europeans to create wealth and to feed millions even during lean times...or does anyone argue that 16th century Asians faced famine simply because the water bufaloo didn't migrate on time.

No one should even try to equate stone age hunter gathering societies and claim they are on par with industrial, agrarian, civilised, literate societies. It may not be racist to do so, I don't know. But it would certainly be stupid. Unless of course, metrics like infant mortality rates and life expectancy count for naught.

On the contrary, no argument should be framed around "Who is better", because frankly that is disgusting. A human being is a human being.

The argument should be, and is, framed in law.

"Who is better" will always remain a bigoted discussion of a non-issue.

It has absolutely nothing to do with land rights, which are simply a matter of law.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[M.Dancer]

On the contrary, no argument should be framed around "Who is better", because frankly that is disgusting. A human being is a human being.

The argument should be, and is, framed in law.

"Who is better" will always remain a bigoted discussion of a non-issue.

It has absolutely nothing to do with land rights, which are simply a matter of law.

Then cease making ridiculous statements concerning the superiority of the gaurdians of nature etc etc etc, and there will be no need to point out that they lived on the edge of starvation and privation.

[jennie]

Then cease making ridiculous statements concerning the superiority of the gaurdians of nature etc etc etc, and there will be no need to point out that they lived on the edge of starvation and privation.

Show me where I have.

How they lived then, how our ancestors lived then ... how relevant is that to now?

European settlers did starve without the help of the Indigenous civilizations.

But how is this relevant?

Is this still about "who is better"?

That argument holds no weight in a society of equal human rights.

That argument has no place in civilized discourse.

[noahbody]

There are questions about the validity of the 1841 surrender, and the 1844 surrender too. It remains to be seen what evidence the government provides to try to uphold its validity.

I'll debate that with you in a while. First, do you see how this land proclamation was out of the ordinary? That there are implications since it was owned by the crown, even if for a short while. Also, that 'for ever' would indicate the original intent of the proclamation was that the land was to be non-transferrable? This was not lived up to by both sides. And would you agree that the six nations has no claim to any land sold by Principal Chief Brant?

[jennie]

I'll debate that with you in a while. First, do you see how this land proclamation was out of the ordinary? That there are implications since it was owned by the crown, even if for a short while. Also, that 'for ever' would indicate the original intent of the proclamation was that the land was to be non-transferrable? This was not lived up to by both sides.

It was never 'owned' by the Crown. It was traditional Iroquois land. The Mississaugas understood that, though they did not refuse the government's compensation money when they were asked to move.

And would you agree that the six nations has no claim to any land sold by Principal Chief Brant?

No I would not because legally it depends what authority he was given by the Confederacy Council.

That remains to be established through negotiations. For example, the Confederacy says Brant did not have Power of Attorney from the Council for the deal he did in Moulton township. He went beyond his legal limits.

Joseph Brant was not a traditional Chief, and not an authority for the Confederacy, except as they authorized him.