Haudenosaunee Confederacy Land Rights Statement

[kengs333]

No Canadian in their right mind would believe this nonsense. The Six Nations talks about obligations, honour and respect, from the Government or Canadians, yet if one looks at the history of this issue, one would learn how unfairly the Five Nations dealt with its enemies and allies, how they tried to exploit the British and failed, how they were completely incapable of managing their own affairs because of their intemperance, etc. The British, and later the Canadians, may not have handled the matter as best as they could have, but one thing is for sure had they not taken the action they did, the Five/Six Nations would have disintigrated, would not even exist now. And yet they still accuse Canada of committing genocide...

In order for this situation to be resolved, we need to shed overly-idealized notions who the Six Nations were and are and that trying restore things to the way they supposed were (but never really were) 150 years ago causes more problems than it solves.

...

Edited September 26, 2007 by kengs333

[Higgly]

I just can not stand this stuff anymore. I agree that we need to put an end to this land claim stuff right now. The native Canadians did not own land in Canada and never will. It is against their customs to own land.

So we have customs that say land ownership is OK and therefor to hell with them and their dumb ideas? They are saying to hell with us and our dumb ideas. What a surprise.

[jennie]

No Canadian in their right mind would believe this nonsense. The Six Nations talks about obligations, honour and respect, from the Government or Canadians, yet if one looks at the history of this issue, one would learn how unfairly the Five Nations dealt with its enemies and allies, how they tried to exploit the British and failed, how they were completely incapable of managing their own affairs because of their intemperance, etc. The British, and later the Canadians, may not have handled the matter as best as they could have, but one thing is for sure had they not taken the action they did, the Five/Six Nations would have disintigrated, would not even exist now. And yet they still accuse Canada of committing genocide...

In order for this situation to be resolved, we need to shed overly-idealized notions who the Six Nations were and are and that trying restore things to the way they supposed were (but never really were) 150 years ago causes more problems than it solves.

You better back up those statements with links, etc.

I see little resemblance to truth in them, and even less information of any relevance.

[noahbody]

We want the land that is ours. We are not interested in approving fraudulent dispossessions of the past. We are not interested in selling land. We want the Crown to keep its obligations to treaties, and ensure all Crown governments – federal, provincial and municipal – are partners in those obligations. We want an honourable relationship with Canada.

I'm just wondering if anyone knows the official argument the Six Nations is using for not honouring the 1841 agreement. I've read a lot of excuses such as they couldn't read English well, there were only six chiefs present and, as grannyrants states, "I know that the government and the Confederacy signed an offer, which the government of Canada still today calls "signing a final agreement", just to befuddle the Canadian population. Just like the unions, the offer goes to the people for ratification and it was voted down, in 1841; but our government still "stands by" this 'final agreement', because that is all Canada has."

So far I haven't heard an excuse with any merit.

[Posit]

I'm just wondering if anyone knows the official argument the Six Nations is using for not honouring the 1841 agreement. I've read a lot of excuses such as they couldn't read English well, there were only six chiefs present and, as grannyrants states, "I know that the government and the Confederacy signed an offer, which the government of Canada still today calls "signing a final agreement", just to befuddle the Canadian population. Just like the unions, the offer goes to the people for ratification and it was voted down, in 1841; but our government still "stands by" this 'final agreement', because that is all Canada has."

So far I haven't heard an excuse with any merit.

From what I have heard Six Nations claims the document was fraudulent. They were able to prove the satisfaction of the present negotiators that the agreement was never made and that the attempts previous to the signing were to stop the lands sales that were taking place without Six Nations' consent. In admitting that the document may be misrepresenting the concerns of Six Nations, our negotiators have agreed to go back to the archives and see if they can find any correspondence, or other confirming documentation to advance the belief that Six Nations did in fact sell the land. So far our side has come back and haven't offered Six Nations any confirmations. As well, our negotiators recently offered Six Nations $125 million to settle 4 of the claims without any accounting of how the claim was to be apportioned or accounted for. From my POV it appears that the government is trying to head off full acknowledgment of the fraud and instead have tried to buy their way out of the crime.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Posit

[noahbody]

From what I have heard Six Nations claims the document was fraudulent. They were able to prove the satisfaction of the present negotiators that the agreement was never made and that the attempts previous to the signing were to stop the lands sales that were taking place without Six Nations' consent. In admitting that the document may be misrepresenting the concerns of Six Nations, our negotiators have agreed to go back to the archives and see if they can find any correspondence, or other confirming documentation to advance the belief that Six Nations did in fact sell the land. So far our side has come back and haven't offered Six Nations any confirmations. As well, our negotiators recently offered Six Nations $125 million to settle 4 of the claims without any accounting of how the claim was to be apportioned or accounted for. From my POV it appears that the government is trying to head off full acknowledgment of the fraud and instead have tried to buy their way out of the crime.

Fraudulent for what specific reason? From oral histories and from the document itself it would appear six chiefs did sign something. So if they did, do they claim they were never given a copy? I find this odd when grannyrants says it was their tradition to ratify documents. Therefore, it should be up to the Six Nations to reproduce their copy if they have not done so. If it matches what the government says they signed, case closed.

[Posit]

Fraudulent for what specific reason? From oral histories and from the document itself it would appear six chiefs did sign something. So if they did, do they claim they were never given a copy? I find this odd when grannyrants says it was their tradition to ratify documents. Therefore, it should be up to the Six Nations to reproduce their copy if they have not done so. If it matches what the government says they signed, case closed.

The Plank Road sale claimed to have been signed by 47 Six Nation Chiefs using marks only (x), without witnesses or attestations confirming the marks. Then Six Nations presented Crown with evidence that deeds were being issued to settlers six months before the agreement was to have been signed. And finally, Six Nations produced evidence that they only had about 28 condoled (legal) Chiefs at Six Nations during the time these things were purported to have been signed and I think it was 6 signatures that were on the document were for people that were in off the reserve at the same time. So Six Nations requested that the agreement be set aside and the government provide documentation, minutes or other correspondence concerning the negotiations prior to the agreement. The government has said they have them....only they can't find them.....Six Nations then produced their copies that proved they were in negotiation for a Plank Road lease, the monies received would be added to the Six Nations trust. There was no agreement in any of the pre-agreement documentation suggesting that Six Nations ever agreed to sell the lands.

To get out of their embarrassment the government tried to throw $125 million at the Confederacy.....

At least that is my understanding of what I have heard from some of the people involved in negotiations.

[AngusThermopyle]

We want the land that is ours.

This has nothing to do with the discussion of the Haldimand agreement. It's just an observation as to the legitimacy of statements made on this forum.

Jennie, you have stated many times that you are not Native, yet on numerous occasions you've made slips just like the one quoted above. These would indicate to me that you are indeed Native. If this is the case I hope you realise that such misrepresentation merely serves to cheapen or invalidate any point or argument you have to make.

Anyway, that was just a passing thought based on observations of your writing style.

[M.Dancer]

This has nothing to do with the discussion of the Haldimand agreement. It's just an observation as to the legitimacy of statements made on this forum.

Jennie, you have stated many times that you are not Native, yet on numerous occasions you've made slips just like the one quoted above. These would indicate to me that you are indeed Native. If this is the case I hope you realise that such misrepresentation merely serves to cheapen or invalidate any point or argument you have to make.

Anyway, that was just a passing thought based on observations of your writing style.

]

I noticed that too and it gives me reason to suspect her credibility......

[noahbody]

For two years, the tribe protested and petitioned against the surrender of the land, restating that their original agreement was to lease, not to sell. In 1843, the Crown offered the Six Nations 19,000 hectares of the 22,000 they had petitioned for (excluding other land tracts that the tribe requested to lease). The Six Nations chiefs accepted this offer, and ever since have been confined to the Grand River reserve.

An 1844 document signed by 47 Six Nations chiefs appears to authorize the sale of the Haldimand Tract land to the Crown. But ever since that day, dissenters have disputed the legitimacy of the document, claiming it to be in violation of earlier agreements with the Crown.

http://www.martlet.ca/view.php?aid=39590

Okay, so the Six Nations accepted an agreement in 1843 to resolve their complaints about the '41 sale. Done deal. In 1844, they again sold land willingly. Then, my interpretation is thatt they then took the position that the original wording of the Haldimand Proclamation suggests they were to take the possession of the land forever, so all deals off. That correct?

If that's the case, too bloody bad! The Six Nations were well aware that they could take possession forever. They were the ones to initiate sale of land, due to a famine in 1795. Obviously, it was agreed upon that they would be allowed to sell land with approval of the government.

I don't see much of a claim of land. There is a claim where money wasn't invested as agreed. As far as agreements with settler who they can prove defaulted on land agreements, they may have a case, but in civil court and not against the government.

[jennie]

This has nothing to do with the discussion of the Haldimand agreement. It's just an observation as to the legitimacy of statements made on this forum.

Jennie, you have stated many times that you are not Native, yet on numerous occasions you've made slips just like the one quoted above. These would indicate to me that you are indeed Native. If this is the case I hope you realise that such misrepresentation merely serves to cheapen or invalidate any point or argument you have to make.

Anyway, that was just a passing thought based on observations of your writing style.

The sentence you quoted was part of an italicized quote from the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Land Rights Statement at the beginning of this thread.

If I was native I would say so, but I am not. (potato famine Irish-Canadian, actually). Some members of my family are.

[Posit]

http://www.martlet.ca/view.php?aid=39590

Okay, so the Six Nations accepted an agreement in 1843 to resolve their complaints about the '41 sale. Done deal. In 1844, they again sold land willingly. Then, my interpretation is thatt they then took the position that the original wording of the Haldimand Proclamation suggests they were to take the possession of the land forever, so all deals off. That correct?

If that's the case, too bloody bad! The Six Nations were well aware that they could take possession forever. They were the ones to initiate sale of land, due to a famine in 1795. Obviously, it was agreed upon that they would be allowed to sell land with approval of the government.

I don't see much of a claim of land. There is a claim where money wasn't invested as agreed. As far as agreements with settler who they can prove defaulted on land agreements, they may have a case, but in civil court and not against the government.

That "HIS-story" you referenced was created with the belief that the 1844 document was legal. Six Nations has establish that it was a fraud and therefore, the entire assumption becomes unraveled. It is like those people who like to create an idea in your mind that Six Nations has no aboriginal right to the lands on the Haldimand and that they are essentially "immigrants". But then the evidence, by way of French 17th century maps and 13th century archaeology of the tract pops up and throws the assumption into mythdumb.

That is why the government has agreed to put the sale document aside and provide further evidence to substantiate the sale. So far they are unable (or perhaps "unwilling") to produced that evidence. Until they can produce supporting documentation as I mentioned earlier,the document has no value in resolving the disputes. One other point is that if Six Nations indeed agreed to and signed the sale, why would they continue to complain after 1844 saying they did not agree? There is a long record of letters, minutes of meetings and delegations to the Governor demonstrating that Six Nations was upset at the sale of the Plank Road lands to settlers without their consent. One document does not out weigh all the rest.

[Riverwind]

Six Nations has establish that it was a fraud and therefore, the entire assumption becomes unraveled.

I doubt that the Six Nations has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that it was a fraud.

That is why the government has agreed to put the sale document aside and provide further evidence to substantiate the sale.

The government is doing that because it realizes negotiations cannot progess further based on that document alone. However, that does not mean that government or the courts would accept Six Nation's claim that the document is a fraud.

[jennie]

I doubt that the Six Nations has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that it was a fraud.

The government is doing that because it realizes negotiations cannot progess further based on that document alone. However, that does not mean that government or the courts would accept Six Nation's claim that the document is a fraud.

Well then you have less doubt than the negotiators, because they asked for SIX MONTHS and sent their historians and lawyers scrambling to try to find BETTER evidence than the 1844 'surrender'. Pretty much makes it clear they are acknowledging that the surrender just won't cut it as evidence.

I wonder if it is the document where some thumbprints were cut out (poorly) and pasted on the document, some with straight edges where there should have been sworls, and I think some used more than once. It appears to me that after they screwed up the 1841 surrender, and Six Nations still refused to sell, the govie agents of the time were determined to get enough on paper to make it 'look good', if fraudulent, but in their zeal they gave themselves away!

[Riverwind]

Well then you have less doubt than the negotiators, because they asked for SIX MONTHS and sent their historians and lawyers scrambling to try to find BETTER evidence than the 1844 'surrender'. Pretty much makes it clear they are acknowledging that the surrender just won't cut it as evidence.

Your convoluted logic makes no sense. The document is not a fraud according to government. If the government believed it was a fraud it would not waste time looking for supporting documents. Six Nations seems to be taking the policy of calling every document that supports the governments case a fraud yet there is no reason to believe that Six Nations has any proof of their claims.

[noahbody]

Here's an interesting read. It's found about 3/4 down the page. K. Horn gives her reply above it.

Canada's Position....

.. on the History of the Surrender of the Plank Road Lands (including the Douglas creek Estates)

A Summary of the narrative presented by Michael McCulloch to the Plank Road Lands

Side table on November 3, 2006

http://www.mohawknationnews.com/news/news....1&start=120

[Riverwind]

Here's an interesting read.

What I find interesting about Canada's position is it has a ring of truth because the story unfolds logically over time and it is clear how the earlier events are connected to the later events.

I thought this was interesting:

34. On February 18, 1846, "the Chiefs of the Six nations Indians, in General Council Assembled" submitted a petition to the new Governor General, earl Cathcart. The Petition protested against the government's attempt to reopen the question of the reserve's western boundary, Burtch's Tract in Brantford Township. The petition recited the Chiefs in General Council's understanding of what they had surrendered. It confirms they understood and agreed to the surrender of the Plank Road Lands, including what is now the Douglas Creek Estates

I would like to get more details on this position because it sounds like the government's case is much stronger than I thought. It sounds like Six Nations is really nothing more than a pack of extortionists. Edited September 27, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

I'm just wondering if anyone knows the official argument the Six Nations is using for not honouring the 1841 agreement. I've read a lot of excuses such as they couldn't read English well, there were only six chiefs present and, as grannyrants states, "I know that the government and the Confederacy signed an offer, which the government of Canada still today calls "signing a final agreement", just to befuddle the Canadian population. Just like the unions, the offer goes to the people for ratification and it was voted down, in 1841; but our government still "stands by" this 'final agreement', because that is all Canada has."

So far I haven't heard an excuse with any merit.

What is suggested there is the surrender was not approved by the Six Nations people in Council.

It is like a union agreement that does not get ratified by members. finito.

Besides, if the government was comfortable with its validity in 1841, why would the government try to get another surrender for the same land in 1844?

I don't know the whole story of progress of negotiations. No one does except the people who are at the tables, really. Our government insists on 'secret' negotiations without us knowing what is going on. Six Nations people know because they have to discuss and decide.

We do not ha e the evidence needed to decide, and we are not experts anyway. All we can do is watch what seems to be happening and guess at the rest.

[kengs333]

I don't know the whole story of progress of negotiations. No one does except the people who are at the tables, really.

Exactly, I've made this point a number of time. We only know what is written in documents and other written sources on the Canadian side; we don't know what went on in the discussions among the Six Nations chiefs, but we can only assume that they agreed to whatever they agreed to for reasons that they felt were valid. Which means that they whole Six Nation's case is unfounded. If they feel that the right thing to do is for peoples to honour their treaties & agreements, then they have to accept the fact that they entered into agreements that with time didn't turn out to their advantage.

[jennie]

UPDATE: Stirling St developer backed out of his agreement with the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, that he apparently 'used' to get police to clear the site.

[kengs333]

UPDATE: Stirling St developer backed out of his agreement with the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, that he apparently 'used' to get police to clear the site.

The HDI has no legitimacy or authority, he therefore has no obligation to deal with them.

[jennie]

The HDI has no legitimacy or authority, he therefore has no obligation to deal with them.

You know, it is becoming fuzzier and fuzzier.

It is said the HDI lawyer is being paid for by Ontario. Fancy that!

[jennie]

Ori:wase :

Media Release :

Communiqué:

For Immediate Release

Sept.,25, 2007 Confederacy to launch information campaign

GRAND RIVER TERRITORY OF THE SIX NATIONS- The Six Nations Haudenoniso (Confederacy Council) will be launching an information campaign along the Haldimand Proclamation lands warning prospective home buyers, retailers and industry, any property they may be buying within six miles of the Grand River is in dispute and subject to Haudensaunee land rights.

The move comes after Caledonia developers, Venture Homes, owners Mr. Kragten and Mr VanElslander turn their backs on an agreement with the Haudenoniso, aimed at bringing peace and order to a volatile situation in Caledonia, while protecting Six Nations interests in the lands under dispute, by refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council over its lands along the Grand River, including those being developed by the two men at Stirling Street.

Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) representative, Aaron Detlor said a tentative agreement had been reached with Mr. Kragten and Mr. VanElslander that would have seen the developers follow the Confederacy consultation process and recognize the jurisdiction of the HCCC over its Grand River Lands.

Mr. Detlor said,” we find it disingenuous that Mr Kragten and Mr. VanElslander would make the offer to provide payment of a development fee to the HCCC but refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the HCCC.”

Mr. Detlor said as a result of the about face tactic, developers along the Grand River have left Six Nations with no other

alternative but to pursue options open to them to protect their land rights including making sure any perspective purchasers of properties, homes or businesses along the Grand River are aware that land rights are asserted over the properties in question. Mr. Detlor said any development proceeding without Haudenosaunee approval is proceeding in an unlawful manner. (See attachments) Six Nations has been in negotiations with federal and provincial representatives for 19 months over its more than 200 year old land rights to lands under the Haldimand Proclamation.

Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton , Ontario and Canada need to remember, Six Nations people have been engaged in peaceful protests of developments that continue to proceed on disputed Six Nations lands, without Six Nations approval or consultation. “That kind of action by developers, with the approval of Ontario and the federal government through their

land registry system, is causing our people to counter with direct action of their own,” he said.

In similar negotiations in other provinces, development on disputed lands has stopped until negotiations are concluded.

Chief MacNaughton said Six Nations Haudenosaunee will continue to move forward to address their outstanding land rights issues with tools such as the HDI. The H.D.I. is a process created by the Confederacy to work with developers who are caught in a void being created by the Crown’s, in right of Canada and Ontario’s, failure to resolve Six Nations land rights. The Haudenosaunee fully expect, Municipalities of Ontario to work with the H.D.I., in accordance with their own laws of Canada, in right of the crown, which requires them to fully consult with the Haudenosaunee of

the Six Nations prior to the issuance of permits for any development on our unceded territory.

The Six Nations Haudenoniso (Confederacy Council) continues to work towards a peaceful, fair resolution of its more than 200 year old land rights issues throughout Southern Ontario.

Allen MacNaughton

Mohawk Chief

For further information, interviews or comments contact:

Media Liaison Lynda Powless

(519)445-0868 or [email protected]

Supreme Court of Canada rulings can be found at:

Delgamuukw

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1...7canlii302.html

Mikisew

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2.../2005scc69.html

Haida

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2004/...04bcsc1243.html

Taku

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2.../2004scc74.html

Ka'a'gee

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2.../2007fc763.html

[kengs333]

Ori:wase :

Media Release :

Communiqué:

For Immediate Release

Sept.,25, 2007 Confederacy to launch information campaign

GRAND RIVER TERRITORY OF THE SIX NATIONS- The Six Nations Haudenoniso (Confederacy Council) will be launching an information campaign along the Haldimand Proclamation lands warning prospective home buyers, retailers and industry, any property they may be buying within six miles of the Grand River is in dispute and subject to Haudensaunee land rights.

The move comes after Caledonia developers, Venture Homes, owners Mr. Kragten and Mr VanElslander turn their backs on an agreement with the Haudenoniso, aimed at bringing peace and order to a volatile situation in Caledonia, while protecting Six Nations interests in the lands under dispute, by refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council over its lands along the Grand River, including those being developed by the two men at Stirling Street.

Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) representative, Aaron Detlor said a tentative agreement had been reached with Mr. Kragten and Mr. VanElslander that would have seen the developers follow the Confederacy consultation process and recognize the jurisdiction of the HCCC over its Grand River Lands.

Mr. Detlor said,” we find it disingenuous that Mr Kragten and Mr. VanElslander would make the offer to provide payment of a development fee to the HCCC but refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the HCCC.”

Mr. Detlor said as a result of the about face tactic, developers along the Grand River have left Six Nations with no other

alternative but to pursue options open to them to protect their land rights including making sure any perspective purchasers of properties, homes or businesses along the Grand River are aware that land rights are asserted over the properties in question. Mr. Detlor said any development proceeding without Haudenosaunee approval is proceeding in an unlawful manner. (See attachments) Six Nations has been in negotiations with federal and provincial representatives for 19 months over its more than 200 year old land rights to lands under the Haldimand Proclamation.

Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton , Ontario and Canada need to remember, Six Nations people have been engaged in peaceful protests of developments that continue to proceed on disputed Six Nations lands, without Six Nations approval or consultation. “That kind of action by developers, with the approval of Ontario and the federal government through their

land registry system, is causing our people to counter with direct action of their own,” he said.

In similar negotiations in other provinces, development on disputed lands has stopped until negotiations are concluded.

Chief MacNaughton said Six Nations Haudenosaunee will continue to move forward to address their outstanding land rights issues with tools such as the HDI. The H.D.I. is a process created by the Confederacy to work with developers who are caught in a void being created by the Crown’s, in right of Canada and Ontario’s, failure to resolve Six Nations land rights. The Haudenosaunee fully expect, Municipalities of Ontario to work with the H.D.I., in accordance with their own laws of Canada, in right of the crown, which requires them to fully consult with the Haudenosaunee of

the Six Nations prior to the issuance of permits for any development on our unceded territory.

The Six Nations Haudenoniso (Confederacy Council) continues to work towards a peaceful, fair resolution of its more than 200 year old land rights issues throughout Southern Ontario.

Allen MacNaughton

Mohawk Chief

For further information, interviews or comments contact:

Media Liaison Lynda Powless

(519)445-0868 or [email protected]

Supreme Court of Canada rulings can be found at:

Delgamuukw

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1...7canlii302.html

Mikisew

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2.../2005scc69.html

Haida

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2004/...04bcsc1243.html

Taku

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2.../2004scc74.html

Ka'a'gee

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2.../2007fc763.html

Can't you just write a short post about this and post a link, rather than cutting and pasting everthing that ends up in you inbox?

They can couch their attempted extortion in as legal-sounding language as they can muster, it still doesn't make them or anything they try to do legitimate.

The land that they sold and surrendered was legally sold and surrendered. That means they no longer have rights to it.

Edited September 29, 2007 by kengs333

[kengs333]

Moreover, you enever directly reply to posts when you know that your arguments don't hold water. I'll take your refusal to respond as an acknowledgement that I am right.