Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Caledonia

Caledonia

Recommended Posts

Dr. Robin Bredin, Toronto. The author of the article, "Cowering on Caledonia".

Just another outsider trying to inject his venom into the Caledonia fray.

So Canada is now, in your opinion, so regionalized that only those people directly involved have any right to have a say? People in one part of the province should just butt out when illegal behaviour in another part of the province occurs? What sloppy inane thinking.

What happened to critical thinking on the left? Once upon a time the left produced thinkers of note; Marx, Engels, Gramsci, the Frankfurt school; thinkers who may have been utopian and overly theoretical, but who still had a firm grasp of logic. The left produces nothing but flaccid mush these days: meaningless slogans underscored by asinine costumes and stone throwing thugs, all seemingly driven more by emotion than by any cogent thought process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you say so jennie? :ph34r:

HDI was only formed after they did the shakedown of Mayberry homes. Again PR works wonders too bad nobody buys it anymore & the tides are turning & true colours are showing through.

I think the fencesitters have now realized the fence had no posts.

Not because I say so ... here is the media release ... or part of it.

Ori:wase :

Media Release :

Communiqué:

For Immediate Release

Sept.,10, 2007

Confederacy Haudenosaunee Development Institute under way

GRAND RIVER TERRITORY SIX NATIONS- Six Nations Confederacy Council ‘s Haudenosaunee Development Institute has begun meetings with area developers involved in projects along the Grand River, within the Haldimand Tract, including positive discussions Monday with Brantford developer Mike Quattrociocchi.

Institute spokesman, Aaron Detlor said the meeting with the Mr. Quattrociocchi went well. “ We are working with Mr. Quattrociocchi on his project. We recognize that compared to some of the other developers we are meeting with, he is a smaller scale developer who’s livelihood may be at risk so we will work as quickly as possible to try to resolve his issues.”

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute protocol was adopted at a recent Confederacy council meeting. The organization oversees development of Six Nations lands and resources within the Haldimand Tract, an area six miles on either side of the Grand River from its mouth to its source.

http://www.reclamationinfo.com/phpBB2/view...p?p=33947#33947

Edited by jennie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Six Nations Confederacy operates under its own laws. One of their laws is that they must not engage in the legal or political systems of other nations. They are forced into our courts at times, but they have their own ways of implementing their own laws and they do not use our courts for that.

In other words they are outlaws. Lets deal with them that way.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ori:wase :

Media Release :

Communiqué:

For Immediate Release

Sept.,10, 2007

Confederacy Haudenosaunee Development Institute under way

GRAND RIVER TERRITORY SIX NATIONS- Six Nations Confederacy Council ‘s Haudenosaunee Development Institute has begun meetings with area developers involved in projects along the Grand River, within the Haldimand Tract, including positive discussions Monday with Brantford developer Mike Quattrociocchi.

Institute spokesman, Aaron Detlor said the meeting with the Mr. Quattrociocchi went well. “ We are working with Mr. Quattrociocchi on his project. We recognize that compared to some of the other developers we are meeting with, he is a smaller scale developer who’s livelihood may be at risk so we will work as quickly as possible to try to resolve his issues.”

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute protocol was adopted at a recent Confederacy council meeting. The organization oversees development of Six Nations lands and resources within the Haldimand Tract, an area six miles on either side of the Grand River from its mouth to its source.

The institute has been working diligently to respond to area developers concerns, Ontario’s Green Plan and Places to

Grow Act. As a result the Confederacy has developed its own “Green Plan” with a map of its lands along the Grand River that outline development potential and environmentally sensitive areas including lands within the cities of Brantford, Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Guelph and towns and centres along the tract.

Mr. Detlor said meetings are being arranged with cities and towns with the Haldimand Tract. “We have yet to meet with several cities, including Kitchener and Waterloo, and others to explain our viewpoint. And we have yet to meet with several very large developers from the Toronto area about their concerns for their very large housing projects and commercial and retail projects that are being constructed on Six Nations disputed lands with the Haldimand Tract and within cities, like Brantford or Kitchener or Waterloo.”

Mr. Detlor said the protocol will be presented at community meetings at Six Nations in coming days. “We are excited about it and looking forward to getting the community’s input on the protocol. We are already implementing some changes

that we have had come from the community when they have read over the protocol. For example, we have named the organization the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, but some of our community members are not comfortable with the use of the word institute so we will be changing it in to something the community is comfortable with.” (Now renamed Haudenosaunee Development Authority.)

The HDI is a process created by the Confederacy to work with developers who are caught in a void being created by Canada and Ontario’s failure to resolve Six Nations land rights.

The HDI comes on the heels of Six Nations Confederacy Council lead Negotiator, Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton saying he is optimistic with last Thursday’s negotiations with federal and provincial representatives. “Canada realizes we have land rights here and it is now a case of developing a formula that will determine what restitution will be or is worth.”

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

Aaron Detlor HDI spokesperson

Note: Copies of protocol, map and land rights

statment are available.

For further information, interviews or comments contact:

Media Liaison Lynda Powless

(519)445-0868 or [email protected]

What difference does a PR make? I could put out a PR today claiming that I own the world and am about to embark on a negotiating initiative with Bush, Putin and Amadandasinejab to discuss the payment of gold bullion for my consent to their retaining nominal power in the satrapies I now allow them to satripize over. In fact, consider this to be that PR, and while I'm at it, consider this notice that I've decided that "Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton" *snort* is henceforth to be my personal valet and that the occupiers will be enslaved and become rowers in my pet dog's personal bireme.

There, now that that's settled, can we move on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words they are outlaws. Lets deal with them that way.

Thanks for clearing that up.

What is your understanding of the citizenship status of Aboriginal people?

I am curious because I often hear these allegations that they should be treated the same as any other Canadian and yet no one can establish that in fact they are Canadian citizens. In fact, it is very murky.

Until this can be cleared up, I don't think we can criticize anyone for following their own laws, especially when our governments don't even follow our own laws. McGuinty maintains it is a 'federal matter' but he neglects to mention the province's legal "duty to consult" about uses of disputed lands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your understanding of the citizenship status of Aboriginal people?

I am curious because I often hear these allegations that they should be treated the same as any other Canadian and yet no one can establish that in fact they are Canadian citizens. In fact, it is very murky.

Until this can be cleared up, I don't think we can criticize anyone for following their own laws, especially when our governments don't even follow our own laws. McGuinty maintains it is a 'federal matter' but he neglects to mention the province's legal "duty to consult" about uses of disputed lands.

Are you suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to vote in provinical and federal elections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A good start in dealing with these situations is for the feds to abolish the Indian Act & the Constitution Act 1982, section 35. should be amended.

Bill C-31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Until this can be cleared up, I don't think we can criticize anyone for following their own laws,

That statement would tend to indicate sovereignty. If this in fact is the case when will they start to behave in such a manner, other than flounting Canadian laws?

Sovereignty Implies self sufficiency, not just the right to self government. So, when are these supposed sovereign nations actually going to start being sovereign and say goodbye to the social infrastructure created by Canadians and their government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That statement would tend to indicate sovereignty. If this in fact is the case when will they start to behave in such a manner, other than flounting Canadian laws?

Sovereignty Implies self sufficiency, not just the right to self government. So, when are these supposed sovereign nations actually going to start being sovereign and say goodbye to the social infrastructure created by Canadians and their government?

You mean that it might be more believeable if there weren't so many on reserves collecting canadian welfare cheques?

Edited by M.Dancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you say so jennie? :ph34r:

HDI was only formed after they did the shakedown of Mayberry homes. Again PR works wonders too bad nobody buys it anymore & the tides are turning & true colours are showing through.

I think the fencesitters have now realized the fence had no posts.

?????????????????????????????????

I really do try to follow such responses but I have no idea what they mean. I prefer my duck analogy. Anyways the point is de facto possession in law is considered a legitimate act to confirm one's intent to maintain rights over land and not relinquish them.

So this has nothing to do with what Jennie says and everything to do what is demonstrated through the collective action of people considered a nation within a nation and entitled by law to self-determination and the expression of their collective rights to land rights they never reqlinquished.

Legally I repeat, they have the legal right to do what they do, i.e., occupy, and no in law it is not considered illegal or trespass in this case and that is precisely why there is a stalemate. Just because you don't like it doesn't negate it legally.

Then again, it seems the law only is referred by you selectively and is mixed with subjective political feelings you express as to when the law should be applied and for who.

As a lawyer I must engage in logic and so have to follow the law which sats there are two conflicting sets of legal rights to the land and the law does not assume one has less worth then the other at this point although I suspect in law if a compromise can not be reached to everyone's satisfaction the aboriginal set of legal rights would prevail to allow them far greater rights then they have asked for to date which I of course find ironic.

Legally they are only doing what they are entitled to do by law. Pretending that las that give them this right does not exist won't make them go away.

Sorry to disappoint but again, Jennie's point is legally right on the point. She is not saying anything political, she is in fact stating legal doctrine as to how one goes about protecting their established rights. She did not create that method of protecting collective rights, but she and her people have inherited them and the rights that go with them.

Or better said, some of us see law as a fluid notion-it flows and it mutates and changes in shape and size and variation as it flows. Its not a brittle piece of glass. Its not ice. Its flexible not solid and so when it finds itself at an impasse blocked by a conflict it does what water does, create a third path or route to get around the blockage.

You can not block the inevitable movement of water or legal fairness in this case.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legally I repeat, they have the legal right to do what they do, i.e., occupy, and no in law it is not considered illegal or trespass in this case and that is precisely why there is a stalemate. Just because you don't like it doesn't negate it legally.

Then why have their been court orders to evict the natives from Caledonia, Rue?

they are not carried out because McGuinty doesn't want the political situation, but the court has ruled that the Indians have no right to be there.

Is this a case of your ideology clouding your judgement?

If you are a lawyer you clearly haven't been keeping up with this one I'm afraid.

(CBC)

In his ruling, Ontario Justice David Marshall said the "lawlessness" must end before negotiations between provincial and federal officials and members of the Six Nations community can continue to end to the dispute.

Marshall also ordered the Ontario attorney general to prosecute anyone who violates a five-month-old court order by refusing to leave the land.

Edited by White Doors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your understanding of the citizenship status of Aboriginal people?

I am curious because I often hear these allegations that they should be treated the same as any other Canadian and yet no one can establish that in fact they are Canadian citizens. In fact, it is very murky.

Until this can be cleared up, I don't think we can criticize anyone for following their own laws, especially when our governments don't even follow our own laws. McGuinty maintains it is a 'federal matter' but he neglects to mention the province's legal "duty to consult" about uses of disputed lands.

Anyone claiming not to be a citizen or permanent resident of Canada is an illegal alien and should be removed from this country without further ado. The Six Nations Indians aren't "native" to the Grand River region anyway. That distinction goes to the so-called Neutral Nation which was uncerimoniously slaughtered by the Iroquois in the mid-1600s at about the same time the Iroquois were doing away with the Huron. Subsequent to this, the Iroquois did not fully occupy the region, using it instead as a hunting ground until they were soundly defeated by the Ojibway in the 1700s and driven back into New York. If the Six Nations Indians are so keen on correcting historical wrongs, perhaps they should address the crimes that they themselves committed.

Edited by kengs333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone claiming not to be a citizen or permanent resident of Canada is an illegal alien and should be removed from this country without further ado. The Six Nations Indians aren't "native" to the Grand River region anyway. That distinction goes to the so-called Neutral Nation which was uncerimoniously slaughtered by the Iroquois in the mid-1600s at about the same time the Iroquois were doing away with the Huron. Subsequent to this, the Iroquois did not fully occupy the region, using it instead as a hunting ground until they were soundly defeated by the Ojibway in the 1700s and driven back into New York. If the Six Nations Indians are so keen on correcting historical wrongs, perhaps they should address the crimes that they themselves committed.

Ah...Another ignorant reply.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why have their been court orders to evict the natives from Caledonia, Rue?

they are not carried out because McGuinty doesn't want the political situation, but the court has ruled that the Indians have no right to be there.

Is this a case of your ideology clouding your judgement?

If you are a lawyer you clearly haven't been keeping up with this one I'm afraid.

(CBC)

In his ruling, Ontario Justice David Marshall said the "lawlessness" must end before negotiations between provincial and federal officials and members of the Six Nations community can continue to end to the dispute.

Marshall also ordered the Ontario attorney general to prosecute anyone who violates a five-month-old court order by refusing to leave the land.

Justice Marshall's ruling was struck down on appeal by the Provincial government. Judge Marshall issued an injunction to the wrong people, nor did he have the authority to dictate what should take place in negotiations between tow parties.

The appeals court ruled that after the builder was bought out by the province in April of 2006, Six Nations people had every right to be there without any interference by the court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah...Another ignorant reply.....

I always find it interesting how people wield the word "ignorant" when they can't find a suitable answer. It is true, though, isn't it? The Six Nations Indians did basically butcher most of the Indians that were resident in the Grand River area, didn't they? The land that they are occupying is, by their own definition, stolen from an other nation of Indians, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always find it interesting how people wield the word "ignorant" when they can't find a suitable answer. It is true, though, isn't it? The Six Nations Indians did basically butcher most of the Indians that were resident in the Grand River area, didn't they? The land that they are occupying is, by their own definition, stolen from an other nation of Indians, isn't it?

No. Not quite. It was, in some respects, a war to try to save the Wendat people and their land from the clutches of the Jesuits, and it resulted also from the devastation of disease on their populations at that time.

The Iroquois lived both above and below Lake Ontario, though the Europeans mistook those above the lake for Wendat and called them all "Huron". (Wendat and Six Nations (Iroquois) are all Iroquoian peoples.) The Five Nations (Six now) do have ancestral lands in Ontario, that were being used by the Mississaugas by agreement until Six Nations came back after the American Revolution. The government paid some compensation to the Mississaugas (who is going to say no?), but the land was still Six Nations as previously. This is recognized in the Treaty of Albany 1701.

Here is an account of the 'war' with the 'Hurons'

http://www.nefac.net/anarchiststudyofiroquois

In 1634, a plague of smallpox hit the Rotinonshón:ni, halving their population (67) and forcing relocations for the entire five nations as they fled diseased villages. While already engaged in wars with multiple indigenous nations and the French, and with changes to their economy and material technology, it must have seemed an apocalyptic scenario. The Wendat and other nations were similarly affected by epidemic diseases. There were unprecedented calamites for Rotinonshón:ni and Wendat societies, and the cultural tradition of mourning war called for replacement of all the dead through warfare.

Natoway combines a number of oral traditions, historical, and archeological research with his narrative of "The Great Epic." In it, he relates that differences in wealth developed among the Wendat, based on the Jesuit policy of only trading with those Wendat who converted to Christanity. Jesuits and Christanity were also blamed for the disease within the community, and some traditional Wendat voluntarily joined with the Kanien'kehá:ka and Shotinontowane'á:ka to attack Wendat converts to Christianity, even going so far as to lead them in battle. (68) Graeber notes the changes in economic structure of the Wendat, but not the Rotinonshón:ni: "Delage argues that among the Huron, new regimes of property and the possibility of personal accumulation, really emerged only among converts to Christianity; among the Five Nations, they do not seem to have emerged at all." (69)

Snow has claimed that during the final Rotinonshón:ni campaign against the Wendat in 1648, more than a thousand Wendat fled their villages, and seven hundred were taken prisoner or killed. In the following fall, the Kanien'kehá:ka-Shotinontowane'á:ka army numbered over a thousand men, including adopted Wendat who had been "fully integrated" into Rotinonshón:ni society. By 1651, another group of five hundred Wendat were brought into the Shotinontowane'á:ka nation, but were given autonomous control of their village. (70)

The Beaver Wars continued. The Erielhonan, with Kakwa:ko and Wendat refugees among them, were dispersed westward or absorbed into the Shotinontowane'á:ka, Ononta'kehá:ka, and other Rotinonshón:ni nations. (71) By 1657, the Rotinonshón:ni had defeated their Iroquois-speaking enemies to the north and west. Kanien'kehá:ka and Shotinontowane'á:ka went to Quebec to convince Wendat refugees to return with them. According to Snow: “A village of perhaps 570 Hurons was built near the three Mohawk villages that existed there at the time… [A] decade later Jesuit missionaries would note that two-thirds of the Mohawk village of Caughnawaga was made up of Huron and Algonquian captives and adoptees.” (72) Tionontati and Wenrohronon were also attacked, dispersed, and absorbed by the Rotinonshón:ni.

The post-dispersal history of the five nations of the Wendat, as described by John Steckley, holds that the Ataronchronnon (Bog) disappeared, the Atahontaenrat (Deer) joined the Shotinontowane'á:ka in an independent community, Arendaeronnon (Rock) joined the Ononta'kehá:ka, and the Atinniawenten (Bear) joined the Kanien'kehá:ka. The Atingeennonniahak (Cord) remained as the sole Wendat nation. (73)

In his military history of the Rotinonshón:ni, Daniel P. Barr compares accounts of the conflict and determines that:

"Between 1631-1663, the Iroquois attacked the Hurons at least 73 times. More than 500 Huron people are recorded as having been killed during these raids, with an astonishing 2,000--one-fifth of their post epidemic population--captured and deported to Iroquoia. These numbers are likely low-end estimates…. [T]he number of captives taken by the Iroquois during the Beaver Wars was on average two to three times greater than the number of enemies they killed. Both scenarios illustrate that the acquisition of enemy captives to replace Iroquois population losses was the primary factor in the Beaver Wars, which were not a series of conflicts designed to impose Iroquois control over the fur trade, but rather an Iroquois fight for survival, one vast, prolonged mourning war." (74)

The descendents of captured Wendat adoptees were fully integrated into Rotinonshón:ni society and treated as equals. One notable example is Joseph Brant, Thaientané:ken, who was descended from Wendat captives adopted by the Kanien'kehá:ka both on his father and mother’s side.

Edited by jennie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always find it interesting how people wield the word "ignorant" when they can't find a suitable answer. It is true, though, isn't it? The Six Nations Indians did basically butcher most of the Indians that were resident in the Grand River area, didn't they? The land that they are occupying is, by their own definition, stolen from an other nation of Indians, isn't it?

Nope. The land they are on is Confederacy land long held by Six Nations. The archaeology of the area tells the whole story.

The "wiping out the Hurons, Neutrals and Tobacco" story is an invention by the British to justify their stealing lands that didn't ever belong to them. The truth is that the noted nations were around the perimiter of the Haldimand Tract under dispute and had lived there at relative peace with the Seneca, Cayuga and Mohawk peoples that lived there for over 1000 years.

BTW the Huron were not the same as the Wendat who lived up the Bruce Peninsula. The Huron were north shore Confederacy Seneca, Cayuga and Mohawks living with Mississauga. The Wendat populations were reduced by the introduction of small pox by the French and the remaining people moved to Montreal area to live with the Caughnawaga Indians (Christianized Mohawk) and the Algonquins. For the most part the only antagonists were the colonial British and French who sought to drive a wedge between the various nations in order to break the trade stronghold the Confederacy had on the entire continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The appeals court ruled that after the builder was bought out by the province in April of 2006, Six Nations people had every right to be there without any interference by the court.
More misrepresentations. The appeal court ruled that no injuction was necessary because the current owner of the property (the Province( was not asking for one. More importantly, the appeal court never struck down Marshall's injuction against the occupation - it only looked at the recommendation that the province halt negotiations until the site is vacated.

Six Nations is acting illegally no matter how you want to spin it.

Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. The land they are on is Confederacy land long held by Six Nations. The archaeology of the area tells the whole story.

The "wiping out the Hurons, Neutrals and Tobacco" story is an invention by the British to justify their stealing lands that didn't ever belong to them. The truth is that the noted nations were around the perimiter of the Haldimand Tract under dispute and had lived there at relative peace with the Seneca, Cayuga and Mohawk peoples that lived there for over 1000 years.

BTW the Huron were not the same as the Wendat who lived up the Bruce Peninsula. The Huron were north shore Confederacy Seneca, Cayuga and Mohawks living with Mississauga. The Wendat populations were reduced by the introduction of small pox by the French and the remaining people moved to Montreal area to live with the Caughnawaga Indians (Christianized Mohawk) and the Algonquins. For the most part the only antagonists were the colonial British and French who sought to drive a wedge between the various nations in order to break the trade stronghold the Confederacy had on the entire continent.

So let's see the archaeological reports confirming this, then. The historical reports documenting the events of the mid-1600s were recorded by contemporaries and those that did were likely not inclined to do anything that would benefit the British. I'm always willing to consider differing perspectives on historical events, but blatant fabrication and misrepresentation is a totally different matter--regardless of who does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Not quite. It was, in some respects, a war to try to save the Wendat people and their land from the clutches of the Jesuits, and it resulted also from the devastation of disease on their populations at that time.

The Iroquois lived both above and below Lake Ontario, though the Europeans mistook those above the lake for Wendat and called them all "Huron". (Wendat and Six Nations (Iroquois) are all Iroquoian peoples.) The Five Nations (Six now) do have ancestral lands in Ontario, that were being used by the Mississaugas by agreement until Six Nations came back after the American Revolution. The government paid some compensation to the Mississaugas (who is going to say no?), but the land was still Six Nations as previously. This is recognized in the Treaty of Albany 1701.

Here is an account of the 'war' with the 'Hurons'

http://www.nefac.net/anarchiststudyofiroquois

In 1634, a plague of smallpox hit the Rotinonshón:ni, halving their population (67) and forcing relocations for the entire five nations as they fled diseased villages. While already engaged in wars with multiple indigenous nations and the French, and with changes to their economy and material technology, it must have seemed an apocalyptic scenario. The Wendat and other nations were similarly affected by epidemic diseases. There were unprecedented calamites for Rotinonshón:ni and Wendat societies, and the cultural tradition of mourning war called for replacement of all the dead through warfare.

Natoway combines a number of oral traditions, historical, and archeological research with his narrative of "The Great Epic." In it, he relates that differences in wealth developed among the Wendat, based on the Jesuit policy of only trading with those Wendat who converted to Christanity. Jesuits and Christanity were also blamed for the disease within the community, and some traditional Wendat voluntarily joined with the Kanien'kehá:ka and Shotinontowane'á:ka to attack Wendat converts to Christianity, even going so far as to lead them in battle. (68) Graeber notes the changes in economic structure of the Wendat, but not the Rotinonshón:ni: "Delage argues that among the Huron, new regimes of property and the possibility of personal accumulation, really emerged only among converts to Christianity; among the Five Nations, they do not seem to have emerged at all." (69)

Snow has claimed that during the final Rotinonshón:ni campaign against the Wendat in 1648, more than a thousand Wendat fled their villages, and seven hundred were taken prisoner or killed. In the following fall, the Kanien'kehá:ka-Shotinontowane'á:ka army numbered over a thousand men, including adopted Wendat who had been "fully integrated" into Rotinonshón:ni society. By 1651, another group of five hundred Wendat were brought into the Shotinontowane'á:ka nation, but were given autonomous control of their village. (70)

The Beaver Wars continued. The Erielhonan, with Kakwa:ko and Wendat refugees among them, were dispersed westward or absorbed into the Shotinontowane'á:ka, Ononta'kehá:ka, and other Rotinonshón:ni nations. (71) By 1657, the Rotinonshón:ni had defeated their Iroquois-speaking enemies to the north and west. Kanien'kehá:ka and Shotinontowane'á:ka went to Quebec to convince Wendat refugees to return with them. According to Snow: “A village of perhaps 570 Hurons was built near the three Mohawk villages that existed there at the time… [A] decade later Jesuit missionaries would note that two-thirds of the Mohawk village of Caughnawaga was made up of Huron and Algonquian captives and adoptees.” (72) Tionontati and Wenrohronon were also attacked, dispersed, and absorbed by the Rotinonshón:ni.

The post-dispersal history of the five nations of the Wendat, as described by John Steckley, holds that the Ataronchronnon (Bog) disappeared, the Atahontaenrat (Deer) joined the Shotinontowane'á:ka in an independent community, Arendaeronnon (Rock) joined the Ononta'kehá:ka, and the Atinniawenten (Bear) joined the Kanien'kehá:ka. The Atingeennonniahak (Cord) remained as the sole Wendat nation. (73)

In his military history of the Rotinonshón:ni, Daniel P. Barr compares accounts of the conflict and determines that:

"Between 1631-1663, the Iroquois attacked the Hurons at least 73 times. More than 500 Huron people are recorded as having been killed during these raids, with an astonishing 2,000--one-fifth of their post epidemic population--captured and deported to Iroquoia. These numbers are likely low-end estimates…. [T]he number of captives taken by the Iroquois during the Beaver Wars was on average two to three times greater than the number of enemies they killed. Both scenarios illustrate that the acquisition of enemy captives to replace Iroquois population losses was the primary factor in the Beaver Wars, which were not a series of conflicts designed to impose Iroquois control over the fur trade, but rather an Iroquois fight for survival, one vast, prolonged mourning war." (74)

The descendents of captured Wendat adoptees were fully integrated into Rotinonshón:ni society and treated as equals. One notable example is Joseph Brant, Thaientané:ken, who was descended from Wendat captives adopted by the Kanien'kehá:ka both on his father and mother’s side.

Wow! This is an interesting change. I could have sworn you simply responded "No". Quoting from an "anarchist communist" is totally absurd, there's no way that you can expect any sort of credibility by doing so. Not that you have any, from what I've read.

Edited by kengs333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More misrepresentations. The appeal court ruled that no injuction was necessary because the current owner of the property (the Province( was not asking for one. More importantly, the appeal court never struck down Marshall's injuction against the occupation - it only looked at the recommendation that the province halt negotiations until the site is vacated.

Six Nations is acting illegally no matter how you want to spin it.

How are they acting illegally if they are on the land with permission, in your mind? <_<

Interesting that the Appeal Court found it important to comment on the outcome of the Judge's injunction - i.e., that the fundamental rights of the Six Nations people to due process were violated. They were not asked to rule on that either, but they found it necessary to comment.

Also interesting that the Appeal Court censured Judge Marshall for trying to direct the operations of the police, though they weren't asked to rule on that either.

And of course they could not comment on the most critical matter, the matter of the Judge's conduct: As a landowner in the disputed territory, he was in a clear conflict of interest and should have recused himself from the bench, but he didn't.

In short, if you were looking for an adequate injunction that would hold up to scrutiny, I wouldn't go to Judge Marshall.

And no, riverwind, Six Nations is not acting illegally now.

Edited by jennie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More misrepresentations. The appeal court ruled that no injuction was necessary because the current owner of the property (the Province( was not asking for one. More importantly, the appeal court never struck down Marshall's injuction against the occupation - it only looked at the recommendation that the province halt negotiations until the site is vacated.

Six Nations is acting illegally no matter how you want to spin it.

Wrong again Bud.

The appeals court never addressed Judge Marshall's statement about ceasing negotiation until the site was vacated because his tongue lashing never made it into his ruling. Instead the appeals court only said that the injunction only applied BEFORE the April buy-out and that the order to the police to charge anyone found on the site was not legal, since they could not arrest anyone without first having "cause" (and simply being on site was not evidence of the refusal of injunction).

As it stands now the province has publicly stated that the protesters can remain on site. So they are there legally. And all the other sites they occupy will be justified through estopple since the provincial government continues to issue permits and approvals for development of lands under dispute. What IS illegal is the continued refusal to consult and accomodate on ALL development BEFORE ANY developmetn begins.

Today the Confederacy and Six Nations just told the Haldimand Council to stop all development, or face similar and continuous occupations. Under the law they have no choice but to stop. Failing to do so is sufficient justification for Six Nations to stop development themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...