Six Nations Confederacy, exploring treaty breach...
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Why? "Whitey" abused it and continues to abuse it - courtesy of big business campaigns to make smoke inhalation fashionable
It's called weak. Not that I would expect anything different from a bigot that erroneously lumps all natives, all Nations into one group, and isn't even capable of recognizing that there is more than one treaty. While he cites precedence in hockey, but denies legal precedent, when it applies to a whole group of people, he simply doesn't like.
Of course making any discussion on the subject with him impossible, it's simply far to complex for some peoples narrow minds.
Of course making any discussion on the subject with him impossible, it's simply far to complex for some peoples narrow minds.
Last edited:
well any reply to the last sentence would be off-topic and I'm still looking for a few items, soooooo ...........
Touche.
But if I actually indulged Cannucks attempts to avoid admitting he's made a mistake, the thread would gain 12 pages of his nonsense.
That's what happens when you try and discuss things with people that think they know what they're talking about.
Don't you think it would have been simpler for the Crown to live up to their side of the treaty (we're talking 24 First Nations here) and supply "gifts" annually in perpetuity instead of stopping the gift giving in 1836 thereby allowing "wrongs" to fester until 2011.
Sure. But that's merely a single part of the issue, land claims, and/or reperations for land that was either expropriated, or sold, but funds never transferred to First Nations trusts are other issues and the gist of the OP.
The Seneca of the Six Nations may have a case to make vis a vis the US side of the Niagara, however in 1764 the Canadian side was contolled by the Ojibwa (Misissauga). Isn't Six Nations barking up the wrong tree here or are they making noise on behalf of the Ojibwa.
The treaty was signed by several Nations, including the Seneca, Algonquian, Wendat and as you already mentioned, the Mississauga . This is at the primary stages of fact gathering. There is no formal claim before any authoritative body.
But as a signatory, they are more than just in proceeding with any action. If there is a monetary settlement, they will also have to share that.
Last edited:
There is not a single treaty that has ever been completely kept by Great Britain, Canada or the United States of America. Not ONE!
Can't disagree with you there the Fort Niagara Treaty of 1764 was an all encompassing treaty (24 Nations + the Crown) of which the 4 miles on either side of the Niagara was a small part. However the Six Nations didn't really have a voice regarding the "Canadian side" considering the Iroquois had been forced back across to the "American side" early in the 1700's by the Ojibwa & it was they who were inhabiting the area in the 1760's. If any discussion of "restitution" is to be realistically envisioned it should come from the Ojibwa.
Your quite right I can't think of a single treaty that has been kept to the fullest degree.
Even Ojibwa scholars acknowledge land concessions to the Six Nations in the 1700's. They were collectively punished for their participation in the Seven Years War, by the British, in 63.
That may have played a huge roll, in how there came to be a multi Nation delegation at the signing. Considering the Six nations were allies of the British, it wouldn't surprise me if they were granted privileges, rights, and an invitation to the signing.
Ojibwa stories of conquest, have little substance, and until recently, was the erroneous defacto history of bow e ting.
I'm sure if either party have a legitimate claim, the two Nations will embrace each other, and be a unified voice. The days of a divided people should be over. Me personally, would just like to see a wrong righted, I don't care who's the recipient of the reparations.
I used to think that too, until "I Think Not" proved otherwise. It isn't something I keep in my files, so give me some time to sift through the threads here and at another site he and I frequent.
Last edited:
You certainly did not. My original post on this thread was "Yes tobacco...I think we should file a class action lawsuit against any and all native groups that introduced whitey to tobacco. Should more than equal the hand outs they want."
You obviously ASSumed I was referring to you. Nowhere did I make any mention specifically who or where these groups were/are from. You jumped on it, made yourself look foolish and dragged Gerry along for the ride. Words mean something you know. For two people that are constantly yapping about how stupid other posters are, you sure don't do much to remove doubts about your own intelligence. If you were half as intelligent as you think you are you would have asked for clarification instead of blathering on about how you think you've bested somebody.
Smokers and ex-smokers. In fact anybody harmed by the tobacco pushers can join my class action law suit
Geeze, I don't know Gh, this is a thread about a Canadian land claim, he is Canadian, his nic is Cannuck, do you think you really need him to clarify what Nations he was talking about, no matter all the baffle gab, word play and back peddling he does?