Six Nations informs Grand River communities of its jurisdiction

Six Nations Grand River claim taken seriously, mayor says

A letter from the Six Nations asserting jurisdiction all along the Grand River watershed is being taken seriously, the Kitchener mayor says.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute, which handles economic development issues for Six Nations, sent a letter last September asserting aboriginal title over much of the land adjacent to the river, all the way from Lake Erie to Grey County, and the institute says it will begin a public campaign for its assertion later this month.

Carl Zehr, the mayor of Kitchener, confirmed he received a letter from the institute that demands a say in future developments and a share of development fees.

"I didn't take it as a particular threat, it was obviously stating a strong position and that goes into our memory bank, in terms of how we deal with the issue in the future," said Zehr.

Zehr has vivid memories of what happened in Caledonia two summers ago when a dispute over a housing development escalated.

"Clearly," said Zehr, "no municipality, no neighbourhood, would want that kind of confrontation."

Zehr said he and regional councillors in the Kitchener-Waterloo area are willing to talk with the Six Nations. A delegation has met with them already.

Toronto lawyer Aaron Detlor, who heads the Six Nation's Haudenosaunee Development Institute, said this is just the start.

"We are going to go out, and identify specific areas where it's clear there's been no surrender and no payment, and go and advise people, this is not your land. There's no more of this sweeping it under the rug. It's not OK to steal land anymore and we're going to make people aware of that," he said.

Six Nations members have written to municipalities, reminding them of the massive land grant of 1784 that gave the Confederacy rights to 10 kilometres of land on either side of the river.

Later this month, the four-month-old Haudenosaunee Development Institute plans to send out flyers and start radio and newspaper ads asserting jurisdiction.

Detlor said that demanding a say in developments on disputed land is not an act of provocation. He said it should have the opposite effect, and avoid conflict.

"This assertion of jurisdiction could easily be portrayed as something that's going to raise the temperature, so to speak. But really what it's going to do is set a long-term temperature we can all live with," he said.

Detlor said municipal leaders should press the federal and provincial governments to find a global solution to Six Nations claims so each municipality won't have to forge its own development agreement.
*********************************************
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/080114/canada/toronto_six_nations_2&printer=1
"Six Nations doesn't just want a cheque. It wants a say on all development along the river and a share of any development fees."
***********************************************

A say in development and a share in revenues: These are consistent demands of Indigenous groups across the country. I think it is quite reasonable. We have had use of their land for 200 years. It is time to share.

[ 15 January 2008: Message edited by: saga ]

[ 15 January 2008: Message edited by: saga ]

[ 17 January 2008: Message edited by: saga ]

quote:Originally posted by leftcoast:

The problem with this position is they were conquered hundreds of years ago. How far back hould we go for reparations? What about the stuff that happened in Europe hundreds of years ago? Should the Germans pay compensation to the Englisd for the Saxon invasions?

AHA! I thought you were a troll. Well you'll be gone soon enough. You haven't got enough knowledge to even enter the conversation, let alone contribute.

There was no conquer, no surrender. That is Euro-myth.
Let's just deal with Canada, eh?
We haven't even managed to properly obey our own laws yet.

David Crombie, today, about Six Nations,Caledonia, jurisdiction, land claims ...

"We are in a time of change. Everything is changing. It won't be 'resolve the land claims and go back the way it was': We are in a new era."

leftcoast, stay out of the aboriginal issues and culture forum from now on.

quote:Originally posted by leftcoast:

OK, sorry if my speaking the truth makes people feel uncomfortable!

you wouldn't know the truth if you fell over it on your way out.

quote:Originally posted by Webgear:
Is the claim for the whole river?

10 km (or is that miles?) on either side of it. Think Brantford, Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo, Elora and Fergus (and others).

Haldimand Proclamation

“Frederick Haldimand Captain General and Governor in chief of the province of Quebec and Territories depending thereon etc etc etc General and Commander in Chief of His Majesty’s Forces in said province and the Frontiers thereof — etc — etc — etc –

——- Whereas His Majesty having been pleased to direct that in consideration of the early attachment to his cause manifested by the Mohawk Indians and of the loss of their settlement which they thereby sustained — that a convenient tract of land under his protection should be chosen as a safe and comfortable retreat for them and others of the Six Nations, who have either lost their settlements within the Territory of the American States, or wish to retire from them to the British — I have at the earnest desire of many of these His Majesty’s faithful allies purchased a tract of land from the Indians situated between the Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron, and I do hereby in His Majesty’s name authorize and permit the said Mohawk Nation and such others of the Six Nation Indians as wish to settle in that quarter to take possession of and settle upon the Banks of the River commonly called Ouse or Grand River, running into Lake Erie, allotting to them for that purpose six miles deep from each side of the river beginning at Lake Erie and extending in that proportion to the head of the said river which them and their posterity are to enjoy for ever.

Given under my hand and seal at arms at the Castle of St. Lewis at Quebec this twenty-fifth day of Oc- tober one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four and in the twenty- fifth year of the reign of our Sover- eign Lord George The Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth.

Fred- Haldimand

—–By His Excellency’s Command—–

R. Mathews”

-Grant-

Governor Haldimand
-to-
The Six Nations

Dated 25th Oct. 1784

Prov. Registrar’s Office
Quebec 23rd June, 1862

.................
Dunnville is at the mouth of the Grand at Lake Erie. The head of the Grand is in the highlands outside Orangeville, near Dundalk. This is the headwaters for 5 major rivers - Grand, Credit, Humber, maybe Don, not sure ... Nottawasaga going to the north, to Georgian Bay at Wasaga Beach, my heaven on earth.
here is a map of the Haldimand Tract, land claims info, etc.
http://www.sixnations.ca/LandClaimsUpdate.htm
There are 28 specific claims in the tract. Here is the Plank road claim, in particular, the location of the reclamation since Feb 28 2006. The claim (half mi either side of Hwy 6, across the Haldimand Tract) includes Caledonia.
http://www.sixnations.ca/Plank%20Road.pdf

[ 18 January 2008: Message edited by: saga ]

There seems to be a great confusion over history.

As the above quote from the land grant shows, Six Nations people are not a "conquered" people. The land was granted in return for services rendered during the American War of Independence.

The Six Nations were allies.

The larger issue for those of us who are neither Six Nations, or members of Canada's aristocracy that stands to profit from stealing from Six Nations and other people, is whether or not agreements made by our government mean anything.

So, if you are a member of the Canadian Military, one might wonder if a government that plays fast and loose with it's agreements with First Nations people, would also play fast and loose with veteran's pensions.

Or, industrial workers might wonder that a government that steals from First Nations might also steal from the E.I. fund.

Oh...gee...it seems to me the government has already done those things.

For the vast majority of us, one cannot take the government side, one cannot be opposed to the Six Nations claim without working against one's own self interest.

We have a common enemy in all this. It's the government, and it's unchecked ability to steal, and cheat us all.

It does get confusing. It was confusing right from the start. My understanding from previous reading on this subject was that Brant almost before the ink was dry on the original grant, started to sell parcels off to white settlers. Of course, the cash money didn't hurt, but Brant also wanted the proximity of some white farmers to help native people transition from one culture to another.

Of course, the governor at the time thought that making profit from land sales was the strict playing ground of the Family Compact, and did his best to stop such deals until Brant out manouvered him by appealing directly to the Crown.

But, it was enough to through much of the ownership of the land into confusion.

I suspect later land "transactions" were predicated on the politically reduced power of the Six Nations, and pretty much involved governments taking the land with little to show for it in return.

Which is why Six Nations scoffed at the recent offer of government money "to be put in trust". These "trust" accounts have a habit of evaporating.

Which brings me to a critique not just of the Six Nations, but First Nations activists on land claims in general.

I believe they are in a unique position to connect the dots between subsequent land transactions, "trust accounts" and the end results.

For the general public, all they see is current First Nations protesting over 200 year old treaties, when the reality is they are protesting over much more recent events.

Putting all this together with "Qui Bono" as the theme, might paint a truer picture than the one the media keeps throwing at us.

quote: Is it possible to research land titles back to the Haldimand Grant?

I was doing a bit of research on an entirely different subject, and came across old maps, on line, that showed the ownership of every parcel of land in obscure little Westminister Township circa 1880's. I think, yes, many of those records are available, somewhere.

What I think has gone on over the years, and what I think the evidence may show in many cases, is that deals were made to separate First Nations from the land they had title to. Probably in exchange for money that was, as I said, often put in trust. Following the money trail, finding out just where that money was put, and where it went to, might impact current institutions, who should be held financially, if not criminally, culpable in all this, along with civil servants and politicians that may still be amoung the quick.

What do you think the federal government was up to with the military base in Ipperwash? I think it's obvious that they were hoping the small band would assimilate into the other band, or die off altogether, or just plain forget the claim.

Then, either a Liberal or Conservative government ( doesn't really matter a whole lot which ) would be able to sell off the land to their financial and political supporters.

As your experience indicates on a small parcel of land, Jester, every time land changes hands, there is this fee and that fee. Sometimes to lawyers, sometimes to banks, sometimes just even survey companies to survey land over and over again because the bank says so.

When you get a chance whenever your local newspaper runs articles on Liberal and Conservative candidates and the movers and shakers in their ridding associations, take note on how many come from a law background, or real estate backgrounds.

People who make money on the movement of land ownership, and people who make even more if that movement isn't smooth.

And these people write our laws.

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Sure. My point is that widespread protest is efficiently countered by those in authority but that specific grievances,supported by documented evidence in Federal Court will require the government to respond.

All it takes is one minor land dispute that can be proven illegal in court to open a watershed of similar cases. Find the proof with a government minion's signature on it. Don't negotiate with the weasels,just go directly to court. Negotiation will merely finesse any subsequent linkage into oblivion.

These guys are experts at stonewalling and dissipating dissent.The only thing that matters to them is their own entitlements and the method to advancing gievances is to put those entitlements on the line.

Whacking away at them with a 2x4 for 200 years hasn't worked so try sticking a pen in their ass.

Attacking the developers and others caught in the middle merely lets the decision makers off the hook and creates a negative community response. It is a tactical trap that is easy to fall into. The bureaucrats must be rolling on the floor laughing at how easily they dodged the bullet and deflected the issue onto hapless property owners.

The strategic solution is to examine each land title for irregularities and to prosecute the irregularity and apportion blame to individuals,not "the government". Go after them where they live and put them on the defensive.

Likely, most of the perpetrators are long dead but governments can be held accountable for the errors or malfeasance of their minions. lay the blame on the minion and make the government accountable for their minion.

[ 19 January 2008: Message edited by: jester ]