Most of NorthWestern Ontario is Treaty 3 territory.  Predominantly Ojibway I believe.

----------

Mike - where did I say Europeans disdained warfare? They conquored the Americas and slaughtered everyone - not to mention the solid 2,000 years of perpetual warfare on their own continent...

Let me try again: why is it that the code of ethic by which the natives lived by up to and during the european colonization period was ok for them... but not ok for the Europeans of the time? Moreover, why are we, today, now expected to make amends? 

The "objective" standards I'm referring to - is the code of ethical conduct on which civilized societies today seek to uphold and apply to all individuals - not just those of your own society or race.

Civility is obviously a subjective term - though typically it applies to the degree within which a group of individuals are capable of living peacefully under the rule of law and a social contract. Our "civility" today differs dramatically from the civility of our societies 200 years ago.

Goodskeptic - Are you saying it's ethical to invade somebody's lands, homes, and livilihood and take it from them by force? What kind of ethic is that? If "civilized socieities today" seek to uphold and apply a supposed objective standard  to all individuals, then they have to start with themselves, right? Otherwise there claims to an objective standard is invalid before they start.

I think because justice has yet to be done. We aren't talking about dead people here, we're talking about us, people who alive today, living in the real world.

In response to the question of this post, I live on the land of the Passamaquoddy people, who are not recognized as existing in Canada, despite the fact that the area in and around the Passamaquoddy Bay and up the St. Croix River has, and always will be, Passamaquoddy territory.

Now, in response to some of the comments by Goodskeptic.

First I would like to address your comment about the Acadians. Let's look at the history. Yes, a war was fought between the English and French. The French surrendured all of their Acadian holdings to the British in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht (which was not even signed in North America, and therefore had no real relationship to the people living there). The Acadians became British citizens. Due to a later conflict in North America, the British tried to force the Acadians to sign an oath of allegiance that would force them to denounce a part of their Roman Catholic faith. They refused. They were then rounded up, their homes were burned, and they were put on ships and deported to several locations around the world. And to suggest that the Acadians do not have a claim to parts of this land (in the Maritimes) is outrageous. Hundreds of thousands of Acadians moved back and still live here today. What we're talking about in this case, is an attempt to destroy a people and a culture, which is subsequently what we are talking about when we talk about indigenous land rights.

I think maybe you are a bit confused on the concept of "warfare" and what happened in the Americas from 1492 to the present day. In some cases, yes, battles were fought and won. The biggest of which happened in Central America at the beginnings of contact. But what happened in the Americas had never happened anywhere else in the world ever and it was not warfare as had ever even been conceived of before. The fact is that there was no battle fought in Canada in which indigenous people lost and European invaders won. What happened was a complex relationship that developed over hundreds of years, beginning with the French in the Maritimes and Quebec. In the beginning, Europeans had not "won." They had arrived in a strange land and were struggling to survive, and they relationship built with indigenous peoples in those first handful of decades was complex and multifaceted, but was largely built on respect and dependence on the part of European settlers.

What happened next involved a complex number of changes in the very ecology of the American continents. Europeans brought new plants, animals, and pathogens from one hemisphere to another, where they ran wild and unchecked, completely changing the ecology of the American continents. They also brought diseases, which devastated indigenous populations, who had never encountered these illnesses before (smallpox, TB, and others). And the fact is that a reversal did not happen. Not plants, animals or pathogens from the Americas did a similar exchange in Europe, and there were no American diseases that blighted settlers.

What also happened was Europeans brought a new set of ideas, a different kind of warfare. Ideas about private property, about economies, about growing food, building homes, and treating the natural world. They also brought ideas of Western law, which emerged in the form of treaties. Imagine if you will, the idea of treaties. And imagine trying to understand them in a world in which private property and the concept of "natural resources" did not exist. And then you may understand a bit more about the treaties.

However, the treaties are not all bad. Though overly paternalistic and relying upon notions of the "noble savage", for the most part the treaties preserve the rights of native peoples to live on their land the way they always had. (And remember, these treaties were signed when the two sides were fairly evenly matched.)

As for why the treaties are being ignored by provincial and federal governments, well that part is easy. Think about the wealth that exists in this country. And think about where it all comes from...

Land. It all comes down to that, everything. The land, and what was on (and underneath the land). Land to grow food, forests to cut down, lakes and rivers to divert for power and industry, minerals and fossil fuels for energy and industry. It all comes down to the land. And the fact is that every piece of the wealth in this country has been taken from indigenous land. Most of which was supposed to be protected by the treaties. And so we reach the idea that the wealth in Canada today, and the way it came about, would not have been possible without dispossessing indigenous people from their land. It's an idea called accumulation by dispossession. And it is at the foundation of our capitalist economy. Which is a whole other can of worms.

The final thing that remains is this: the indigenous people of this country are still here. They never left. They never "lost" a battle and resigned themselves to our presence. They were slowly overwhelmed by a flood of immigration and the tools of an oppressive state which would stop at no end to get all the riches it could from this beautiful land. This is continuing today. But the fact is: they are still here. The biggest and most subtle and complex genocide the world has ever seen has taken place here (and continues to this day).

We need to atone for what happened in the past. This land, all of it, bleeds red with the history its soaked in. And might I ask: if we do not judge the actions of those in the past, how are we to avoid repeating them in the future? The hurt is still deep, very deep, over what has been done. The attempt to destroy an entire culture ('one' that consisted of many thousands of complex and multifaceted cultures) has left deep, deep scars and healing is desperately needed. We need to understand what the European ancestors did, and we need to understand the true history of what happened in this land we call home. For to deny it shames and hurts us all. The wound is still open. It is still raw. To leave it as such and to claim that we do not need to work towards healing because it was not ourselves who committed the hurt in the past is to deny the right of a culture of peoples to heal. It also denies the role this hurt plays in our lives today, and to write it off as meaningless.

The people of the Americas (indigenous, European-descendents, Asian-descendens) need healing in their societies. And acknowledging the traditional territory on which one lives is part of that healing process, it is part of showing respect and acknowledging that the past did happen.

It was that same notion of having a "claim" to ancient lands that motivated the politicians after WW1 to re-shape the european and middle eastern map... resurrecting dead nations like Poland to their former, 17th century glory. It didn't make sense then - and it doesn't make any more sense now.  The idea that Acadians having an actual claim to Canadian soil is proposterous. Where would you draw the line? A monarchy - an empire - saw fit at the time to manage its empire by displacing a large group of people it saw as a threat. Whether the threat existed, or whether they were humane and dignified in their decision (they obvioulsy weren't by our standards today) is an issue of imperialism in the 18th century - not an issue of the 21st century.

No - I understand the colonization of the America's by Europeans quite well. The book Guns, Germs and Steel covers it rather comprehensively. I don't, in any way, disagree with what you've written there. My use of the term "warfare" in my first post, I admit, was inaccurate. What is clear, is that while the european settlers didn't organize the use of force to displace the indigenous populations - they were nevertheless, reduced through the mechanisms you describe.

Accumulation by dispossession sums it up accurately - in both Canada and America. However, I think it misleading to say that it forms the basis of a specifically "capitalist" economy. So much of our economy - especially in early years - was dictated by government intervention. Your use of the term in the context you've used it unjustly villifies it.

I don't think anyone denies what europeans - and in the 19th century, what Canadians did - did to the natives of north america. What I don't yet understand is why claims from 200-400 years ago of wrong doing, mistrust, conquest, displacement should be recognized as having a claim on we the living descendents. I mean, Jewish peoples all over the planet, for 2,000 years have been displaced, conquored, abused, etc. etc. - should the descending Jews of the respective countries seek reparations for properties and land seized from them when the Romans exiled them in 72 AD? 

I'm asking dirty question - I realize that - but there should be a principle, or justification that satisfies that question - no? 

Again - I'm sorry to point it out - but there are many many cultures over the centuries that could claim the same need for healing and demand compensation and reconciliation. I'm not an ass - I'm just trying to understand the rationale of why we acknowledge these claims in Canada (or as you say we should in North America) - but no where else...? 

i really wish i knew what land i live on, i knew whos land i lived on when i lived in alberta but have yet to be told whos land my little red neck town was built upon (i really hate this town -_-)

and GoodSkeptic, altho i would like to try and make you see our side (altho, like a "good skeptic" i don't think that any argument can sway your opinion) i don't have the wherewithal to keep myself from getting into a long argument with you that would end up going in circles.

peace y'all, i'll try to find out who's land i'm living on and when/if i do i'll make another post : )

The native issue is a complicated one, and one with which I do not have a lot of familiarity. However, I am aware that the conditions on First Nations reservations in no way approach the standard of living of the rest of the country. In this way, the descendents of the original citizens of our land are still feeling negative effects of colonization. This is a 21st century issue about the basic human rights of people within our country. Yes, in some ways, the native people might be seen to be demanding too much, and yes, our government probably can't give them everything they want. 

I don't know enough about it, to be honest, to suggest a good solution.

As for the Acadians having "claim" on the land, why not? I think they do. Their ancestors had history there, and it was probably immensely healing for some to be able to return. I know it may be naive to judge what the British did by the standards of today, but from my reading of history, the Acadians presented no threat. They had lost all ties with France. The problem the British had was their desire to remain neutral, rather than become completed assimilated via language and religion, into British society. So I guess they looked too stubborn in their desire to remain different to remain on their land. But were they a direct threat? No. Letting them back into the Maritimes (where the presence of their culture has probably been very helpful for bringing in tourist dollars) seems only decent after they were herded away and kept in cramped prisons and on ships like cargo.

What is occurring is that we, the living descendants, are being held responsible for legal obligations that our preceding governments thought they could avoid.

I'll give you a non-native example.  I knew the daughter of the owner of the land the Port Credit Go station now sits on.  She was an elderly lady when I met her.  Their farm was expropriated by the Ontario government to build the station.  The family believed that the money paid was below the market value.  The government argued.  The case wound its way through the courts for decades - I think 3 (30 years) but don't quote me on that. 

The family finally won and the Ontario government was forced to pay the true value of the land, plus interest, plus legal fees, plus compensation for being obdurate idiots and not acknowledging that the government had tried to steal the land in the first place (that wasn't the actual ruling but it is an accurate assessment).  In the end it cost the Government of Ontario - and her taxpaying citizens - far more than if they had simply acknowledged their error in the first place.

The government and taxpayers had changed.  The original claimants, the woman's parents, were dead.  None of that matters because justice delayed is not always justice denied.  Justice delayed however does compound the interest paid and we, the taxpaying citizens, will pay dearly for each government that continues its obdurate denial of binding agreements.

LB

The Indians in Canada have certain rights granted to them by treaties, and, heretofore, these treaties have never been departed from except with the consent of the Indians themselves. You treat the Indians as not being capable of dealing with their own affairs, you treat them as wards of the government, and you who are their guardians propose to judge for yourselves and through your own courts as to whether or not treaties made with the Indians shall be departed from, and you do not propose that the proposal shall come from the parliament of the nation every time a treaty is to be violated. On the contrary your purpose is to create a procedure and practice by which every one of the treaties can, without the future sanction of parliament, be departed from without any effective means being afforded the Indians to oppose the carrying out of any particular project in any particular instance.

Frank Oliver, M.P. House of Commons Debates
Vol. IV, 3rd Session, 11th Parl. 1-2 Geo. V., 1910-1911

In 1911 the Indian Act of Canada was amended to allow the Federal Government to override Indian treaties.  This is the beginning of the land disputes.  Next year marks the 100th anniversary; with every year interest compounds.

Native lands were not given to individuals and families.  Individual natives were not provided deeds.  Until very recently reserve natives were not able to use their homes as credit because they did not "own" them and even now individual ownership is limited.  As a result land claims must be made by the bands because the treaties were made with the band as a whole and not individuals.

The lands being compensated for - in every case that has been settled - the evidence was available.  The delays are due to governments, past and present, dragging their feet and the cases through countless court delays.  Every delay compounds the price to be paid.

In order to understand native land claims one should familiarize oneself with the history of the Indian Act.  There is no other ethnic group in this country that has had their entire socioeconomic and cultural lives controlled for so long by a government agency.

LB

No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve unless, with the approval of the Minister, possession of the land has been allotted to him by the council of the band.     Indian Act ( R.S., 1985, c. I-5 )

There are a few links posted above that link to many other sources. There are instances where shop owners have been forced to stop conducting any business while the land dispute is finalized. What if it was your business, and your livelihood? Even if it is currently owned by a corporation, the principle remains.

That was a little uncalled for. At least LB has been kind enough to help point me in the right direction without backhanded insults. 

Well said dreamer

I live on MY land....period....(Ok, mine and the bank's.......lol)

All this hand-wringing over what was done 300 years ago.......The Natives drove each other off land all the time.....Hell, the Sioux used to live in Ontario and New York before THEY were driven off.....no-one tells the Mohawk/Algonkians to give THEM back their land...

What's done is done.

..if you spend too much time looking back, you'll trip over something.

the ethical thing to do is dissolve the notion of Native apartheid or, if they choose to remain on their 'Rez", to bring it up to a reasonable standrad of habitability and self-sustenance...

I seriously doubt many natives actually want to go back to teepees, longhouses, birchbark canoes and  running through the deep forest looking for caribou.

It was not done 300 years ago.  The dispute over land began with changes to the Indian Affair Act in 1911 - that is less than 100 years ago.  The present day deplorable conditions of some reserves is a direct result of negligent governments that insist on controlling reserves without taking any responsibility.

If people are going to make blatant assertions they should at least familiarize themselves with the history of treaties made between bands and the government as well as the history of the Department of Indian Affairs.

Imagine, since the bank owns your land, that you are holding up your end of the agreement but the bank decides they want to sell your land to a bank employee and they force you off your land.  Would you just acquiesce or would you take the bastards to court?

LB

The white man says, there is freedom and justice for all. We have

had "freedom and justice," and that is why we have been almost exterminated. We shall not forget this.

1927 Grand Council of American Indians
 

Like I said Jae, people should familiarize themselves with the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act, both past and present; discover what was agreed upon, why it was agreed to and what became the actuality.

Once that has been done, once the actualities and not the regurgitated misinformation is looked at, then ask oneself, how would I react given this set of circumstances?

LB

If the promises had been made by a person of no standing, I should not be surprised to see his promises fail. But you, who are so great in riches and power; I am astonished that I do not see your promises fulfilled!             Shinguaconse (Little Pine), (1773-1854)

Click for the Indian Act

Click for The Indian Act: Historical Overview

For an overview of how the Department of Indian Affairs view the history of treaty negotiations click Transcription of: Cede, Yield and Surrender: A History of Indian Treaties in Canada

For an overview of how Canadian Aboriginals view the treaty covenants click here The Declaration of the Anishinabek Nation,November 1980

And just one more - REPORT ON THE MEDIATION OF THE KAHKEWISTAHAW FIRST NATION 1907 SURRENDER CLAIM

Read the history background - this band went from being self sufficient to dependency with the expropriation of their best farmland. 

These are just overviews and are not meant to imply comprehensiveness; there are differences amongst bands and agreements but the links will be a start.

LB

Information is the seed for an idea, and only grows when it's watered.

Heinz V. Bergen

----------

That's a good question. I don't really know whose land I live on. I can tell you I live in the city of Toronto. I suppose that could be linked back to one tribe of Natives or another. I really don't know though. I should find out.

Click for Aboriginal Mapping Network 

This site provides links to various mapping sites.

 Map of Indian reserves, 1891

I couldn't find maps of Canada. :(

Since the Vikings were here first, at least before some of the (so-called) aboriginal tribes, perhaps we should honour land claims of the Scandanavians.  Did St. Brendan arrive in Canada before the arrival of some aboriginal groups?  If so, we should honour land claims of the Irish (at least give them Newfoundland, if not most of Labrador as well).  Some of  my paternal ancestors (Huguenots) had land stolen from them and had to flee for their lives.  Should I have a land claim in France and start a Huguenot territory?  As self-proclaimed chief of the Wannabe tribe, I want my slice of the pie, too.  Aboriginal claims are, for the most part, a crock of *blip* and irrelevant within our 21st century context.

You raise a very good question Goodskeptic, but ASSIMILATION and GENOCIDE are not ethical. The long term effects of residential schools and forced Treatys have ravaged First Nations since this "great" country of Canada was born. As a plains Cree Native American, I do not know my own language, I do not know many of my traditions, and I am sad when ignorance prevails over education. cupe.ca/aboriginal/An_act_for_assimilat

As for land claims and OWNERSHIP. Native people did not believe or understand in the concept of owning land. It was shared. It was communal. It was for the people, to be used by the people and not abused like it is today. The natural order of things in life meant that humans lived off the land and could not control it.

Europeans have a very different view. These distinct differences between races are what divides Natives & Europeans today. The Divide & Conquer mentality of Eurocentric nations have done nothing but destroy the natural balance of harmonious life.

 In the end... it is nothing but indifference for our differences.