Yeah, I sold a house years ago for 45k it's probably worth over 200k now. I think I'll go ask for more money, maybe set up a blockade.

But what if you had not sold it but rented it out for $100/month, who should get the $200,000 then. Perhaps more importantly, who determines whether it was sold or rented in the past. Surely a better way is to resolve the actual core problem in these cases and not let it reach this stage, or are people pretending they did not know this land was disputed?

I think Ben makes a valid point about the rule of law. We can not have two sets of laws in this country. I have Meti elligability and yet I will not file for Meti status as I feel it is a badger of discrimination against other law abiding Canadians.

Why do we need special consideration and laws that discriminate against society for the benefit of a select race of people?

IMO it downloads todays problems on tomorrows generations. Todays leaders need to stop hidding under that skirt.

Either Phil Fontaine or Ovid Mercredi (I do not recall which one it was) said in a television discussion "we decided to welcome the white man, share our technologies and land and resources with him, we opted for co-existence." (I quote this to the best of my recollection). CBC or CTV will have a record of it.

He was also raising the matter of the agonizing slowness of the Canadian justice system where rulings, appeals and counter-appeals have stretched out over several generations and often with no final resolution in sight.

Obviously certain individuals or bands have little faith in a justice system which has denied justice by endlessly delaying it.

Out of this frustration arises militant and reckless behaviour which the rest of the population has little tolerance for as it inconveniences and punishes those who have not done anything to deserve roadblocks and denial of access to highways that supposedly are for the unhindered use of the public at large.

I am not condoning any unlawful behaviour, but why is it that in the case quoted above a straightforward swift solution could not be arrived at based on a simple determination: are there any written, signed and dated documents that prove that the land in question is no longer native property?

Surely the natives must have known the status of the land BEFORE the construction of the subdivision began?

Did some government agency $crew up by failing to ascertain who has title to the land?

If so, eat crow, compensate the rightful native owners and fire all the paper pushers who were goofing off on the job.

"We decided to welcome the white man, share our technologies and land and resources with him; we opted for co-existence."

Great stuff, in my humble opinion, and a base for mutual respect and tolerance.

My God, I agree with Diplomat completely!

The only way to solve this problem is to dismantle the reservation system. Obviously do it slowly however allow the natives to have private property rights and divide the reservation land to those who live on it. Take away the special status natives hold in Canada and make them normal Canadians. Natives have been left out of Canada for too long and our reservation system will continue to hold them down. With the natives being canadian citizens they would have to purchase the land they believe is theirs through the regular Canadian way, paying for it.

If the reserve system is to be dismantled then it could only be with the full consent of those affected, and I don't see that happening, at least, not soon. Let's not forget that they own the reserves, after all. I must make this point, the "reservation" system is used in the USA, not Canada. In Canada we have reserves. That is not just a matter of semantics, it is a typical example of how pervasive US social influence is on Canadian affairs.

Quite apart from their common ownership of reserve property, First Nations people are already Canadians and can own private property the same way as any other Canadian, and many do. The current system does not inhibit those in the slightest. Interestingly, many non aboriginal Canadians get their property the same way aboriginal Canadians frequently do, they inherit it. Paying for it is not inherently Canadian at all.

It is not a case of whether aboriginal Canadians "believe" the land is theirs, the question is whether it is actually theirs in fact and in law. You know, it is possible that those aboriginal people claiming the property is theirs could be in the right, and the non aboriginal people could be wrong. First Nations people are not wrong merely by virtue of their race, nor by virtue of their claims being unpopular (but neither are they right for those reasons, either).

Mostly these events are based on the sins of the past catching up with us, and Canada badly needs a mechanism for resolving disputes like this more effectively than at present. They arise with monotonous regularity, and a mutually acceptable system to resolve them rapidly needs to be developed with the full consent and participation of the affected parties. Imposition is not the answer, and will only lead to more serious disruptions for a longer time.

Collective ownership takes away incentive to improve when your improved home is hijacked by the band chief because the cheifs is not taken care of and updated. The foreward thinking Indian on the reserve does not get ahead under this system. Its a system designed for the lowest common denominator and in no way is progressive. Ask the many millions of Indians who have left the reserve because the abuse life on a reserve legally entails. Those Indians no longer count in the debate and lose their rights to an extent because they no longer want to be ruled by the mob without protection of private property and individual rights.

This is a fact that is the white elephant most ignorant people refuse to acknowledge.

If we were to apply law / societal understandings equally, we would first need to determine... was the indigenes population concurred or, were there actual contracts of understanding entered into. In this regard, whether in name or simply in practice, it would appear by any reasonable arbitrator that the native population of Canada were a concurred people, notwithstanding any slight of contractual understanding. The actions of the settlers of the time were in keeping with common standards and practices of that time. Why are we now trying to adjudicate settlement by today's standards? Are the aboriginal / indigenes people also required to provide compensation for their territorial disputes and wars with other indigenes people? Let's not kid ourselves, the local native populations of BC, as with most of Canada, were largely built upon the understanding of the concurring people have absolute right to the spoils and yet, when the same principals are applied to the those who came more recently i.e. the past 150 to 500 years ago, we are now expected to adjudicate settlement / restitution by a standard that did not exist in either culture at that time. For that matter, think how many times the borders and nationalities of the indigenes people of Europe changed during that same period of time... just as they did in North America among the indigenes people. Could anyone here imagine what would happen if we tried to apply this concept globally? What point in time or social development would one choose to say that, "Here, beyond this point there will be no changes to borders, nationality and culture." Let's face it; those currently warring to avoid any future repercussions of counter-claims and restitution could readily use such thinking in current disputes to justify genocide.

In the end, the native population of Canada is being loved to death by being ghetto-ized on reservations and identified as a "special" people... apart from others. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is a disaster and all we're doing is throwing money at a situation to keep the lid on and thereby not have to deal with it during "my political administration". Tough love, Baby... cut off the money and restitution claims for anything older than 1 or 2 generations ago i.e. 50 years and then move on to live in the realities of life and the world as it truly is today.

Oops... I was a little too fast with the Spell Check. Please read the above posting with the amendment of "conquered" in substitution for "concurred".

Oops... I was a little too fast with the Spell Check. Please read the above posting with the amendment of "conquered" in substitution for "concurred".

Acrider should get a copy of that old sale agreement. A good lawyer working for the "Natives", and familar with the way people were taken advantage of in the old days, should be able to get better compensation. Acrider - you could be rich!! With any luck the rest of the White Trash that victinized you, should pay forever if you play your cards right. You could go to Bingo, put on a little weight and help out your fellow man anytime you wanted. Ah, the good life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonia_land_dispute

Posted on Wikipedia, apparently the source data is the CBC ....

May not be perfect, but certainly better than what anyone else here has provided. The information below is selected from the linked page. It is selected to show who was doing what to whom. I hope everyone here can read and understand.

Mostly this thread has been a bunch of posters feeding off absolutely no information other than their own prejudices, no matter which side of the issue they may be on.

Sort of reminds me of another recent thread with the approach taken. Does anyone here really know how to use the internet to do research? Does anyone care to research and find out what the history is? Or is this just us against them? or them against us?

From the above.
Haldimand Deed of 1784 - The British Crown awarded a tract of land 6 miles from either side of the Grand River, from its source to termination at Lake Erie. This tract of land is approx. 950,000 acres. The current boundaries of the Six Nations Territory only represents 5% of the original land provided by The Haldimand Deed. The land was a reward to the Six Nations for their loyal military service, and support of the Crown during the American Revolution

1792 - Lt.-Gov. John Graves Simcoe reduced the size of the land grant to the Six Nations, now totaling 111,000 hectares.

1835 - The Crown approached the Six Nations about developing Plank Road (now Highway 6) and the surrounding area. The Six Nations agreed to lease half a mile of land on each side for the road, but does not surrender the land. Lt.-Gov. John Colborne agreed to the lease but his successor, Sir Francis Bond Head, did not. After 1845, despite the protests of the Six Nations, Plank Road and surrounding lands were sold to third parties.

1848 -The land comprising the current development was sold to George Marlot Ryckman for 57 pounds and 10 shillings, a Crown deed was then issued to him. - Notice that this was the Brits. Canada was still a colony.

1850 - the Crown passed a proclamation setting the extent of reserve lands to about 19,000 hectares, which was agreed to by the Six Nations chiefs.

1992 - Henco Industries Ltd. purchased 40 hectares of land for what it would later call the Douglas Creek Estates lands. (does not say from whom it was purchased - assume it is the DNIA)

1995 - Six Nations sued the federal and provincial governments over the land. The developer called it "an accounting claim" for "all assets which were not received but ought to have been received, managed or held by the Crown for the benefit of the Six Nations."

2005 - The subdivision plan for Douglas Creek Estates was registered with title to the property guaranteed by the province of Ontario.

So .... if it does not work through the courts, if it does not work with good faith, how may people here suggest it work? A bunch of people did the conquerers a good deed, the conquerors recognized that good deed and gave generously of the land they took. Then the next generations felt that they needed to take even much of that back.

So, please all put your objective hats on for a change if you can and tell me who the scheisters are.

Chaderwhateveryourname is,

I find it interesting that in one post you say that you are eligible for Meti (The actually term and spelling is Metis) status, but will refute it because you feel it is discriminatory to other Canadians. I find that really funny, because Metis are one of the very few groups outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has official recognition (Section 35).

I also find it interesting that you use the term indian, when I assume you are talking about First Nations people. This term has in fact evolved into descibing someone who comes from India.

Interesting. Is your lack of getting your Metis status really the result of Hypernationalism or is it because you don't want to admit in front of your friends that you indeed are one of those "indians" that you want to denigrate in here? I mean we all have that one uncle we hope no one meets. Is your drunk uncle your indian side?

Just some thoughts for your perusal.

So, what about a solution? We all live here. Who cares who got here first. I was born here and I am having enough of a challenge to pay for my own property, let alone land for others.

I didn't have any input in any previous deals, so I do not want to accept the consequences for bad deals. It appears that both parties agreed to many deals over the years. Yes, not all were necessarily good deals for one party or the other as one looks back.

So, we are all here temporarily and we have a responsibility to care for the little patch we have for the duration of our visit.

Can't we just agree to divy the land up into parcels for everyone? Then each person can do what they want with their parcel. Sit on it, sell it once and for all or do something with it that will benefit each one for generations to come.

The natives must choose to eliminate the Reserves. They only alienate people and keep them from growing. Incest, alcoholism, drugs and lack of education do nothing to promote or preserve the native traditions.

Let's face it, most native people do not want to spend the rest of their lives chewing birchbark and making mucklucks. Chester