As the tense Caledonia standoff involving native protesters enters its 58th day, frustrations among both protesters and Caledonia residents have made the threat of violent conflict very real. At the end of February, a renegade sect of native activists stormed the 40-hecatre site of a future housing development after becoming dissatisfied with government land claim negotiations. The occupied land had been sold to Henco Industries by the government for the development of a 250 unit housing project. Native protesters claim that the land was stolen from the Six Nations, which only agreed to lease the land to the Government for the construction of a highway. The Ontario Government asserts that the title was transferred outright from The Six Nations as part of a deal in 1841, giving government the right to resale.
A search for perspective on this particular native land claim resulted in the discovery of an excellent historical summary by William Newbigging. The article covers a brief history of how the Six Nations first relocated to the region and the role of famed native interpreter/advocate Joseph Brant. Here are some noteworthy quotes from the article (though you are encouraged to read it entirely):
For the natives’ loyalty to the British Crown, and their courage on the battlefield [during the 1776 American Revolt], the British government informed Brant that the Six Nations people would be accommodated as soon as possible with a new home … The Grand River region, from its source to its mouth, fit the bill perfectly. The soil and climate of the region were nearly identical to old Iroquoia
Accordingly, on the Oct. 25, 1784, the Governor of Quebec, Sir Frederick Haldimand, made the so-called Haldimand Proclamation. Acting for the Crown, Haldimand conveyed to the Mohawks “and such others of the Six Nations Indians as wish to settle in that quarter” the Grand River Tract of land as restitution for their losses in the Revolutionary War. Haldimand’s grant was quite specific and the Six Nations were authorized to settle along the banks, from its head to its mouth “six miles deep from each side” of the Grand River.
There were two problems with the Haldimand’s proclamation from the outset. In the first place the region was largely unknown at the time of the proclamation and not properly surveyed … Much more serious however, was the divergence in the interpretation of the meaning of the grant. The agents of the British Crown asserted from Haldimand forward that the land granted was not transferable and that Haldimand’s Proclamation did not recognize the political sovereignty of the Six Nations Confederacy. Understandably, Joseph Brant interpreted matters differently. He argued that the Proclamation was a de facto recognition of Iroquois sovereignty and that the title to the land was, therefore, held in what the British law called “an estate in fee simple.” To prove this he quickly sold and leased huge sections of the Grand River to British settlers.
In 1834 the first inquiry into the situation in the Haldimand Tract was held. The Crown determined that Brant had acted illegally, but by this point it would be too costly and difficult to move all of the British settlers from their farms. The only option open to the Crown at this juncture was to confirm the legality of Brant’s leases.
Essentially the government legally gave land to natives for their loyalty in war, but then the transfer of title wasn’t recognized by … the government. To demonstrate ownership, the natives leased the land to Europeans in protest and the leases were recognized by – wait for it – the government. The result was two groups of people with a government-sanctioned claim of ownership. The article goes on to describe how the government talked the Chiefs into giving up sections of their supposedly non-owned land, only to return some of it in various increments. Have you guessed who is to blame for the current confusion?
While the Ontario government’s negotiations with native groups lumber along, tempers between native protesters and non-native residents of Caledonia have reached the boiling point. Frustrated with economic impact of having one of Caledonia’s highways blocked (some businesses dependent on traffic from highway 6 have suffered great losses in revenue), 3000 local residents attended a rally to call for the ejection of the protesters. 500 Caledonia residents continued to the disputed site after the rally, proceeding to assault native demonstrators with racial slurs and other artifacts of the redneck mentality. One local resident was arrested, which prompted other Caledonian demonstrators to swarm and damage a Police cruiser.
According to the MSM (mainstream media), Caledonians previously showed lukewarm support for the natives, which suggests the real problem is how the demonstration is being (mis)handled by the government and native leaders. Before this standoff breaks out into all-out war, both sides in the land negotiation should settle this debacle with a quick compromise. Based on my [light] reading, here is one possible solution:
- Native leaders call for and enforce the immediate withdrawal of protesters from the disputed lands. This move will address Caledonia’s economic concerns and reign in a group of renegades whose indifference towards collateral damage can only further enflame conflict with non-natives
- Government of Ontario gives title of the disputed land to The Six Nations, with the provision that the highway must remain intact and fully accessible to all Canadian citizens without the imposition of tolls
- Government of Ontario reimburses Henco (now nearing bankruptcy) for the full amount of the land purchase plus any material and operational costs resulting directly from the land purchase
The standoff at Caledonia, like preceding standoffs at Oka and Ipperwash, is a stark reminder of the human costs incurred by dragging out negotiations on land claims that should have been solved eons ago. Instead of writing off such disputes as “provincial issuesâ€, the Federal Government (who just happens to run the Department of Indian Affairs) could help all sides by actively involving itself in mediating these disputes as quickly and fairly as possible. Otherwise the cost of procrastination could continue to escalate with each new blockade.
Recent Comments