Comment 5947

By zox (anonymous) | Posted March 22, 2007 at 00:13:03

Hi Grannysaga! The article i was referring to was published on a Saturday about a month ago & I believe it was on the Opinions page of the Spectator. The author was a historian/univeristy prof.& it was quite a long article.
What he seemed to be saying is that the Haudenosaunee have no permanent claim to the Halimand tract because their settlement there was 'only a temporary arrangement'. I find that a very strange argument, given the circumstances & the amount of gratitude that the Crown owed them in both French/English wars, & the War of 1812 >1814. (We might now well be a somewhat French speaking U.S. State, had it not been for the Haudenosaunee.)
His point about another group of Neutral natives being dispatched & displaced, by Mohawks is also odd. If the Crown gave away somebody else's property, of course there was going to turbulence, animosity, & a winner & a loser. How can he infer the was Crown blameless, & accuse the Haudenosaunee of near war crimes in his article. The Crown set the wheels in motion for that situation. If this was only 'tempory' then why didn't the Crown intervene to keep peace between the 2 groups for the duration of the temporary arrangement?

Also, if he says Mohawks have no claim because the Haldimand Tract 'didn't belong to them in the 1st place'...what about the rest of North America? Does he wish to hand that back too?

He also seems to have no interest in returning it to the Neutrals either. Is he suggesting that it just get handed over to developers, because he says the people that he claims are real owners cannot be found? How darn convenient! Of course those people will never be found, & he knows it.

(I will read the links you have put up, & thank you for posting them.)

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools