Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Six Nations Land Researcher Acknowledges that there is NO Valid Nanfan Treaty

I have spent numerous postings here devoted to proving, complete with copies of the original documents, that the so called "Nanfan Treaty" of 1701 could not possibly be further from anything even remotely resembling a "treaty".  It is a deed of gift by 20 otherwise unidentified Five Nations individuals to His Majesty the King of England of all of the land in Southwestern Ontario, with a request (not a demand) that they be allowed to hunt beaver there.  One major problem is that by 1698 the Five (later Six) Nations had been soundly defeated by the Mississauga who dispersed all 8 Six Nations settlements on the north shore of Lake Ontario.  All Five Nations were forced back to the homeland in what is today Upstate New York.  They had lost the land they took by force from the Huron (Wyandot), Petun, Attiwandaronk (Neutral) and others in the 1640s by conquest by their rivals, the Mississauga.  Hence they could not hand over to the King or anyone land to which they had absolutely no valid claim.  Irrespective it is not nor ever has been a treaty.  It was never considered as such by either the Colonial establishment in New York, nor the Crown in England.  The original copy, on neither the front nor the back, include the seal of any authority whatsoever.  While I have hammered this point over and over, Six Nations members have continued to maintain the fiction that they have land rights in Southwestern Ontario including the Haldimand Tract by virtue of the "Nanfan Treaty" and that this is a treaty with the British Crown.  At long last, the person at Six Nations most knowledgeable about land issues, LB, who is the land researcher for the Band Council has, in frustration, spoken openly about what he and others have known for years but have not seen it advantageous or opportune to speak about the facts as they know them.

I am familiar with PM, the predecessor of LB, and have always respected his skills as a researcher.  He is one of the very few (handful?) of people at Six Nations who have actually read all the original documents and if permitted would be in a position to confirm everything I have reported pertaining to land in this blog.

Six Nations Land and Resources Director LB and others of the Elected Council have met with the principals at the McClung Development group and hammered out a "draft agreement" which would see 200 acres of the 530 acre development given to Six Nations to presumably add to their land base.  Objectively this is a tremendous gift since in fact (as seen in numerous postings to this blog with references and original documents), Six Nations have no treaty rights, and surrendered all land in the Haldimand Tract in the 1840s - duly acknowledged by all the Chiefs in Council.  Many at Six Nations simply have never seen the documents, and all they have to go on is a belief or what others have said.  Some beliefs have become entrenched, including the "fact" that Six Nations have treaty rights that extend across all of Southwestern Ontario.  As noted in the previous posting, this is absolutely false - and is well known to both the Governments of Ontario and the Federal Government of Canada - but since it is a hot button topic, all tend to avoid any direct confrontation over the subject.  Thus there has been no move to stop Six Nations from using this falsehood to justify extracting millions of dollars from wind turbine and solar farm energy firms such as Samsung.  Nor has anyone attempted to stop Six Nations from controlled deer hunting in the Dundas Valley, and Short Hills near St. Catharines - although it is illegal for non Six Nations people to do the same thing.

It took an acrimonious exchange arising from "community consultation" about the 200 acre land gift to prod the Six Nations land researcher to speak the truth since it was clear that many are unable to see the land donation as a major coup - considering the evidence.  After some very agitated and demanding women made unrealistic demands and off the wall assertions, finally LB, after hearing an angry, "we're talking about 530 acres of unceded lands .... " B cut her off arguing the Haudenosaunee ceded lands in the 1701 Nanfan Treaty.  "It's already ceded land.  It's been ceded before.  It says it right in the treaty - 'that we surrender this land to you, the British Crown, for certain promises'.  We got our hunting and fishing rights."

The bottom line is that LB is well aware that getting even a single acre of land for nothing is a great deal.  Here they are getting 200 acres, a windfall for which there is no justification, but LB was able to negotiate this amazing gift to Six Nations.  Hence his frustration, knowing the contents of the records relating to the so called treaty and the so call unsurrendered land, that people who are so ignorant of reality were raking him over the coals - for what can only be described as an incredibly smooth deal.  Something for nothing - and 200 acres at that.

The point here is that there is finally an admission by the Lands and Resources Department at Six Nations that the Nanfan document of 1701 is not a valid treaty except in that in the minds of the Six Nations at this time - their Five Nations ancestors saw it as a gift to the King.  They were handing over any right, title and deed to the British Crown with the hope that the King might consider granting them rights to hunt beaver on these lands.  LB did not extend the discussion to include the fact that Seneca Township, within which the McClung Development is located, was surrendered in the 1840s.  All the Chiefs signed on the dotted line and LB and his predecessor PM know it.  This puts them in a very unenviable position where they either have to distort the facts, or tell the truth based on the documents and face the consequences - which means anger and likely a demand for their resignation.



  1. How refreshing to see the facts and truth being revealed for the first time; unfortunately this will also be overridden by that same contingent that believe no land was ever surrendered "properly" and that any former treaties are valid; they know that the province, in particular, can be counted on to capitulate to any and all demands and the possibility of anything such as court challenges are remote possibilities at best; the so-called "hunting" being allowed in such CONSERVATION areas as Shorthills is part of that capitulation and it is NOT CONTROLLED in any sense of the word: unlimited numbers of "hunters" and kills(of even does and fawns) have been allowed with the full assistance of the MNR which has never officially stated that this was about a CULL (most likely because white hunters would have demanded their right to participate); in any case there is clear evidence that POACHING has increased, most certainly because of a backlash from many disgruntled white hunters.

  2. I tend to agree MyOrenda. It would not be "politically correct" to challenge either the so called treaty, nor the land surrenders - even though the evidence would demolish any argument that the former are valid and the latter done improperly. It would take a Government with some stones to stand by the truth - neither Liberal Government meets this criteria even rudimentarily. It is much more convenient to sweep things under the carpet and allow these fictions to be perpetuated.

  3. Apparently this blog post is getting some interesting and serious reaction in my part of the world where the so-called "hunting" has been going on; the Shorthills Wildlife group may be finally taking notice about the fraudulence of Nanfan which you and I and other researchers have known about for many years;in their single-minded focus on stopping the hunts they have totally ignored the roots of the issue(which has really been about another land grab)and shut out our comments and posts on the Haudenausenee....apparently because they didn't want to be seen as being anti-native or anti-treaty(!?)...even when the "treaty" was fraudulent to begin with! As you know some nuts are hard to crack but this may be a major breakthrough.

  4. Yes, the Nafan document is crystal clear to those who actually read it (it was a gift of land to the King of England) and to those who understand history (that the then Five Nations did not own the land in 1701, it was taken from them by conquest by the Mississauga in the years prior to 1698). I will be forever thankful to the person from your group who went to the trouble of obtaining photographic copies of the original Nanfan document from Kew in England.