http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2456.msg20470#msg20470
I said reffering to Apukjij and Ardy...
You are both seem to be claiming all descendents, no matter how far back and no matter how long it's been since they have had any relationship with a First Nation , should rightfully be considered Treaty Benificiaries."
and Apukjij replied
are you nuts momma p? NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, i do belive that if you are a descendant of a Treaty Signator, you are entitled to be a beneficiary, its as simple as that, and yes if you are a PODIA, the govt has set it up that you can join the Native Councils, and get benefits, do i agree with it NO! but it is set up that way, so if a PODIA tells me they arent getting anything i send them to the Native Councils,
Apukjij, I would like to explore your comment here a bit...
First a bit of background
http://www.wabanaki.com/british_crown_treaties.htm
With regard to specific treaties being made between the crown and aboriginal bands or communities in the Maritimes, the British crown signed a number of historical documents with the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people between 1725 and 1779. These historical documents are commonly referred to as treaties, but only three of them, the two LaHeve treaties of 1760-61 and the Cope treaty of 1752, have been formally recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as having the constitutional status of treaties.
In response to part (a) of the question, it is important to consider the geographical boundaries and political structures of the Maritimes in the 1700s. In the Marshall decision, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that “...the British signed a series of agreements with individual Mi’kmaq communities in 1760 and 1761 intending to have them consolidated into a comprehensive Mi’kmaq treaty that was never in fact brought into existence. The trial judge found that by the end of 1761 all of the Mi’kmaq villages in Nova Scotia had entered into separate but similar treaties”. It is important to note that during the colonial period, Nova Scotia was considered to include modern day New Brunswick.
Regarding parts (b) and (c) as they relate to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Marshall, only the 1760-61 treaties were recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as treaties under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The 1760 LaHeve treaty was signed on March 10, 1760 in Halifax. The 1761 LaHeve treaty was signed on November 9, 1761 in Halifax.
In addition, the other “historical documents” that have been identified from various archival sources are virtually identical to the LaHeve treaty of 1760 with the exception of the February 23, 1760 agreement with the Saint John (Maliseet) and Passamaquoddy Indians, which contained similar promises but also renewed previous peace and friendship treaties with the crown.
Copies of the following 1760-61 documents were provided to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in May 2001:
Renewal of 1725 Articles and 1749 Articles, with the delegates of the Saint John and Passamaquoddy, at Chebucto (Halifax) Harbour, 23 February 1760; Treaty dated 10 March 1760 with Chief Michael Augustine of the Richebuctou Tribe; Treaty with Chief Paul of LaHeve Tribe at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with Claude René, Chief of Chibennacadie and Muscadoboit, concluded at Halifax, 10 March 1760; Treaty with the Merimichi Tribe, concluded 25 June 1761; Treaty with Chief Claude Atouash of the Jedaick Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Etiene Apshobon of the Pogmouch Tribe, Halifax, 25 June 1761; Treaty with Joseph Argimaut, Chief of Mesiguash Indians, Halifax, 8 July 1761; Treaty with Chief Jeannot Picklougawash on behalf of the Pictouk and Malegomich Tribes, 12 October 1761; and Treaty with Chief Francis Mius of the LaHeve Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 9 November 1761.
In part (d) reference is made to “Marshall or Halifax treaties”. It is assumed this is in reference to the LaHeve treaties of 1760-61, which were considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall decision. Therefore, with respect to which bands or communities are covered by these treaties, the Government of Canada is of the view that while modern day first nations are the most likely successor groups of the original signatory groups, it is impossible to determine a direct correlation between the application of treaties to modern day first nations.
It is important to keep in mind that the passage of time has meant that there have been changes to the composition of some of the signatory groups. We recognize the difficulty in connecting the signatories of historic treaties to particular contemporary first nation communities. This may be due in part to migration of first nations, intermarriage, government policies creating bands and other initiatives such as the centralization of reserves. However, since the court found that all Mi’kmaq communities participated in the treaties, members of modern communities are likely beneficiaries of these treaty rights.
For these reasons, the Government of Canada has determined that the most appropriate course of action is to enter into a dialogue with the 34 Mi’kmaq and Maliseet first nations in present day Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec to consider the implications of the Marshall decision
So, one of these Treaty signatories was the descendent of a Mi'kmaq woman and an Acadian surnamed Muise, who was born in 1681.
His brother married a French woman and it is said most of the Acadians with the surname Muise descend from his brother.
http://museeacadien.ca/argyle/html/egenealogy1.htm
Philippe Mius d'Entremont(1609-1700). Philippe Mius (d'Azy) d'Entremont, his son, born in 1660, married an unidentified Native American woman, and later a Native American woman named Marie. Joseph Mius (d'Azy), approximately 1679-1729, son of Philippe Mius d'Azy, son of Philippe Mius d'Entremont, married Marie Amirault. This family is the source of all the families bearing the name Mius or Miuse or Meuse that can be found in North America.
http://www.acadian.org/indians-Mius.html
More about Joseph Mius:
Joseph Mius was born in 1680 and died in 1729 in Annapolis County, Nova Scotia. He Married Marie Amirault in 1700. Marie was born in 1684.
Reference: Dictionnaire Genealogiques des Familles Acadienne. [MIUS section] Publication: Centre d'Etudes Acadiennes, Universite' de Moncton. Author: Stephen A. White.
Special Note: Joseph's Brother Francois Mius b.1681 became Chief of the Indians of Le Have. A Treaty was signed by Francois Mius in 1761 that is still honored today.
REF: Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Hon. Robert Nault.
Apukjij. I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but what you have said does seem contradictory.
When I said
You are both seem to be claiming all descendents, no matter how far back and no matter how long it's been since they have had any relationship with a First Nation , should rightfully be considered Treaty Benificiaries."
You replied
Apukjij
are you nuts momma p? NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT,
From this comment it sounds like you think there is a point where a person of some distant Native descent is no longer a benificiary of the Nation's resources their distant ancestors descended from.. But your comments right after that seem to contradict this...
i do belive that if you are a descendant of a Treaty Signator, you are entitled to be a beneficiary, its as simple as that,
But then right after that, you seem to contradict this when you said this...
and yes if you are a PODIA, the govt has set it up that you can join the Native Councils, and get benefits, do i agree with it NO!
Some of those Mi'kmaq who signed those Treaties were born in the late 1600's. Someone with one Native ancestor who was born in the 1600's is a PODIA . A descendent of one Treaty signatory would be a PODIA. So what you are saying here seems contradictory.
It sounds like the Treaties being refered to were signed between 1725
and 1779 , and some of the Treaties that have been signed that are not being respected go back even earlier than that, such as the Treaty signed in 1685 by someone with the same surname as Ardy's husband.
When you say all people who are descendents of a Treaty signer should be considered benificiaries, do you mean all people who can prove they are direct descendents of that particular person are benificiaries, but anyone who cannot prove they are direct descendents of that particular person are outaluck - even if it can be proven these people undoubtably descend from the Nations those Treaty signatories were representing, and these people are registered Indians who are currently members of a historic federally recognized Mi'kmaq or Maliseet band?
Or do you mean everyone who can prove a close personal family genealogical relationship with the person who signed the Treaty would be included as benificiaries? While this would include more people who may not be able to prove direct descent from the individual who signed the Treaty, it also would include a lot of people who were related to the Treaty signatory but who's families have not been members of the indigenous First Nations this individual who signed the Treaty was representing, for hundreds of years.
For example, Francois Muise who signed this Treaty was the brother of Joseph Muise.
If you are thinking of the Treaties as representing individuals, their families and their direct descendents, of the individual people wh signed the Treaty, wouldn't this Treaty include all the Acadians with one gr gr gr gr gr gr gr grandmother who was Mi'kmaq who descend from Joseph Muise- because his brother was a Treaty signatory?
The book
"The Acadians of the Maritimes" by the Centre D'Etudes Acadien gives the following information;
page 141
The majority of the population, as has already been pointed out, can trace it's origin to 40-50 families who came to Acadia at the instigation of Razilly an d'Aulnay . In the 1671 census , some 70 families were counted, including one third which resulted from marriages in Acadia. 35 Few families came thereafter though some immigration continued right up to the fall of Port Royal in 1710.
I should also point out that most of these marriages that occured in Acadia were between the offspring of French families, though a small minority did involve indigenous people.
If we trace our families back , starting with our 2 parents, 4 grand parents , 8 great grandparents ect ect , and you go back as far as the late 1600's, most of us have more than 1000 ancestors once you get that far back. So , chances are everyone that is Acadian would be related to everyone else somewhere back there.
Most families that descend from a common ancestor who lived in the 1600's now number in the hundreds of thousands of descendents... In the Maritimes in 1971, there was 330, 565 Acadians in the Maritimes alone. ( The Acadians of the Maritimes page 167 )
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/l/e/b/Shirley-T-Leblanc/GENE16-0050.html
Today, there are well over two million Acadian descendants. They are all over the world including France, Canada, South America, West Indies, and all over the United States. But the largest concentration, more than eight hundred thousand, is in Louisiana.
And thats probably not even counting the people who are "part Acadian" .
Are all of these individuals who can show they descend from Joseph Muise who was the brother of Treaty signatory Francoise Muise to be considered as Treaty benificiaries?
Or did these peoples ancestors loose the ability to participate in rights recognized in the Treaties formed with the Mi'kmaq Nation when they married out of this Nation?
Because of this problem, I don't think it is as simple as individual descendents tracking their ancestry back to individuals who signed a treaty.
This seems obvious to me.
I guess what I am concerned about is that in recognizing groups which recognize PODIAs as Aboriginal people, the canadian government seems to be promoting unworkable chaos. This chaos might be a powerful device to use to disempower and delay implimentation of recent court cases which recognized the Treaty rights of Aboriginal people.
Establishing that there is a legal title holder is pretty meaningless if it can't be established who that person may be.
And who benifits from that?
It seems much more workable to interpret these treaties as having been signed on behalf of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet First Nations.
But if you ( or anyone else ) sees this differently I would be very interested to hear the reasons behind this.
now after months of thinking about this topic i think i am better able to make sense of all this,
now im going to repeat myself and remake the points i made in earlier posts, i hate doing that because it usually means you werent paying attention the first time, or you have a personal agenda so thru the filters you have you only see what you want to, or what supports your assertions, so why should i repeat myself again to be not heard, maybe if i put my key points in capital letters i will be better understood.
To be understand what a Treaty Beneficiary is so complex. First i was accused of saying PODIA are treaty beneficiaries, what i said was the problem is that there were Mi'kmaq Treaty Signators who signed a treaty stating
'FOR ME AND MY HEIRS NOW AND FOREVERY"
and what has happened is some of these Treaty Signators descendants left the Mi'kmaq Communities.
and now their descendants are researching their roots and finding themselves a direct descendant of a Mi'kmaq Treaty Signator, their Mi'kmaq ancestor signed a treaty stating their Heirs are a beneficiary. DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM!!!! so in THIS CASE ONLY, THEY WOULD BE A PODIA, AND YET A TREATY BENEFICIARY,
secondly, BEFORE YOU START ON CAP, (WHICH I HATE) YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE NATIVE FRIENDSHIP CENTRE MOVT IN CANADA, if you do not research the Friendship Centre Movt, you will never know what issues were before the non-status, YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND HOW CAP CAME TO BE, and as a former executive director for a Native Friendship Centre, I HAD TO SERVE ALL INUIT, METIS, ABORIGINAL, NON-STATUS, AND PODIA INTERESTS. ITS THE MANDATE OF ANY FRIENDSHIP CENTRE. so of these rights they may or may not be entitled to the ones i encouraged them in was to sit in a Talking Circle, sit a Drum, learn about thier heritage, social activities, these are what many Native Friendship Centres do, so when i told momma p she is only seeing a small part of the picture, ITS BECAUSE SHE DOESNT KNOW ABOUT THE FRIENDSHIP CENTRE MOVT, and i am not going to spend anytime explaining it, its up to you the researcher to do that!
momma p made alot out of this statement, she found on FB that i made:
"I will briefly state what i wrote on those post. If you are a
descended from a Treaty Signer i believe you are entitled to join the
Native Council in NS, NB, PEI and NFLD. Thats the only mechanism to
give Metis and People of Distant Indian Ancestry (PODIA) a chance to
exercise the Treaty Rights they deserve.'
BUT I NEVER STATED EXACTLY WHAT THOSE RIGHTS ARE, if i was ever to write that statement again i would put at the end: "IF ANY" AND WHAT RIGHTS THE METIS HAVE IS DIFFERENT THAT ANY RIGHTS PODIA MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE, (SO IF YOU REFUTE THAT STATEMENT I MADE IN ITS ENTIRETY THEN YOU ARE REFUTING THE RIGHTS OF THE METIS) AND AS I SAID JUST BEFORE, YOU CAN BE A PODIA AND DESERVE RIGHTS,
ONLY IF YOU ARE A DIRECT DESCENDANT OF A TREATY SIGNATOR BECAUSE THEY SIGNED A DOCUMENT STATING '
ME AND MY HEIRS NOW AND FOREVERand heres the problem the Mi'kmaq Nation has, DO THESE DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF TREATY SIGNERS, HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM THEY ARE L'NU (MI'KMAQ) ITS MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEF MAYBE NOBODY ELSE SHARES THAT THEY WOULD BE A TREATY INDIAN, BUT NOT L'NU, BUT ITS NOT UP TO ME TO DETERMINE THAT ITS UP TO THE MI'KMAQ GRAND COUNCIL. so why i say i send people to the Native Council, the Native Council in NB and NS has different levels of membership, based on your ancestry, and they will let you know where you stand, as a full member or a secondary level of membership, and for those who have full membership, there are programs available, including partaking of the Fishing and Hunting rights that flow from the Treaties we signed, from what i understand from the L'nu hunters i asked, yes these full members are given a green hunting license, different than the ones we normally have.
and finally for Qalipu First Nation, i read on thier FB site, that they are going by the Census of 1945 to determine the Founders List, i find this completely reasonable, they claim this honours their grandparents struggles, in this case that makes them 1/4 blood, which i personally believe is the cut off for being considered L'nu, anything less than that and you are a PODIA, entitled to NO rights, unless your are A DIRECT DESCENDANT OF A TREATY SIGNATOR. Qalipu's case is much more stronger than other First Nations who got full status, such as the Pequots.
