Treaty Indians, First Nations, Descendants

[BlackWolf]

 
clanmother said

Family Tree DNA scientist say that I have Cherokee & Chipewa ancestry in my DNA markers.

Nope.  If I was you, I would reevaluate this claim and educate yourself about this subject.

[clanmother]

The DNA report says I carry those bloods too. I am Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroup "C" and we did not marry our direct relations, as can be confirmed by evidence at the Hopewell Mound; which has the descendants of Aboriginal People of all Amerindian Haplogroups. Indians were smart people not only to travel water corridors by the star charts, but, we knew about what is termed today - mtDNA.  Matriarchal Society.  We survived on Turtle Island for thousands of years as Independant Indian Nations.

[BlackWolf]

clanmother said

The DNA report says I carry those bloods too.

DNA and science can's specify a "Tribe" like the Cherokees and Chippewa.  It can link someone to ancestors in the American continents, but even then its controversial, and its not 100 percent accurate. 


BlackWolf said

Where abouts did your Cherokee ancestors come from?

[Rattlebone]

The DNA report says I carry those bloods too. I am Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroup "C" and we did not marry our direct relations, as can be confirmed by evidence at the Hopewell Mound; which has the descendants of Aboriginal People of all Amerindian Haplogroups. Indians were smart people not only to travel water corridors by the star charts, but, we knew about what is termed today - mtDNA.  Matriarchal Society.  We survived on Turtle Island for thousands of years as Independant Indian Nations.

 When it comes to linking DNA to "race," it is far from an exact science. DNA can give somebody a good idea of what their racial mix up might be, but it is still not an exact science whatsoever. So at this time using DNA to determine the race of an individual without doubt really can not be done.

 I also agree with Blackwolf when he says that DNA testing can not determine what tribe a person comes from. DNA testing can possibly identify markers that are most likely from America Indian people, but it can NOT identify a specific tribe at all.

 Many have claimed they have done this, or have had it done; those claims are always debunked and proven to be false.

[Moma_porcupine]

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.

[E.P. Grondine]

The DNA report says I carry those bloods too. I am Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroup "C" and we did not marry our direct relations, as can be confirmed by evidence at the Hopewell Mound; which has the descendants of Aboriginal People of all Amerindian Haplogroups. Indians were smart people not only to travel water corridors by the star charts, but, we knew about what is termed today - mtDNA.  Matriarchal Society.  We survived on Turtle Island for thousands of years as Independant Indian Nations.

When it comes to linking DNA to "race," it is far from an exact science. DNA can give somebody a good idea of what their racial mix up might be, but it is still not an exact science whatsoever. So at this time using DNA to determine the race of an individual without doubt really can not be done.

 I also agree with Blackwolf when he says that DNA testing can not determine what tribe a person comes from. DNA testing can possibly identify markers that are most likely from America Indian people, but it can NOT identify a specific tribe at all.

Many have claimed they have done this, or have had it done; those claims are always debunked and proven to be false.

In my opinion a matriarchal society in no way indicates a knowledge of mt DNA.

As near as I can make out at the present time (in other words this is very tentative) C mt DNA is Iroquoian. While that includes Cherokee, most likely a person in Canada would have inherited that from a northern Iroquoian people, perhaps Wendat (Huron), Talmatan (Neutral), or Five Nations.

While Hopewell sites were held by people with C, B,D and X mt DNA, and later (after 536 CE) by A mt DNA as well, as best as I can determine they were held by peoples ancestral to Shawnee and Cherokee in earlier times.

Ojbwe should be A mt DNA or far less often X mt DNA.

To my knowledge, the Y DNA parsing is still imprecise, as rattlebone and blackwolf state. To my knowledge he also accurately states the spurious claims made by some in hope of gaining money.

What I have noticed is that the greater the destruction of any people's history, the more grandious is the history they construct to replace it.

Apparently this sometimes starts on a personal level, and then extends.

[NDN_Outlaw]

What I have noticed is that the greater the destruction of any people's history, the more grandious is the history they construct to replace it.

Yep. I would say people living in a communal setting require the approval of their peers before acting in any position that impacts on their peers. There is no room for a "loose cannon" when the survival and well being of the group is at stake. The corrosive effects of long term colonialism can create an environment where other peoples culture and spirituality are imported to replace what was lost. Thus we see people wearing plains regalia and practicing a plains spirituality their anscestors never practiced. Positions of responsibility in service to the people such as in a communal society can easily become positions of power over others. When a communal culture is eclipsed by a culture of the individual, distorsions occur. One of these as you mention is grandiousity and even a strong sense of entitlment all with out the approval of their people. The aggressive individual takes what they see and tries to make it their own. This may very well be a definition for colonialism. They want the flower they don't want the thorn. A non NDN friend of mine once said she wished she could be an NDN. I told her why would you want to be poor and depressed all the time.

[Defend the Sacred]

What I have noticed is that the greater the destruction of any people's history, the more grandious is the history they construct to replace it.

Yep. I would say people living in a communal setting require the approval of their peers before acting in any position that impacts on their peers. There is no room for a "loose cannon" when the survival and well being of the group is at stake. The corrosive effects of long term colonialism can create an environment where other peoples culture and spirituality are imported to replace what was lost. Thus we see people wearing plains regalia and practicing a plains spirituality their anscestors never practiced. Positions of responsibility in service to the people such as in a communal society can easily become positions of power over others. When a communal culture is eclipsed by a culture of the individual, distorsions occur. One of these as you mention is grandiousity and even a strong sense of entitlment all with out the approval of their people. The aggressive individual takes what they see and tries to make it their own. This may very well be a definition for colonialism. They want the flower they don't want the thorn. A non NDN friend of mine once said she wished she could be an NDN. I told her why would you want to be poor and depressed all the time.

Thank you for saying this.

[E.P. Grondine]

The corrosive effects of long term colonialism can create an environment where other peoples culture and spirituality are imported to replace what was lost. Thus we see people wearing plains regalia and practicing a plains spirituality their ancestors never practiced. Positions of responsibility in service to the people such as in a communal society can easily become positions of power over others. When a communal culture is eclipsed by a culture of the individual, distortions occur. One of these as you mention is grandiousity and even a strong sense of entitlement all with out the approval of their people. The aggressive individual takes what they see and tries to make it their own.

Well said. Many people long for power, while trying to avoid the responsibilities. The outcome is never good.

But I don't think that being poor and/or depressed is a requirement for being NDN, though the thoughts of the conquest and the continued plight of many always weighs heavy. It is hard sometimes to keep a good heart for the struggles ahead and to keep ones head up looking for the course of the path.

[NanticokePiney]

Family Tree DNA scientist say that I have Cherokee & Chipewa ancestry in my DNA markers.

    I'm not going to get into a big explanation about genetics. But I would read 'National Geographics' human DNA studies on North American Indians. Then I would ask 'Family Tree' for a refund.

[apukjij]

 never said i want anyone who has a drop of native blood to be status, thats ludicrous and alarming to see that in print and i had to distance my self from such statements, see thats why i reacted to her putting words in my mouth, i knew what could happen, I've NEVER publicly stated how i feel on this issue on FB or NAFPS, because its a Mi'kmaq Treaty Right, things will remain "as between the Indians as before" which we insisted be put into the Treaties we've signed with the British and American govts, we don't discuss L'nu core issues with non-L'nu,  UNTIL moma p forced my hand! sidetracking the thread with posts from a FB site, we do however share our history and oral tradition and as a holder of Mi'kmaq Oral Traditions i share when i thinks its appropriate, , which is what i attempted to do on both here and on FB,
i was engaging a well known terrorist John Williams, i never knew he was the greywolf that had all these posts against him here on NAFPS site, a thread lol i even posted on, and it turns out that john williams is a hosting a popular site in Maliseet country. I have never publicly stated on that site my feelings on Mi'kmaq Citizenship, i was responding to his alarming assertion its the non status descendant who not only should be a Treaty Beneficiary, but the actual ones engaging the Govt in the self-govt agreements, and these self-govt agreements he says are invalid, because he considers himself a descendant of ?Mokawanndoo??/ a Great Chief, he incorporated his own wapanaki confederacy composed of him as grand chief and 12 of these descendant people he is in contact with as Chiefs, and feels its his quasi organization who should be engaging in self-govt negotiations, he is dangerous, making statements>" a few of the Treaties the Mi'kmaq signed were as useful as toilet paper," an L'nu would never speak of the Treaty like that, the Treaty making process is so ingrained in Mi'kmaw consciousness, so steeped in Spirituality, always made with a Pipe=Ceremony, and then he said on that FB site that "the Mi'kmaq were like the sioux who he claims both did nothing in the Indian Wars and like to take credit for things battles they never fought," which my and my peers feel is treason, and the approach hes taking terrorism.
OK lets take his claims, hes a dna direct descendant of ???Mockawanndoo??? but current dna science is traced from the female descendant not the male lineage, so he cant have in his hands a dna test proving hes directly related to this chief -its not currently possible in todays dna science, BUT he could be the offspring of a union of that great Chief and a woman, he could be related to that child of their union, traced thru dna testing thru the mother who married that great chief and then traced thru her daughters female descendants thru the female line but that is much different than his claim he possesses a scientific record proving hes a descendant of that great Chief, and he has yet to show the Mi'kmaq people who phoned him about to provide this dna proof of a scientifically traced direct lineage directly to the woman who married ???Mackawannndoo??.
 now, for the true Mi'kmaq perspective, lets use the Treaty of 1752 which the Canadian Supreme court recently affirmed the this Treaty that was signed gives the Mi'kmaq a guaranteed right to a moderate living of the resources of Mi'kmaq territory, (which knowing the Feds, who like the vatican will take centuries to officially determine wat a "Moderate Living" entails), Now unlike the Maliseet, Passamaquoddy, and the Penobscot Treaty Signators, the Mi'kmaw Signator, often a Chief or some other dignitary in my Nation at that time, signed a Treaty; they had to return back to the communities, to provide complete details of the agreements and then a consensus based deliberation process began, each District could choose to accede to the new Treaty or not as they saw fit, the Signator had to defend their signing of the Treaty! i can tell you the dates of when each Mi'kmaq District acceded to the Treaty of 1752, all these details have been kept alive thru Oral Tradition, so its the Treaty Beneficiaries themselves who have the right to make the final decision on Treaty Negotiations, which some call self-govt agreements. for the other Wapana'ki nations mentioned, its completely and irrevocably different, it was usually the Chief, he signed it was on behalf of his entire tribe, right then and there, the Mi'kmaq had/have a completely different type of govt, because the other nations of the Wapana'ki were agricultural based communities, and the Mi'kmaw hunter gatherers, and they had/have specific home based fixed communities, not some nomadic  sheep with no ties to the land they perused; as taught in the school books about nomadic tribes. One time in my life i was employed at a grass-roots urban Indian centre as E.D. i had to serve and promote the interests of the Native, Inuit Metis and Non-Status (where the PODIA's fit in), i had to counsel these people as well, its not for me to say anything when joe q public feels he had an Indian great grandmother and wants to learn his heritage and partake of any rights or privileges he or she may or may not be entitled to, so i send then to the Native Councils, because they too are part of the circle and they are set up to handle these people as well, the problem of the Feds and their current ruse of overfunding these non status orgs is a DIFFERENT issue than whether joe q public wants to get to know his great grandmother or his heritage and whether the Native Councils should be in existence, i do believe they should be in existence, but not funding in the hundreds of millions that is occurring now, i do take issue when a PODOIA claims to be a shaman, or Elder; and when Status Indians make Native Spirituality a mercantile, pay to pray service. lets just say ive had the finest of Traditional L'nu teachers so believe me i know the Ceremonies, Protocols, Customs, Values, Traditions and feel confident to confront these culture vultures, i am not afraid to stand up at a conference march up to the podium and take the eagle feather out of the speakers status Indian hands if what he is sharing goes against the Spirituality and virtue needed to stand with an Eagle Feather and address the People. i know of these supposed elders who have conducted a Pipe Ceremony then only to include biting and offensive comments in their speech. i know of supposed elders who after conducting a Sweet=Grass Ceremony go to attack white people, remember thats what this thread was about, ellen hunt the white "MI'kmaq elder head of a supposed MI'kmaq organization, doing naming ceremonies mentioning the late esteemed Charlie Labradors name,
you see i have worked on the front lines at the grassroots urban Indian level, where by my mandate was to serve all indigenous people including the Non-Status. now where the issue gets really contentious is the some of the Wapana'ki Treaty Signators sprung from marriages with mostly the Acadian, where by the esteemed Treaty Signator just signed a Official Document stating "my heirs" will be following the Treaty. do you see the problem, greywolf i think has contacted 9000 descendants of Wapana'ki that he found in the Mormon archives in salt lake city and his version of history is twisted and perverted, and as for the subject 'who is a Mi'kmaq Citizen and how the descendants of a Mi'kmaq Treaty Signator fit in, and how and what is a Treaty Beneficiary, and how they fit in will be deliberated by the Mi'kmaq. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR NAFPS TO DISCUSS or FB for that matter, is for L'NU only, not the Feds, not the Province, not for the ngo's, agencies, non for profits and nafps, and i have told moma p this privately and then she continued to force my hand, thats why i don't trust her, shes got an agenda in mind for Wapana'ki peoples, and this agenda has forced her to act in a way that has alienated her from the real grassroots L'nu patriots, i told her the Treaty Beneficiaries Association i belong too refused her request for more information on Qalipu First Nation, if they did respond i would have sent it to her, if this post was titled Re: Mi'kmaq Treaty Indians, First Nations, Descendants i would have fought tooth and nail to get it removed.
so now you see the dilemma, Mi'kmaq Treaty Signators signed Sacred Treaties which included the words "For me and my Heirs" and some of them were from acadian-MI'kmaq marriages, and a new term has entered Mi'kmaq lingo- Treaty Beneficiary, but its up to the L'nu to determine the extent of their participation if any of their participation,
 Ardy is one of the most incredible Warriors of our People, i am angry she wont post here anymore.

[Smart Mule]

The treaty of 1752 goes beyond saying for me and my heirs, it states for themselves and their said Tribe their heirs and the heirs of their heirs forever..  No doubt the signatories never would have imagined what this could lead to. 

I don't think Moma P was trying to be a jerk, I think she was trying to understand.  You have to admit that the situation is complex.

[NDN_Outlaw]

I find the emphasis on DNA testing a little disturbing. Citizenship to me is family connected to community. I have dark complexion relatives  and blue eyed blonds with pink skins. We're one big mob connected to an NDN community. We have a common heritage and a living culture. We have Treaty rights but the Treaty does not define us. Treaties do not make Nations. Nations make Treaties.

[NanticokePiney]

I find the emphasis on DNA testing a little disturbing. Citizenship to me is family connected to community. I have dark complexion relatives  and blue eyed blonds with pink skins. We're one big mob connected to an NDN community. We have a common heritage and a living culture. We have Treaty rights but the Treaty does not define us. Treaties do not make Nations. Nations make Treaties.

 I'll pm you a pic of my dad and I. We look like salt and pepper shakers.

[apukjij]

well ndn outlaw for Mi'kmaw Treaty does define us, all i can share is Treaties were made because of/and are tied into Prophecy, there exists in Mi'kmaq Country what i call the Treaty Way, people who are living treaty, Treaty is to us what the Longhouse is the the Kwedij, it is our refuge and first and last hope, despite what john greywolf williams says.