A recent article in theWhig- Standardregarding the Culbertson land claim by Mohawks near Deseronto did not clearly enough explain the differences in perspective between Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl and the negotiating team at Tyendinaga ("Federal government, Mohawks hold emergency meeting," June 24).
Strahl told theWhigthat the federal government's practice is to arrange for a monetary settlement to cover any land improperly taken from the Mohawk community. He seems to believe that a land claim negotiation is a one-way conversation and that the only option for the Mohawks at Tyendinaga is to receive cash compensation.
The practice that Strahl refers to is the so-called "specific claims policy," an ignorant, all-encompassing set of guidelines federal land claims negotiators use that assumes the details regarding every land dispute with each individual native community in Canada is uniform.
The Simcoe Deed, the document that confirmed the Mohawk people's rightful ownership of this property and that the land claim is valid, expressly states that Canada is bound and obligated to "dispossess and evict" any non-Six Nations people who might move onto the land. The Simcoe Deed is not a lengthy treaty, incidentally. It is surprisingly short, given the prolonged negotiation, and on this issue it uses strong language, but it is also very clear.
The Simcoe Deed is unique because it outlines the way a land dispute such as the current one should be rectified. Very few treaties are so explicit in this regard. The specific claims policy is not applicable, therefore, because the Culbertson claim is not among the thousand others that the policy was intended to resolve.
No one is advocating the outright expropriation of land. The "willing-buyer, willing-seller" scenario Strahl advocates has been used successfully in the past. The Turton Penn land claim -which returned the village of Shannonville to Tyendinaga authority less than 15 years ago -used this method.
But whereas Strahl would prefer to pay Tyendinaga to become the "willing buyer," it would be more respectful to the treaty -and the Mohawk people -for the Crown to purchase the land parcels (at fair market value, of course) and then right-f ully return them to the Mohawks. It is an insult to the Mohawk people and to all Canadians for him to assume anyone would be interested in breaking this treaty agreement a second time in an attempt to rectify the past breach.
Joseph E. Brant Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory
Modern ideas don't fit
Re: the letter "Park shouldn't have name of man who betrayed his heritage" (June 26).
Is it true that Lt.-Col. John Bradstreet abandoned his Acadian culture? His widowed Acadian mother eventually moved to Ireland, where she died sometime after 1743. She seems to have enjoyed British patronage, apparently as a means to get rich, and while in Acadia she married two officers from the British garrison, while two of her sons became officers in the British army Her son John seemed to be in step with the times and sought his own fortune with the British army, spending much time in the American colonies. He died in New York in 1774.
As for de Noyan's defence of Fort Frontenac, it was not particularly valiant but it was honourable, in accordance with period notions of "honour." After firing a few harassing shots, he gave up.
Bradstreet's decision to allow his captives to return to Montreal was in accordance with military custom for a siege. Whether he was motivated by cultural factors is moot. He had no desire to transport prisoners and civilians on the return voyage.
While the idea to rename Breakwater Park after Bradstreet has merit, it is also debatable. But to apply modern ideas of multiculturalism to a discussion of events of almost three centuries past removes the context in which those events occurred, creating a misuse and abuse of history to placate our own arrogance.
Major John R. Grodzinski Assistant professor
Department of History Royal Military College Kingston