Clarifying “Dish with One Spoon.”

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Aug 22

RE: City deploys dredger despite complaints.  By Teviah Moro, The Hamilton Spectator 23 Aug 22.

It would help understanding the issues if it were made it clear that the other name for the “Dish with one spoon wampum belt covenant treaty” is the Great Treaty of Montreal of 1701.  This is the only written version of said agreement.  The ‘between the lakes’ purchase agreement with the Mississaugas of 1792 is precisely why Hamilton is no longer covered any aboriginal agreement, because Hamilton ceased to be Indian land, having been lawfully purchased from them in 1792.

The Mohawks are pretending to jurisdiction over Hamilton on account of the “Nanfan Treaty” of 1702.  But this claim (which I and others have refuted separately) comes into conflict with the sale of land by the Mississaugas in 1792.  If it was Mississauga to sell, then it wasn’t Mohawk territory.  Moreover, the Haldimand Tract was purchased for the Iroquois from the Mississaugas in 1784.  If the Haldimand Tract belonged to the Mohawks, then why was the land purchased from the Mississaugas?

One last point.  Hamilton is also covered by the Peace of Paris of 1763, which settled the Seven Years War.  In it, the King of France surrendered sovereignty of New France to the British Crown.  This is why Hamilton is British and not French.  If you find 1763 irrelevant, despite the facts on the ground, then how much more irrelevant is the Great Treaty of Montreal of 1701?

Do you really think this ass-kissing of the aboriginals is achieving “reconciliation?”  I don’t.  It think it’s making things worse.

-30-

The reason reference to the Great Treaty of Montreal is suppressed is that the treaty grants the French authority to adjudicate disputes between the signatory Indian bands.  The so-called Nanfan Treaty runs clean-contrary to the Great Treaty of Montreal because Nanfan allegedly assigned land to the Mohawks that falls under “Dish with one spoon.”  From the French, the Mohawks wanted equal access, and from the British they wanted exclusive rights.  The Indians were playing the French against the British – and each other.

See my “The Nanfan Treaty” post of 11 Dec 2017.  In addition, Thomas Kennedy of St. Catharines has a refutation posted on-line.  He says he can’t find an authentic, original copy, and references to such a treaty fail to appear in the historical record throughout the 18^th century.  (See Nanfan Treaty, Hoax of History, May 11, 2008)