Ancestral Territory

What is now Wilmot Township has been inhabited by a long series of people starting about 17000 years ago. It appears that “ancestral territory” is being interpreted, today, as who was living in a place when Europeans first made contact. That has a political effect but is myopic if one defines ancestors as ‘one’s predecessors from only one generation prior to a grandparent’, i.e. just 60 years prior to one’s own birth.

Wilmot was inhabited by Hurons about 1500 AD. They were forcefully pushed out and replaced by Neutrals about 1600 AD. Mississaugas (Anishinaabe of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy) forcefully replaced the Neutrals in the late 1600s. The British Crown bought 3 million acres in southwestern Ontario from the Mississaugas in 1792. The Canada Land Company bought the area that included Wilmot from the Crown and had it surveyed for lots by 1824, and resurveyed in 1828. Settlers bought lots from the Canada Land Company. Present citizens bought lots from prior purchasers as recorded by deeds.

Thus, if one was to accept the myopic definition of “ancestral territory” in Wilmot, we’d be referring to relatively recent immigrant populations. Therefore, the first clarification needed for any discussion about ‘territory’ is, “How far back in time are we talking about?”. As far as we know, the ancestral territory of Wilmot was inhabited by Pre-Paleo People 12 -17000 years ago. Every subsequent group of inhabitants acquired the ‘territory’ by the physical influence of either a) outnumbering them and absorbing them by assimilation, or b) by force, or c) by buying the land.

It appears that any attempts to address present social issues based on, “We were here before you, you took it from us, you tried to assimilate us and destroy our cultural identity, and now you owe us.” is not logical. That is the exact process used by every preceding group occupying Wilmot Township. Every group, in effect, ‘took it‘ from the previous group – one way or another.

Therefore, it raises questions:

“If the present inhabitants have some legal, moral, ethical responsibility to compensate a previous group, which group is it that one negotiates with?” [see maps below for starters]
“Is it more effective and more efficient for the Canadian federal government to negotiate ‘territory’ with any group that has concerns?”
“Is it more effective for local harmony to leave ‘territorial’ claims out of local discussions and focus on potential solutions for contemporary social issues?”
“Is it socially advantageous to learn and share the history of all occupants, present and prior?”
“Is it more constructive to discuss the events and people of our history in the contexts of a) their cultural time period’s values, and then b) the context of our cultural present values?”
“Is it useful to be ‘afraid’ of our history and thus ignore it and hide it?”
“Is legislated ignorance (hide it) better than educated perspective (shine a light of information on it)?”