After reading Lynda Powless’ Insight article on the Caledonia land dispute in The Record, I still don’t understand Caledonia. I just don’t see how the dispute is the same as other First Nations’ claims. Canadian First Nation bands were the original land owners before the Queen and some never surrendered their land under proper treaties. The fact remains that the Six Nations were granted the land at the end of the 18th century. The Six Nations were refugees and immigrants in a new land just like the United Empire Loyalists who also received land grants. I was taught that common law holds land ownership under the guise of a legal fiction. Technically, nobody but the queen in Canada owns land outright as it is merely loaned by the queen. Others are only allowed to hold "estates" in the land. The Six Nations held the land in fee simple just like the United Empire Loyalists and should have been allowed do what they please with the land including sale to another and the ability to pass it on to next of kin ad infinitum. I understand that this was not allowed and some sales were done without the consent of the Six Nations. It seems to me that they have a case for compensation where "successive Canadian governments have failed to live up to their obligations." Even if they are "not Canadians" the Haldimand tract was and is Canadian land subject to common law and the issue must be resolved under the law. The second part which appeared on Monday October 30th, written by Ken Coates, a University of Waterloo history professor, did not address the question either. I still don’t know how the Five Nations claim is the same as other First Nations’ claims and different from the way United Empire Loyalists hold the land they were granted at the same time.