The letter in question can be found here.
First some background. JW, a non-Native person residing in Brantford, used to be a reporter and photographer with the Reserve newspaper "Tekawenake". When the latter folded somewhat more than a year ago Mr. W and colleague TK, a White radical Communist - Anarchist who has caused untold suffering in Caledonia, became associated with a start up newspaper, "Two Row Times". As it now stands Mr. W is a reporter, and Mr. K has risen in the ranks to become a General Manager and Editor of the Six Nations and "Dish with One Spoon" territory newspaper which competes with "Turtle Island News", which maintains that they are the only Reserve newspaper. I don't suppose that it would be "fair game" to include any information that I overheard Mr. W say to another non-Native in a local restaurant about his situation, so that will not be included here.
The primary focus of the present blog posting is to challenge the factual content of Mr. W's (JW)letter. I will do this by quoting from the Letter, then will offer sourced information to content. In my opinion what was written by JW is largely Six Nations propaganda - the party line. In italics below are excerpts from the letter by JW, then to be followed by my comments and evidence.
1) Cam Martindale's letter published last Friday Shows that he is one of so many Canadians who have no idea what is going on around them. The key to understanding Six Nations is that they are not Canadians, but rather a distinct and sovereign people with a constitution that precedes ours by about 1,500 years.
I have been unable to locate Mr. Martindale's letter, however, the allegation of the latter's ignorance is going to be attenuated when examining JW's written assertions. As to the comment that Six Nations people "are not Canadians" that is nothing but a political statement of politically correct dogma. In fact Six Nations and all who live within Canadian boundaries and who are subject to Canadian jurisdiction are de facto Canadians. Six Nations are subject to Canadian laws and any Criminal Code violations will result in the same sentence as any other Canadian. Six Nations accepts Transfer Payments and Welfare from the Federal Government of Canada - so if they are not Canadian, they need to return a lot of money - and with interest.
Six Nations are not aboriginal to Canada. Their homeland is in what is today Upstate New York, United States of America. So Six Nations are immigrants and refugees just as the White United Empire Loyalists who departed American territory after the Revolution. The argument about sovereignty is specious. There is not a shred of evidence to support it - but it is widely believed to be true. Six Nations were given "occupancy rights" by virtue of the Haldimand Deed, but the title to the land was and is vested in the Crown and its successors. It is true that in the 1640s the then Five Nations (including my own ancestors) committed an act of genocide, destroying all of the Nations residing in Southwestern Ontario. However, attempts to settle or lay claim to the land from the 1680s was net with increasing hostility from the Mississauga and their neighbours (including the remnants of the Huron / Wendat who escaped the attempt at complete annihilation in the 1640s) such that by 1700 all 8 Five Nations settlements north of Lake Ontario had been destroyed and their surviving inhabitants pushed back to the aboriginal lands in what is today Upstate New York. In each and every document or council dating from 1700 onward, the Six Nations recognized the sovereignty of the Crown and "His Majesty the Great King of England". Never once has the Crown or its legitimate agents questioned that the Six Nations were subjects of the King - it was true of all within the lands claimed by Great Britain, just as the same situation was true of the lands claimed by the King of France (lands that ultimately came under the sovereign control of the British Crown). I have written about this matter in numerous postings, with examples and sources. So the claim that Six Nations (all 23,000 on and off Reserve) are a sovereign people is only wishful thinking, and of relatively recent origin. It is the Mississauga, from whom Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand purchased the Grand River (Haldimand) Tract - it is the Mississauga (e.g., those residing on the New Credit Reserve near Hagersville) who are aboriginal to the Caledonia and surrounds area.
As to the antiquity of their Constitution. First, it was never recorded until the mid 19th Century, so we do not know how much has changed since the founding of the "League" or "Confederacy". One thing is absolutely certain though, and that is that JW's dates are nothing by a stab in the dark. For those who want to look at hard evidence, there is nothing in the archaeological record to suggest the timeline proposed by JW - that the League was formed about 500 AD at which time a "Constitution" was established. Anyone who wants to check out the facts here would be well advised to read a summary text by the doyen of Upstate New York archaeology (a man I know and respect), Dean R. Snow. His book which is part of "The Peoples of America" series is entitled, The Iroquois, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, Blackwell Publishing, 1996.
The data shows that the ancestors of those who would become the Five Nations began to arrive from what is today Central Pennsylvania circa 900 AD. So not only are Six Nations not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario, they are not entirely aboriginal (depending on definition) to Upstate New York. They came from somewhere else, just like everyone else over the years - via migration. At this time a new people arrived in Upstate New York, but with many of the pottery traditions continuing for some time - likely because the females of the defeated groups were incorporated into the Five Nations by adoption - a practice that extended into modern times. So we are talking about 1100 years ago when the Five Nations made their first appearance as immigrants, displacing the former occupants. The archaeological record shows increasing violence over time (cannibalism via cut marks on human bones; and torture, for example fingers severed and tossed among the garbage thrown over the palisade walls). With the selection of sites for defense and the surrounding of villages with increasingly more substantial palisades we have evidence of warfare likely between the peoples who were to become the Five Nations. Then, around 1500 AD there is a shift in settlement patterns suggesting that warfare was less of a concern (villages on flatlands and without palisades). It would seem that about this time, say beginning circa 1400 AD a peace accord between those who would become the Five Nations was established. As Dr. Snow concludes, Both Iroquois oral tradition and archaeological evidence for endemic warfare suggest that the League could not have formed prior to around 1450, and the process completed by around 1525 (p.60). After this their violence was then directed outward toward neighbours not under the Great Tree of Peace - resulting in the wholesale destruction of the people in Huronia, the St. Lawrence Valley, Lake Erie shores, and down the Susquehanna River.
2) In speaking of Surrey Street JW states that, a young Caledonia man drove a van down that same road at high speed and crashed it into the house where Six Nations people were sleeping, narrowly missing the gas meter. Those in the house administered first aid until the ambulance got there. In fact, there is a lot more to this matter than the selective information presented here. It was part of the ongoing chaos at the former Douglas Creek Estates site, which has included a number of rapes, assaults and other acts of violence. The situation described by JW was kept out of the mainstream media - the only information I can find via google is on Six Nations Solidarity sites (hardly a reliable source) such as here. It may have been reported in "Turtle Island News", or the now defunct "Tekawenake", but their content is not on google and my hard copies would have been recycled years ago. What I recall is that the incident involved not a White person as JW alludes, but a young Native male who was apparently bent on committing suicide, but the name of the injured person was withheld to protect the family. Fortunately he failed, but this is a reflection of the horrors that have gone on here, perpetuated by Six Nations members and their invited outsiders, not the people of Caledonia. That one single house is a microcosm or reflection of the social dysfuction that afflicts much (certainly not all) of the Reserve Community.
3) A firebomb burned down the first structure built where the barricade is now. A nearby smoke shop, with people inside, was firebombed. A trailer was firebombed. as well. Well, I live here and this is news to me. Any "firebombing" has been perpetrated by Six Nations members or their supporters (see Blatchford or any of the local newspapers) - for example the arson incident which resulted in the complete burning of the Stirling Street Bridge which crosses the railway tracks - which is to this day closed. That was well reported and here is a picture:
Here is another picture of the April 2006 riot by Six Nations and their supporters, where fire was involved in the form of a tire fire in the middle of Argyle Street, Caledonia:
Where is it reported that a structure built where the barricade sits now was firebombed, and if it was, where is the evidence as to who committed the act?
The smoke shacks are clustered around the former Douglas Creek Estates, and most are illegally situated on Hydro One land. There is a smoke shack that may have burned on the Caledonia bypass near the stub of the Hydro One tower demolished by militants to use as a barricade - at least there is a lot of rubble around the new one - but it is well known that that there is no love lost between "business rivals" in the smokes trade. Where is the evidence that anyone from Caledonia had anything to do with these alleged incendiary acts. This is very irresponsible reporting. Wait, technically it is not reporting, just a "letter to the editor" and hence you can say what you want and not have to provide evidence - under the guise of "opinion" and "free speech". There is the freedom to lie too - although one may get caught in the lie and then later have to take responsibility in some manner.