Recent events add to the thinly veiled attempts by the HCCC and their HDI overseers to come up with a ploy that will replace their faltering attempts to use work stoppages at land development sites as a tool to obtain submission by the groups that have failed to comply with their "process" requirements.
As noted in numerous postings to this blog, over the years since 2006 the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) has used extortion techniques in the form of threats and direct work stoppages in order to encourage land developers to "conform" to the "process" (paying an application fee of about $7,000) to keep goons from standing in front of construction equipment and other practices to engage in very costly work stoppages. Recently in both Haldimand and Brant Counties the Courts has issued Injunctions (sometimes backed with substantial fines) to quash the indiscriminate use of this method of lining their pockets. So, as noted in the recent posting here, the HDI have turned to a somewhat more sophisticated approach. What follows is an update.
In "Turtle Island News" (TIN), July 23, 2014 there are two items which provide summaries and an update as to what HDI are up to using their new toy. There is a full page article entitled, Confederacy order shut down after Samsung / CCL bulldoze archaeological site (p.8); and an Editorial entitled, What next Samsung ... digging up graveyards? (p.6).
a) Article: There is a great deal of repetition from the article of last week, and limited new information, but the real question here is, what has been omitted, and what has been exaggerated? Recall that the only legitimate monitors, those with Elected Council approval and trained and certified by the Ontario Professional Archaeological Association, are not in the picture here. They are the ones who need to be supervising any questionable activities. What training does these agents for the HDI have? What knowledge do they have of Ontario archaeology? These are questions I cannot answer. Recall that the HDI is one of the most secretive groups I have ever seen in operation. There is absolutely no transparency, particularly when it comes to the questions, "Where does the money go?" This is a question that has been asked by Six Nations members time and time again and still there is only deflections and statements to the effect that they are working on it. Still, they have their own cheering section, including the local press, who has never reported on the Elected Council's role in this particular project, and what the legitimate archaeological monitors have seen or believe about their rogue counterparts.
In the latest twist, Work came to a halt Tuesday on one of the three solar sites under development by Samsung/CLL Grand River Renewable Energy Park after machinery began digging in an area where artifacts dating back some 10,000 years had been found.
As I have stated before, the likelihood of finding a 10,000 year old site is improbable to zero - especially in the area where the work is taking place (not a location where such artifacts are likely to be found). So these individuals with questionable "training" in archaeology decide that they have a culturally sensitive or valuable site on their hands and those naughty developers contravened their order to stop work. If the artifacts held in a hand, as shown in the picture, are any indication then there is nothing there that virtually every farmer in Haldimand County does not have somewhere at home based on a surface find after the fields are ploughed. Although it is difficult to diagnose anything from a picture so small, the only item of diagnostic significance is the sole arrowhead which, it appears to me, is an Early Woodland, "Meadowood" projectile point dating at most to 2900 years ago (far from 10,000), and likely to be found in virtually every field in Haldimand County.
Why would Samsung even allow these individuals allow these so - called "monitors" on their site? If there is a native - related issues involving archaeology, the proper course of action is to call in the trained monitors working under authority of the legally constituted authority on the Reserve, the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC).
Also, based on the assemblage of artifacts supposedly found together in close proximity. The words from the article in TIN are as follows, HDI monitors found handfuls of artifacts in less than 10 minutes on the site that had three foot deep ruts made by machinery going through the cordoned off area. Later the article reports that two handfuls were found in this length of time - further stretching credibility to those of us familiar with archaeological finds of this time period. It is either a cache of items (very rare, and to be found together at that precise level even more rare) or items that have deliberately been scattered there to make a point. Then the artifacts mysteriously disappear (they were supposedly left by the monitors on site). Since the HDI is looking for a way to shut down a project and assert their authority - readers can come to their own conclusions as to what really happened. Since the HDI Director, involved in the shut down of numerous land development sites from Hagersville to Brantford and beyond, has been personally involved in this action, again red flags are raised. The article adds, It is a criminal offense to remove artifacts from an archaeological site.
Supposedly the site has again been, cordoned off, by agreement with the Confederacy until further investigation ensued. Furthermore, the Director of HDI said, We have instructed our monitors to shut down that particular site, until they meet with the company brass. How do the "monitors" (used to be called goons or thugs) shut down a site these days? Is it the same way they used to do it without their hard hats and orange vests (which give a look of authority to the individual)?
The HDI head monitor accuses the professional archaeologists of, in relation to the site, they cleared it without assessing it. I doubt very much that this statement is correct, and would like to hear from the company (Stantec) concerning the matter.
Then, towards the end of the article, is a revealing statement as follows, The Grand Renewable Energy Park is owned by Samsung but Six Nations is a shareholder through an agreement with the Six Nations Band Council. I suspect that many would gloss over this statement, but it would be wise to pause and look into some of these clauses:
1) "Six Nations is a shareholder": That is true, but it was based on false information provided to Samsung and partners that the land in that area is "treaty land", which it is not. Also it was based on the false assertion that Six Nations has valid land claims in the area. I believe that since it is the Fisherville area that the former rationale was deployed - that the land was part of the Nanfan Treaty of 1701. The later is a bogus and entirely fraudulent document that is being used successfully by Six Nations to obtain "entitlements" to from everything from hunting rights to aboriginal control over land usage. When they reach the Samsung lands a little further east, the claim is that there are unceded lands in South Cayuga and Dunn Townships. This is a patently false claim that I have refuted in a number of previous postings. It seems though that various levels of government, and large corporations would rather cave then challenge Six Nations on the basis of what is true and verifiable, and what is false.
2) There is an, "agreement with the Six Nations Band Council", is a statement that is correct - although the agreement was based on false information. However this is not the real issue here. What is noteworthy is that the Hereditary Council (HCCC) have absolutely no stake in what the Elected Council negotiate, which is a major irritant, and I would submit, a large part of the reason for the issues arising here. Factionalism rears its ugly head once again. The "Band Council" has their own (trained and certified) monitors, and no where here is it noted that they have played any role in the dispute. Reading between the lines, it would seem that they have signed off on the project after working on site with the Stantec contractors - and that the HDI monitors are acting in a project where they have absolutely no legal standing, and yet are willing to do whatever it takes to assert their authority and attempt to wrest control of "monitoring" from the hands of their rival SNEC. The rivalry is more than hinted at in the following statement from the article, The HDI was excluded from the previous archaeological assessment conducted in 2012.
The HDI are going to have to play their cards well here since they have a track record of shutting down development sites based on their own self - proclaimed version of the truth. They have been met recently with Court Injunctions. Since, Bondfield Construction had threatened to call the OPP, we can see that an Injunction is the next step.
b) Editorial: Here the Editor confirms that the lands where the "HDI action" took place were considered to be, on lands within the Nanfan Treaty area. As I (and many others) have explained, with proper primary source documentation, this is a fraudulent document, and in no way, shape, or form a "treaty" of any sort. This embarrassing and unfortunate fact does not seem to have made any headway into the psyche of many at Six Nations. You can't demand rights and entitlements to lands that were not yours to give in the first place (they were owned, by right of conquest, by the Mississauga).
The Editor calls this an, "archaeological nightmare". That is a rather strong statement, but I can see absolutely nothing even remotely tangible to back up this expression. At this point the Editor provides a short summary of the shortcomings of all of the parties involved except of course the, HDI did intervene in the crisis hoping to prevent any loss of Haudenosaunee history. As to motives, that particular attribution is not one that would align with my interpretation (money and power). Furthermore, There has been huge damage, loss of whatever was in the fields and the HDI is asking why? Has there been "huge damage"? Apparently no one but the shady HDI seems to think so.
Another statement from the Editorial is as follows: Samsung's decision to go ahead without alerting or involving HDI is inexcusable and a breach of an agreement. As far as I know, from the evidence I have seen, the only contract is with the Elected Council and thus their monitors - there is no rationale, that I can conceive of, that would warrant any HDI involvement - but that has never stopped them before. The Editor states that, Samsung needs to right the wrong immediately and work in good faith with the Confederacy for the betterment of both their company and the Six Nations community. Well, the agreement is with the Six Nations community via their legally mandated representatives, the Elected Band Council (SNEC). Why the Confederacy through their enforcement arm, HDI, should be involved in any way eludes me. Finally, according to the Editor, Anything less is unacceptable. We certainly know who TIN supports, don't we?