Thursday, 31 July 2014

The Elected Council and Corporate Officials are Fuming Over False Allegations by HDI

In order to obtain a background to the present circumstances I will discuss, if you have not already read my recent posting on this subject, seen here, as it will assist in putting things in context.

1)  "Turtle Island News" (TIN) makes no bones about its wholehearted support for the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and its enforcement wing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), they do print Letters to the Editor which run counter to their own firmly held opinions.  One such case is found in the 30 July 2014 issue on page 6, where a letter, Grand Renewable Solar project is found.

Here the Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council, and representatives of Samsung Renewable Energy, Inc. and Grand Renewable Solar jointly sign a letter expressing their dismay at the information in previous issues of TIN, information which has been strongly questioned by myself using my own personal experience as a Volunteer (we were not paid then) Archaeological Conservation Officer with the then Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Ontario, and with observations which seem clearly evident to me.  So, despite my complete lack of support for the wind and solar initiatives that are gobbling up prime farmland in my home County, I look to the evidence, and will stand by the truth irrespective of my personal views on the matter.

With the awareness of the shenanigans involving the HDI assigned monitors, who may or may not have any formal training (unlike their Elected Council counterparts who have been trained and certified by the Ontario Professional Archaeologists Association), we begin.  The HDI monitors finding artifact allegedly missed by the earlier archaeological assessments done by those who have spent 4 to 8 years in university studying the subject, is convenient since it brings into question what is going on in a joint venture between the detested Elected Council and one or more corporations.  I can assure all that if the Elected Council had not been involved, there would be no issues or finds that defy any laws of probability and which are clearly not what they are claimed to be (10,000 year old).

Here follows excerpts from the above Letter which attempts to "address potential misconceptions" that any of their groups would have destroyed artifacts.  They also attempt to emphasize the, exhaustive archaeological work undertaken on the project site, noting that they had taken great pains to identify any artifacts within the boundaries of the project, having, employed four leading, independent archaeological consulting firms to do this work.  The process was monitored on a daily basis by representatives of the Six Nations, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and the Mississaugas of the New Credit.  This work took several years, and the results have received the approval of all relevant government bodies.

The fact is that it is redundant to have two groups of Six Nations "monitors" on site, with those of the Elected Council having the background to assess what is being observed.  One Six Nations and one Mississauga group would be more than sufficient.  Their presence at all is largely political, and not because the professional archaeologists need any "assistance" of this sort in doing their work competently.  This is my opinion, not necessarily that of the professional archaeologists.

The signers are clearly very frustrated that they went the distance to include the HDI monitors, and accommodated to all of their requirements, and all was fine until the construction phase began, when the HDI monitors showed up on site and began to make somewhat mysterious findings that, in my opinion, are bogus.  Of course those who wrote the letter would not be permitted to add their views on why HDI would decide to make an appearance after signing off on the work.  I can.  It was because there was political hay to be made, and potentially more money to be extracted from the corporations.

The Elected Council and the corporate entities took very great exception to some of the statements in the TIN article of 16 July 2014, in particular that there was, "a 'deliberate' attempt to stop HDI" and "a deliberate interference of an investigation" and, are simply false.

The Elected Council and the corporations are stating facts, and I can provide an opinion that the artifacts I saw in the picture were nothing but items seen in every field in Southwestern Ontario, along with some stray plough broken rock - but nothing dating to earlier than relative recent times, and numbers found in "minutes" are never ever found in early sites even with careful controlled archaeological excavations.  Nothing adds up other than it is but another ploy by HDI to disrupt things.

To rub salt into the wound, immediately above the said letter is a cartoon, showing an adult "Native" male saying, with obvious emotion, "Native artifacts! ... Gone!?  All for the love of money?  To one side is a "Native" boy who says, "Is my papa's gravesite SAFE?"  The only word I can think of to say here is, RIDICULOUS!  If anyone is interested in facts as opposed to spin, they will know this is but another ploy by the HDI and their media wing to make all others seem evil, money grubbing types, who are robbing Six Nations of their heritage.  The people who made the artifacts are long gone, and who their lineal descendants might have been is largely unknown, or are Nations that were part of the genocide perpetrated by the then Five Nations against all of the peoples residing in Southwestern and Central Ontario in the years between 1640 and 1650.  Why Six Nations, who are immigrants to Grand River, should have a say is something with a political twist.  I have news for all - these sites are part of the heritage of all in Ontario, they are part of our heritage. Those who really care about our heritage do not necessarily have a "Status Card", but they care about heritage for reasons other than politics and money.

On two occasions bones were found (no doubt much to the glee of HDI), but all these turned out to be cow bones - a common find on such sites.

2)  "Two Row Times" has an article of 30 July 2014, p.2, entitled, Samsung denies human bones at site, artifacts disappear.  Same old, same old.  They attempt to make a big deal about finding of bone, which were later determined to be cow bone.  None the less, the article accuses various officials of not being upfront about the bones, and attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill.  The article includes the dubious statement that, some experts speculate that the artifacts [noted in previous postings] may date as far back as 10,000 years ..... and may be the remenants of an ancient Onkwehon:we village.  I would indeed love to meet this so called "experts" since the suggestion of a 10,000 year old "village" is absurd.  There were no villages then, only temporary settlements - the people were hunter - gatherers who moved with the caribou herds.  You can say anything in print, even if it is ridiculous.  Even more dubious is the source, HDI monitors who do not wish to be named, for fear of losing their jobs.  That statement is really questionable since only the HDI would be involved in hiring and firing - and they would be unlikely to terminate the employment of anyone finding artifacts (stones and bones) that HDI could use to make political hay.  There is no use in quoting further from the article since it is largely composed of accusations by both parties going back and forth.

Perhaps to counteract the potentially damaging effects of the above letter to the HDI "cause", another article about the archaeology at the same site is included in TIN, p.13.  It is entitled, Grand Renewable Energy Part work.  It is largely a regurgitation of what has been noted in previous reports, and again the HDI, though their Director, are whining about their being shut out of the process (not supported by the evidence).  The article reports that, An engagement process with Stantec [professional archaeology firm already dealing with Elected Council monitors] didn't begin until 2012.  "We were told they were advised by Ontario to only deal with the elected band council.  It is unfortunate that Ontario has taken this position in a number of areas and affected the Haudenosaunee's ability to ensure our [non existant] treaty rights and the honour of the Crown are being respected.  The Director lays the blame for any delays both here, and at "Kanonhstaton" (DCE) squarely at the feet of Ontario, and states that, Had our monitors been engaged in the beginning we most likely would have found these sites as we were able to do now during the construction process.  One wonders if the Director really believes this fairy tale - I doubt it.

Clearly Ontario is not buying this warped view of reality, but of course there will be political pressure to "conform".  It remains to be seen how far Ontario is willing to go to support two independent groups from Six Nations who each claim that they have the right to negotiate with Ontario.  The latter, as well as the Federal Government, knows full well that only the Elected Council has "status" at the table - but that the very vocal and very demanding and very violent HDI can go to great lengths to make the legal process problematic and ensure than nothing productive comes of anything touched by HDI. 


No comments:

Post a comment