Thursday, 21 August 2014

Another Fracture Line at Six Nations as Factions Vie for Power

It is not that I did not expect this to happen.  It has been apparent for some time that Men's Fire (developed out of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council HCCC) have not been "getting along" with some of the more outspoken agencies which also claim the support of the HCCC.  The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) claims to speak for all of Six Nations, but draws its support from the HCCC (or, as it is now clear, parts of the Hereditary Council).

What would prompt this fracture line?  It would be no surprise if it was money and power.

There are so many constantly shifting alliances at Six Nations, moving like a school of sardines, then breaking off into tight knit groups, sometimes merging back into the school, sometimes taking an independent route.  Everything is fluid, in dynamic motion.

At some point recently, Men's Fire and the HDI came to view each other less as allies in the same cause, than competitors for the "conservative following" at Six Nations.  So then the ultimate question is, who does the HCCC support?  Since there are splits within the ranks here, who knows - today this, tomorrow that.

An article in the 20 August 2014 issue of "Two Row Times" online, seen here, is entitled, Meeting with "the people" must start somewhere.  Here we learn of the thoughts and words of Bill Monture, one of the leaders of Men's Fire. 

Bill Monture, a well-known local activist and traditionalist, built a meeting place on his Chiefswood Road property as a neutral space and has begun a process by which he hopes to find the future for Six Nations in the past.

Recently, he hosted a meeting at the converted barn, which was attended by a room full of unlikely participants, including Mark Clearwater and Randy Reed representing the provincial government, Haldimand County Mayor Ken Hewitt, and about 30 rank-and-file Six Nations citizens to openly and frankly discuss matters of interest to Six Nations as a people and the future of co-existence of the traditional wisdom of the ancestors and the reality of the 21st century, and to do so without the presence of the media.

He and the group known to the Six Nations community as the “Men’s Fire” are trying to refocus the attention of all parties currently vying for the power to speak on behalf of the people of Six Nations, and at the same time, educate settler governments and corporations on how to rightly deal with Six Nations.

Basically, he is attempting to become THE focus of power at Six Nations, leaving the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC), and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute in the dustbin of history.  While the first named is no surprise, the following very direct statements show how Men's Fire now view the HDI.  Continuing from the above quote,

To that end, invitations went out to the Elected Band Council, the Confederacy Chiefs, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, Clan Mothers and members of the general public to attend the meeting with Hewitt and the Province.

The message was, if you are going to deal with Six Nations, you must deal with the people of Six Nations and not the Band Council system set up by the Indian Act, or the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, which Monture does not accept as being established by the people of Six Nations to represent them.

This is the clearest statement to date of a spit between Men's Fire and the HDI, who at one time were very cozy.  More from the article,

He [Monture] believes that any consultation should be done with the people at large through the clans or through the Chiefs Council directly, and without the HDI.  Furthermore, "We should not be going to the HDI or to Band Council and making deals on the side. That is not the process and it’s not our Great Law.”  Ouch.  This must be a major topic of discussion within HDI circles as they press their case as being the one true party with which government and corporations must negotiate with.  This is a major fissured, and the damage it will cause is unclear at present.

In addition, Monture claims that both the Elected Band Council and the HDI are keeping the people in the dark over details surrounding deals being made with outside interests by both organizations regarding community owned lands and resources. To remedy this situation, he would like to see “the people” more involved in the decision-making, as was the case before the Elected Council was forced upon Six Nations almost 90 years ago.

In relation to the recent meeting, “We made it very clear at that last meeting a couple of weeks ago, who they need to talk to, and that is the Confederacy Council and not the HDI, not [Elected] Band Council, and not Ken Hewitt. Those Treaties were made with our Confederacy Chiefs. Not with Band Council or Ken Hewitt or any other municipality."  In fact this statement is in error, the Chiefs of the Grand River never made any treaties with any level of government.  There were agreements, there were surrenders, but treaties - absolutely not. 

It should be noted that Monture is basically saying that Six Nations should return to days of old.  A time when they were governed by a system that was established in the Stone Age for Stone Age people.  The hereditary system may have served Six Nations well back in the day, but it also permitted the complete genocide of the Huron / Wendat, Attiwandaronk, Petun, Wenro, Erie and other peoples who were "in their way" in the sense of being able to control the fur trade without "competition".  So, considering that the system was deemed dysfunctional when it was abolished with the assistance of the Six Nations Warrior's Association, and that anthropological studies since that date (the 1949 Noon study using Council Minutes from the time just before the change in 1924; the 1961 Shimony study) confirm that this form of governance was in serious trouble even with the most mundane and local issues - to suggest that all step backwards to an idealized time may be romantic, but it is irrational.

However Monture's next statement is borne out by the facts, and questions in front of the media as that posed by Elder Jan Longboat and reported on here earlier.  Monture said,

“The people want to know what is happening,” he said. “Why isn’t that money they are getting from these deals filtering into the community? It is the people’s inherent rights they are using to sign these agreements, but there is nothing coming back into the people’s pockets. It’s all going to them.”

Monture touches on an issue that has been creating increasing levels of frustration and anger at Six Nations.  When the Director was asked about where the money from land development and "green energy" corporate deals was, her reply was that anyone interested needs to go to their clan mother and their chief and make inquiries from that direction.  Considering that perhaps one in four (that is being very very generous) people at Six Nations know their clan, let alone have any involvement with the chief that is supposedly representing them, this response did not sit well with a very large number of Six Nations members. 

So another fault line appears to ensure that Six Nations will never be unified to the point where it will, as a community, be in a position to negotiate with anyone over anything without some other side stepping forward and saying that they were not included so the deal or whatever is not valid.


Wednesday, 20 August 2014

Appearance of the Canadian Forces in the Niagara Peninsula Frightens Six Nations

I have proposed that since the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) have been remiss in carrying out their duties to serve and protect those of us in Haldimand County and vicinity, that an alternative solution is required. 

The OPP have been unwilling or unable to carry out (execute) a Court Injunction issued by the Superior Court in Cayuga dating back to 2006.  When they tried to do so on 28 April 2006, they were unprepared for the sheer numbers of Six Nations members who funneled down Stirling Street (before they set this bridge on fire), and 5th Line as well as 6th Line - all with direct easy access to the Douglas Creek Estates site.  The OPP were soon outnumbered, and it was a case of either take aggressive action, or retreat.  They chose the latter, and DCE has been in the hands of activists since then - and the effects of their boldness is now felt across not only Haldimand County, but also the length and breadth of Southwestern Ontario via a new interpretation of an old fraudulent document. 

Over time those who emerged to control the land, and what happens there, have been members of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) which is a "child" of the DCE "reclamation", and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council who are responsible for spawning the HDI.  Band Council (Six Nations Elected Council - SNEC) have basically washed their hands of the matter and turned things over to the HDI.  Unfortunately while SNEC are reasonable and willing to negotiate, HDI are largely irrational, emotion driven, idealistic but not realistic, and believe that now is the time for the Hereditary Council to return to power and "dethrone" the Elected Council.  They have used DCE as a power base and, and with the help of "Turtle Island News", have employed a propaganda war with everyone who challenges them. 

At present the focus of the HCCC / HDI is on the Province of Ontario who they know hold title to the DCE property.  Their advisors have surely informed the HDI that there is no legal way to "reclaim" DCE - it was surrendered in 1844, 170 years ago, and the Federal Government is willing to stand firm with the research supporting this fact.  The only hope if for HDI to twist the arm of Ontario hard enough for it to say "uncle", and give in to HDI demands and "return" (actually simply give) the DCE property to them so that they can create a land registry unaffiliated with the one operated by SNEC.  They see this as step one in the "return" of multiple properties such as the Burtch Correctional Centre and lands in South Cayuga owned by Ontario (bought in the 1980s for an anticipated residential complex), and leased to local farmers (after initially expropriating the land).  They also claim rights under the fraudulent Nanfan Treaty of 1701 to strong arm land developers, and corporations such as Samsung working in the "green energy" business, building industrial wind turbines and solar "farms".  They have extorted monies from all of these groups, except those who have successfully obtained Court Injunctions, enforced by the OPP, which keeps trespassers off private property (in Cayuga, Hagersville and Brantford).  Corporations such as Samsung are largely paying both SNEC and HCCC / HDI for the "right" to develop land in Southwestern Ontario.  It is a scam, but all these Six Nations factions are getting away with it.  If no one challenges them in Court, they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Meanwhile, the radicals are entrenched at DCE, and these "land protectors" are only a phone call via their phone tree from being able to pull in 100 or more thugs willing to challenge any form of "authority".  They have established a lawless state at the south end of Caledonia, and at present there is no hope whatsoever that things will change.  They will still continue to erect a fence on Provincially owned land, stop Hydro One from stringing the wires on the huge towers from Niagara Falls that have been idle since 2006, and place contraband cigarette shacks anywhere they want in the area to the south of the Grand River - including the illegally placed shacks on Hydro One land that are tolerated because no one at any governmental level seems to want confrontation and would rather trade disrespect of the law for the illusion of peace. 

My point is that there are many in and around Caledonia who have had it with the two tiered law system of law where those labelled "Native" are pretty well allowed to do as they please - as is plainly in evidence as you see the fence go up at DCE.  If they want to build a chain link fence on Provincial land, no problem.  If say Caledonia merchants decided to place a fence along say Surrey Street on DCE, I can guarantee you that they would be swarmed by the Six Nations activists and any Canadian flags will be destroyed to allow Confederacy and Mohawk Warrior flags to fly anywhere on DCE, and any attempt to remove them would be labelled disrespectful and racist - two sets of rules, only one set of flags (those representing the illegal "owners") are tolerated. 

It is a crazy topsy turvy world at the DCE barricade - now being fashioned into some sort of Haudenosaunee themed display panel to compliment the "Welcome to Six Nations" sign that stands by the barricade.  That sign should come down, it is not and never will be "Six Nations land".  They are setting the stage for "resistance" once they (HDI) cross a certain line.  Militia groups will form to protect ourselves from anarchy.  Confederacy and Mohawk Warrior flags will come down, and Canadian and Ontario flags will go up.  The trespassers will be firmly ejected.  How this comes off will be entirely a function of how the HDI and supporters cooperate with a copy of the 2006 Court Injunction.  They will be sent packing - how, I don't know, and can only guess.

It is safe to assume that the HDI will not honour any Injunction calling on them to leave the DCE premises, and so the "activists", laughing all the way, just flaunt the law - and is it any wonder since to date all government and law enforcement agencies have acted as enablers.  So if the OPP are powerless, one option is to call in the "army" who are in a position to use the only type of action that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) enforcers and other militants including those from Reserves in the United States, understand.  These affiliated groups often belong to the "Mohawk Warriors", who possess AK47 and AR7 and AR8 military assault rifles and other weapons.  Gun battles are a way of life there, where for example gaming and anti - gaming factions will resort to violence to settle disputes.  However they know that they will lose in any contest with the Canadian Forces, in cooperation with agencies in the U.S.A.  This will trigger a series of events that will lead to "one law, one country" and via the domino effect, will result in the dissolution of all Reserves in Canada.  The anger across Canada among taxpayers is at the breaking point.  Some people may be tricked into thinking that Canadians are supportive of the status quo re First Nations based on the very vocal minority of Anarchists, Black Bloc, Communists, Unions and others who speak loudly, but represent only a minority of largely urban residents who are largely under 30 years of age.  One can guess that key corporations will be highly supportive in an attempt to bring common sense and rationality back to Canada and address the power that First Nations communities wield.

Should Canada decide that having its citizens enact comprehensive citizen arrests and the danger that this sort of action entails is unacceptable, then the military needs to be sent in.  We need Canadian Forces to bring back law and order to this part of Ontario.  The Government of Canada knows as well as we locals know, that if this matter in Caledonia is not contained, Canada will be a punching bag to First Nations Bands across Canada.  So nip it in the bud now.  Makes excellent sense.

Do Six Nations have any concerns about Canadian Forces becoming involved?  Are they aware that persons such as myself have contacted Ministers begging and pleading for help - that we are in distress and that if they don't want us to take matters into our own hands, please "send in the army".  The Government knows that myself and others will attest to the fact that we pleaded for our Government to come to our rescue.  All they did was answer our distress call.  As a resident I will accept responsibility for having "boots on the ground" on the south side of the Grand River.

An article in "Turtle Island News" (p.3), is entitled, Military exercise could stir up memories of Oka.

To see how "twitchy" Six Nations members are about the fact that they have pushed the limits to the breaking point, this article gives a hint.  It states,

Six Nations Band Council warned Canadian Armed Forces representatives on Tuesday that a current military exercise around the Niagara Peninsula could stir up memories of the Oka Crisis if people aren't sufficiently warned.  Representatives from the Canadian Armed Forces came to band council informed the community of the upcoming exercise, saying Six Nations people should not panic. 

If they see gun - toting soldiers deployed around the Niagara Peninsula during a massive, simulated, large scale training exercise from Aug. 16 to Aug. 24.   Commander of the 31 Canadian Brigade, Colonel Brock Millman, and Chief Warrant Officer Dave Ellyat told Six Nations Band Council last week that about 2,000 Canadian Army soldiers from regular and reserve units across Ontario will be training in the communities of the Niagara Peninsula as part of exercise Stalwart Guardian 14. 

The public will see military vehicles, buses, and personnel conducting a variety of activities as they practice and test their skills.  The officers said caution should be used when passing military vehicles parked on road shoulders as there may be soldiers on foot in the vicinity.


This "exercise" is precisely what will be needed if and when the Canadian Forces are called in to rescue fellow citizens from the clutches of terrorists.

To Six Nations, I want members to know that I well remember the "Oka Crisis".  While I supported the rationale for the action, in other words the concern that the expansion of a golf course would put a burial ground at risk - I was lost somewhere along the way.  When the more militant group at Kahnesatake accepted criminals, armed to the teeth, from Akwesasne as allies, then myself and others withdrew our support.  That was a very ugly conflict. 

Most people know that Dudley George was shot by the OPP at Ipperwash, setting into motion the changes in practice that have hobbled the OPP from doing anything proactive if it is a "Native issue" - and directly impacting what has happened at Caledonia over the past 8 years.  It was tragic that George lost his life in the matter, no matter what the specific circumstances.  However, how many recall that at Oka the same element of tragedy was also in the picture?  How many recall Corporal Marcel Lemay of Surete du Quebec, who was shot dead by a Native activist (see here)?  Why was there no extended inquiry?  Why was the perpetrator never brought to justice?  Why were Native activists not "declawed"? 

Some to many to most Canadians would welcome the involvement of the Canadian Forces to restore order and to divest our land of parasites who would bleed the Canadian taxpayer dry and hold us locals to ransom with no fear of any consequences.  The army will be welcomed, and if us locals can be of any assistance, such as acting in the role of guides and advisors, especially those of us with military experience, all you have to do is ask.

Now, this may be largely an imaginary scenario, but in all seriousness, the way things are progressing (or rather have not been progressing), one never knows when the fantasy may become reality.  One thing that I have learned in life is that everyone has their breaking point, and for some, that critical juncture is a lot closer than it is for others.

One thing does stand out above political correctness and all else.  Please remember Corporal Marcel Lemay - a Canadian hero who died in the line of duty while defending us from the lawlessness that had overtaken Oka.


Barricade Across Surrey Street is Being Given a "More Aesthetically Pleasing" Look

In the 20 August 2014 online issue of "Two Row Times" is an article entitled, The Kanonhstaton barricade is gone ............... kinda as seen here.

The barricade is getting a face lift -

What has happened is that,

The barricade in front of the former Douglas Creek Estates site near Caledonia, has been removed … kinda. Maybe the better word would be that it has been repurposed.

“We took the old hydro tower apart piece by piece and gave it to Bear Iron Welding, of Six Nations, and they have refitted that material into the new front gate,” said Six Nations land protector Jeff Henhawk.

The up-rights for the new gate were installed Monday and the front gates will be fitted soon. From the uprights at edge or the roadway into the site, more chain-link fencing will be going in along Argyle Street as soon as the front gate is completed, according to the Six Nations welder, who did not want his name published.

So, basically, the HDI are playing games, knowing that the barricade is a "barrier" in many sense of the word.  It has become a sore point not only between the "land protectors" (HDI terrorists) and the citizens of Caledonia.  The former have spent weeks with one or more vehicles near a wood fire at the entrance was to Surrey Street on the west side of the gnarled and twisted remnants of the Hydro One tower which was stolen and dragged to that spot - to guard against the County of Haldimand following through on its plans to remove the barricade.  It seems that the whole matter may become a "non - issue" now that the ugly old eyesore will be gone.  However in its place will be a "artistically rendered" version of the same thing.  So in a brilliant move by HDI, they have managed to deflect some criticism away from them - although they are still thieves occupying stolen land, which can only be changed by their forcible removal.

We do know the name of the firm of iron workers who are welding up the new apparition, and hopefully Caledonia residents and those from far and wide will be looking and thinking - "do we really want to give our business to those who are part and parcel of the pain that this whole situation has caused?"  Note though that the "Six Nations welder" did not want his name published - clearly he was aware that there was potential for repercussions.

Errors and possible lies -

Then we find the usual array of "errors" of fact, that give the spin that the activists would have you believe on faith.  For example the author, in reviewing the history of the property states, land the developers knew was under registered land claim and was never surrendered for sale.  That is untrue since the developers, Henco, owned the land via a title deed registered in the Ontario Land Registry at Cayuga, and they knew that on 18 December 1844, 47 Six Nations Chiefs in Council surrendered this property to the Crown. 

There are more factual errors that permeate this particular article, which is grossly insulting to those of us who live here and know what the true facts are (in my case also via 35 years of researching Indian Affairs RG10 Series records at the Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa).

For example, in describing the situation at the "front lines" in 2006, the author states, Caledonia citizens set up their own blockade after Six Nations had removed theirs from the highway on the Victoria Day weekend. An incident resulted in one of the leaders on the Six Nations side was punched in the face by a Caledonia citizen, which prompted the tower to be dragged across the street again as tempers flared into a near riot.  Perchance is the writer speaking of the well known picture of Gary McHale, the bane of the existence of those "land protectors", who was supporting the Caledonia side and for his troubles was punched in the face and left with a very bloodied head.  I don't recall any Six Nations person receiving wounds during this fracas.  Interesting twist on things though.

Another absolutely ridiculous and untrue assertion in relation to those early days is, But other provocations by certain Caledonia residents backed up by high profile white supremacists who were invited to Caledonia by agitator Gary McHale, caused Six Nations to keep the hydro tower close by just in case it might be needed again.  I am familiar with the situation, I live there, and I have never seen any "high profile white supremacists" or any white supremacists of any description.  Unless the author can back up this unsupported claim it must be seen for what it is, a bald faced lie.  Gary McHale was later accused of being a "white supremacist" and when it was shown that the opposite was the case, his accuser was forced to offer a written apology for the lies he had spoken.  So the same lies are still being recycled for political gain.

The author ends by trying to paint the Hereditary Chiefs (who may be learning this for the first time in the newspaper article) as kindly concerned members of the community whose only desire is for peace.  Specifically it is stated that, The Chiefs also authorized the removal of the hydro tower, but it was to be replaced with the installation of a gate across the entrance to the site. Someone came up with the idea of repurposing the hydro tower to continue to serve as a protective barrier, but in a new, more aesthetically pleasing reincarnation.

"Turtle Island News" includes a similar article of 20 August 2014 (p.4), entitled, Kanonhstaton is changing: New gate being designed.  The same take on things is expressed, but there are some statements that warrant closer scrutiny.  After describing how the two large Hydro One towers are being employed because, "People didn't want the hydro towers to go so we decided to use them to build the gate", according to J.H. the security and project manager overseeing the installations for the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council.  Well it is of course all well and dandy to use stolen property to construct a gate which will remind those of us in Caledonia of the pain at the hands of these self - described "land defenders" aka terrorist thugs.  So will Ontario step forward to claim the stolen property, and charge the people involved in both the theft and the "repurposing"?

Some articles are so warped and distorted that they make someone who is aware of the facts of the matter want to toss their cookies - this is one of those articles.

The future -

Since the article notes that there will be chain link fence joining the barricade to the fence along Thistlemore Drive, thus paralleling Argyle Street.  It is a set up for confrontation since the Province of Ontario stated that it wants no unilateral action (without consultation with the County of Haldimand and the Elected Council - the only legitimate governing body at Six Nations) in terms of constructing a fence.  The HDI and Confederacy Chiefs continue to defy the Province and the question becomes - what will the Provincial Government do, since they own the land (which was surrendered 170 years ago this 18 December)?  The ball is in their court.


More Evidence that Children were NOT Murdered and Tossed into Mass Graves at Residential Schools

It seems that Kevin Annett has trouble with conceptualizing and addressing "the truth", when he has become so invested in "the story" he has concocted and succeeded in dragging into his bizarre world an assorted mélange who are his "supporters".  This process has been seen Canada - wide, and includes Six Nations.  The particular antic which will be addressed here is his effort to convince First Nations groups across Canada that the Residential Schools murdered little children and disposed of their bodies in mass graves.  This is a somewhat typical "conspiracy theory", a complete hoax for which there is not a shred of evidence, but that has not stopped concerned people across Canada from rallying to his cause.  He has duped even the Hereditary Chiefs (whether all or not I don't know) who believed his version of unsupported reality.

To learn about this character, where one can see probably the most detailed and comprehensive view of his life story, and all the damage he has done by perpetuating hoaxes of one sort or another, see here.   I have always thought that those who have become his supporters, are probably those who would believe in alien visitations, ghostly apparitions, and are susceptible to becoming drawn into a cult.  Basically Annett has a cult following who, despite the mounting evidence of his hoax involving a mass conspiracy to cover up murders at the Mohawk Institute.  The Mohawk Institute is the Residential School associated with Six Nations - known to some as the "Mush Hole" - but is actually on the Six Nations Reserve unlike Residential Schools in other parts of Canada.  Annett claims that there are untold numbers of bodies of small children which were consigned to bone pits after their murder.  To a scientist such as myself, red flags go up all over the place.  I know the Mohawk Institute as it exists today (Woodland Cultural Center) since I have been there many times for a variety of functions.  Its history and its affiliation with the Anglican Church is well established.  Only one whose mind wanders towards conspiracy theories would believe any such allegations.

The belief in the "evidence" and "theories" of Annett has created quite a fuss with members of the Six Nations Reserve.  The assumption was that the same things which happened at say a Residential School in Alberta must have happened at this "institution".  So therefore, according to this perspective, Aboriginal children were forcibly taken away from their parents, had their hair cut, were forced to speak English only, and were indoctrinated in the ways of the White world as a process of acculturation and of course the word "genocide" comes into the picture as it does in multiple ways at Six Nations. 

In fact, the Mohawk Institute was built upon the property of the Six Nations Reserve, in a setting where there was enough land to teach agricultural practices (and in the Annett world, hide a mass grave or two).  Due to this geographical situation, children could literally walk home for weekends, or their parents could pick them up in a wagon or car (it didn't close as a school until 1970).  Also, until recently, most of the teachers at Six Nations were former pupils at the Mohawk Institute.  This makes it a rather unlikely candidate for the scenario that Annett would have you believe.

As to the supposedly harsh and cruel practices, I have mentioned before that those who attended the school at Six Nations call the whole matter "controversial", and some are vehemently against the picture that is being painted.  I have also noted that on one occasion when there was a meeting for some purpose a few years back, two young women attended this meeting, one was a White woman from Toronto, and the other a woman with some Six Nations heritage who also lives in Toronto.  The former cited an interview she had with an elderly woman from (I think) Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory who said that there were children of a certain surname who came to the Mohawk Institute and were never heard from again.  No one here had heard that surname associated with Six Nations or this area.  The women provoked some irritation in those Elders who had attended the Mohawk Institute as children.  They recalled a much more benign climate than what the two women were describing.  In the words of one Elder, "At home we were beaten, starved, and learned nothing.  At school we were beaten, got three meals a day, and learned something".  That seemed to signal to the women that their presence and their message was not greatly appreciated.

Still, in the past few years, once Annett got involved, there were searches for the "mass grave" and someone came up with bone material (later shown to be animal), and the group of supporters who believed faithfully in Annett's stories stuck by him through thick and thin.  Even when ground penetrating radar failed for find any graves, this deterred no one.  It reminds me of the adherents to doomsday cults where, when the "big day" comes where the world is supposed to end, and it doesn't, there is some excuse and a new scenario is painted and everyone is back onboard. 

When it comes to Six Nations, new evidence found by a relative of mine, and sent to me yesterday, pretty well demolishes Annett's little hoax.  Some burial records of Her Majesty's Chapel of the Mohawks, across the road from the Mohawk Institute, were saved from a fire of 1903 which burned most of the burial records, although both the baptismal and marriage records from 1827 were saved.  The surviving records of Burials in the Mohawk Chapel Burying Ground show that some local White people from the Brantford area, some Six Nations members, and children from the Mohawk Institute were buried here. 

What follows is the records for, Mohawk Chapel, Burial Records at the Mohawk Chapel 1829 - 1947, Brant County Branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society, Brantford, Ontario.  The records are a compilation of primarily tombstone transcriptions, along with scanty information from surviving burial register records, largely from visiting Anglican ministers.  As the compiler, Alma Luard, stated, "The records from 1841-1878 were lost in a fire in 1903".  I have seen a selection burial records for Six Nations members dating from 1828 to 1878 recorded by Rev. (later Archdeacon) Abram Nelles in 1879 and sent to correspondents interested in the history of the Church,.  It is clear that all of the early books that make up the "Indian Burial Register" is now lost, and only the most recent records, and the entries kept by itinerant ministers, appear to have survived for earlier years.  Effectively, the only complete burial records are those from after 1900.  I looked through the records for entries pertaining to the students from the Mohawk Institute, since records that the children who died while attending the Mohawk Institute would pretty well expose the "Annett hoax".  Now we have a conclusive answer, and hopefully it will stop the futile searches of properties around the Mohawk Institute for non-existent bone pits.

Here is the list of students who died at the Mohawk Institute and were buried at the Mohawk Chapel.  The records are from the surviving registers dating from 1879.  I have no records of the probably much larger number of students who died at the Mohawk Institute and were taken home to the Reserve at nearby Tuscarora Township for burial.  I would guess that the school records, if fully searched, would include information as important as a death at school.

Here follows the available list of burials,

ASKEWE, Solomon, pupil at the Mohawk Inst. from Cape Croker died June 1902

CUSICK, Jesse 10 years Mohawk Inst. Feb. 10 1907
GIBSON, Robert, 10 Mohawk Inst. June 5 1917
LACOUR, Theresa, 10 Caughnawaga, Aug 9 1891 Indian pupil at the Mohawk Institute
MARACLE, Jenny, 16 Mohawk Inst. Aug 16, 1900
MARACLE, Margaret 14 Mohawk Inst. June 16, 1901
WALKER, Mabel, 11, Cape Croker, Pupil at the Mohawk Inst. Aug 8 1902
WILSON, Inez, 11, Tuscarora, Pupil at the Mohawk Inst. Apr. 6 1900
Thus the evidence suggests that any child who died while attending the Mohawk Institute, and whose body was not recovered by their parents or guardian, were given decent burials in the Anglican Burying Ground of the Mohawk Chapel.  No doubt that the children who died before 1891 were given similar burials, but the records are lost.
Hopefully the craziness that caught on like an infection at Six Nations, but which has lately suffered from some "setbacks" as seen here, will completely fade away.  I would like to see Annett charged with some crime - but am not clear on what criminal offence he has perpetrated, other than playing on peoples gullibility.  At least his "Mohawk name" was revoked after suspicions became overwhelming as seen here.


Confederacy Chiefs Demand to Meet with Premier Wynne

The online edition of "The Sachem" includes an article entitled, Six Nations Chiefs Want Meeting With Premier, 18 August 2014 as seen here

On 15 August 2014, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) called for a meeting with Premier Kathleen Wynne about the fence that crosses Thistlemoor Drive, and most particularly to try to strong arm her into accepting the temporary (it has expired) "protocol" which they had negotiated with her when she was Aboriginal Affairs Minister (but under vastly different circumstances).  The article states as follows, with a review of recent events provided by the reporter,

The province did not support construction of the fence – labeling it unilateral action – and invited the Confederacy to be part of talks with Haldimand County and the Six Nations elected-band council to find “long term sustainable” solutions for the Argyle Street South property. Confederacy chiefs met with Zimmer in Ohsweken Tuesday, August 12.


The hereditary government of Six Nations is calling for a meeting with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne following what it says was a disappointing meeting with Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer over the issue of a fence being built on land subject to a land claims dispute. 

The meeting did not "go well" because Minister Zimmer had the audacity to request that all interested parties be present (Elected Council, and County of Haldimand).  HCCC, through their enforcement wing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), insist that they will only meet with Ontario if no one else is present.  To them, having the Elected Council present would be tantamount to admitting that the latter, the legally constituted authority since 1924 for acting on behalf of the Six Nations Band Members, had any authority.  The HCCC are inflexible, in their mind's eye, despite reality, they are the only legitimate governing body on the Reserve.  As the article states,

The Confederacy, which has been working on a resurgence of the traditional system, is most upset the province let a communications protocol between it and Ontario lapse after two years. The statement said Zimmer would not discuss renewal of the protocol, which was made when Wynne was Aboriginal Affairs minister.

The author of the article also gives a summary of the dispute over the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) since 2006, saying,

Members of Six Nations occupied the site in 2006, claiming it was unsurrendered land. Ottawa says the land was surrendered in 1844. Talks between Ottawa, Queen’s Park and Six Nations broke off in 2009 and the situation has settled into a peaceful stalemate. The province bought the land off the developers in 2006 for $15.8 million.

It is interesting that the author, Daniel Nolan, is among the few to actually acknowledge the fact that Ottawa has consistently stated that the land was surrendered in 1844 - few in the media have ever been willing / able to state what is a correct fact about land ownership in relation to this matter.  I am impressed.

As is typical, the spokesperson for the HCCC provides the standard response which reflects the HDI demands, as follows,

Confederacy spokesperson Hazel Hill said in the statement that Zimmer indicated “he might be prepared” to renew the protocol if the Confederacy took part in the talks with the county and band council and only if the discussions “resulted in a positive outcome.”

“The protocol was a good faith attempt to build a relationship between (the Confederacy) and Ontario and now it appears Ontario was simply using the Communications Protocol as a means to exercise control over the Haudenosaunee,” Hill said.

The Confederacy wants the meeting with Wynne to “repair the damage that has been done to our relationship” and establish a relationship that respects the treaty relationship between the Haudenosaunee and the Crown.

Unless the HDI get their "demands" met in toto, no negotiations, then, as we have learned from their earlier statements, there will be "grave consequences".  If the Government gives into threats of this nature, then they will be used as a doormat for all times - until the Indian Act is revoked and the Reserves are dissolved - which is ultimately the only viable solution to a problem for which there is no other viable solution.

To get a sense of what the HCCC perspective is on the matter, from their publishing wing on Reserve, we can turn to the article in "Turtle Island News" of 20 August 2014 (p.2), entitled, Confederacy calls on Ontario premier Wynne to "rebuild trust".  Apparently after the meeting with Minister Zimmer last Tuesday, which sparked a heated stalemate, ...... the Haudenosaunee Chiefs and clanmothers said they were "disappointed in the direction Ontario appears to be taking, in refusing to renew the two year old Communications Protocol between the Confederacy and Ontario".

Lets pause here and reflect on what is being said.  Basically it is the same statement we have heard for some time now.  Paraphrasing, the HCCC / HDI are saying we want to meet with Ontario only, no one else present, and under "our rules of engagement."  The sheer gall and arrogance is mind boggling. 

Much of the rest of the article is either a repetition of what we have heard recently, or what is included in "The Sachem".  Some new words are entered into the mix, such as the HCCC, calling on Wynne to "help restore the 'fair and honest' communication process ............ ", but Ontario is insisting on, multi-party discussions to find long - term, sustainable solutions with regards to the DCE land.  Well fancy that, and they are standing their ground too.  Then "yawn" more of the same old same old.  So lets turn to the inevitable Editorial which will reinforce the Six Nations (sorry, Haudenosaunee) position.

The Editorial (p.6) is entitled, Wynne hasn't kept her promise ..... and now she's too busy.  I am not sure what "promise" the then Aboriginal Affairs Minister made.  There was an ad hoc agreement, but "promise"?

Supposedly Premier Wynne said, two years ago, upon signing the document, that, "This communications framework represents building stronger and more sustainable relationships.  I believe that the Confederacy can be a partner to help find a long-term solution for everyone.  I wonder if the HCCC, the HDI, and the Editor have forgotten the word "partner", meaning one of many, not one - to - one.  Therein lies the sticking point.  Ontario refuses to see any viable solution coming from a unilateral meeting with just one faction - and that is what the HCCC / HDI is a faction.  They don't speak for Six Nations, officially that is the role of the Six Nations Elected Council - but the HCCC / HDI are making a grab for power.  If Ontario meets their "protocol" it will like saying, "we recognize you are the legitimate authority at Six Nations.  That will never happen. 

Apparently the agreement also included atavistic phrases from history which I know and understand, but with all due respect, I fail to see that someone who has not spent years studying Six Nations history and culture could appreciate the meaning of a phrase such as the wish to be, guided by the principals of peace, friendship and respect as embodied in the Two - Row Wampum and Silver Covenant Chain.  So in all probability these words to an Ontario Minister are mere platitudes that have something to do with being good friends and honouring previous agreements.

In the view of the Editor, For the first time in its history, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs extended its nationhood security to include a new partner  .....  Ontario.

Kathleen Wynne brought that air of trust with her.  And the Chiefs agreed to trust.  But where is she now?  After a heated meeting with her Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, a clear about face on the idea of communications protocol has hit home.

So everything was all fine and dandy until the new Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer blundering in carrying a dose of reality.  So Kathleen Wynne is now aware of what it really means to sign an agreement with the Confederacy without other parties in the matter being present - an acknowledgement of their sovereign rights to represent the Six Nations people.  And now that the green energy park is underway, and the Confederacy is no longer needed, Now Ontario wants the Confederacy to know its place.  And its place is to jump when Ontario's Minister of Aboriginal Affairs calls a meeting; they are to show up along with the band and council and county.  That seems to be a pretty accurate assessment.  However, The Confederacy is calling on Wynne to broker the peace that they feel Zimmer has broken.  Good luck with that!  Apparently the Chiefs are upset that Premier Wynne is "standing beside" Zimmer.  What did they expect?  Well I know, but I have my feet solidly placed on the ground of reality.


Saturday, 16 August 2014

Haudenosaunee Leading the Way as Guardians of the Land - Spin Versus Reality

In the 13 August 2014 issue of "Turtle Island News" is a Letter to the Editor by W.E. entitled, Peoples Social Forum: help for attendees.  The author notes that for those "Haudenosaunee" who can attend an upcoming "Social Forum", there is some gas money available. 

The person:  Now we get to the part that concerns me.  I quote,

The convergence of allies includes students, unions, environmentalists, activists and thousands of ordinary individuals.  We expect over 10,000 to attend.  It's time to seize the future with Ongwehonweh leading the way.  We seek to unite with all people on Turtle Island and to have our voices heard in directing change.

Translation, the "Social Forum", whose content can be see here, will include diverse topics as follows,

  1. Climate: justice - responsibility - action 
  2. Communication: media - language - arts
  3. Community: race - access - place 
  4. Control: criminalization - surveillance - prisons
  5. Earth: land - air - water
  6. Economy: capitalism - crises - alternatives
  7. Food: sovereignty - access - production
  8. Gender: sexuality - patriarchy - socialization
  9. Governance & Democracy: representation - organization - decolonization
  10. Impoverishment: austerity - cuts - privatization
  11. International: solidarity - peace - justice
  12. Knowledge: education - access - alternatives
  13. Migration: mobility - borders - displacement
  14. Movements: intersectionality - alliances - solidarity
  15. Public services: quality - universality - access
  16. Spirit: ceremony - traditions - identity
  17. Work: precarity - deindustrialization - scarcity

And the participants will doubtless include the usual Communist, Anarchist, Black Bloc, Unions, Solidarity with Six Nations, radical environmentalists, radical this and that, and a host of troublemakers - but "The Real People" (Canada's First Nations), involving groups from across Canada, will be leading the charge.  As is typical, I would ask where the money is coming from - but one way or the other, it will be taxpayer funded (even if the HDI chip in, it will be with money extracted from taxpayers of Canada).

It should be noted that W.E. is in some respects a controversial figure.  By chance yesterday I came across a blog posting which featured him and a number of his confreres.  The information from this source maintains that W.E. is an activist that has been involved in a number of highly controversial "projects" such as shutting down Line 9, Enbridge's pipeline that will eventually bring domestic oil from Alberta to Eastern Canadian markets.  Without this source, we would be dependent on highly unpredictable foreign producers such as those in Africa and the Middle East.  To see what W.E. has been up to, based on this blog source, see here.  As but one example, as a member of HDI and Men's Fire, W.E. allegedly said, in relation to the pressure put on Samsung to comply with the HDI "protocol",

“We issued a cease and desist order…. They refused to discuss with us. That night, word went out to our allies. With ten hours notice we had at least a hundred people [on the disputed site], some of whom are in this room. Samsung then negotiated with our Confederacy.”

W.E. appears to be proud of his role in extorting money from Samsung - surely the parallel with what occurs in Naples and Palermo is not unreasonable in this instance.

I have not looked up further activities of W.E. found on the Internet.  My goal is not to focus on the person, but on the message.

The Message:  Next comes the wishful thinking, fantasy driven, politically correct perspective as reflected in the content of the Letter to the Editor.  The specific wording is,

We have lived on Turtle Island since time immemorial and we kept the land clean and free of destruction for centuries before contact.

In fact the aboriginal groups who practiced agriculture used a slash and burn approach and used so much wood, and exhausted the soil, to the point where every 10 to 20 years the village had to be moved.  In addition, anyone who has been involved in archaeology (as I have) is well aware of the gigantic garbage middens associated with each village.  The only reason that there was not more environmental damage was that the number of "Ongwehonweh" were relatively low.  So "clean and free of destruction", that would be a fantasy.

Continuing with the content of the letter as follows,

We know this land intimately because we are people of the land and we are the land.  We are guardians of the cycles of the land.  If the land dies, we die.

That appears to be somewhat arrogant and skewed.  The Six Nations - Haudenosaunee came to the Grand River in 1785, and the European Loyalists coming from the same area in what is today Upstate New York arrived in 1784.  So how is it that the Six Nations possess some sort of connection with the land that is different from that of the descendants of the European-American Loyalists?  In truth, there is little difference, however if one looks into the matter a little more carefully, the Haudenosaunee do not come out smelling of roses - they are often up to their ankles in garbage.

Present issues on the Reserve include the overflow of landfill sites and the lack of places to create new ones.  This has caused the people to seek questionable alternatives such as the unproven technology of a Nova Scotia company who claims to be able to "disintegrate" waste material.  Test runs of the unit installed on the Reserve have caused a lot of friction - and I have seen huge black clouds of smoke coming from that area which surely is not "environmentally friendly".  In addition, at present there is virtually no recycling done at Six Nations - everything heads to landfill.  In addition, the reality on Reserve is that there are old rusty cars and parts of stripped cars all over the Reserve.  There are garbage piles on virtually every lot, usually at the woodlot line (as is the case with Euro-Canadian rural lots).  Recently one member was chastised for allowing those working in construction to use his lot as a place to dump waste, including roofing material with nails.  It was suggested by neighbours that he cease and desist - I don't know if that happened. 

So in reality the Reserve is much like any rural Canadian area with material dumped haphazardly, but with some individuals being scrupulous in keeping their property clean.  Thus I would ask those who chose to call themselves "land protectors", and asserting that they are the ones to act as leaders in this capacity across Canada, to look to your own backyard first.  What you will see is disgusting - and you have the effrontery to lecture others on despoiling the land!

So is there any evidence on the ground that the Ongwehonweh are any different from other Canadians, in other words that they have a special link to land stewardship and spiritual aspects of their role?  Apparently not, except in terms of perception.  Many residents of Caledonia are light years ahead of many at Six Nations in the respect and care of the land.  However, the facts don't generally stand in the way of a good story based on wishful thinking.


Thursday, 14 August 2014

Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister is Insulted and Lectured by the HDI / HCCC and their non-Native Legal Counsel

While it is far from a surprise, in but another of a series of arrogant and demanding episodes where the philosophy and the version of history that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), and their enforcement / extortion arm the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), put forward their own concocted version of history and showed no aversion to lecturing and insulting a high ranking government official.  Ironically this is the one person whose favour they desperately need if they are to meet their (unrealistic) goal of obtaining the deed to the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE).  Of course that will never happen, and perhaps they are getting that sense, but the HCCC et al. have certainly ensured that all the doors are closed and all of the bridges are figuratively burned (the Stirling Street Bridge was literally burned by HCCC supporters in 2006).

The information here is just a continuation of previous postings about the refusal of the HCCC to meet with the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in the presence of the Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC), and the Mayor of Haldimand County.  The Ontario Government holds legal title to the DCE property, and the County holds legal title to the roads within DCE.  The present issue revolves around the erection of a barrier across Surrey Street by HDI, and the illegal erection of a chain link fence along the northern side of the DCE property by HDI, blocking Thistlemore Street which is owned by Haldimand County.

An article in "Turtle Island News" (TIN) of 13 August 2014 (p.3), entitled, Minister Zimmer sparks testy statemate with Confederacy describes a very abrasive recent meeting between Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer and members of the HCCC.  Things went from bad to worse and the Minister threatened to walk out (which I would have done had it been me).  Here follow some of the specifics.

A)  Meeting between the HCCC Chiefs, the HDI, and Minister Zimmer:

The headline illustrates the lack of objectivity shown by reporters and TIN.  It reads,

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs David Zimmer, engaged in a finger pointing, shouting session that resulted in a testy statemate with the Confederacy Chiefs after a meeting between the two Tuesday.

The meeting was established to, discuss the controversial Kanonhstaton (former Douglas Creek Estates) fence that now stretches the entire northeast perimeter of the former housing development and a communications protocol that Zimmer's office has put on hold.

The meeting was held on Reserve, at the offices of the Grand River Employment and Training (GREAT) centre that houses among other offices the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chief's planning department the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (which to others is known as their enforcement and extortion department).  Although the press was not allowed into this closed door meeting, it appears that TIN had precise and detailed information such that they could offer exact quotes.  As I have noted before, TIN has shown itself to be the publishing wing of the HCCC, and thus their mouthpiece.

Apparently, The meeting, sources said, did not go well.  The reason was of course the fact that Minister Zimmer was insisting that the HCCC / HDI, join the table with the Six Nations Band Council and Haldimand County Council.  While this is a perfectly reasonable request, and would be gladly accepted by any group who was interested in negotiation, the HDI is only interested in dictating terms and does not consider the Elected Council to have any legitimacy at Six Nations, despite the fact that they are the only body recognized by the Federal Government as representing the Reserve community.  While no one has ever suggested that the HCCC should not have input, the Government's position is that it should be via the Elected Council; while the HCCC believes that the Elected Council has no legitimacy and that only the HCCC has any authority to negotiate (or dictate terms) on behalf of the Six Nations Reserve. 

The HCCC (hereditary Chiefs) did in fact have duties as the governing body at Six Nations until 1924 when, after multiple complaints from the more progressive members of the community over how dysfunctional this body was, the Federal Government "locked the doors to the Longhouse" and established an elected system.  The Hereditary Chiefs and their supporters have to this day maintained that they are the only legitimate (based on the "Great Law" and the ancient traditions of the Six Nations - Haudenosaunee people) group to govern the Reserve.  The obvious fact that they would drag the community back into the Stone Age if they were ever to replace the Elected Council is known to most, and obvious except to the HCCC and an unknown percent of the community who supports "the old order".  It is not as simple as a division between the Longhouse faction and the better educated and acculturated Christian faction, but this is at least part of the complex web.

Those who wish to have a glimpse of what the circumstances were leading up to the dismantling of the Hereditary system by virtue of events from the late 1800s to the early 1900s, and the role of the "Warrior's Association" would be well advised to read the following book, which is based on exact transcripts from the Council Minutes and from information given by respected informants who were either Chiefs or strongly connected with these lineages:

      John A. Noon, Law and Government of the Grand River Iroquois, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 12, New York, 1949

A second source indispensable to a study of the traditional - Longhouse faction and why the Hereditary system has not, and likely could not, become a viable governing unit based on work done in the 1950s and 60s, and again with a long list of respected Longhouse informants, is:

      Annemarie A. Shimony, Conservatism Among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve, Yale University Publications in Anthropology 65, New Haven, Conn., 1961.

Back to the substance of the recent meeting, sources said the minister threatened to leave and yelled and began pointing his finger at Confederacy legal advisor Aaron Detlor, who told the Minister forcing the Confederacy to the table with the band council and Haldimand County is "cultural genocide".  Just as an indication as to where TIN is coming from, note that "Confederacy" is capitalized, whereas "band council" is not.  It is important to note that the legal advisor is a non-Native who has orchestrated the legal maneuvering of the HDI since their emergence in 2006.  One can only guess at his motives, but he is a member of the Upper Canada Law Society, in other words a lawyer licensed to practice law in Ontario, and subject to disbarment due to professional misconduct.  He has been involved in a litany of actions which would call into question his standing within his profession, such as being charged for disobeying an Injunction from the Superior Court in Brantford in 2009 and 2010, and fined heavily - although whether the fine will ever be paid is questionable since it appears that the lawyer has transferred all his assets to the Reserve and hence the judicial system cannot go after anything on Reserve due to provisions of the Indian Act.  However his lack of "Indian Status" could become problematic to him should someone chose to begin disbarment proceedings.

So it is more than a little odd to read that the lawyer, told the Minister "You are asking the Haudenosaunee to morally set aside who they are as a people to get into your discussions.  That's cultural genocide".  The Minister demanded he retract the statement.  Detlor refused.  Chief MacNaughton then told / reminded Minister Zimmer that, the purpose of the 2006 negotiating table was, to remove third party interests from Kanonhstaton (the former DCE).  That statement is without any foundation whatsoever.  The negotiations were about removing the barricade across Argyle Street and other issues related to the violent insurrection.  Funny how a new truth can be concocted which simply reflects the thinking of the HCCC/HDI in 2014.

Then Chief MacNaughton gets down to the real matter of concern to the HCCC, acquiring full right and title to the DCE property without any involvement of the legal authority at the Six Nations Reserve, the Elected Band Council.  He said, Ontario is in a position to revoke the application for a housing development and declare the road, a non-road.  When Minister Zimmer said he was leaving the room to caucus Onondaga Chief Pete Skye told the Minister, "I am going to ask you to sit down".  This unfathomable insult is so disrespectful, the Minister had every right to simply leave, with the awareness that nothing he said would be productive, and that if he stayed more insults were in store.

The rationale given by Skye for his statement was that, "Indian Agents have been trying since the 1800s to assimilate the Five Nations.  I can tell you, they will never assimilate the Five Nations into a band system".  First of all the "band system" has been the legal representative of the Six Nations community since 1924, but some have simply not accepted the reality and wish for the "good old days" (where they would have the power).  Secondly, what happened to the Tuscaroras?  There are Six Nations (since circa 1715) not Five Nations.  Chief Skye does not know this - or did the reporter get it wrong?

Then, Onondaga clan mother Gloria Thomas asked Zimmer, "why would you ask us to go back to a process that doesn't work".  The truth is that in 1924 the Hereditary Council was turfed out because it was by then dysfunctional and "didn't work".

Then Chief MacNaughton told Minister Zimmer that while he (Zimmer) was standing by the Ontario Land Registry system, they (the HCCC/HDI) were standing fast to their own land registry system, and, "We have registered Kanonhstaton under the Confederacy's land registry".  The fact is that this land registry is without any legal footing, and it is doubtful that it actually exists except in the minds and hearts of the HCCC supporters.  Cayuga Chief Blake Bomberry told the Minister "the Ontario land registry was built on theft, murder and coercion.  Ontario stole the lands that's what the registry is made up of".  Clearly someone has not done their homework.  I have searched all of the records pertaining to the matter and nothing of the sort fits with reality, only with perception.  So basically, people can make up a history which did not exist and likely there will be those who will believe it since actually searching the records is a tedious process and takes a vast amount of time - as I well know.

The Minister stuck to his guns and said that the HCCC is invited to the table with the Band Council and Haldimand County also participating; and the HCCC stuck to their guns and maintained that only if Ontario will, engage in the process we established can things move forward.  This is how the matter was left - as if there was any other outcome expected in meeting with the HDI guided HCCC.  At least Minister Zimmer can say that he did everything possible to enlist the cooperation of the HCCC.  He tried, but was doomed to failure from the start.

As is often the case, the Editor of TIN feels compelled to add an Editorial which always (no exception I am aware of) supports the actions of the HCCC/HDI, and dismisses the position of any other party - particularly SNEC, the legally constituted governance body at the Reserve.  Hence the Editorial on page 6 entitled, He came ..... he saw ..... he left ..... no answer.  Here the Editor says that "finally" the Aboriginal Affairs Minister "came to town".  "How nice of him".  The Editor then reviews, in a very condescending way, the recent history involving the attempts by Ontario to address the fence situation and the efforts of Minister "Zimmerman" (his name is Zimmer).  The attribution is that Minister Zimmer's efforts have been in an attempt to, divide Six Nations so Ontario would never have to see the power of a united Six Nations again, as it did in 2006.  That is a really unique take on the facts of the matter.

The Editor alleges that, Zimmer has done everything he can to avoid meeting with the Confederacy Chiefs, cancelling meetings, demanding the fence around kanonhstaton come down, issuing warnings ... all over the fence and warning it was a security issues.  The truth is that the Minister has bent over backward to try and get the HCCC to participate in the only type of meeting that anywhere in the world would be considered appropriate - one where all interested parties were present.  So when the HCCC Chiefs refuse to attend this meeting, the Minister is accused of trying to do everything in his power to avoid them.  The crux of the matter is that he had tried to follow normal protocol, not realizing that here there is a HDI protocol which must be adhered to despite the fact that it is arbitrary and not recognized as legal by anyone but themselves. The HCCC, and particularly the HDI, want Ontario to make an "executive decision", without consultation, and give the property to HCCC so it can be put in the HDI's fantasized land registry.  This is entirely hypocritical since the HDI have a "consultation protocol" which is nothing more than a self - serving document to allow them total control of the proceedings.  So when the Ontario Government wants "consultation" with all parties, they will see that the HCCC/HDI want no consultation, irrespective of what Ontario's "protocol" might be - as long as they get what they want which is DCE with no strings attached - and certainly no involvement of the legal authority at Six Nations, SNEC.

So the Minister eventually does meet with the HCCC and is then raked over the coals for doing so - his mistake, not simply handing over DCE to, not Six Nations, but the HDI so that it could be added to their land registry and so that they could benefit economically from the use of the land (someone has to pay for their non-Native attorney's expensive suits).  I can be as snide and cynical as the Editor, but we take completely opposite sides in the matter.  Since HDI will not negotiate, but will simply meet with Ontario as long as no other parties are present, and as long as the Minister agrees to give them the land free and clear of any encumbrances.  Nothing else will do.

B)  Update on the fence:

The Director of the HDI reported that the work at DCE would continue, via "instructions of our council".  Who is leading whom in this scenario?  Anyway, "the rehabilitation of the land" was continuing, with securing the property (which they don't own, but that is irrelevant), cutting the grass, clearing the weeds, planting trees and clearing an area of a pond.  They will know that this effort to "improve" DCE ups their chances of laying a claim to it, and nothing but nothing will stop them.  The rationale as to the fence is typical HDI - to help keep the peace since nasty Caledonians were exerting their right to walk on a County road.  The fact is that HDI have already decided (well, it was decided back in 2006) that come what may, the property is theirs.  There has been zero consultation with the general community at Six Nations, everything has been done arbitrarily based on their own concocted rationales.

The article ends with something of an out of place insertion about the OPP finding marijuana plants growing on a Thistlemore property abutting DCE, but that the person apparently has a license, but the license is set to expire in a few days - and a picture of one of the plants is added.  Who knows why the focus on this irrelevant bit of trivia.

Welcome to the world of the HDI where arrogance, arbitrariness, and an attorney who is non-Native prevail and stand as a bulwark against any real progress.  The only acceptable solution is to return to the facts.  The land was legally ceded on 18 December 1844 by 47 Six Nations Chiefs in Council and never in their lifetime did they question the wisdom of what they had done.  It takes the unwarranted actions of their descendants 170 years later to make false claims, and send our community into a tail spin.  Enough.  Time for action.


Saturday, 9 August 2014

Dismantle Canadian Apartheid and Colonialism: Abolish the Indian Act (1876), and Adopt the White Paper (1969)

The goal of this posting:  What I hope to accomplish here is to:

1)  List and discuss a set of interrelated endemic problems plaguing Canada and Canadians.  All emerge from the Indian Act of 1876.  None of these issues have been resolved in the 100 or more years we have had to get it right.  The result has been increasing inequality, injustices, and social unrest that realistically will never disappear or be ameliorated within the framework of a firmly entrenched status quo.

2)  Propose a solution to these problems which is guaranteed to inflame the passions of those who are benefiting from the status quo, but which has at one time had the support of some of the most influential and respected Canadians.  In the long run it is our best chance at ridding ourselves of a system which from Colonial times has underpinned and supported the pathology feeding these problems. 

What triggered the present posting?:  I have experienced simmering anger, building for some time, about the waste of my tax dollars, and the dysfunctional Reserve system, but most particularly how my hard earned tax dollars have been used to prop up a Reserve - based activist group whose illegal self - serving actions have created turmoil in Haldimand and Brant Counties.  I deeply resent the knowledge that a penny of my money is going into the pockets of these local parasites - and there is nothing I can say or do to change the situation.  We, the taxpayers of the Grand River Valley (and others) are powerless, and must merely learn to tolerate violence and disrespect as a reward for the "generosity" extracted from our wallets.  So finally, the pot has come to a rolling boil. 

However what sent fingers flying across the keyboard at this time was reading three articles, published this past week, which triggered a flare up in the frustration over how my tax dollars were being spent to support floundering Canadian Indian Reserves.  One article also showed the unwarranted expectations, fueled by false information and faulty interpretations of supposed facts, by many who live within the Reserve communities.  The three specific articles are as follows:

1)  Release to the public of the salaries of chiefs and Reserve officers across Canada:  Now that the Federal Government has required transparency among those entrusted with our tax dollars, the release of the salaries of Chiefs and other officials of Canada's 600+ Indian Bands provide sobering statistics.  We now have irrefutable proof of rampant corruption, and unconscionable waste of the dollars you and I are sending to Reserves across the country.  Chiefs of bands with less than 50 members making a salary of over a million dollars as seen here - and that is just for starters.  It should make Canadian taxpayers very very angry, with the obscene waste of their hard earned money to allow a select group of greedy Chiefs to enrich themselves and their cronies for what?  What would justify this use of taxpayer dollars when the average Band member still lives in abject poverty?  Some things never change.  Something has to give.  No more pouring good money after bad down a bottomless pit and enduring the incessant whining for more tax dollars since they can't seem to make ends meet.  We need to get a handle on what is wrong, and propose viable solutions.

2)  Editorial in "Two Row Times":  The 6 August 2014 Editorial is entitled, Ambidextrous Politics, (p.6) which got me very hot under the collar when I realized that never but never will an absurd notion that a "nation" or "600 nations" should or could exist within the present borders of Canada, go away.  The statement which I found to get under my skin is as follows, occurring within the context of a justification of the Editor's anti-Semitic and pro-Palestinian stance.  In his words:

Someday I hope that my people the Haudenosaunee will retake our homelands and form our own country, which already exists in our hearts and minds.  Perhaps we will be funded $233.7 billion by a foreign world power.  By then the people of Canada and the United States will probably feel like the land is theirs and that they are indigenous in some way or other.  My prayer is that we will not destroy them or advocate genocide ..........

So basically he is saying, "We are the Indigenous people of Canada and are forced to tolerate you for now, but if we could, we would send you packing back to wherever you or your ancestors came from - hopefully we would not need to commit genocide to do it".  Reading between the lines, the Editor must sense that many of us both above and below the border already believe that we are as indigenous to this Continent as members of the 600+ Bands - the only difference is that members have questionable entitlements, and we do not.

I will show below how this "independent nation" in relation to the Six Nations Reserve community is a mere fantasy, but it is one that simply will not go away as is clear from the above editorial.  The only solution it seems would be .............  I will give the obvious solution shortly. 

The third article resonated profoundly within me, and is written by a Canadian who clearly shares my views on the subject matter of the above Editorial.  It seems as if she is speaking about the about Editorial, but is not - although the "fit" is amazing.

3)  Author's words in "End Race Based Law":  You can feel the heartfelt sentiments deeply in the following words - and what she says is absolutely correct and factual to the best of my knowledge - although apologists and deniers will be found, as has been the case throughout history.  Please listen to the words carefully, and read the full "End Race Based Law" article here.

It's so racist, so incredibly bullying and disrespectful and downright cruel to speak that way to millions of hard working people, so many of whom have long histories here, ALL of whom are paying taxes, paying rents, and paying mortgages, and some guy who happens to be that ONE RACE comes along and uses his race to terrorize an innocent person's sense of safety in this country, telling him he is "on stolen land", simply because of his/her race.

 Canada is about ALL of us, not just some, where-as ONE RACE uses their race to act as "one brush" against every other race, to blame the "government" and abuse innocent tax payers and our court system by all 600+ nations taking us to court on a daily basis, all across the country, to push and push and blame and blame and cost us billions every year in this race based game that's created the Indian Industry. 

 It's time tax payers got active and vocal, and insisted their politicians deal with these race based issues, openly, bravely, and honestly."


"End Race Based Law inc." has a website which can be viewed here, and also a facebook site of the same name which you can see here.  I was left with one of those jaw dropping moments where I realized that what I had just been writing was mirrored in many of the articles found at ERBL.  The first article on the current page of the website, 20 July 2014, is entitled, "The Myths of Caledonia". 

My background as it relates to the subject under consideration:  I have very deep roots in this country, with ancestors who were Six Nations Indians, Europeans from a variety of northern countries, and African-Americans.  But that does not entitle me to be considered a "special" Canadian, or to be given any special privileges.  Race - ethnicity - ancestry must of necessity be irrelevant in a modern democratic country such as Canada.  I was born here and carry a Canadian passport - no other word or nationality fits - Canadian all the way - although I also identify with my ancestral Province of Ontario, but this does not trump being Canadian, nothing does. 

At this time I do not have a "Status Card" by virtue of my Six Nations (Haudenosaunee) ancestry which is linked to my maternal line, and considering what I have said over the years, I would be something of a hypocrite if I ever accepted one.  I have taken great pains to get to know the life stories of all of my ancestors.  In the process I learned considerable detail of the history, culture and genealogy of Six Nations people.  Since I have always resided on the doorstep of the Reserve, between Hagersville and Caledonia, this has given me a connection that would otherwise be tenuous if I resided in say Toronto.  Thus one might say that I am a Canadian whose proximity affords me a somewhat unique opportunity to comment from direct experience on the happenings involving Six Nations members.

Unlike the vast majority of my posts which include copious references, this one will largely be written directly from my mind and memory, but even more from the heart.  Despite my academic background, I do feel emotions such as anger coming from a sense of injustice very deeply.  So who knows what will emerge as I stare at the screen of my laptop, and as I recall examples and studies which seem to paint a very clear picture.


Are we all Canadian?:  Many at Six Nations and others among the other 600 or so Bands would state a resounding, NO to this question - believing that each is a sovereign nation.  However, for the more rational among us, a good example of the fact that we are either Canadian or not can be found in the Olympics such as the recent Winter Games of 2014 in Sochi, Russia.  When the scoreboard showed rankings there was only a single category for those who represented Canada - Canada.  On the podium, when a person representing Canada accepted their medal, there was absolutely no caveat that so and so was a French Canadian, or immigrated at age 5 from Slovenia, nothing of the sort.  "Canada" won a gold medal.  In the little vignettes about each competitor they would mention their home town, so it might be for example Caledonia, Ontario, Canada; or Ohsweken, Ontario, Canada.  If you were competing for Canada it was irrelevant if your ancestors arrived a long time ago, or more recently.  You were Canadian, not French Canadian, or English Canadian, an immigrant member of the multi-cultural community, or "Aboriginal" Canadian.  Canadian, period.  It would have been considered extremely disrespectful if an athlete, for example, carried a "Confederacy - Six Nations" flag instead of the Canadian flag.

While place of origin within Canada of course shaped the athlete, and he or she may be proud of being from say British Columbia, but at opening ceremonies all athletes representing Canada carried Canadian flags.  The insanity that is Caledonia 2014 means that if you wish to place a Canadian flag on the former Douglas Creek Estates it will remain in place until the first set of eyes occupying this property owned now by the Province of Ontario sees it, whereupon it will be torn down and likely desecrated, to be replaced by either a Confederacy flag or a Mohawk Warrior flag, either of which are acceptable in that location, but certainly not an Ontario or a Canadian flag.  Despite the obvious ridiculousness of the matter, many at Six Nations do not see themselves as Canadian - although have no trouble in justifying the receipt of monies from Canadian taxpayers such as you and I. 

Being "Indigenous" in Canada:  I was about to write a posting solely on the content of the above Editorial in "Two Row Times", which is really troubling, but came to realize that there was much much more to the relatively few words in the Editorial.  I realized that I had heard it all many times in the past, and had tried not to dwell on the subject.  I cannot ignore this predilection to focus on being "Indigenous" and all that entails.  "Indigenous", "First Nations", "Aboriginal", "Native", you name it - but the term, in their eyes, sets them apart from other Canadians.  The rest of us are "settlers" or some other insulting term, and the suggestion that Canadians without a "Status Card" might consider themselves entirely "Indigenous" (yes, with a capital "I") to Canada would be met with derision.

Those who also call themselves "Onkwehonwe" ("The Real People") tend to believe they are better than the rest of us - including those oddballs among us who are a bit "Native" and a bit or a lot "settler".  The phony belief system comes in a package.  "'We are special, have always been here, and we have a special relationship to the land, are land protectors, and the Creator gave us a spiritual connection that White people (add, "settler" or whatever other descriptor might apply) can not access".  Furthermore,  "we are victims of 'Colonialism' and are prone to PTSD because great Aunt Mildred attended Residential School".  Right .......  This and considerable other unproven but widely believed "spin" stuff is profoundly insulting.  No one will ever convince me that anyone else living within the boundaries of Canada is some entity known as, "The Real People".  More appropriate and apt might be "First Immigrants" - with genetically and archaeologically proven connections to Northeastern Asia - the homeland before Canada (thousands of years ago).  To get around the obvious immigrant matter, some rationalize things by reverting to the world of mythology where the ancestors of the Haudenosaunee arrived on the back of Turtle Island via Sky Woman, whose tumble from the world above was cushioned by otter who scooped up earth from below the water - and so on.  This is a "creation myth" and in this day and age is not meant to be taken literally at least by any educated individual who has been taught critical thinking skills - or has good common sense.

The archaeological record clearly shows that the ancestors of the Haudenosaunee arrived in Upstate New York about 900 AD, displacing the group that was there before.  Prior to that they resided in a region known as Clements Island (actually an area in what is today central Pennsylvania).  Prior to this, the record becomes too fuzzy to give a precise area of former residence.  What is clear, however, is that "aboriginal homeland" and "Indigenous" is all relative to the time period being discussed.  Despite the dream of the Editor above, there is no single "homeland" of the Six Nations ancestors unless they arbitrarily draw a line at say circa 1100 AD and call the place of residence at that time the "aboriginal homeland".  Many at Six Nations would say that the Grand River Valley is the homeland of the Haudenosaunee.  So, which is it - actually there is no good answer, it is all relative.  However, there is no real question in the minds of academics in any discipline that we all originated in Africa, and we migrated across the planet at different times - but the homeland for all humans is Africa.

To assert that say the Six Nations are "Indigenous" people flies against reality, even within a fairly recent time frame.  The ancestors of the Six Nations of the Grand River may wish to call themselves Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse).  It is a much more politically correct name than "Six Nations", and one that has only recently gained traction and come to replace "Six Nations" or "Iroquois" in common parlance, but that is a self - attribute.  I can call people of my background Haudenglnorgerafr and that is nothing but an arbitrary term (a bit Haudenosaunee, English, Norwegian, German, African) that only carries meaning if I can convince others to buy into it.  Irrespective, the refugee Six Nations arrived in the Grand River Haldimand Tract arrived from what is today Upstate New York in the spring of 1785 - slightly later than the arrival of the refugee Loyalists of Butler's Ranger and the Six Nations Indian Department (who lived and fought with the Six Nations) who arrived in 1784.

The term Onkwehonwe is used of late as a "put down" by so-called "Native" agitators, and is thus offensive - or might be taken as such by some depending on what is meant by it.  If it means, "Ha you are just a descendant of settlers, whereas I am a descendant of "The Real People" and so you need to recognize that despite the fact that I have no education to speak of, and no paying job, and don't pay taxes, that I am special and have a particular wisdom that cannot be understood by settlers".  That is racist pure and simple - but I have heard the words (without the parts about no job etc.) expressed frequently, especially at the DCE (former Douglas Creek Estates barricade, called Kanonhstaton by the occupiers).  Being of a particular ancestry in Canada, whatever it might be, is merely something to put on a family tree - but what are your own personal accomplishments?  That would be an "ouch" question when posed to the present occupiers of DCE in Caledonia (much more about this later).

The indisputable fact is that while some "non-Native" Canadians have "Native" ancestry; all Band members across Canada have European or other ancestry (e.g., some from St. Joseph's Island are of Jewish ancestry) to a greater or lesser degree.  I can demonstrate this with full genome studies that have included a cross section of Canadian Indians such as Athabaskans and Ojibway.  At Six Nations, just based on phenotype (what you see) one would think that some members are 100% European.  Some Band members show their African ancestry, whereas most do not - even though they have a small (e.g., 5%) amount of African genomic material.   

Six Nations are not aboriginal to the Grand River Tract (or to Canada).  The Six Nations of the Grand River are among a somewhat unique group of people labelled as "Aboriginal". I do not know of any evidence whatsoever, including all of the genetic studies done to date, that would suggest that there is a single "Indigenous" person living in Canada who is not admixed with European, and possibly African via the slave trade.  So why not send the, often considerable, part of a MacNaughton to Scotland or an Elliott back to the English Border Counties or a Montour back to France or a Doxtador (Dachstatter) back to Germany?  So if some of the Chiefs of the Six Nations end up in the United Kingdom, well so be it.  That is just the way that the ancestry cookie crumbles.  The ancestry realities highlight the insanity of categorizing some as "Native" when they have considerable European ancestry; and others, who may have considerable biological "Native" ancestry, are merely lumped in with the "general Canadian" or "settler" groups.  Then there are those of us who are largely European, and for example have "Native" ancestry only on the mother's side - but that gives us a Clan affiliation - the supposed hallmark of a true Onkwehonwe.  Real life is very confusing.

So all Six Nations are admixed, and it is irritating to some of us that those we see on the other side of the Reserve line have less "Native" ancestry as those of us who do not possess a "Status Card".  As a matter of fact, an eminent Canadian anthropologist interviewed as many Six Nations informants as he could find and the consensus was in the 1898 that the last person on the Reserve to claim to be "full blooded" was one Andrew Spragge who died in 1869.  So in effect, all at Six Nations could be termed "Metis" if one was only focusing on biological ancestry - the same as many of their neighbours in Caledonia and surrounds.  Of course of key importance is community membership - as it always has.

Does being a member of one of the 600 or so "official" "First Nations" bands recognized by Canada mean anything other than there is a good chance that you and your ancestors have been the recipients of countless Canadian tax dollars - and you don't have to pay taxes like others outside the orbit of the "big 600"?  That is discriminatory.  Why, when I have Six Nations ancestors, and so am Onkwehonwe or Haudenosaunee or whatever, should I not be able to partake of this largesse?  In my case I would be embarrassed that I would have to depend on other Canadians to pull my weight.  My ancestors, with the exception of a few wayward great aunts and uncles (who all died early and sometimes experienced violent deaths), left the Reserve to marry out and carry on as "regular Canadians".  Thus the children would not be held back and hobbled by forcing them into a school curriculum where there is a focus on culture and language at the expense of maths and sciences.  The likelihood of ever becoming say an aeronautics engineer is a direct function of the importance placed upon the latter two disciplines in the schools you attended (plus the addition factor of parental support).  My hat off to Bands such as the Osoyoos in Okanagan British Columbia and their (uncorrupt, and truly innovative) Chief Clarence Louie, for recognizing what it takes to be a success in life and to break the cycle of welfare and poverty.  British Columbia, and its relationship to the "Native" people there is a special case and is very much the exception.

Far too many elements in far too many Reserves would have members return to some sort of romanticized Stone Age existence - but not of course having to give up their 4x4 trucks loaded with every creature comfort including GPS.  I mean returning to our roots is cool, but actually walking and using the wisdom of the elders to find our way from point A to point B - well that has been lost due to the interference of missionaries and government agencies - maybe.  Lets play the blame game - "it is residential schools, Colonialism and racism and other "isms" that have created all our problems".  What about personal responsibility, is that totally irrelevant?  Did someone put a gun to your head and force you to huff glue or gasoline?  It is so much easier to blame others, and whine enough and play the victim card with panache to garner sympathy from those infected with White guilt for the supposed sins of their ancestors 300 years ago.  Kaching - more money from the Federal Government.

The nonsense about such "specialness" as being protectors of the land trips and falls when faced with the hypocrisy of Reserve life where there is a trash dump at the forests edge on every lot and concession, and holes dug everywhere filled with dangerous substances such as pesticides, leaching into the water table, and where the concept of recycling is known but almost never practiced.  I can provide a tour if there is a "doubting Thomas" or two out there.  An anthropologist blew away all of those words about a special relationship with the land by following northern community members as they made their way to fishing and hunting camps at some distance from their settlement.  While many members of the general Canadian population believe strongly in a policy of "leave nothing behind" in wilderness areas, and act upon their beliefs, it would appear that our "land protectors" dig holes or just leave items where they were last put.  Thus things such as "disposable diapers" for children and plastic tampon insertion devices and other nasty items were observed to remain in situ when the hunting party pulled up stakes and moved on.  This garbage will be found by archaeologists a hundred years from now, almost intact.  Being a "land protector" has nothing at all to do with race or ethnicity, but rather the individual's respect for the environment - uncorrelated with ancestry.  The great Canadian "Native" conservationist "Grey Owl" was eventually shown to be one Archie Belaney, an Englishman.  He hid his identity even from his Mohawk wife.  Whether his origins were "aboriginal" or "settler" he had become a Canadian, and his actions helped foster a greater conservation awareness in this country.

There is no way that anyone can say that someone whose ancestors from for example Europe have been here 300 years is any less "of the land" than those whose ancestors came from Asia years before this.  If you were born here and your roots are here, you are Canadian and any differences are strictly those of self - perception.  The wish, expressed by some "Natives" that the rest all go back to where they came from is about as reasonable as expecting an Englishman to determine what his ancestral heritage is and determine whether Norman predominates then be forced to return to Normandy, France.  However the Normans originated in Scandinavia and so Norway is the homeland under this mode of thinking.  It all becomes quite absurd.

The taxpayers burden and special treatment for "Aboriginal" and other favoured groups:  There are those who are, thanks to the Indian Act of 1876, given special status and a score of entitlements, including living tax free thanks to the taxpayers of Canada, that make no sense whatsoever in 2014.  We as Canadian taxpayers are being bled dry by those across the country whose chronic problems and sense of entitlement (plus the rampant corruption) ensure that there will never be enough money to satisfy the "needs" of "Status Indians".  So unless you are fine with having your grandchildren support the grandchildren of a special interest group, it is time to make for a clean sweep that will make us all equals in the eyes of the law, and with no special entitlements for those whose ancestors traded the "annual presents" for "transfer payments" (from your wallet to theirs).  More on how to go about this common sense revolution shortly.

Those who wish to see a listing of all the entitlements and perks available to "Status Card" carrying "Band members" (some differences relate to living on or off Reserve), can be seen here.  Perhaps you are a bit "twitchy" about paying 40% or more of your income to Revenue Canada, although your reaction may be mitigated by knowing that most of the money goes to support essential services including our health care system and the massive infrastructure system of roads and food inspectors and so on.  Would you feel comfortable knowing that someone living a mile away pays nothing whatsoever of their salary to fund the same services that they and you use?  Does that seem fair?  What if you learned that they don't pay any taxes on gasoline purchases?  This two tiered system is inherently unfair as one group is given questionable special benefits based on circumstances that existed 150 or so years ago.  Would it make some furious when, knowing this, they see members of those privileged groups blocking their way to work because of some cause that is perceived as important enough to stop you, as well as EMT and other essential services, because they want to show support for those participating in a "cause" taking place 1000 miles away?  I would answer in the affirmative.  It was my anger about just such a situation in October 2013 which led me to start this blog.

In the last few days I found that the simmering anger at the double standard(s) seen in Canada these days has begun to peak.  My prime focus has been in the treatment and apparent sympathy extended to citizens who have been labelled "Status Indians", versus the rest of the unwashed masses.  For example Government and law enforcement appear to treat Indians with kidd gloves, while the "others" can expect second order care.  However other perceived militants, supposedly victimized groups, poorly integrated into Canadian society, such as Palestinians, are rioting in Toronto or Calgary, and they also can expect special treatment.  The police and politicians seem to stand down for fear of an incident occurring where a member of an allegedly downtrodden group is injured and that the public perception will be adverse.  However the vast majority would in truth be cheering "arrest all the rioters" and "crush the maggots" (or words to this effect which would be spoken by the vast majority of law abiding Canadians).  Canadians would then feel safer knowing that their police officers put the rule of law before all else, and that there is no two - tiered system of justice. 

I have personally witnessed explicit examples of this behavior involving a double standard on the part of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) where they stood facing the victims (Caledonians).  Here the "Natives" would taunt both the locals and the police with every "f" word in their limited vocabulary from the safety of the no-go zone established by the OPP to keep the politically expendable regular Canadians from committing such intolerable acts as placing a Canadian flag on DCE grounds.  Gary McHale, in his book, Victory in the No-Go Zone: Winning the Fight Against Two-Tiered Policing speaks from direct personal experience in relation to this issue which those of us physically present also saw and experienced.  If we lose faith in our law enforcement, or believe that they favour the designated, but phony, downtrodden group, local vigilante and militia groups will emerge to see justice done where anarchy prevails.  Haldimand County is ripe for the emergence of these entities.

Being politically correct, and White guilt:  I have no tolerance for today's politically correct views which tend to be left wing radical.  This world view has permeated the hallowed halls of academia and for example the Department of Political Science at any Canadian University is likely to be a hotbed of intolerance.  Here students adhere to the Marxist - inspired dogma expressed in radical feminism, pro-Palestinian sentiment, and the suppression of dissent and free speech.  This is precisely what happened when for example there were sit ins and other protests which kept Christie Blatchford speaking at an Ontario university - from telling the truth as we here in Caledonia saw it, and expressed in her book Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anxiety, and How the Law Failed All of Us.  The inflexible dogma permeating those supposed bastions of free speech is that what Christie (a respected reporter) wrote was "racist", and since it did not support the Indian - anarchist solidarity side of the issue, must be shouted down.  A very crazy world has emerged in the past generation as we see Canadian tolerance replaced by political dogma filtered by radical "professors" and adolescent minds whose frontal lobes not fully myelinated and the connections between white matter and grey matter is tenuous - hence their immaturity. 

As a scientist trained at 5 universities, I view data, evidence, facts as well as the concepts of truth and justice as being paramount.  Sensitivity to concepts which are bogus, such as "spirituality", simply deflect away from finding the truth of the matter.  Instead people who buy into this politically correct but unsupported belief system get bogged down in the unknown and unknowable (despite what some "Natives" would have you believe).  This leads to even greater absurdities such as the much heard belief that "Natives" have some "spiritual" connection to the land which is unknowable by those of European descent.  Nonsense.  Anyone can have a deep spiritual connection to a place that is special to them - such as deep connection I feel toward the large granite outlier boulder deposited by the glaciers in the lake by my cottage in Muskoka.  No evidence that "Natives" are special in this regard, it is only a belief which they and their supporters have carefully crafted.

At this point in my life, and with the utter frustration resulting from the clear realization that no matter what I or anyone else cares to say, nothing is going to change the attitudes of those on the front lines of Six Nations activism - and therefore behavior will not change.  They are impervious to reasoned arguments, and have their world view encapsulated in the "accepted" and therefore "correct" version of any subject.  The only hope on the horizon is to convince Canadians, including our government representatives, to look at the facts, the data, the evidence with a mind cleared of preconceptions and romantic but untrue pictures of "Native perspectives" and "Native" guided revisionist history.   Back to the basics is a tried and true approach that works.

The various spin doctors at Six Nations or their supporters use terms such as "of a good mind", and "spiritual understanding" as if they have validity equivalent to what a methodical approach emerging from adopting the methods of scientific inquiry can offer.  They will assert that something such as the supposed "Two Row" relationship to the Crown and the Canadian government has substance, and has roots in history, but in exploring the evidence it does not take long to see that this is sheer fantasy.  To critique this accepted dogma "true in the Native communities" could be academic suicide, so professors in every discipline have begun to toe the line and accept soft evidence such as "oral history" to be equivalent to data generated by for example archaeological or genetic studies.  The world seems to be doing cartwheels to ensure that everything is first and foremost politically correct, then only secondly, that it adheres to the standards and guidelines of a discipline such as anthropology.  The result of many of the newest books published in for example archaeology is that a third or so of the book is more about gazing into a crystal ball than science.  We need more people to blow the whistle on these trends which ensure that irrespective of the truth or evidence, the "Native" perspective must be given equal billing to the traditional approaches used in say the 1980s.

So bit by bit this "Native guided understanding", has painted standard anthropology, which has over the years saved knowledge of many "indigenous" cultures and languages from disappearing from the planet, as an entity replete with the vestiges of European Colonialism.  Eventually those of us trained in the "hard sciences" have to say:

Enough is enough. 

The wishful thinking and fantasy and distorted history will no longer be given equal billing.  We need to debate assumed realities such as the validity of the Nanfan Treaty of 1701, and come to a consensus based on only one thing - what the objective evidence tells us.  This is no justification for an equal weighting of those concepts that may guide "Native" thinking in the matter, but which are more closely aligned with unicorns and leprechauns to scientists across the world.  A genetic study of the world's populations can be obtained from scientists working in labs in Kazakhstan, or Australia, or Chile - all use standard approaches to ensure there are not superfluous biases that could distort the data.

It seems that Canada (and much of the world) is now cowering before the groups that claim to be "aboriginal", claiming that they or their ancestors have been horribly treated by a country which prides itself on being caring and tolerant, but which is still infected with racism and Colonialism. 

This acceptance of what is "indigenous" or "aboriginal" is being fed by considerable "White guilt" based on the claims of victimization put forward by "Native people" - everything from stolen land to residential schools.  Although the claims may be bogus, if they are believed, then some Canadians will (as is intended) feel "guilty" by virtue of the alleged "sins" of their ancestors.  As is so often the case, the truth is irrelevant, it is the perception that ultimately counts.  The cure, more treaty "rights", sovereignty and more money from taxpayers.  There are very good reasons why we do not want to go down this path (again) - which will be the subject of much of the discussion to follow. 

How much "White guilt" can be supported based on historical fact?  An objective look at the history of Canada shows nothing of the atrocities of the Spanish conquest of South America for example - not even an remote parallels.  History and archaeology show us that among the worst genocides and ethnic cleansing that has ever occurred on the planet happened in what is today Canada and the United States when the then Five Nations (the Haudenosaunee since the League or Confederacy was already formed) embarked on a highly successful campaign to terminate the existence of every single non aligned Iroquoian group, from the Huron / Wyandot in the north to the Susquehanna in the south and the Erie to the west.  Between 1640 and 1651 the goal was entirely successful and, to enhance their reputation as warriors (and for other reasons) the Five Nations committed unspeakable acts of cruelty and wanton torture, followed by cannibalism and feasting.  That one is difficult to sweep under the carpet since it is so well documented.  So by comparison, what did the Europeans do that has even the remotest resemblance to the carnage of Native upon Native in the 17th Century?

Canada has been eminently fair and has never "stolen" an acre of land - although there was nothing to stop obtaining land in the same way the Indians originally did, "by right of conquest".  So de facto, Canadian Forces could easily eliminate "opposition" and claim the rightful inheritance of all Canadians from the few who have delusion - based claims to land.  Virtually all agree that this is not the route to take, except in circumstances where there is a violent insurrection such as at Oka (Kanahsatake) where Corporal Marcel Lemay was shot and killed by a Mohawk terrorist, or in Caledonia where the OPP were swarmed in April of 2006, forced to step down or use force (not their style) - so it will be up to Canadian Forces if the matter is not resolved by other means.

Treaties:  If the whole "treaty" business is brought into the picture I am going to ask - do the agreements made by a foreign power (Great Britain) chain me down to paying for your children's education in perpetuity?  Will there ever be an end to it?  When my Viking ancestors made a treaty with my Anglo-Saxon ancestors it was only for a limited period of time, and then it was renewed or one party or the other was stronger and the treaty just died a natural death and everyone went on with their lives.  I am not receiving transfer payments from a fund set up by my Norman ancestors to compensate my Anglo-Saxon ancestors for the land they were robbed of.  Although "Natives" may say that they were never conquered in battle, that was a long time ago.  Should you wish to pit your might against the Canadian Army with which my family has served with pride for generations, we would be compelled to oblige and revert the present situation to one where everyone is under the same banner and equal, and if resistance exists it will be quelled until the word "conquer" fits the circumstances.  These comments reflect my frustration with hearing veiled or direct threats of violence if this or that demand is not met.  The most recent in my neck of the woods was the threat of "grave consequences" by the HDI if Ontario does not comply with their demands.  We know that the Ontario Provincial Police will not take firm action if necessary, so it will be up to the Canadian Forces to enforce the law when anarchy reigns supreme and thus protect the law abiding citizens from those who would create another Caledonia 2006.

Somehow a topsy turvy system has emerged whereby the child is telling the parent what is acceptable and what is not.  So the Indians call the shots, warn of dire consequences if they don't get their own way, and the Government capitulates.  Last I checked, the Indian Bands are comprised of a few hundred thousand individuals, and Canada has over 30 million citizens.  So the one percent dictates terms to the 99 percent?  That is pathetic. 

When the evidence is clear that compensation is fair, then so be it.  However, when Canada purchased land via for example the set of "Robinson Treaties" in Northern Ontario, it did so above board and with the acceptance of all parties to the terms of the agreement.  One does not go back a hundred years and say, wait a minute, we were cheated.  That could be done by any group who has ever made a treaty using some pretext or another.  Chaos would reign supreme in the world were this to be taken to the logical conclusion and that is that every treaty ever negotiated anywhere in the world needs to be re-examined.  There needs to be a statute of limitations, and although there are issues in British Columbia that need to be resolved, the rest of Canada should be able to rest easy that all land is a registered part of the country of Canada, and most except that set aside as Provincial or Canadian Parks is available, and can be bought and sold without liens or conditions based on some nebulous / bogus Indian land claim.

Sovereignty and Six Nations:  Since the "Caledonia crisis of 2006" there has been a revived militancy at Six Nations, where the specter of their being a sovereign nation has resurfaced, as it did in the early years of the 1900s when Cayuga Chief Deskahe went to the League of Nations to complain of the ill treatment of "Natives" by Canada.  Recent (2013) deputations from Six Nations and others have done precisely the same thing whining to the United Nations about the supposed horrid treatment, some variant of the old standby, "colonialism", supposedly experienced by "Native" people and perpetrated by Canada.  These actions unjustifiably stained the reputation of our great country in the eyes of the world.  Of course the trip and the trappings were funded by .............  yes, the Canadian taxpayer. 

There are extreme militant websites and newsletters out there with highly evident, make no bones about it, racist "White hatred".  They tend to espouse the view that Indigenous people are superior and some day the Creator will return the land to them.  Scary but you have to believe, it is a commonly held view even among those who hold taxpayer funded positions, some very high up in the chain of things - as alluded to by the Editorial noted above.  As an example you can view the following site entitled, "Mohawk Nation News".  Anyone with the stomach strong enough to read some of the material found on this site (which I find offensive) can be seen here.  Sounds rather tame, and relative to other sites it is.  None the less here are the four goals of those who ascribe to their thinking:

1)  It is not possible to alienate or surrender in any way lands that Mohawks have claimed over the years.
2)  The relationship between Canada and the Mohawk is a "nation to nation" relationship, governed by the Two Row Wampum (I have more to say about this concept later), and that Canada must respect this perspective.
3)  Resistance to the occupation of their lands by Canada or their representatives such as Elected Band Councils, as this is considered "genocide" (I am not making this stuff up).
4)  "To resist illegal colonial reasoning and impositions" (whatever that means - but it is off the wall and intolerant).

The whole issue of sovereignty can be dealt a death blow with three words, Proclamation of 1763.  Allow me to first descend back 62 years prior to this monumental document, and make note of the Nanfan "Treaty" of 1701.  It is widely (among Six Nations) accepted as the basis of Haudenosaunee (Six Nations) sovereignty, and therefore wide ranging entitlements in Southwestern Ontario including hunting rights, and the right to be "consulted" and "accommodated" (paid off) when developments such as industrial wind turbine and solar panel farms are planned anywhere within this vast area.  The trouble is that the latter document is fraudulent.  Considering the fully accepted and entirely legal and above board Proclamation of 1763, England claimed sovereignty over all of the lands formerly claimed by France and this claim has held up in Court right up to the Supreme Court of Canada.  So sovereignty should be a dead issue, but it is always in the picture locally, and has the matter has hot air blown into it to justify a nation to nation relationship between for example Canada and the Mohawk.

A problem in the past is that historians have been somewhat stymied by the Proclamation of 1763 since a clear interpretation relies on an understanding of the law from Colonial times to the present.  An excellent article which is written by a lawyer who is well versed in history can be seen here.  The article is entitled, Joseph Brant vs. Peter Russell: A Re-examination of the Six Nations. Land transactions in the Grand River Valley, by John S. Hagopian.  For an overview, with the 1763 Proclamation and the 1701 Nanfan Treaty in context as they relate to the "Caledonia crisis of 2006" (and ongoing) see Garry Horsnell's "Short History" here.  The above Editorial which helped to trigger this posting longed for sovereignty for his people.  Many "First Nations" see it as inevitable.  Surely little else need be said - it is a pipe dream, and totally unrealistic.

Has the Indian Act of 1876 served us well?:  For those unfamiliar with this important piece of legislation which governs most every aspect of the Federal Government's relationship to the 600+ Indian Bands in Canada, they can read the document here.  For a comprehensive look at the legislation and amendments over the years, the Federal Government site here should provide answers to most questions. 

I am not aware of any who would answer in the affirmative to the question posed by the heading here.  Yet there is no move afoot at the present time to dump the chump since, despite billions of taxpayer dollars being sent faithfully to the various Reserves in Canada, social ills such as poverty, sub standard housing, alcohol abuse, and domestic violence are endemic in many to most Reserves - so surely the answer is not more taxpayer money - multi billions of dollars spent, and the conditions on (particularly) Northern Reserves are horrid - no better than they were when the Indian Act was passed into law.

Many "Natives" have complained bitterly over the racist, colonialist treatment that has resulted from the Indian Act of 1876.  I hereby propose that it be rescinded as of today.  Indian people will be free to be whatever they want as Canadians.  You will pay taxes just like the rest of us.  You not receive any perks unavailable to other Canadians.  One land, one law, one people.  Join with us and create a level playing field for your children so that they can compete in this ever more complex world.  The atavistic desire to return to the good old days of some sort of ideal pre-Colonial time is an illusion.  Archaeology shows us that the First Immigrants were at each others throats and committing acts of barbarism including cannibalism and genocide - and the same time that Europeans were doing more or less the same thing. 

At present the Act infantilizes members of the various Bands by giving them "entitlements" whose origins are lost in time (they often started off as a practice of doleing out "presents").  This is 2014, there should be absolutely no need to treat one group of citizens as incapacitated children who need to be told what is good for them.  It is time that all Band members stand on their own two feet and as with all other citizens, make their way in the wider world, choosing how much time they wish to invest in their community of origin, or whether their interests would be better served by for example moving to Victoria, British Columbia to expand educational horizons.  Perhaps they might obtain a job which can provide something the present dole from taxpayers cannot do - give pride in individual accomplishments.  With the umbilical cord tying them to communities of origin cut, or modified such that they are able to function outside the colonial structures that were the lot of their ancestors, earned success becomes possible.  Now, facilitated by Canadian law gone amuck, Indians expect to be "consulted" and "accommodated" on lands that they, for some historical reason or another, expect is their God given right.  This despite the fact that until recently, groups of Indians wandered about the landscape, and migrated to new areas, just as Europeans did both in Europe, and in the Americas.  So we stop the clock at an arbitrary point in time and say as of this date, whatever you claimed via oral tradition or the like, is under your wing.  That is ridiculous, unless we grant to other groups in this country the same rights. 

If Indians are residing in communities with mostly other Indians of the same tribe / nation then those communities, if the land was not already granted in fee simple, should be converted to a fair and equitable private ownership with each adult receiving the same acreage, such that greedy corrupt chiefs and their families do not claim an unfair distribution that is to their own advantage.

The most reasonable and likely most effective solution to all of the assorted problems noted above is to disband the Reserve and give each member a share in the proceeds so that they could create some sort of quasi State if that is what they wish - but no longer funded by you and I, the Canadian taxpayer.  We have been stiffed for the bill for all sorts of activist road and rail blockages, work stoppages at development sites.  Miles of Hydro One cable have never been strung along the huge metal towers that pass close to the DCE site due to threats of violence from Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) supporters.  This must and will end. 

Locally, in my world, it has been 8 years in Caledonia and the thugs are still running the show, have resulted in the expenditure of something in the order of a half a billion dollars just for this one fiasco - yet pay on Canadians.  Somehow these people see it as their right to claim any parcel of land as their own - and get away with it?  That is so absurd that it would seem like a fit plot for some B grade movie.  However the nightmare is real.  These people are using their race or ethnicity to make wild claims that cannot be substantiated, and get away with it - 8 years and counting. 

The present Reserve system has been an unmitigated disaster and there is no hope for improvement.  Billions of tax dollars have gone up in smoke, allowing chiefs and their cronies to syphon off the money without worry of a tax audit, get rich, and the rest of the people remain impoverished.  One of the most egregious cases can be seen here.   The extraordinary rates of domestic violence, sexual assaults, alcoholism, fetal alcohol syndrome, gas sniffing, oxycodone abuse, suicide, high school drop outs and on and on with the social ills associated with the Reserve system.  Do away with the Indian Act, do away with Reserves, let everyone join mainstream Canadian society and make the best of it as the rest of us must.

Reserves, ghettos and apartheid:  By its very nature, living on a Reserve is equivalent to ghettoization where one group lives separate and apart from another group in Canada - and the situation is encouraged by the system orchestrated by the Indian Act.  I am not entirely clear on how similar this is to say the situation in some American cities where recently there has been a proliferation of informal "reserve - like" communities composed of people of one racial - ethnic group.  Compton in California was all White to about 1960 when African-Americans began to move in, and by 2014 Compton is more or less all Black.  Southcentral Los Angeles is almost exclusively African-American, although Hispanics are in the process of clustering in the area so the demography may be in the process of changing.  The end result is the same, a Reserve versus a ghetto, but the process is entirely different.  Also in the general area of Los Angles and Orange Counties you have Little Saigon in Westminister, Koreatown in LA but also a very high concentration in Cerritos in the OC.  There are exclusively Hispanic areas throughout LA, such as East Los Angeles and Southgate, the South Asian Indians in Artesia, old stock Americans in Southern Orange County in cities such as Laguna Beach and Irvine.  In other words there are tight knit communities composed of a particular racial - ethnic group in cloistered areas of the greater Los Angeles region.  Other than the fact that the Canadian taxpayer funds the communities, is this situation all that much different from having a concentration of "Status Indians" at the juncture of Brant and Haldimand Counties?  All are relatively homogeneous communities composed almost exclusively of one racial - ethnic group.  Why can all of the above named groups in California manage to come together as strong communities without government support, yet the Canadian Reserves can somehow only exist with the billions of Canadian Government tax dollars in the form of "transfer payments"?

As I contemplate the matter, it seems that there is a strong parallel between the Canadian Reserve system and the apartheid system that existed in South Africa before this hated system was dismantled.  No one in the modern world would have much of a positive nature to say about a system which segregated people based on their race.  Opportunities that were available to one group, were largely closed to the other (as seen here).  The White (Dutch Boors and English) held power and control over the Black population, and the "Cape Coloured" population that resulted from admixture from the two groups were caught in between and were largely in a separate category situated geographically, economically and socially between the two parental groups.  The world put so much pressure (including economic sanctions) on the South African White led government that it eventually was toppled, and the "Rainbow Coalition" emerged with all having (theoretically) the option to participate equally, with opportunities open based on talent irrespective of race. 

So the question is, are "First Nations" being ghettoized, living in a system of apartheid whose roots extend back to Colonial times.  If so, and since this is 2014, why do we not dismantle this antiquated system?


Injustice, lies, the HDI and violence:  My once positive perception of those who reside on the Six Nations Reserve was shattered in the 1980s when some from here decided to occupy privately owned land near Dunnville based on a pretext which I later found was absolutely false.  Then of course came 2006, where I had no tolerance of the disrespect for the rule of law and the anarchy in Caledonia during the "reclamation" (actually theft) of the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) at the southern entrance to Caledonia.  Once again, when I looked into the records (easily accomplished due to my familiarity with the Indian Affairs Papers in Ottawa), there was no possible justification for these illegal actions - except perception.  In the minds of the participants and their supporters, the land had been "stolen".  Not true, but thanks to a submission of 29 "land claims" by the Six Nations Lands and Resources Department, it could be considered "contested" - at least in terms of how much of the money from the sale of the land 170 years ago went into the Six Nations Trust Fund.  But if someone wants to believe in something, for example that the land was "stolen" they can find a way to rationalize it, and tip toe around the facts and the truth by simply ignoring or disrespecting both. 

It is the summer of 2014, nothing has changed, the radicals are still occupying privately owned land at DCE, and even Court Injunctions have yet to have sufficient clout to remove the trespassers.  The activists (terrorists), in the guise of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) are demanding that the Province of Ontario, who presently holds the deed to the property, give over the land to them so they can add it to their own (as yet empty) land registry listing.  Their refusal to meet with the Aboriginal Affairs Minister of Ontario except under the "protocol" of the HDI involving "consultation" and "accommodation" stipulations has fallen flat.  By law the Province and Ottawa must negotiate with the legal authority at the Reserve, the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC), who replaced the dysfunctional Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) in 1924 (i.e., three or four generations ago).  Today the enforcement and extortion wing of the HCCC (since 2006) is the HDI.  Only by changing the Indian Act could this reality of SNEC being the legally constituted authority at Six Nations be amended.  So without any legal justification, the HDI have begun the illegal construction of a permanent fence on the property.  This Six Nations radical group behaves much like a local Mafia (using typical extortion and intimidation tactics).  Here the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) dictates terms to all others ("Natives" or non-Natives).  In this case they refuse to speak to anyone but the Province of Ontario, who hold title to the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) property, but alone - without any other party present - which is unacceptable to Ontario and most other parties.  The HDI is an artificial construct which uses brute force and threats to get their way - although some recent Court Injunctions have taken away a few of their talons. 

This delusions of the HDI exist despite the inconvenient fact that the property was duly surrendered on 18 December 1844 by 47 Six Nations Chiefs in Council, had been patented by the Crown, and sold to one George Ryckman in 1848 with the deed being recorded in the Ontario Land Registry for Haldimand County in Cayuga.  Since that time there were no discrepancies or liens in relation to the property, and it was in the legal possession of the Henning brothers before 2006.  In the latter year some Six Nations activists decided that the land was theirs, and began a violent insurrection to "reclaim" land that their ancestors had legally sold, and never questioned the matter in their lifetime.  No one questioned any of the land surrenders until Six Nations land researchers, funded by the Federal Government of Canada, decided that there was justification in adding this "Plank Road" claim to 28 others filed in 1987.  The Federal Government checked the records in the Indian Affairs Records (RG10) at the Library and Archives Canada and stated in 1995 that there was no valid land claim, that the only open question was about the payment of monies into the Six Nations Trust Fund.  Since 1995 they have consistently stated this position, yet people on all sides of the equation accuse them of not addressing the issue.  In fact they have - but perception is reality.  They need to plaster a 4 foot by 8 foot copy of the signatures of all 47 Chiefs who signed the 1844 surrender to a sign near the corner of Argyle Street and Caithness Street at the lights in Caledonia for all to see - as if even this would do any good.

The HDI and associates, including the HCCC occupy DCE, owned by the Province of Ontario, without permission or negotiation. Thus it should be no surprise that they are bold enough to construct a fence on land they don't own - but are so sure they will eventually prevail and the land will be put in their hands (not any other group at Six Nations including, especially, not the Elected Band Council).  They decide who can enter the property, and assiduously keep all "non-Natives" and those who do not have a "good mind" out like swatting flies away as they are the self - designated "owners".  This chronic flaunting of the law has finally galvanized both the County of Haldimand and the Province of Ontario, who now clearly recognize the nefarious nature of the HDI who will not negotiate, except to accept the DCE property (which they choose to call Kanonhstaton - The Protected Place) on a silver platter.  It isn't going to happen - those who have suffered under the reign of terror perpetrated by the HDI and foreign nationals will never accept this as a "solution".  I, for example, would fight it tooth and claw.

The law and the Ontario Land Registry:  The old chestnut that "our land was stolen from us" cannot be supported in terms of what Canada or the forerunner, the Crown, ever did.  The Crown of England was scrupulous in purchasing land from the rightful owners.  They did this from the Mississauga, considered owners to the land by right of conquest, in 1784 to allow the Six Nations to settle on this Crown administered land.  Their tenure was one of "occupancy", and all sales had to be approved by the Crown.  Perhaps some are confusing the situation in Canada with what happened in Spanish settled countries such as Mexico with the Conquistadors destroying everything in their path except the gold they valued; or what happened in the United States as settlers pushed westward in the 1830s leaving the "Natives" in for example Ohio with few choices.  None of that happened here.

There is an Ontario Land Registry system based on a set of original Crown Patents, and it has been since the beginning of Upper Canada the basis or foundation of our land ownership rights.  If we own title to property in the Registry we can safely conclude that we own title in fee simple which can be conveyed to others by bargain and sale, or can be mortgaged, or in some cases leased out for a period of time.  Our property rights as Canadians are in jeopardy when a group of thugs can enter any property, claim it as their own, call it a "reclamation", and the authorities such as the Ontario Provincial Police refuse to protect the legal and honest property owner and in some cases protect the brutal, insolent, arrogant members of some group that says without a single shred of evidence that they are the true owners.  Get rid of the Indian Act, and we remove this sort of destructive scenario from the horizon.

Considering the above:  Some Delusions / Myths Under Which Six Nations Operate:

Each Indian Band across Canada will have its own history, and own justifications for assuming certain rights and entitlements.  The focus here will be on the circumstances I know best - those in my own back yard.  All the following numbered items are false beliefs.

1)  The Six Nations are "indigenous" or "aboriginal" to the Grand River.  In fact, the Six Nations of the Grand River immigrated from below the American border into Canada as Loyalist refugees.  As will be noted below under the Nanfan "Treaty", the Mississauga are aboriginal to the Grand River and Southwestern Ontario. 

The arrival en masse of the Six Nations Loyalist refugees and their allies such as Delaware and Nanticoke occurred in 1785.  The migration of other Loyalist refugees began a few years earlier with the disbanding of older Butler's Rangers so that they could begin farming on the Canadian side of the River to supply the British garrison.  So Loyalist refugee = Loyalist refugee, why provide those who arrived as Six Nations with special privileges that are not available to the descendants of other Loyalist refugees.  Many of us have genealogical proof of Loyalist "status" and belong to the United Empire Loyalist Association of Canada.  Should those of us in the latter group, including some including myself with Six Nations ancestors who were given land along the Grand River in recognition of being "one of our people", be excluded or categorized differently from the "Status" Indians?  If so why should this be?  It was the Government who made the rules so that ancestry is now traced through the paternal side.  For time out of mind Six Nations people have traced their ancestry through the mother's side - the side which gives one a Clan affiliation.  Many at Six Nations with paternal Six Nations heritage do not have a Clan - apparently a requirement according to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute in order to partake of the goodies that they are raking in from naïve developers and corporations willing to give in to terrorist extortion practices by following their "consultation protocol".

Some of the firmly entrenched beliefs include:

2)  The Two Row Wampum Treaty of 1613 proves the sovereignty of the Six Nations.  This concept is built upon a supposed ancient treaty extending back to 1613, and supported by a wampum belt of the same name, which guides Six Nations understanding of the relationship between themselves and the Europeans.  In fact there the only document purportedly linked to this arrangement has been deemed a forgery, a hoax, by virtually all academics who have examined the matter.  Even if it were valid, it is only a trade agreement between two Dutchmen and four "Aboriginals", probably Mohawk.  The wampum belt's provenance cannot be verified - particularly since there is no wampum on any Six Nations site prior to the 1630s and then only a tiny amount.  The legend of the Two Row Wampum, now accepted at the barricade on DCE as perfectly true began at the earliest in the late 1800s, but today has "taken shape" thanks to believers who have molded this myth into their version of reality.  "Are you in the boat or the canoe" is a question one hears at the barricade - with the belief that one purple line in the belt represents a European boat, and the other a "Native" canoe.  The fact that no one can find where the concept originated is apparently of no concern.  The message here being that these vessels (Haudenosaunee and European) travel side by side but do not interfere with each other - thus in the minds of the naïve, justifying the concept of Six Nations sovereignty - that they warrant their own nation, separate from Canada.  Where the money would come from to run this country is never discussed - but the assumption is that the tap will not be turned off and the Canadian taxpayer will be on the hook - again.

3)  The Nanfan Treaty of 1701 gives Six Nations people hunting rights, and the right to be consulted about any development in Southwestern Ontario.  Most at Six Nations believe that this document, signed by 20 Five Nations Chiefs, represents their entitlement to unrestricted control over the lands in Southwestern Ontario, and so "consultation" and "accommodation".  Alas, for them, the document is not a treaty but an agreement that if the Five Nations turn over this land to "His Majesty the Great King of England" they will accept British sovereignty, and express only the "hope" that they will be allowed to continue hunting beaver there.  The truth of the matter is that they were selling the Brooklyn Bridge - land to which they had no claim.  In the 1640s to 1650 the Five Nations did exterminate (commit genocide) against all of the peoples in Central and Southwestern Ontario so that for example the Attiwandaronk / Neutral people of the Grand River Valley, whose numbers approximated those of the Five Nations, were completely wiped off the face of the planet through the merciless and cruel wars of the Five Nations against these and all other people in the region.  However, while in the 1660s to 1680s the Five Nations did exercise their title by virtue of conquest and construct 8 settlements on the north side of Lakes Ontario and Erie, a coalition of Mississauga, Ojibway, Ottawas and others completely decimated the Five Nations in this area and by 1700 no settlements remained in Southwestern Ontario - except those of their enemies of the Three Fires.  Thus making an agreement in 1701 for lands that they did not possess is fraudulent.  The British Government apparently viewed it thus since an examination of the original document at Kew in London shows that the Royal seal or a seal of any kind was never affixed to the document and thus it was nothing more than a piece of paper of historical interest - but nothing that the Six Nations of today could use as a justification for claiming the right to be consulted in say Norfolk County, outside the Haldimand Tract about such projects such as industrial wind turbines.

4)  The Haldimand Document of 1784 gives the Six Nations title to the Grand River lands.  Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand granted to the Mohawk and others of the Six Nations who may wish to settle there, a tract of land for their occupation six miles on each side of the Grand River from the mouth to the land recently purchased from the Mississauga near the headwaters of the River.  It was and is Crown land and cannot be sold in fee simple, although this was the request of Captain Joseph Brant Thayendenagea and others.  If this had been granted, there is no doubt that all of the lands along the Grand River would have been alienated as the people required money, and they would have sold their improvements then moved to the west - either what was called the then "American Northwest" (the Ohio country), or to Manitoulin Island.  There is nothing in the "deed" that would grant the land in fee simple - it allowed only for occupancy.  A deed was offered by the Simcoe Proclamation of 1793, but the offer was firmly turned down by the Six Nations.  Again the Haldimand Document does not carry a Royal seal or even the seal of the Colony of Canada, only the Governors personal seal.  It is not a treaty, it includes only the Governor's signature. 

5)  The Six Nations have currently valid land claims to large acreages of the Haldimand Tract.  The land surrenders beginning in 1787, and continuing until 1848 when the Chiefs in Council at Onondaga signed off on the last parcel (the Burtch Tract) which they no longer wished to Reserve.  The lands at the end of it all comprised precisely those lands seen on any map of Ontario, and surveyed by Lewis Burwell and others as part of the agreement to move most of the Six Nations people to a more compact land base, known as a Reserve, so that they would not scatter to the four winds (which was a process then well underway).  Thus 47 Chiefs in Council, for example, on 18 December 1844 put their signatures to a document stating that they did not want to reserve the tier of lots along the Plank Road (Argyle Street, old Highway 6), but only the lands to the west of what is today Oneida Road which is the eastern most part of the Six Nations Reserve and has been since Lord Elgin's finalization of all the various surrenders and the mapping of the Reserve land in 1850.  Thus the members of Six Nations, primarily affiliated with the Haudeosaunee Development Institute (HDI), have no basis in fact for making a claim to land sold by their ancestors 170 years ago - except possible monetary compensation if the monies were not properly deposited in the Six Nations Trust Account - although one might invoke the Statute of Limitations here since accounting for every penny 170 years later would be a daunting and perhaps impossible task due to some records missing, out of place, lost or destroyed when exploring matters from the distant past. 

All of the above are beliefs, and do not rest on any solid factual evidential basis.


Solution - Scrap the Indian Act of 1876 and Apply the White Paper of 1969:  I have long lived by the principle, "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions".  In this vein, I offer the following:


The White Paper of 1969, tabled by the Liberal Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien, was a very positive step toward allowing Bands to enter the 20th century on an equal footing with all other Canadians.  The legislation would have seen the dismantling of the Reserve system, and the ultimate treatment of all Band members as equal partners with all the rights and privileges accorded to other Canadians irrespective of ancestry.  Although it did not pass into law, it was an excellent start whereby the process or path is shown to us.  Some modifications would need to be made, but ultimately the main thrust of the White Paper needs to be enacted in some manner, shape and form and as soon as feasible.  Delays are to the advantage of only the corrupt Indian establishment consuming from the public trough, or those who have something to gain (and that includes Government employees) from maintaining the status quo.

Thus it is time to re-introduce the White Paper of 1969, as seen here.  Nothing else will work.  A summary of what would happen if the White Paper was enacted into law can be seen below:

If passed, the white paper would have worked to eliminate "Indian" status (the specific legal identity of an Aboriginal person in Canada) and dissolve the Department of Indian Affairs within five years. The Indian Act would be abolished, provide funding for economic development and appoint a commissioner who would investigate outstanding land claims as well as terminate treaties. Reserve land converted to private property to allow Aboriginal bands and band members to sell the property. Finally, the white paper would transfer the responsibility of "Indian" affairs to the province, gradually integrating them with the services provided to other Canadian citizens.  See here for more of the Wiki article.  Much more information can be found by googling - white paper 1969.

To this end, as shown here, the white paper proposed to
  • Eliminate Indian status
  • Dissolve the Department of Indian Affairs within five years
  • Abolish the Indian Act
  • Convert reserve land to private property that can be sold by the band or its members
  • Transfer responsibility for Indian affairs from the federal government to the province and integrate these services into those provided to other Canadian citizens
  • Provide funding for economic development
  • Appoint a commissioner to address outstanding land claims and gradually terminate existing treaties
I see plenty of reasons why there would be opposition to this document, as there was in 1969.  However I see NO reason why we should not enact this White Paper or something similar to address the chronic problems resistant to remediation.

Summary:  End "racism".  End the Indian Act.  End apartheid.  End Colonialism.  Make us one people.  Reintroduce the White Paper of 1969.  We are all Canadians, it is time that we all acknowledge this fact and divest ourselves of the antiquated reasons for fostering artificial divisions, and providing one group with unwarranted privileges that are denied all other Canadians.  It is unfair and unjustified that our grandchildren and generations to come in perpetuity should pay one group of Canadians taxpayer money that does not have the intended effect and is detrimental to all.  It is 2014 - no more "presents" or monetary substitutes - unless all Canadians are given these perks.  As a Canadian with Indian ancestors I feel the sting of injustice very personally - when those on the other side of the road can go to the same stores where I shop, display their "Status Card", and are given the very same items I am purchasing but at a lower price, it admittedly causes resentment.  I pay taxes and they don't pay taxes - you tell he how or why that is fair just based on an arbitrary definition of race / ethnicity / ancestry.  We must dispense with Colonial era thinking and practice.  We have to draw a line in the sand.