Frankly I had forgotten, or was not aware, that the Proclamation of 1763 had any great significance to the Six Nations. However there is a fascinating U-Tube video which documents the many First Nations people who went to London this year to mark the 250 year anniversary of this treaty. By in large, when anything relating to land is discussed here, the Nanfan Treaty of 1701 and the Surrender of 1844 are the documents that are front and centre. The video can be seen here.
It is unclear to me why this Proclamation should be considered of such importance to the present day.
The key parts of the Proclamation are reproduced on page 70 in Johnston's, Valley of the Six Nations, referred to in a number of earlier blog posts. Basically considering that many White squatters had been illegally occupying lands claimed by Indian Nations, the Crown attempted to put the brakes on this practise to protect the interests of the Natives. The Crown asserted that, no private Person do presume to make any Purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where, We have thought proper to allow Settlement; but that, if at any Time any of the said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie; .....
A complete version of this Proclamation, included in Horsnell's (2010) article (referred to in previous blog postings). Here it also, importantly, that, We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforsaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of said Indians, all Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, ....... (Appendix 2, p. 27).
So basically the Crown claimed sovereignty and dominion over the Indians within its domains, and thus the earlier Two Row Wampum and Covenant Chain concepts of two separate peoples, were not in effect. The Native peoples were subjects of the British Crown. There appeared no hue and cry from any at the time, so one must assume that there was a general acceptance of the terms of the Proclamation. this is reinforced by the First Nations of Canada visiting Britain to honour the Proclamation, suggesting that they have accepted its terms.
In effect, the only possible way to control to problem of White settlers occupying Indian lands was to assert that the Crown was the only legitimate agent to address land matters. White settlers needed a deed from the Crown to validate any claims they might have. Alas, neither this nor the Quebec Act of 1774 could stop the tide of American settlers from illegally occupying Indian lands.
Again, I fail to see what the Proclamation of 1763 does that has not been undone subsequently by for example the American Revolution where the American Republic replaced the British as the formal authority in the region after the Treaty of Fort Stanwix of 1784. What did remain, however, is that the Crown still asserted dominion over the lands of what is today Ontario.
DeYo.
Thursday 7 November 2013
Wednesday 6 November 2013
Was the Douglas Creek Estates Take Over by the Six Nations a Reclamation or an Illegal Acquisition?
The answer to the above question is, it depends on who you ask. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, I am not sure) I was not present, I was at a College south of Syracuse, and could not take time away in order to find out first hand what was happening in my ancestral homeland. It was spring break before the opportunity presented itself to come back and see what had transpired. There was simply a ghastly mess (which remains to this day), and two security guards in a vehicle installed at the power station nearby for 24 hours a day - this "feature" was only removed about a year ago. It was all very surreal - very hard to process what had happened, but there was the realisation that the wedge between the two communities was driven much deeper. The only consolation was that my beloved Grand River continue to flow as if nothing had happened. It was oblivious to the suffering on one side, and the triumph on the other.
As far as the owners of the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) land from 1992 to 2006, Henco Industries Ltd. were concerned, the work stoppage and eventual take over of the 40 acres of land which is on title in the Haldimand County Land Registry Office can be one thing and one thing only. It was an illegal move that in any civilised society would have resulted in the land being returned to those who possesses legal title. End of story, or so one might expect. That may work in say Kingston, but in Caledonia - no.
As I continue to read documents found on websites maintained by various Six Nations groups, the ultimate goal of the most radical element is to have the entire Grand River watershed returned to them - as absurd as that may sound to some readers. Take note residents of Waterloo or Guelph, you may become the next "target" - although it is much more difficult logistically to move enough resources that far from the Reserve to effect some sort of action as happened in Caledonia in 2006. Brantford, well that is another story. It is close to the present - day Reserve, and there are a large number of small to large claims related to that area. I am sure that the residents of Caledonia would not wish any owner of what Six Nations has "selected to be" in the category of "disputed land" to be put in the position they were in - but it would likely take some of the heat off Haldimand County. So, realistically, for the next few years it is the counties of Brant and Haldimand who have to look back at what occurred in Caledonia in 2006 and wonder whether that could happen in their neighbourhood. Caledonia has lived under the "sword of Damocles" since 2006, and there is absolutely no sign that things will change. It seems that the owner of the McKenzie Meadows property realised what was in store for their group, so they negotiated a deal (where money changes hands) to have a better chance at developing their property. A problem may be, however, that some of the more intransigent radicals at Six Nations may not honour the deal made by the Six Nations Elected Chiefs, and "Caledonia 2014" may be in the offing.
So once again, many if not most at Six Nations, despite multiple rulings from multiple Federal and Provincial Courts, as well as the Federal Government, will not nor will they likely ever, honour the various deeds of surrender signed by their ancestors in the years between 1841 to 1848. Somehow, despite the clearest possible wording, the belief still stands that these lands were never alienated and so any take over of lands within the Haldimand Tract, particularly those on which homes have not already been constructed, is justifiable.
So the bottom line is that the Federal Government of Canada and Provincial Government of Canada, as well as the municipal officials in Haldimand County all realise that the take over of the DCE property was an illegal act, and the DCE property was an illegal acquisition. However, the matter is considered "sensitive", and there is a wish not to ruffle feathers in the matter, so better just quietly have the Province of Ontario purchase the land and quietly negotiate a deal with Six Nations as to what to do with the land. Why can the land not simply be turned back to the legal owner? Because it carries too much baggage. It is an albatross, so will be used as a sacrificial lamb to appease the radicals at Six Nations and their noisy communist - inspired White supporters. I agree, despite what is right and just, it is a tainted piece of land. It will likely never be developed as a housing site. Who knows what will become of it. Perhaps the Province will just sit on it as they have done with the thousands of acres purchased in South Cayuga in the 1970s - land that is ripe for becoming a wind generator farm. Will the DCE then ever become the site of this sort of "green" (actually anything but) initiative? Perhaps, but in my opinion only a solar panel "farm" would be acceptable since wind generators are ugly monstrosities that no one at Six Nations or Caledonia wants in their back yard.
The perspective of the Six Nations involved with the "reclamation" of the DCE lands will argue that these are their lands, unceded "Plank Road" (Claim 5) lands. So that the taking of what is by law private property, is to the Six Nations an almost sacred act of reclaiming what is and always has been, theirs. The local press promulgated the view that this was rightful land, that the OPP were using brutal tactics in the attempt to arrest law breakers and that joining the "fight" was necessary to protect the Community. See the publication, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictorial History, Turtle Island News, Ohsweken, 2007. A copy of this publication can be ordered via their website at www.turtleislandnews.com. It provides, in addition to a very detailed pictoral record, a rationale as to why this action was right and just, and an overview of other related injustices.
By giving the property a name to reflect its landmark history, Kanonhstaton, and talking about seeing the ghostly shapes of ancestors and hearing the sound of horses hooves, they have sealed the fate of this land parcel, and made it sacred. I just can't see someone on the Government side who will emerges with the gumption to use the laws of Canada to force the issue. I don't think this is going to happen. Might as well bid farewell to DCE, and accept what the sign at the entrance says, "Welcome to Six Nations". Whether it is truly just, or not is immaterial. Those who were there now feel the place is special. It is where the Six Nations came together in unprecedented numbers with a "we won't take it any longer" attitude. The old chestnut of 1924, when many believe that the Canadian Government unilaterally forced the switch from a hereditary system of governance to and elected system that fit with Canadian values, has been brought up as a justification. In many cases it does not matter what the truth is, perception is reality and old beliefs and old sores always lurking beneath the surface came to a head - and there is no going back. This is one of the very few instances where almost the entire community came together as one, and where the perennial problem of factionalism vanished as the morning mists before the sun.
DeYo.
As far as the owners of the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) land from 1992 to 2006, Henco Industries Ltd. were concerned, the work stoppage and eventual take over of the 40 acres of land which is on title in the Haldimand County Land Registry Office can be one thing and one thing only. It was an illegal move that in any civilised society would have resulted in the land being returned to those who possesses legal title. End of story, or so one might expect. That may work in say Kingston, but in Caledonia - no.
As I continue to read documents found on websites maintained by various Six Nations groups, the ultimate goal of the most radical element is to have the entire Grand River watershed returned to them - as absurd as that may sound to some readers. Take note residents of Waterloo or Guelph, you may become the next "target" - although it is much more difficult logistically to move enough resources that far from the Reserve to effect some sort of action as happened in Caledonia in 2006. Brantford, well that is another story. It is close to the present - day Reserve, and there are a large number of small to large claims related to that area. I am sure that the residents of Caledonia would not wish any owner of what Six Nations has "selected to be" in the category of "disputed land" to be put in the position they were in - but it would likely take some of the heat off Haldimand County. So, realistically, for the next few years it is the counties of Brant and Haldimand who have to look back at what occurred in Caledonia in 2006 and wonder whether that could happen in their neighbourhood. Caledonia has lived under the "sword of Damocles" since 2006, and there is absolutely no sign that things will change. It seems that the owner of the McKenzie Meadows property realised what was in store for their group, so they negotiated a deal (where money changes hands) to have a better chance at developing their property. A problem may be, however, that some of the more intransigent radicals at Six Nations may not honour the deal made by the Six Nations Elected Chiefs, and "Caledonia 2014" may be in the offing.
So once again, many if not most at Six Nations, despite multiple rulings from multiple Federal and Provincial Courts, as well as the Federal Government, will not nor will they likely ever, honour the various deeds of surrender signed by their ancestors in the years between 1841 to 1848. Somehow, despite the clearest possible wording, the belief still stands that these lands were never alienated and so any take over of lands within the Haldimand Tract, particularly those on which homes have not already been constructed, is justifiable.
So the bottom line is that the Federal Government of Canada and Provincial Government of Canada, as well as the municipal officials in Haldimand County all realise that the take over of the DCE property was an illegal act, and the DCE property was an illegal acquisition. However, the matter is considered "sensitive", and there is a wish not to ruffle feathers in the matter, so better just quietly have the Province of Ontario purchase the land and quietly negotiate a deal with Six Nations as to what to do with the land. Why can the land not simply be turned back to the legal owner? Because it carries too much baggage. It is an albatross, so will be used as a sacrificial lamb to appease the radicals at Six Nations and their noisy communist - inspired White supporters. I agree, despite what is right and just, it is a tainted piece of land. It will likely never be developed as a housing site. Who knows what will become of it. Perhaps the Province will just sit on it as they have done with the thousands of acres purchased in South Cayuga in the 1970s - land that is ripe for becoming a wind generator farm. Will the DCE then ever become the site of this sort of "green" (actually anything but) initiative? Perhaps, but in my opinion only a solar panel "farm" would be acceptable since wind generators are ugly monstrosities that no one at Six Nations or Caledonia wants in their back yard.
The perspective of the Six Nations involved with the "reclamation" of the DCE lands will argue that these are their lands, unceded "Plank Road" (Claim 5) lands. So that the taking of what is by law private property, is to the Six Nations an almost sacred act of reclaiming what is and always has been, theirs. The local press promulgated the view that this was rightful land, that the OPP were using brutal tactics in the attempt to arrest law breakers and that joining the "fight" was necessary to protect the Community. See the publication, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictorial History, Turtle Island News, Ohsweken, 2007. A copy of this publication can be ordered via their website at www.turtleislandnews.com. It provides, in addition to a very detailed pictoral record, a rationale as to why this action was right and just, and an overview of other related injustices.
By giving the property a name to reflect its landmark history, Kanonhstaton, and talking about seeing the ghostly shapes of ancestors and hearing the sound of horses hooves, they have sealed the fate of this land parcel, and made it sacred. I just can't see someone on the Government side who will emerges with the gumption to use the laws of Canada to force the issue. I don't think this is going to happen. Might as well bid farewell to DCE, and accept what the sign at the entrance says, "Welcome to Six Nations". Whether it is truly just, or not is immaterial. Those who were there now feel the place is special. It is where the Six Nations came together in unprecedented numbers with a "we won't take it any longer" attitude. The old chestnut of 1924, when many believe that the Canadian Government unilaterally forced the switch from a hereditary system of governance to and elected system that fit with Canadian values, has been brought up as a justification. In many cases it does not matter what the truth is, perception is reality and old beliefs and old sores always lurking beneath the surface came to a head - and there is no going back. This is one of the very few instances where almost the entire community came together as one, and where the perennial problem of factionalism vanished as the morning mists before the sun.
DeYo.
The Police and Government as Enablers at Six Nations Protests
Just because some Six Nations group believes a particular cause is just does not make it so. Similarly, just because one believes they are in the right can only be assessed in light of the laws of the land. We live in the country of Canada, Province of Ontario. While some at Six Nations may believe that they are exempt from these laws because they are a sovereign people, this belief does not give them a permit to behave as if they belong to an autonomous body and flaunt the laws that govern all within the country - unless they perhaps begin to refuse to accept any money from Canadian taxpayers. If I believe that I, for example, have some God given right to not pay taxes, and act according, I should expect that the weight of the law will come down on me. I will have the right to challenge it in Court, but the burden of proof is on my shoulders. While by law Six Nations members have some entrenched rights with respect to not paying certain taxes, it is incumbent on them to pay those that they are not exempted from paying. By in large, however, we are all bound by the civil and criminal laws that were made to protect us from harm and facilitate the concept of "peace, order and good Government" which applies as an byproduct of the laws and legal system that evolved from British Common Law.
The events of 28 February 2006 were probably amongst the most dramatic and devastating ever witnessed in this part of Canada, although the crisis at Kanesatake (Oka) in Quebec were in another league due to the level of physical violence and use of an arsenal of weapons.
In 2006 the OPP did not even protect their own officers or other first responders or reporters but stood immobile while Six Nations members zoomed around on ATVs thumbing their noses at one and all. It is not my intention to go over the many many examples of this behaviour on the part of the OPP. A book set to be released by Gary McHale on 9 November 2013 will provide a lot more information. It is entitled, Victory in the No Go Zone: Winning the Fight Against Two - Tiered Policing, Toronto, Freedom Press. I am eager to hear what he has to say. While McHale may be a polarising influence (as some politicians and others have asserted), he and a few others are the only ones to actively pursue the failure of the OPP to do their duty and keep this important issue in the public spotlight. Please read the book by Christie Blatchford discussed in an earlier blog for a better understanding of the abuse of local residents and the role of the OPP and the Government.
To be fair, the OPP did initially attempt to conduct themselves as upholders of the law in Ontario, and their early actions speak loudly at their resolve to carry out their duties, as can be seen to some degree in the video here. In fact, though, they were out of their element. They were outnumbered, outmanoeuvred, and ultimately embarrassed by the increasing throngs that swarmed in from nearby Six Nations to protect members from arrest. Without using strong force, and then almost inevitably being accused of "police brutality", they were beat. They left with their tail between their legs, something that to this day engenders pride in members of the Six Nations. See, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictorial History, Turtle Island News, 2007 (www.turtleislandnews.com) for a very graphic look at what happened in the early days of the "Caledonia crisis".
Despite the numerous protests or actions orchestrated by citizens of Caledonia and local residents since 2006, nothing changes. Attempts have been made to challenge the "right" of Six Nations make claims and demands that have no support in fact - or if they do, the facts have not been presented so that all could evaluate them. Citizens have tried to, for example, place a Canadian flag on the barricades to the former DCE property, to request an apology from Six Nations, to walk on lands that on survey are public, to protest code violations on shops established on "reclaimed" lands, to rally to assert the rights of "regular" Canadian citizens to protest, to test the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to question "racist" policing, and so on - all largely to no avail.
The protests in the area continued, and the local residents could obtain no respite from the constant harassment now being orchestrated from the DCE, which became kind of a launching pad for insurrection. In 2008 more blockades and more protests, and more Government and OPP inaction. See here.
Mess with Six Nations on any of these issues and you will face an angry nest of wasps, asserting their "rights", frequently propped up by their radical leftist White radical "supporters". Imagine a situation where at any time the Six Nations wishes to disrupt the lives of tax paying citizens of Haldimand or Brant Counties, they appear to have free rein to do so. This was most recently (17 October 2013) shown in the gathering of 150 from the Reserve to shut down Highway 6 south of Caledonia to protest a matter happening in the Province of New Brunswick. Just as has happened time and time again (witnessed by my own eyes), each time those whose role it is to serve and protect in Haldimand County, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) have abrogated their responsibility. I have been told by officers that their role is as "peacekeeper". Meanwhile the OPP threaten anyone they think may not be Six Nations with arrest if their orders are not obeyed. Officers of the Aboriginal Negotiating Team will, if available, stand in the way of a direct face to face confrontation. In the distance, members of the Six Nations laugh (again I have witnessed this over and over) - they know that the OPP will not protect the citizens, but will simply attempt to keep the local citizens from coming anywhere near the location of the protest. The right of local citizens to protest is not respected, the right of Six Nations to protest (even if the protest is highly disruptive) is protected by the OPP. Two tiered policing. It is a sick joke to any who have watched this in motion. So the old expression from the movie, "Star Wars" takes on a new significance. "May the Force be with you" - well as long as the Force is not the OPP.
Back to the most recent "action" taken by Six Nations members was to blockade Highway 6 on 17 October 2013. What role did the OPP play? Traffic cop. They set up two checkpoints to divert traffic away from the blockade site, to allow traffic to funnel through Caledonia during rush hour. What then did they do about the blockade. Nothing. Just let it "run its course" - for 6 hours. So nothing proactive? No. After all this is known in OPP parlance as "Cashedonia", renown for the amount of overtime money it can offer (of course at taxpayers expense).
So this brings me to the definition of "enabler". When used in the medical sense of the term, it typically refers to the husband or wife of a drug addict who "enable" the behaviour, allowing it to continue, by for example calling the workplace to say that their spouse is ill. Of course this almost certainly means that the dysfunctional behaviour will continue unabated, and will as long as those who should really put their foot down and demand that the person go to treatment, or else, fail to do what is really needed! It would have been unimaginable in the Canada of my youth to picture something of the following nature happening, where the OPP become enablers, and thus in this case the Six Nations are emboldened (there are generally no consequences). Like a young child, they have tested the limits, and found that they will be able to get away with just about anything, so the behaviour is bound to escalate. This is an entirely predictable reaction. There is also a sense of empowerment, and a realisation that they are in charge. They call the shots. The rest of the citizens are forced to just grin and bear it (if that is possible after a certain point).
However the other enabler is the Provincial Government. They in theory control the OPP. They could have concluded the obvious, that the flawed Ipperwash Report which recommended that the role of the police in disputes involving Natives change to one of "peacekeeper", makes absolutely no sense given the chaos that resulted at Caledonia in 2006. What did the McGinty Government of Ontario do - absolutely nothing. Not a peep was heard from them. No one came out to see the suffering first hand. After all it was oh so inconvenient. Such an out of the way place - not like Toronto where such antics would never be tolerated. So lets just stick our heads in the sand and pretend there is nothing serious going on. Business as usual. Carry on. No one in Kathleen Wynne's Government (successor to the disgraced McGinty) has set foot in Caledonia - not even the local Member of the Provincial Parliament for the region which includes Haldimand. I don't recall seeing Diane Findlay even once, ever, in or near Caledonia when her support would have been most welcome. No one wants another Ipperwash (Ontario) or Oka (Quebec), so Caledonia will be sacrificed.
While the Federal Government has defered to the Provincial Government in handling the "Caledonia crisis", one Conservative Senator has spoken up. In 2011, Senator Bob Runciman, who had been involved with the Ipperwash Inquiry which ultimately led to the suspension of the Ontario Police Services Act to incorporate a new role for the OPP as "peacekeepers", stated that it was imperative that in inquiry be made into the events of Caledonia and how things went so wrong. Just in dollars and cents, the Provincial tab for this debacle is over $100 million dollars due to one illegal event, that left the OPP with egg all over their faces. Something is very wrong, thus an inquiry is called for - see here.
In 2006 the citizens dreamt that due to the severity of the matter the Federal Government would become involved, and if tanks needed to role, so be it. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau did this during the FLQ crisis - but that is an action unlikely to be repeated - it was more far-reaching in its consequences than small town Caledonia. Of course the Federal Government simply deferred to the Provincial Government. Although an interesting idea, of course it does not make sense to ask that the Crown, via her representative in Canada the Governor General, address the issue and if need be send in the troops even though the local police were powerless, and individual officers had their hands tied behind their backs by virtue of orders from their superiors. The names of people like Commissioner Julian Fantino will live on in infamy - at least locally.
My point is that the matter needed to be nipped in the bud from the git go, with an assertive response to address the lawlessness that prevailed. The OPP came close to doing this but backed down. For the Six Nations perspective see the above noted, Six Nations at the Crossroads: Douglas Creek Reclamation A Pictorial History. In history, the result of these actions is always the same. The opponent will see this as a weakness and "goes for the jugular" and will continue to do so when the "enemy" lacks spine and backs down every time, in this case in their role as "peacekeeper". Enabler. Enabler. No crystal ball needed, the outcome could easily have been predicted by anyone with a knowledge of human behaviour. The citizens of Caledonia are and will be beat until the OPP cast off their new found role, and return to being the respected "force" they were when I was young. Some to many of the Six Nations believe that they now have a licence to do as they please, and their leaders typically reinforce this attitude, or say nothing. Is the Government aware that the true dyed in the wool radicals at Six Nations are slowly but surely drawing more and more previously moderate types into their web? Surely they, let alone residents of Haldimand County, don't want this to occur.
DeYo.
The events of 28 February 2006 were probably amongst the most dramatic and devastating ever witnessed in this part of Canada, although the crisis at Kanesatake (Oka) in Quebec were in another league due to the level of physical violence and use of an arsenal of weapons.
In 2006 the OPP did not even protect their own officers or other first responders or reporters but stood immobile while Six Nations members zoomed around on ATVs thumbing their noses at one and all. It is not my intention to go over the many many examples of this behaviour on the part of the OPP. A book set to be released by Gary McHale on 9 November 2013 will provide a lot more information. It is entitled, Victory in the No Go Zone: Winning the Fight Against Two - Tiered Policing, Toronto, Freedom Press. I am eager to hear what he has to say. While McHale may be a polarising influence (as some politicians and others have asserted), he and a few others are the only ones to actively pursue the failure of the OPP to do their duty and keep this important issue in the public spotlight. Please read the book by Christie Blatchford discussed in an earlier blog for a better understanding of the abuse of local residents and the role of the OPP and the Government.
To be fair, the OPP did initially attempt to conduct themselves as upholders of the law in Ontario, and their early actions speak loudly at their resolve to carry out their duties, as can be seen to some degree in the video here. In fact, though, they were out of their element. They were outnumbered, outmanoeuvred, and ultimately embarrassed by the increasing throngs that swarmed in from nearby Six Nations to protect members from arrest. Without using strong force, and then almost inevitably being accused of "police brutality", they were beat. They left with their tail between their legs, something that to this day engenders pride in members of the Six Nations. See, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictorial History, Turtle Island News, 2007 (www.turtleislandnews.com) for a very graphic look at what happened in the early days of the "Caledonia crisis".
Despite the numerous protests or actions orchestrated by citizens of Caledonia and local residents since 2006, nothing changes. Attempts have been made to challenge the "right" of Six Nations make claims and demands that have no support in fact - or if they do, the facts have not been presented so that all could evaluate them. Citizens have tried to, for example, place a Canadian flag on the barricades to the former DCE property, to request an apology from Six Nations, to walk on lands that on survey are public, to protest code violations on shops established on "reclaimed" lands, to rally to assert the rights of "regular" Canadian citizens to protest, to test the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to question "racist" policing, and so on - all largely to no avail.
The protests in the area continued, and the local residents could obtain no respite from the constant harassment now being orchestrated from the DCE, which became kind of a launching pad for insurrection. In 2008 more blockades and more protests, and more Government and OPP inaction. See here.
Mess with Six Nations on any of these issues and you will face an angry nest of wasps, asserting their "rights", frequently propped up by their radical leftist White radical "supporters". Imagine a situation where at any time the Six Nations wishes to disrupt the lives of tax paying citizens of Haldimand or Brant Counties, they appear to have free rein to do so. This was most recently (17 October 2013) shown in the gathering of 150 from the Reserve to shut down Highway 6 south of Caledonia to protest a matter happening in the Province of New Brunswick. Just as has happened time and time again (witnessed by my own eyes), each time those whose role it is to serve and protect in Haldimand County, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) have abrogated their responsibility. I have been told by officers that their role is as "peacekeeper". Meanwhile the OPP threaten anyone they think may not be Six Nations with arrest if their orders are not obeyed. Officers of the Aboriginal Negotiating Team will, if available, stand in the way of a direct face to face confrontation. In the distance, members of the Six Nations laugh (again I have witnessed this over and over) - they know that the OPP will not protect the citizens, but will simply attempt to keep the local citizens from coming anywhere near the location of the protest. The right of local citizens to protest is not respected, the right of Six Nations to protest (even if the protest is highly disruptive) is protected by the OPP. Two tiered policing. It is a sick joke to any who have watched this in motion. So the old expression from the movie, "Star Wars" takes on a new significance. "May the Force be with you" - well as long as the Force is not the OPP.
Back to the most recent "action" taken by Six Nations members was to blockade Highway 6 on 17 October 2013. What role did the OPP play? Traffic cop. They set up two checkpoints to divert traffic away from the blockade site, to allow traffic to funnel through Caledonia during rush hour. What then did they do about the blockade. Nothing. Just let it "run its course" - for 6 hours. So nothing proactive? No. After all this is known in OPP parlance as "Cashedonia", renown for the amount of overtime money it can offer (of course at taxpayers expense).
So this brings me to the definition of "enabler". When used in the medical sense of the term, it typically refers to the husband or wife of a drug addict who "enable" the behaviour, allowing it to continue, by for example calling the workplace to say that their spouse is ill. Of course this almost certainly means that the dysfunctional behaviour will continue unabated, and will as long as those who should really put their foot down and demand that the person go to treatment, or else, fail to do what is really needed! It would have been unimaginable in the Canada of my youth to picture something of the following nature happening, where the OPP become enablers, and thus in this case the Six Nations are emboldened (there are generally no consequences). Like a young child, they have tested the limits, and found that they will be able to get away with just about anything, so the behaviour is bound to escalate. This is an entirely predictable reaction. There is also a sense of empowerment, and a realisation that they are in charge. They call the shots. The rest of the citizens are forced to just grin and bear it (if that is possible after a certain point).
However the other enabler is the Provincial Government. They in theory control the OPP. They could have concluded the obvious, that the flawed Ipperwash Report which recommended that the role of the police in disputes involving Natives change to one of "peacekeeper", makes absolutely no sense given the chaos that resulted at Caledonia in 2006. What did the McGinty Government of Ontario do - absolutely nothing. Not a peep was heard from them. No one came out to see the suffering first hand. After all it was oh so inconvenient. Such an out of the way place - not like Toronto where such antics would never be tolerated. So lets just stick our heads in the sand and pretend there is nothing serious going on. Business as usual. Carry on. No one in Kathleen Wynne's Government (successor to the disgraced McGinty) has set foot in Caledonia - not even the local Member of the Provincial Parliament for the region which includes Haldimand. I don't recall seeing Diane Findlay even once, ever, in or near Caledonia when her support would have been most welcome. No one wants another Ipperwash (Ontario) or Oka (Quebec), so Caledonia will be sacrificed.
While the Federal Government has defered to the Provincial Government in handling the "Caledonia crisis", one Conservative Senator has spoken up. In 2011, Senator Bob Runciman, who had been involved with the Ipperwash Inquiry which ultimately led to the suspension of the Ontario Police Services Act to incorporate a new role for the OPP as "peacekeepers", stated that it was imperative that in inquiry be made into the events of Caledonia and how things went so wrong. Just in dollars and cents, the Provincial tab for this debacle is over $100 million dollars due to one illegal event, that left the OPP with egg all over their faces. Something is very wrong, thus an inquiry is called for - see here.
In 2006 the citizens dreamt that due to the severity of the matter the Federal Government would become involved, and if tanks needed to role, so be it. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau did this during the FLQ crisis - but that is an action unlikely to be repeated - it was more far-reaching in its consequences than small town Caledonia. Of course the Federal Government simply deferred to the Provincial Government. Although an interesting idea, of course it does not make sense to ask that the Crown, via her representative in Canada the Governor General, address the issue and if need be send in the troops even though the local police were powerless, and individual officers had their hands tied behind their backs by virtue of orders from their superiors. The names of people like Commissioner Julian Fantino will live on in infamy - at least locally.
My point is that the matter needed to be nipped in the bud from the git go, with an assertive response to address the lawlessness that prevailed. The OPP came close to doing this but backed down. For the Six Nations perspective see the above noted, Six Nations at the Crossroads: Douglas Creek Reclamation A Pictorial History. In history, the result of these actions is always the same. The opponent will see this as a weakness and "goes for the jugular" and will continue to do so when the "enemy" lacks spine and backs down every time, in this case in their role as "peacekeeper". Enabler. Enabler. No crystal ball needed, the outcome could easily have been predicted by anyone with a knowledge of human behaviour. The citizens of Caledonia are and will be beat until the OPP cast off their new found role, and return to being the respected "force" they were when I was young. Some to many of the Six Nations believe that they now have a licence to do as they please, and their leaders typically reinforce this attitude, or say nothing. Is the Government aware that the true dyed in the wool radicals at Six Nations are slowly but surely drawing more and more previously moderate types into their web? Surely they, let alone residents of Haldimand County, don't want this to occur.
DeYo.
Activism and Apathy at Six Nations
Two words, both beginning with A, and apparently opposites of sorts, can come into play at Six Nations - to the frustration of non-Native and Natives alike. So how can these polar opposites occur at the same time in the same community? I don't have an answer to that question, but will simply provide one classic instance of each, both reported in Turtle Island News, one week apart.
First the activism. Activism is nothing new at Six Nations. Examples abound of those at Six Nations who were active politically and who set out to seek remediation for what they saw as injustices. One only has to look at the General Family as an example. The well known Deskahe, Cayuga Chief Levi General took the complaints of his constituents to the League of Nations in the years leading up to the well known change from the Hereditary Council (of which Deskahe was a member) to the Elected Council in 1924 (see here). His niece Emily General followed in her uncle's footsteps and directly approached the British Crown in 1930 to explain how Six Nations saw themselves as allies, not subjects, of the Crown. Although she was unsuccessful, her efforts speak loudly as to her zeal (see here).
Certainly ever since 2006, people of Six Nations have shown an amazing ability to congregate in large numbers at a moment's notice. For this reason, the activism tends to take place in close proximity to the present Reserve - but not on the Reserve - something a cynic would cite as a willingness to disrupt the lives of their neighbour's community, but not their own Community.
For some time there have been violent disputes between the Elsipogotog First Nations people of New Brunswick and the RCMP over the practise of "fracking" in the search for natural gas - due to perceived potential environmental damage (a view I happen to share). However in the days before 17 October 2013 the confrontations turned violent with the hurling of Molotov coctails at RCMP and vehicles, thus burning the vehicles sreated nothing but tons of scrap metal. 40 people (Natives and their supporters) were arrested in a jurisdiction where the police are actually willing to enforce the law and apply it equally to all - something the people of Haldimand County do not enjoy. Turtle Island News (TIN) of 22 October 2013 (p. 2) reported that, Turtle Island News Facebook and Twitter exploded with updates on the situation and soon, communities across the country were organising and planning rallies and protests in support of the Elsipogtog Mi'qmaq First Nations. It seems then that what followed at Six Nations was a direct function of the buzz in social media created by Turtle Island News - at least that is what the newspaper seems to be saying here and in the following excerpt:
Six Nations people arrived in droves to the intersection of Hwy. 6 and Fifth Line, just outside Caledonia, Ont., around 3 p.m. after a call - out for a blockade went up on both Facebook and Twitter and Turtle Island News social media sites exploded with information, updates and questions as Turtle Island News social media managers updated the sites as it happened.
I do not follow Facebook or Twitter, so was quite ignorant of what was going on - other than the fact that I was in traffic bumper to bumper on both sides of Highway 6 - so do not have personal knowledge of who was there. TIN did report that, Many of the same faces from the Caledonia land reclamation turned out for the show of support, including Janie Jamieson, one of the main spokeswomen during the reclamation. Also among the throng was Aaron Detlor the legal advisor of the HDI, and Melba Thomas of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC).
So the point here is that at the drop of a hat, one might expect 150 or more Six Nations activists to appear minutes to a spot designated as the site of an action of some sort. That is pretty impressive, and one wonders if these people had a job, or ditched school, or were retired, or jumped up from their desks at work to attend this rally. How could this happen? The response was virtually instantaneous for something that was perceived as a "cause" - although it was not one that anything whatsoever to do with Haldimand County which bore the direct effect of this action.
The subject is immensely complicated by various cross currents and inconsistencies. It was quite a surprise to see the pictures of Floyd Montour and his wife Ruby Montour on the front pages of an Indian newspaper in what amounts to a new role for them (Turtle Island News, 23 October 2013 and 6 November 2013 respectively). For years this couple has been known for their direct activism in virtually any contest where it was generally Six Nations versus the local Haldimand Community. Whether it be the DCE confrontations with Gary McHale, or at the hamburger facility, or ranging as far as Dundalk at the headwaters of the Grand River to support local residents against a sewage sludge issue. Now, a few months later, on the front page of above TIN issue where a picture of Ruby was shown (as ever sporting her "traditional" red hat), and the caption read, "former activist Ruby Montour". How can one be a former activist when one is front and centre at a local land claim - related protest? However in this instance, she and Floyd were at the Erie Avenue development site as supporters of the housing development.
I suspect that by showing support for the Mohawk Workers and their deal with the owners of the undertaking (one White fellow, and two Six Nations members) they are in this instance perceived as not following "protocol" as mandated by the HDI with Hazel Hill being the spokesperson for this group, demanding that for example a new archaeological survey be conducted. Perhaps the sobering reality of the consequences of "activism" in the form of illegal work blockages is beginning to sink in. Developers have begun to sue members of the HDI and their supporters directly, and when these protesters hand in their legal bills to the Elected Council for payment, they are meeting with a frosty reception, as outlined in a letter to the Editor of Turtle Island News by Councillor Helen Miller - see here. One would think that this could dampen the enthusiasm of protester likely to face Court Injunctions which also include fines levied against the specific participants, with the demand that the latter pay the fine themselves, not via a third party.
Second the apathy. The Editor of Turtle Island News (TIN), on page 6 of the 30 October 2013 edition, wrote a very interesting article on the apathy at Six Nations which allows "mediocrity" to flourish. Some of the points raised by Lynda Powless include the observation that in the upcoming Six Nations Elected Band Council (SNEC) elections, in three of its six districts, individuals were "acclaimed to their seats". No opportunity for voters to grill them on their performance or justify their actions - just an automatic re-seating. The Editor's take on this is that, It has everything to do with voter apathy in a community where it appears the great divide between the confederacy council and its supporters and the elected band council and its voters has gotten even wider. In the last two elections voter turnout has actually dropped.
The Editor looks to explanations in the way the elected system operates and behaves (which she articulates later in the editorial). She expresses particular concern over the youth who are not invested in the process and disillusioned about the outcomes. As an example, they watched as an elected system that appeared to have no stability as the community was hit by one time chiefs and council bickering and continues to this day. And when unity first reared its head at the land rights negotiations table, the band council walked away leaving behind a unity chasm that continues to grow. Again, hardly inspiring for future community leaders.
Ms. Powless is very emphatic in stating that a system needs to be in place that attracts the best possible person for the job, someone who believes strongly in unity. It is critically important, says Ms. Powless to foster those with leadership potential, those who are dedicated to public service. The outcome, otherwise, is mediocrity.
Perhaps the apathy is much more widespread beyond merely politics. I went to a recent Community forum where there were 8 knowledgeable people available to answer questions about a proposal that needed to be discussed. In the 30 minutes I was there, I remained the one and only non staff person in the room. That is very sad indeed. I felt very upset for those committed individuals who were willing to give of their time, and had clearly put in a lot of effort to prepare for the meeting. How disappointing and discouraging. Doesn't anyone care unless it appears as a Twitter feed and an opportunity presented to gather with those who feel passionate about some cause - whether it has any direct bearing on Six Nations or not. Words fail me here.
DeYo.
First the activism. Activism is nothing new at Six Nations. Examples abound of those at Six Nations who were active politically and who set out to seek remediation for what they saw as injustices. One only has to look at the General Family as an example. The well known Deskahe, Cayuga Chief Levi General took the complaints of his constituents to the League of Nations in the years leading up to the well known change from the Hereditary Council (of which Deskahe was a member) to the Elected Council in 1924 (see here). His niece Emily General followed in her uncle's footsteps and directly approached the British Crown in 1930 to explain how Six Nations saw themselves as allies, not subjects, of the Crown. Although she was unsuccessful, her efforts speak loudly as to her zeal (see here).
Certainly ever since 2006, people of Six Nations have shown an amazing ability to congregate in large numbers at a moment's notice. For this reason, the activism tends to take place in close proximity to the present Reserve - but not on the Reserve - something a cynic would cite as a willingness to disrupt the lives of their neighbour's community, but not their own Community.
For some time there have been violent disputes between the Elsipogotog First Nations people of New Brunswick and the RCMP over the practise of "fracking" in the search for natural gas - due to perceived potential environmental damage (a view I happen to share). However in the days before 17 October 2013 the confrontations turned violent with the hurling of Molotov coctails at RCMP and vehicles, thus burning the vehicles sreated nothing but tons of scrap metal. 40 people (Natives and their supporters) were arrested in a jurisdiction where the police are actually willing to enforce the law and apply it equally to all - something the people of Haldimand County do not enjoy. Turtle Island News (TIN) of 22 October 2013 (p. 2) reported that, Turtle Island News Facebook and Twitter exploded with updates on the situation and soon, communities across the country were organising and planning rallies and protests in support of the Elsipogtog Mi'qmaq First Nations. It seems then that what followed at Six Nations was a direct function of the buzz in social media created by Turtle Island News - at least that is what the newspaper seems to be saying here and in the following excerpt:
Six Nations people arrived in droves to the intersection of Hwy. 6 and Fifth Line, just outside Caledonia, Ont., around 3 p.m. after a call - out for a blockade went up on both Facebook and Twitter and Turtle Island News social media sites exploded with information, updates and questions as Turtle Island News social media managers updated the sites as it happened.
I do not follow Facebook or Twitter, so was quite ignorant of what was going on - other than the fact that I was in traffic bumper to bumper on both sides of Highway 6 - so do not have personal knowledge of who was there. TIN did report that, Many of the same faces from the Caledonia land reclamation turned out for the show of support, including Janie Jamieson, one of the main spokeswomen during the reclamation. Also among the throng was Aaron Detlor the legal advisor of the HDI, and Melba Thomas of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC).
So the point here is that at the drop of a hat, one might expect 150 or more Six Nations activists to appear minutes to a spot designated as the site of an action of some sort. That is pretty impressive, and one wonders if these people had a job, or ditched school, or were retired, or jumped up from their desks at work to attend this rally. How could this happen? The response was virtually instantaneous for something that was perceived as a "cause" - although it was not one that anything whatsoever to do with Haldimand County which bore the direct effect of this action.
The subject is immensely complicated by various cross currents and inconsistencies. It was quite a surprise to see the pictures of Floyd Montour and his wife Ruby Montour on the front pages of an Indian newspaper in what amounts to a new role for them (Turtle Island News, 23 October 2013 and 6 November 2013 respectively). For years this couple has been known for their direct activism in virtually any contest where it was generally Six Nations versus the local Haldimand Community. Whether it be the DCE confrontations with Gary McHale, or at the hamburger facility, or ranging as far as Dundalk at the headwaters of the Grand River to support local residents against a sewage sludge issue. Now, a few months later, on the front page of above TIN issue where a picture of Ruby was shown (as ever sporting her "traditional" red hat), and the caption read, "former activist Ruby Montour". How can one be a former activist when one is front and centre at a local land claim - related protest? However in this instance, she and Floyd were at the Erie Avenue development site as supporters of the housing development.
I suspect that by showing support for the Mohawk Workers and their deal with the owners of the undertaking (one White fellow, and two Six Nations members) they are in this instance perceived as not following "protocol" as mandated by the HDI with Hazel Hill being the spokesperson for this group, demanding that for example a new archaeological survey be conducted. Perhaps the sobering reality of the consequences of "activism" in the form of illegal work blockages is beginning to sink in. Developers have begun to sue members of the HDI and their supporters directly, and when these protesters hand in their legal bills to the Elected Council for payment, they are meeting with a frosty reception, as outlined in a letter to the Editor of Turtle Island News by Councillor Helen Miller - see here. One would think that this could dampen the enthusiasm of protester likely to face Court Injunctions which also include fines levied against the specific participants, with the demand that the latter pay the fine themselves, not via a third party.
Second the apathy. The Editor of Turtle Island News (TIN), on page 6 of the 30 October 2013 edition, wrote a very interesting article on the apathy at Six Nations which allows "mediocrity" to flourish. Some of the points raised by Lynda Powless include the observation that in the upcoming Six Nations Elected Band Council (SNEC) elections, in three of its six districts, individuals were "acclaimed to their seats". No opportunity for voters to grill them on their performance or justify their actions - just an automatic re-seating. The Editor's take on this is that, It has everything to do with voter apathy in a community where it appears the great divide between the confederacy council and its supporters and the elected band council and its voters has gotten even wider. In the last two elections voter turnout has actually dropped.
The Editor looks to explanations in the way the elected system operates and behaves (which she articulates later in the editorial). She expresses particular concern over the youth who are not invested in the process and disillusioned about the outcomes. As an example, they watched as an elected system that appeared to have no stability as the community was hit by one time chiefs and council bickering and continues to this day. And when unity first reared its head at the land rights negotiations table, the band council walked away leaving behind a unity chasm that continues to grow. Again, hardly inspiring for future community leaders.
Ms. Powless is very emphatic in stating that a system needs to be in place that attracts the best possible person for the job, someone who believes strongly in unity. It is critically important, says Ms. Powless to foster those with leadership potential, those who are dedicated to public service. The outcome, otherwise, is mediocrity.
Perhaps the apathy is much more widespread beyond merely politics. I went to a recent Community forum where there were 8 knowledgeable people available to answer questions about a proposal that needed to be discussed. In the 30 minutes I was there, I remained the one and only non staff person in the room. That is very sad indeed. I felt very upset for those committed individuals who were willing to give of their time, and had clearly put in a lot of effort to prepare for the meeting. How disappointing and discouraging. Doesn't anyone care unless it appears as a Twitter feed and an opportunity presented to gather with those who feel passionate about some cause - whether it has any direct bearing on Six Nations or not. Words fail me here.
DeYo.
Why Things Don't Get Done at Six Nations - the Role of Factionalism
There is generally the belief that the reason why land claims do not get settled and disputes with the Canadian Government are still lingering, is entirely the fault of the Federal or Provincial Governments. In fact, in many or most instances, the Government would be only too happy to get things settled - it is to their advantage - but they run up against what can become an insurmountable barrier - factionalism at Six Nations.
It should be noted that factionalism is not something seen only or largely at Six Nations. From the earliest of days of settlement, soon after 1784, factionalism reared its ugly head at Tyendinaga, Mohawk Territory (near Deseronto, Hastings County). It came to a head when in or about 1800 the parties supporting Chief John Deserontyon and those supporting Chief Isaac Hill got into a series of physical altercations, which on one occasion resulted in the murder of three members of one family (Claus). The then Indian Agent, John Ferguson, was called in to investigate the matter and the lengthy proceedings of this work illustrate perhaps better than any other document, the extreme factionalism there at that time. Many Band members, disgusted at the dissension, eventually moved to Six Nations, the largest of these migrations being in the 1830s as "Bay of Quinte Mohawks". The problem was, things were not much better in their new home.
Serious schisms and disagreements between groups are nothing new to Six Nations either. As a matter of fact, evidence of it can be found as far back as the records go, for example between the supporters of Chief Joseph Brant and the young warriors who disagreed with his policies (e.g., allowing Whites to settle on the Reserve). An example of the constant fractiousness pertains to the events of 1817 where riots and recriminations peaked (another "peak" period being the 1830s). A litany of complaints were flooding into the offices of the staff of the Indian Department. In 1815 Chief Francis Cotter and others of the Upper Mohawks formerly of Canajoharie, NY complained to the Government Indian agents and Council that the Lower Mohawks, formerly of Ft. Hunter (Tiononderoge) NY were discriminating against them. It was at this time that his mother was visciously assaulted. Acrimonious disputes arose time and time again and it is hard for someone at present to get a good handle on the true reasons. Things became so serious that two years later, in 1817, the grandson of Chief Joseph Brant, Isaac Brant Jr., was killed when one of these disputes got out of hand. Cotter became so disenchanted with matters that he and his family picked up stakes and moved south to join the Wyandots of Anderdon Township near Detroit.
From what the records can tell us, it seems that in the early days of the Confederacy there were few major disputes between the Confederacy Hereditary Chiefs who were representatives at the Grand Council in Onondaga near Syracuse NY, and the local chiefs. The Village (Pine Tree) Chiefs such as Joseph Brant tended to hold power at the local level, and this was not challenged by the Hereditary Chiefs - but throughout time, various groups would emerge to support one side of a dispute or another - say one chief over another. When the Six Nations moved to the Grand River the disputes were present, but kept under control by having one Chief assigned to speak for all Six Nations (he was given power of attorney in 1796 over land and financial matters). Such was the respect by all parties, both Native and non-Native that Chief Joseph Brant commanded. This in part may be because he was married to the daughter of Tekariogen, the head Chief of the Turtle Clan, and whose name always appeared at the top of any deed from the Six Nations. When Brant died, a power vacuum resulted and there was no single individual who could in even a modest way command the respect that followed Chief Brant.
Chief Brant led more by charisma than force, but when the powerful leaders were taken out of the equation, their respective societies fell back into factional disputes. An example of where factionalism can take us, can be found in the events at a Mohawk Reserve, Akwesasne, in 1990. The events are best described by a witness to the conflict, Douglas M. George-Kanentiio in his book, Iroquois on Fire: A Voice from the Mohawk Nation, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 2006, describing the "civil discord caused by infighting". Basically for years the people had been arguing over any of a number of issues, but some "debates" were so heated that the "pot boiled over". There were more casinos at Akwesasne than anywhere but Las Vegas and New Jersey. There was an anti- gambling and pro-gambling faction, and the acrimony grew since organised crime had followed in the wake of the introduction of slot machines, and drug wars were also on the horizon. Thuggery, bribes, coercion, payola, vigilantism reigned supreme there. Then "drive - by - shootings, physical assaults, and constant verbal threats" (p. 104) became par for the course. Some had no qualms about using extreme violence to press their case. Things came to a head in 1990 when anarchy replaced the rule of law. Then out came the automatic assault weapons. George-Kanentiio lists the weapons available at Akwesasne in the 1990s. These included, "weapons ranging from Uzis to at least one .50-caliber machine gun, modified Mini-14s, AK-47 automatics, grenades, and a host of handguns" (p. 108). No one was safe. Many went across the River to Cornwall Ontario to seek the protection of the Government. Others watched as the fabric of their community was torn apart as arson and gun battles intensified, and people died in the contest. George-Kanentiio described it as "the curse of factionalism" (p. 127).
Factionalism is nothing new to the Mohawk community of Kanesatake (Oka), in the 1880s the problems became acute enough that some families left Kanehsatake to move to Gibson (Wahta) in the Muskoka District on Ontario (where their descendants live to this day). As George-Kanentiio notes, in the same year as the Akwesasne flare up, 1990, the Kanehsatake (Oka) Mohawk community was riddled with the same problems, and the factions enlisted the assistance of the experienced Akwesasne warriors. The result, among others, was the shooting death of Corporal Marcel LeMay of the Surte du Quebec. If Six Nations is not careful, the effects of these sorts of internal divisions may be replayed here. We need to learn from history.
So, given the pervasiveness of factionalism in Iroquois communities, is it any surprise that to this day, at Six Nations, there is a chaotic set of groups each claiming that they should have the say in relation to this or that issue? By far the most serious split is between the elected council of chiefs and the hereditary council of chiefs. If one were to point to the most pressing split which has most adversely impacted the ability to deal effectively with various Government agencies, these two stand out head and shoulders over all the rest.
In 1924 after a flood of petitions from the "progressives" at Six Nations, and realising that the council then in place seemed unable to work with officials in a productive way, the Federal Government used the provisions of the Indian Act to put locks on the Longhouse and oust the Hereditary Council who were spokespersons for the "conservatives". They were replaced by an Elected Council. To this day both groups still exist and each claims the right to speak for Six Nations on all important matters. The reality of this situation is that the Government and others do not know who to negotiate with. The Elected Council is the legal authority according to Canadian law, but the Hereditary Council claims a moral right in that they have never accepted the authority of the Elected Council. To them, they possess authority from the Great Law, and the "Good Message" (Gaiwi:yo:h), which supersedes all else. See, William N. Fenton, The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.
This factional dispute did not go away after 1924, it escallated where members of the Hereditary Chiefs padlocked the Council House where the Elected Council met. Apparently things became very heated, and ultimately the two groups resorted to the Courts. In Isaac et al. vs. Davey et al., 4 October 1974: This action requires the resolution of a dispute between two groups of Indians of the Six Nations residing on the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford. The plaintiffs, who are or were members of the elected Council of the Six Nations Band, support the form of government by elected Council pursuant to the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, and claim that the Council is lawfully entitled to govern the reserve. The defendants support the traditional form of government by hereditary chiefs and claim that the hereditary chiefs are still the lawful government of the Six Nations Confederacy, which they assert owns in fee simple the lands occupied by its members. See here for the complete document. Despite the ruling that, Considering the powers of Parliament to legislate in relation to
Indians and lands reserved for Indians under head 24 of s. 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, I find no provision in the Indian Act relevant to this case that is rendered inoperative by the kind of discrimination to which the Canadian Bill of Rights relates. In particular, its provisions for the election of councillors and for government of the band by the elected Council are in my opinion valid and operative the HCCC continues to ignore any ruling that is not in its favour - even from the Supreme Court of Canada.
So to this day the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) continue to "duke it out" in almost every conceivable matter. Over the years there have been repeated attempts to find common ground and to get the two groups to sit at the table together and agree on something. Generally one or the other party walks away, and nothing is accomplished. So it generally falls to the Elected Council to somehow try to do everything from try to find an acceptable way to get a water filtration system established, to putting forward initiatives such as the McKenzie Meadows Project, to negotiating with the Federal Government over land claims. With few exceptions, either the NCCC or one of their "agencies" will try to thwart the work that SNEC has done or is attempting to do.
In considering the role of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, one must understand that many groups claim authority under the HCCC, then become virtually autonomous groups that develop their own agenda and act accordingly. I have already blogged about the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) who claim the right to negotiate with any party whomsoever in not only the Grand River Tract, but all of Southern Ontario, and to collect "fees" and assert their authority with a bulldozer or whatever will get the job done. If the developer has been told that SNEC is the body who has legitimate authority, and they decide to try and circumvent the HDI, they do so at their own risk. Then, even when a developer attempts to play by the Six Nations "rules", it guarantees little. In 2008, as reported by Turtle Island News (see here) while attempting to develop lands in the Johnson Settlement, developer Steve Charest, while attempting to get the HDI to outline precisely what was required to avoid a work stoppage, another group known as the Men's Fire stepped forward and claimed jurisdiction. They, as with the HDI, are affiliated with the HCCC. So even if one were to accept that it is necessary to deal with the HCCC as opposed to SNEC (the latter having largely turned land development matters over to HCCC after the "Caledonia crisis"), which group affiliated with HCCC is the "proper" and "authorized" party with whom to open discussions? It is interesting to note that right up to November 2013, the same Steve Charest is still a land developer in Brantford, but has allied himself with two Six Nations members, Bryan Porter (architect) and Steve Williams (former Six Nations police officer), but is still facing protests from Men's Fire and others re his Birkett Lane (Erie Ave.) property. What a confusing situation. Would any of this be faced by developers in say Richmond Hill. The answer is no. This begs the question as to why developers would bother with attempting any project in the Grand River Watershed (especially in communities surrounding the present day Six Nations Reserve), when costly work stoppages could occur at any time at any stage in the work.
Another group claiming authority under the HCCC are the Mohawk Workers who have taken over Kanata Tourism Village site, a former educational center located across from the landfill "mountain" along Mohawk Street. It is unclear who is paying the rent, or utilities or even whether their occupation is legal - but they soldier on. Their primary focus at present is in overseeing the return of the Burtch lands (a contested part of the Surrender of 1841, 1844), including the perceived Government responsibility to clean up the site of any environmentally hazardous materials that is part of the plan. They appear to be proposing that the Mohawk have special rights beyond those of general Six Nations members. Bill Squires and Jason Bowman (latter non-Native as far as I know) are the major players here. See here for the dissension being caused by the actions of this group.
This brings us to the Men's Fire, also a group claiming authority under the HCCC. The above article and comments give a flavour as to what the group is about - what its supposed mandate was, and how their "work" has morphed. The most recent effort was to support a young woman who was a probationary employee (now former) of the Niagara Penninsula Aboriginal Area Management Board (NPAAMB) with offices at the Oneida Business Park along Highway 6. G.T., who had three weeks service, claimed that her firing was due to the executive director punishing her for attending the 17 October 2013 blockade. G.T. left during work hours. The director claims this is "insubordination". G.T. put up signs in front of the business park such as "Extreme Abuse of Power!" What I cannot understand in all this though is that, "Six Nations Men's Fire helped Gina Thomas shut down NPAAMB offices" (Turtle Island News, October 30 2013, p. 7). The Men's Fire are also known as Hodiskeagehda. A statement of their perceived role and rights can be found here.
A good example of the militancy and intransigence of some of the members of the Men's Fire can be seen in the article, "Six Nations blocks Highway 6 in support of Elsipogotog FN" (Turtle Island News, 23 October 2013, p. 2). Here the reporter said that, Bill Monture, a member of the Six Nations Men's Fire, said the situation reminded him of the support that went out across the country when Six Nations was raided by the OPP during the Caledonia reclamation in 2006. 'We are standing with our brothers and sisters in New Brunswick', he said. 'We all need to be unified at this point. People have got to realize, the government's not our friend. Never has been and never will be'. The bold print is that of the present author. Now the above Bill Monture (not to be confused with the incumbent Bill Montour), although a member of the Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Council, is running for Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council. One wonders what would happen if a radical member of the Hereditary faction were to become chief of the Elected faction. The mind boggles.
Another complication arose very recently in relation to the development on Erie Avenue in what was the "Eagle's Nest Tract", one of the areas suject to a Six Nations land claim. Protocol now demands that everyone go through "due process" (the HCCC and the HDI) before proceeding with new development of this nature. So here, The Men's Fire, made up primarilly of Mohawks, were upset that another Mohawk group, the Mohawk Workers, was securing a deal without their involvement (Two Row Times, November 6th, 2013, p. 3).
Factionalism runs so deep and criss crosses in so many directions, it is difficult to see any sort of calm resolution to such matters. This was precisely what all candidates for the role of Elected Chief said in a recent candidates debate with, all five candidates calling for unity and an end to the factionalism (Two Row Times, November 6th, 2013, p. 4).
Earlier, on 14 July 2009, Councillor Helen Miller, penned a Letter to the Editor of the Brantford Expositor, wherein she argues that indeed factionalism is at the root core of the reasons why developers and more or less everyone else are confused as to who speaks for Six Nations (see here). Surely any rational person would agree that the old expression, "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians" applies here. At any time anyone may pop out of the woodwork and claim that they are "in charge". This is sheer chaos.
Miller believes that, "Only elected council can speak for Six Nations". Of course this makes excellent sense because these individuals are accountable to their constituents and can be voted out of office if their performance is substandard. In theory the Hereditary Council is responsible to the Clan Mothers who appointed them. In practise, various subgroups from within the HCCC tend to go their own way, and there does not seem to be any monitoring or accountability. In days gone by, a Chief would be "dehorned" by the Clan Mother who appointed him should he act in a manner unbecoming a chief, or prove lazy or ineffective. However today, appointments tend to be for life. How can one trust the "product"? If one were to be a bit cynical and a bit blunt, then when putting the Hereditary system of today under the microscope, it has in many ways fallen apart. Chiefs are being borrowed from ineligible families and even clans. One of the chiefs of the Mohawk is of the Ball Clan. The traditional Mohawks had a Turtle. Wolf and Bear Clan only. The old ways are eroding, the lament being that it is just not like it was. Finding suitable people for all roles in the Longhouse is more and more difficult, and who is overseeing the process?
One cannot legitimately compare the Hereditary Council today to what would have been in place say in the mid 1800s. Even a casual reading of Shimony's well respected work on conservatism at Six Nations in the mid 1900s shows how far the system has strayed from earlier days. See Annemarie Anrod Shimony, Conservatism among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1994 (reprint from 1961). Even when Seth Newhouse wrote his history of the Six Nations Confederacy, some of the practises of the day (e.g., ceremonies) were remembered differently by different informats - such as John A. Gibson (Seneca). See, Seth Newhouse, Cosmogony of DeKanawidas Government of the Iroquois Confederacy. The Original Literal Historical Narratives of the Iroquois Confederacy (National Archives, MG19, F26, 1885). Even here though, there were "vacancies" and chiefships that belonged to families in the U.S., so the process of moving away from the "old ways" had begun a long time past. This is evident in Edward M. Chadwick, The People of the Longhouse, London, Church of England Publishing, 1897 with his list of all 50 chiefs (or chiefly positions) circa 1870 to circa 1895.
Returning to Miller's above letter, she states boldly, every week a different group of people springs up claiming to speak on behalf of Six Nations. She emphasises how for example the Men's Fire, or Ruby Montour were not elected or authorised by Six Nations to speak on their behalf. Nor is the HDI supported by the elected council or the community at large. Councillor Miller believes that it is the media who give these people coverage on the front page, and it becomes essentially attention seeking behaviour. She believes that the majority of Six Nations are fed up with protests, the smoke shops along Highway 6, and so on. She described the process whereby after Caledonia, the Elected Council gave over the mandate to negotiate for the Plank Road lands and other claims, and to take responsibility for the barricades at Douglas Creek Estates - thus the Elected Council had largely backed away from matters involving land claims. However by 2009, when no progress was forthcoming, the Elected Council reinstated the 1995 land claim litigation, but also wished to negotiate at the same time - seeing these as not being mutually exclusive.
The mind simply boggles at the "complexity" at Six Nations, and it is understandable why so many on and off the Reserve are left scratching their heads time and time again. Who is in charge? Who does one go to when one wants something done? And this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the cross current of factions at Six Nations! I have not yet mentioned the Mohawk Warriors since this group is largely centred elsewhere (e.g., Akwesasne) - but arrive at Six Nations when their "special talents" are needed. Their flag, a common sight at Six Nations, has come to symbolize resistance, armed or otherwise. Perhaps they "deserve" their own blog post.
DeYo.
It should be noted that factionalism is not something seen only or largely at Six Nations. From the earliest of days of settlement, soon after 1784, factionalism reared its ugly head at Tyendinaga, Mohawk Territory (near Deseronto, Hastings County). It came to a head when in or about 1800 the parties supporting Chief John Deserontyon and those supporting Chief Isaac Hill got into a series of physical altercations, which on one occasion resulted in the murder of three members of one family (Claus). The then Indian Agent, John Ferguson, was called in to investigate the matter and the lengthy proceedings of this work illustrate perhaps better than any other document, the extreme factionalism there at that time. Many Band members, disgusted at the dissension, eventually moved to Six Nations, the largest of these migrations being in the 1830s as "Bay of Quinte Mohawks". The problem was, things were not much better in their new home.
Serious schisms and disagreements between groups are nothing new to Six Nations either. As a matter of fact, evidence of it can be found as far back as the records go, for example between the supporters of Chief Joseph Brant and the young warriors who disagreed with his policies (e.g., allowing Whites to settle on the Reserve). An example of the constant fractiousness pertains to the events of 1817 where riots and recriminations peaked (another "peak" period being the 1830s). A litany of complaints were flooding into the offices of the staff of the Indian Department. In 1815 Chief Francis Cotter and others of the Upper Mohawks formerly of Canajoharie, NY complained to the Government Indian agents and Council that the Lower Mohawks, formerly of Ft. Hunter (Tiononderoge) NY were discriminating against them. It was at this time that his mother was visciously assaulted. Acrimonious disputes arose time and time again and it is hard for someone at present to get a good handle on the true reasons. Things became so serious that two years later, in 1817, the grandson of Chief Joseph Brant, Isaac Brant Jr., was killed when one of these disputes got out of hand. Cotter became so disenchanted with matters that he and his family picked up stakes and moved south to join the Wyandots of Anderdon Township near Detroit.
From what the records can tell us, it seems that in the early days of the Confederacy there were few major disputes between the Confederacy Hereditary Chiefs who were representatives at the Grand Council in Onondaga near Syracuse NY, and the local chiefs. The Village (Pine Tree) Chiefs such as Joseph Brant tended to hold power at the local level, and this was not challenged by the Hereditary Chiefs - but throughout time, various groups would emerge to support one side of a dispute or another - say one chief over another. When the Six Nations moved to the Grand River the disputes were present, but kept under control by having one Chief assigned to speak for all Six Nations (he was given power of attorney in 1796 over land and financial matters). Such was the respect by all parties, both Native and non-Native that Chief Joseph Brant commanded. This in part may be because he was married to the daughter of Tekariogen, the head Chief of the Turtle Clan, and whose name always appeared at the top of any deed from the Six Nations. When Brant died, a power vacuum resulted and there was no single individual who could in even a modest way command the respect that followed Chief Brant.
Chief Brant led more by charisma than force, but when the powerful leaders were taken out of the equation, their respective societies fell back into factional disputes. An example of where factionalism can take us, can be found in the events at a Mohawk Reserve, Akwesasne, in 1990. The events are best described by a witness to the conflict, Douglas M. George-Kanentiio in his book, Iroquois on Fire: A Voice from the Mohawk Nation, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 2006, describing the "civil discord caused by infighting". Basically for years the people had been arguing over any of a number of issues, but some "debates" were so heated that the "pot boiled over". There were more casinos at Akwesasne than anywhere but Las Vegas and New Jersey. There was an anti- gambling and pro-gambling faction, and the acrimony grew since organised crime had followed in the wake of the introduction of slot machines, and drug wars were also on the horizon. Thuggery, bribes, coercion, payola, vigilantism reigned supreme there. Then "drive - by - shootings, physical assaults, and constant verbal threats" (p. 104) became par for the course. Some had no qualms about using extreme violence to press their case. Things came to a head in 1990 when anarchy replaced the rule of law. Then out came the automatic assault weapons. George-Kanentiio lists the weapons available at Akwesasne in the 1990s. These included, "weapons ranging from Uzis to at least one .50-caliber machine gun, modified Mini-14s, AK-47 automatics, grenades, and a host of handguns" (p. 108). No one was safe. Many went across the River to Cornwall Ontario to seek the protection of the Government. Others watched as the fabric of their community was torn apart as arson and gun battles intensified, and people died in the contest. George-Kanentiio described it as "the curse of factionalism" (p. 127).
Factionalism is nothing new to the Mohawk community of Kanesatake (Oka), in the 1880s the problems became acute enough that some families left Kanehsatake to move to Gibson (Wahta) in the Muskoka District on Ontario (where their descendants live to this day). As George-Kanentiio notes, in the same year as the Akwesasne flare up, 1990, the Kanehsatake (Oka) Mohawk community was riddled with the same problems, and the factions enlisted the assistance of the experienced Akwesasne warriors. The result, among others, was the shooting death of Corporal Marcel LeMay of the Surte du Quebec. If Six Nations is not careful, the effects of these sorts of internal divisions may be replayed here. We need to learn from history.
So, given the pervasiveness of factionalism in Iroquois communities, is it any surprise that to this day, at Six Nations, there is a chaotic set of groups each claiming that they should have the say in relation to this or that issue? By far the most serious split is between the elected council of chiefs and the hereditary council of chiefs. If one were to point to the most pressing split which has most adversely impacted the ability to deal effectively with various Government agencies, these two stand out head and shoulders over all the rest.
In 1924 after a flood of petitions from the "progressives" at Six Nations, and realising that the council then in place seemed unable to work with officials in a productive way, the Federal Government used the provisions of the Indian Act to put locks on the Longhouse and oust the Hereditary Council who were spokespersons for the "conservatives". They were replaced by an Elected Council. To this day both groups still exist and each claims the right to speak for Six Nations on all important matters. The reality of this situation is that the Government and others do not know who to negotiate with. The Elected Council is the legal authority according to Canadian law, but the Hereditary Council claims a moral right in that they have never accepted the authority of the Elected Council. To them, they possess authority from the Great Law, and the "Good Message" (Gaiwi:yo:h), which supersedes all else. See, William N. Fenton, The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.
This factional dispute did not go away after 1924, it escallated where members of the Hereditary Chiefs padlocked the Council House where the Elected Council met. Apparently things became very heated, and ultimately the two groups resorted to the Courts. In Isaac et al. vs. Davey et al., 4 October 1974: This action requires the resolution of a dispute between two groups of Indians of the Six Nations residing on the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford. The plaintiffs, who are or were members of the elected Council of the Six Nations Band, support the form of government by elected Council pursuant to the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, and claim that the Council is lawfully entitled to govern the reserve. The defendants support the traditional form of government by hereditary chiefs and claim that the hereditary chiefs are still the lawful government of the Six Nations Confederacy, which they assert owns in fee simple the lands occupied by its members. See here for the complete document. Despite the ruling that, Considering the powers of Parliament to legislate in relation to
Indians and lands reserved for Indians under head 24 of s. 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, I find no provision in the Indian Act relevant to this case that is rendered inoperative by the kind of discrimination to which the Canadian Bill of Rights relates. In particular, its provisions for the election of councillors and for government of the band by the elected Council are in my opinion valid and operative the HCCC continues to ignore any ruling that is not in its favour - even from the Supreme Court of Canada.
So to this day the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) continue to "duke it out" in almost every conceivable matter. Over the years there have been repeated attempts to find common ground and to get the two groups to sit at the table together and agree on something. Generally one or the other party walks away, and nothing is accomplished. So it generally falls to the Elected Council to somehow try to do everything from try to find an acceptable way to get a water filtration system established, to putting forward initiatives such as the McKenzie Meadows Project, to negotiating with the Federal Government over land claims. With few exceptions, either the NCCC or one of their "agencies" will try to thwart the work that SNEC has done or is attempting to do.
In considering the role of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, one must understand that many groups claim authority under the HCCC, then become virtually autonomous groups that develop their own agenda and act accordingly. I have already blogged about the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) who claim the right to negotiate with any party whomsoever in not only the Grand River Tract, but all of Southern Ontario, and to collect "fees" and assert their authority with a bulldozer or whatever will get the job done. If the developer has been told that SNEC is the body who has legitimate authority, and they decide to try and circumvent the HDI, they do so at their own risk. Then, even when a developer attempts to play by the Six Nations "rules", it guarantees little. In 2008, as reported by Turtle Island News (see here) while attempting to develop lands in the Johnson Settlement, developer Steve Charest, while attempting to get the HDI to outline precisely what was required to avoid a work stoppage, another group known as the Men's Fire stepped forward and claimed jurisdiction. They, as with the HDI, are affiliated with the HCCC. So even if one were to accept that it is necessary to deal with the HCCC as opposed to SNEC (the latter having largely turned land development matters over to HCCC after the "Caledonia crisis"), which group affiliated with HCCC is the "proper" and "authorized" party with whom to open discussions? It is interesting to note that right up to November 2013, the same Steve Charest is still a land developer in Brantford, but has allied himself with two Six Nations members, Bryan Porter (architect) and Steve Williams (former Six Nations police officer), but is still facing protests from Men's Fire and others re his Birkett Lane (Erie Ave.) property. What a confusing situation. Would any of this be faced by developers in say Richmond Hill. The answer is no. This begs the question as to why developers would bother with attempting any project in the Grand River Watershed (especially in communities surrounding the present day Six Nations Reserve), when costly work stoppages could occur at any time at any stage in the work.
Another group claiming authority under the HCCC are the Mohawk Workers who have taken over Kanata Tourism Village site, a former educational center located across from the landfill "mountain" along Mohawk Street. It is unclear who is paying the rent, or utilities or even whether their occupation is legal - but they soldier on. Their primary focus at present is in overseeing the return of the Burtch lands (a contested part of the Surrender of 1841, 1844), including the perceived Government responsibility to clean up the site of any environmentally hazardous materials that is part of the plan. They appear to be proposing that the Mohawk have special rights beyond those of general Six Nations members. Bill Squires and Jason Bowman (latter non-Native as far as I know) are the major players here. See here for the dissension being caused by the actions of this group.
This brings us to the Men's Fire, also a group claiming authority under the HCCC. The above article and comments give a flavour as to what the group is about - what its supposed mandate was, and how their "work" has morphed. The most recent effort was to support a young woman who was a probationary employee (now former) of the Niagara Penninsula Aboriginal Area Management Board (NPAAMB) with offices at the Oneida Business Park along Highway 6. G.T., who had three weeks service, claimed that her firing was due to the executive director punishing her for attending the 17 October 2013 blockade. G.T. left during work hours. The director claims this is "insubordination". G.T. put up signs in front of the business park such as "Extreme Abuse of Power!" What I cannot understand in all this though is that, "Six Nations Men's Fire helped Gina Thomas shut down NPAAMB offices" (Turtle Island News, October 30 2013, p. 7). The Men's Fire are also known as Hodiskeagehda. A statement of their perceived role and rights can be found here.
A good example of the militancy and intransigence of some of the members of the Men's Fire can be seen in the article, "Six Nations blocks Highway 6 in support of Elsipogotog FN" (Turtle Island News, 23 October 2013, p. 2). Here the reporter said that, Bill Monture, a member of the Six Nations Men's Fire, said the situation reminded him of the support that went out across the country when Six Nations was raided by the OPP during the Caledonia reclamation in 2006. 'We are standing with our brothers and sisters in New Brunswick', he said. 'We all need to be unified at this point. People have got to realize, the government's not our friend. Never has been and never will be'. The bold print is that of the present author. Now the above Bill Monture (not to be confused with the incumbent Bill Montour), although a member of the Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Council, is running for Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council. One wonders what would happen if a radical member of the Hereditary faction were to become chief of the Elected faction. The mind boggles.
Another complication arose very recently in relation to the development on Erie Avenue in what was the "Eagle's Nest Tract", one of the areas suject to a Six Nations land claim. Protocol now demands that everyone go through "due process" (the HCCC and the HDI) before proceeding with new development of this nature. So here, The Men's Fire, made up primarilly of Mohawks, were upset that another Mohawk group, the Mohawk Workers, was securing a deal without their involvement (Two Row Times, November 6th, 2013, p. 3).
Factionalism runs so deep and criss crosses in so many directions, it is difficult to see any sort of calm resolution to such matters. This was precisely what all candidates for the role of Elected Chief said in a recent candidates debate with, all five candidates calling for unity and an end to the factionalism (Two Row Times, November 6th, 2013, p. 4).
Earlier, on 14 July 2009, Councillor Helen Miller, penned a Letter to the Editor of the Brantford Expositor, wherein she argues that indeed factionalism is at the root core of the reasons why developers and more or less everyone else are confused as to who speaks for Six Nations (see here). Surely any rational person would agree that the old expression, "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians" applies here. At any time anyone may pop out of the woodwork and claim that they are "in charge". This is sheer chaos.
Miller believes that, "Only elected council can speak for Six Nations". Of course this makes excellent sense because these individuals are accountable to their constituents and can be voted out of office if their performance is substandard. In theory the Hereditary Council is responsible to the Clan Mothers who appointed them. In practise, various subgroups from within the HCCC tend to go their own way, and there does not seem to be any monitoring or accountability. In days gone by, a Chief would be "dehorned" by the Clan Mother who appointed him should he act in a manner unbecoming a chief, or prove lazy or ineffective. However today, appointments tend to be for life. How can one trust the "product"? If one were to be a bit cynical and a bit blunt, then when putting the Hereditary system of today under the microscope, it has in many ways fallen apart. Chiefs are being borrowed from ineligible families and even clans. One of the chiefs of the Mohawk is of the Ball Clan. The traditional Mohawks had a Turtle. Wolf and Bear Clan only. The old ways are eroding, the lament being that it is just not like it was. Finding suitable people for all roles in the Longhouse is more and more difficult, and who is overseeing the process?
One cannot legitimately compare the Hereditary Council today to what would have been in place say in the mid 1800s. Even a casual reading of Shimony's well respected work on conservatism at Six Nations in the mid 1900s shows how far the system has strayed from earlier days. See Annemarie Anrod Shimony, Conservatism among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1994 (reprint from 1961). Even when Seth Newhouse wrote his history of the Six Nations Confederacy, some of the practises of the day (e.g., ceremonies) were remembered differently by different informats - such as John A. Gibson (Seneca). See, Seth Newhouse, Cosmogony of DeKanawidas Government of the Iroquois Confederacy. The Original Literal Historical Narratives of the Iroquois Confederacy (National Archives, MG19, F26, 1885). Even here though, there were "vacancies" and chiefships that belonged to families in the U.S., so the process of moving away from the "old ways" had begun a long time past. This is evident in Edward M. Chadwick, The People of the Longhouse, London, Church of England Publishing, 1897 with his list of all 50 chiefs (or chiefly positions) circa 1870 to circa 1895.
Returning to Miller's above letter, she states boldly, every week a different group of people springs up claiming to speak on behalf of Six Nations. She emphasises how for example the Men's Fire, or Ruby Montour were not elected or authorised by Six Nations to speak on their behalf. Nor is the HDI supported by the elected council or the community at large. Councillor Miller believes that it is the media who give these people coverage on the front page, and it becomes essentially attention seeking behaviour. She believes that the majority of Six Nations are fed up with protests, the smoke shops along Highway 6, and so on. She described the process whereby after Caledonia, the Elected Council gave over the mandate to negotiate for the Plank Road lands and other claims, and to take responsibility for the barricades at Douglas Creek Estates - thus the Elected Council had largely backed away from matters involving land claims. However by 2009, when no progress was forthcoming, the Elected Council reinstated the 1995 land claim litigation, but also wished to negotiate at the same time - seeing these as not being mutually exclusive.
The mind simply boggles at the "complexity" at Six Nations, and it is understandable why so many on and off the Reserve are left scratching their heads time and time again. Who is in charge? Who does one go to when one wants something done? And this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the cross current of factions at Six Nations! I have not yet mentioned the Mohawk Warriors since this group is largely centred elsewhere (e.g., Akwesasne) - but arrive at Six Nations when their "special talents" are needed. Their flag, a common sight at Six Nations, has come to symbolize resistance, armed or otherwise. Perhaps they "deserve" their own blog post.
DeYo.
Monday 4 November 2013
Do the Six Nations and Aboriginal People Have a Special Relationship to the Environment Beyond that of their Non-Native Neighbours?
It is believed by many in the population at large that aboriginal Americans are in possession of some sort of spiritual connection with all things in the environment, and especially with the land and living things that sustain them. Perhaps this is true, but surely only in part. I certainly "get" the concept of the "three sisters" or "life sustainers", and the long history that this conceptualization has had on the culture. It would be folly to argue that Six Nations do not have a special connection to the land they consider to be aboriginal. Douglas George-Kanentiio has spoken eloquently on the matter. He summarizes things in, a singular belief common to all Haudenosaunee, namely that which exists has spirit, and that which has spirit must be addressed in thought, prayer, and action. With this cardinal rule the Haudenosaunee developed a culture which was distinct in that it enabled humans to physically prosper without inflicting harm on the natural world (p. 40).
However, in the practical world, a fellow up the road, on the Reserve, was allowing builders to dump construction waste such as asphalt shingles with nails, on his land for a fee. The matter received considerable coverage in the local Indian newspapers. To their credit, many residents pointed out that this goes against the responsibility of Six Nations people to be guardians and stewards of the land. The Great Law (Kayenhera:koa) speaks of the need to consider the 7 generations that will follow before committing acts that might impact these descendants. However there are other such incidents too which make it pretty clear that often there is a large gap between the ideal and the real. The ditching of cars is all too well known by all.
So in the ideal, Native peoples have a special relationship with the land, and would or should not defile mother earth. This is in the ideal, but meet the real. One anthropologist followed (I will leave the tribal name blank here) peoples around during their winter hunt. He tallied all of the items they left behind at each temporary camp within their traditional lands. What he recorded was shocking, certainly in the 1980s when the research was done. The refuse included all sorts of imperishable items, including disposable baby diapers. Nasty.
Doubtless many Native and non-Native appologists would attribute the above examples to the corroding influence of White culture. There is a major problem with promulgating these beliefs. The facts show that Native abuse of the environment was tantamount to that of Europeans at the same period. The author, having an interest in such things, has been present when many Native archaeological pre-Contact sites were investigated. All contained extensive midden (garbage dump) areas immediately outside the walls of where the protective pallisade stood. All humans make garbage, all have problems in disposing of it, all at times take the easy way and just toss it in the backyard. It has ever been thus.
I would never argue that Six Nations values do not emphasise a special relationship with everything of the land in their homeland. They surely do. This can be well documented. Of course, people being people, not everyone follows these principles and as is the case everywhere, money sometimes trumps everything else - for some. Clearly the fact that scores of migrating birds will lose their lives, their lifeless bodies being tossed in a bag by the person whose job it is to perform this task, did not factor in the decision of Six Nations to support a whole series of Wind Generator initiatives in the Grand River Valley, as seen here. As a someone who spends a great deal of time watching the birds at my backyard feeder, this problem, and the blight that it causes on the environment, seems to be an inconsistency with stated Six Nations respect for the land and the bounties of Mother Earth.
What I find unsettling is that Whites are considered to be acquisitive, and would sacrifice the land for monetary wealth. This point is entirely true in the case of for example the Grand River Navigation Company (which began in 1837). It used largely Irish labourers to construct dams and locks, all the while trees were cut and the environment badly stressed by these actions. It makes my blood boil to think of it. However, canals and "improvements" were popping up everywhere (such as the Erie Canal across NY State). The countries were a hive of activity and the environment paid the price. However it was not only Europeans or non-Natives who were involved in disrespecting the land. Throughout the 1840s Tyendinaga (Mohawk Territory, near Deseronto, Ontario) the land was being heavily logged by certain families on the Reserve. The Government agents of the Indian Department tried to put a stop to it, as did many of the Chiefs of the community - but the problem was endemic. Tragic for the beautiful primal forests.
A few days ago I came across two "birders" who resided in Hamilton, but were on the Reserve doing their yearly volunteer bird count of the region. We talked birds and during our discussion a bird landed nearby. I said it was probably a red headed woodpecker, those I see frequently at my place. They politely corrected me and said that even though it has a very red head, it was known as a red breasted woodpecker. These men lived and breathed birds. They loved and respected birds and the environment in general. They had a special relationship with the world around them. Are they lesser in some way in the "respect of the land" department?
Often is a group feels isolated or marginalised they will seek ways to assert "superiority", possessing something that the majority culture does not possess or even understand. On the website of Six Nations Lands and Resources, Eco - Center (by the way the first website that I have ever used that will not allow one to copy and paste), here. They state that one of their goals is to, Provide the non-Aboriginal population with information and education on the many aspects of Aboriginal concepts of the land, environment, forests, fish and wildlife and to encourage our community to better understand the differences of the non-Aboriginal attitude towards these same issues. It would be nice to have an example of these Aboriginal non-Aboriginal differences, otherwise it is somewhat insulting to White conservationists to read something of this nature.
I find it somewhat unusual if Six Nations truly believes there is some special Aboriginal value system that sets them apart from say Whites (who of course have ancestors aboriginal to say England), why they would enlist a White man to write editorials on subjects of this nature. For 11 years the editor of the one time most prominent newspaper at Six Nations - New Credit, affectionately know as "Teka", was a non-Native, J.W. whose "philosophy", if that is the correct word, reflects that of a far left wing hard liner - assessed via my own discussions with him and also see here. Apparently he must have been well respected in this role as his tenure only ended when the almost 50 year old newspaper "Teka" folded, after he moved to a position at a newspaper new to the publishing scene on the Reserve - whose owner is a well known Six Nations businessman - see here.
It should be recalled that the great Ojibway Native American environmentalist Wa-sha-quon-in or Grey Owl, trapper turned environmentalist, who by all accounts promoted the aboriginal way so well, was actually an impostor. His real name was Archibald Belaney from Hastings, England. He claimed to be the child of a Scottish father and an Apache mother. His true identity was revealed soon after his death. See here. However his eco views transcended his identity issues, and he was seen as a true environmentalist who reflected aboriginal views. I guess one might say that living among the Ojibway so long, he became one of them - proving that environmental concern is a cultural trait someone learns (or fails to do so) via the experiences of their life.
Also as was noted in an earlier blog, the Missisauga not the Six Nations are aboriginal to the Haldimand Tract. Thus the Nelles, Young, Huff or Dochstader (all of German origin) families who accompanied them could also be considered aboriginal by this understanding. Over the years the Territory became a magnet for people from other tribes in the States such as the Tutelo and Nanticoke, and later the Stockbridge Mahicans. All brought their own perspectives to add to the Six Nations world view.
By the time of the Revolution, the Mohawk were entirely Christian and largely acculturated (e.g., residing in homes often more substantial than their poor German neighbours). It appears that as a Mohawk, having been raised in a community at a time when he only knew an environment which was shared with White people, Chief Joseph Brant wished to re-create the environment that was most familiar when he moved to his new home along the Grand River. Being surrounded by White neighbours and Black servants was very "normal" for Brant and other Mohawk Chiefs of the time. The truth is that today Six Nations includes many who are largely indistinguishable from their White neighbours. Their mind set has been shaped by TV, the Internet, video gaming and the like. Go to the Speedway on a Friday. How different are the spectators from each community?
Thus I would argue, if one believes that there is some sort of qualitative difference in the way Six Nations people interface with the environment, but which local White people do not, then these differences should be plainly and boldly stated for all to consider - and perhaps learn from. As far as I am concerned I see a lot of individual differences on each side of the equation, and a lot of commonalities too. Differences there may be, but do these trump the similarities. A Six Nations conservationist and a White conservationist may be cut from the same cloth.
DeYo.
However, in the practical world, a fellow up the road, on the Reserve, was allowing builders to dump construction waste such as asphalt shingles with nails, on his land for a fee. The matter received considerable coverage in the local Indian newspapers. To their credit, many residents pointed out that this goes against the responsibility of Six Nations people to be guardians and stewards of the land. The Great Law (Kayenhera:koa) speaks of the need to consider the 7 generations that will follow before committing acts that might impact these descendants. However there are other such incidents too which make it pretty clear that often there is a large gap between the ideal and the real. The ditching of cars is all too well known by all.
So in the ideal, Native peoples have a special relationship with the land, and would or should not defile mother earth. This is in the ideal, but meet the real. One anthropologist followed (I will leave the tribal name blank here) peoples around during their winter hunt. He tallied all of the items they left behind at each temporary camp within their traditional lands. What he recorded was shocking, certainly in the 1980s when the research was done. The refuse included all sorts of imperishable items, including disposable baby diapers. Nasty.
Doubtless many Native and non-Native appologists would attribute the above examples to the corroding influence of White culture. There is a major problem with promulgating these beliefs. The facts show that Native abuse of the environment was tantamount to that of Europeans at the same period. The author, having an interest in such things, has been present when many Native archaeological pre-Contact sites were investigated. All contained extensive midden (garbage dump) areas immediately outside the walls of where the protective pallisade stood. All humans make garbage, all have problems in disposing of it, all at times take the easy way and just toss it in the backyard. It has ever been thus.
I would never argue that Six Nations values do not emphasise a special relationship with everything of the land in their homeland. They surely do. This can be well documented. Of course, people being people, not everyone follows these principles and as is the case everywhere, money sometimes trumps everything else - for some. Clearly the fact that scores of migrating birds will lose their lives, their lifeless bodies being tossed in a bag by the person whose job it is to perform this task, did not factor in the decision of Six Nations to support a whole series of Wind Generator initiatives in the Grand River Valley, as seen here. As a someone who spends a great deal of time watching the birds at my backyard feeder, this problem, and the blight that it causes on the environment, seems to be an inconsistency with stated Six Nations respect for the land and the bounties of Mother Earth.
What I find unsettling is that Whites are considered to be acquisitive, and would sacrifice the land for monetary wealth. This point is entirely true in the case of for example the Grand River Navigation Company (which began in 1837). It used largely Irish labourers to construct dams and locks, all the while trees were cut and the environment badly stressed by these actions. It makes my blood boil to think of it. However, canals and "improvements" were popping up everywhere (such as the Erie Canal across NY State). The countries were a hive of activity and the environment paid the price. However it was not only Europeans or non-Natives who were involved in disrespecting the land. Throughout the 1840s Tyendinaga (Mohawk Territory, near Deseronto, Ontario) the land was being heavily logged by certain families on the Reserve. The Government agents of the Indian Department tried to put a stop to it, as did many of the Chiefs of the community - but the problem was endemic. Tragic for the beautiful primal forests.
A few days ago I came across two "birders" who resided in Hamilton, but were on the Reserve doing their yearly volunteer bird count of the region. We talked birds and during our discussion a bird landed nearby. I said it was probably a red headed woodpecker, those I see frequently at my place. They politely corrected me and said that even though it has a very red head, it was known as a red breasted woodpecker. These men lived and breathed birds. They loved and respected birds and the environment in general. They had a special relationship with the world around them. Are they lesser in some way in the "respect of the land" department?
Often is a group feels isolated or marginalised they will seek ways to assert "superiority", possessing something that the majority culture does not possess or even understand. On the website of Six Nations Lands and Resources, Eco - Center (by the way the first website that I have ever used that will not allow one to copy and paste), here. They state that one of their goals is to, Provide the non-Aboriginal population with information and education on the many aspects of Aboriginal concepts of the land, environment, forests, fish and wildlife and to encourage our community to better understand the differences of the non-Aboriginal attitude towards these same issues. It would be nice to have an example of these Aboriginal non-Aboriginal differences, otherwise it is somewhat insulting to White conservationists to read something of this nature.
I find it somewhat unusual if Six Nations truly believes there is some special Aboriginal value system that sets them apart from say Whites (who of course have ancestors aboriginal to say England), why they would enlist a White man to write editorials on subjects of this nature. For 11 years the editor of the one time most prominent newspaper at Six Nations - New Credit, affectionately know as "Teka", was a non-Native, J.W. whose "philosophy", if that is the correct word, reflects that of a far left wing hard liner - assessed via my own discussions with him and also see here. Apparently he must have been well respected in this role as his tenure only ended when the almost 50 year old newspaper "Teka" folded, after he moved to a position at a newspaper new to the publishing scene on the Reserve - whose owner is a well known Six Nations businessman - see here.
It should be recalled that the great Ojibway Native American environmentalist Wa-sha-quon-in or Grey Owl, trapper turned environmentalist, who by all accounts promoted the aboriginal way so well, was actually an impostor. His real name was Archibald Belaney from Hastings, England. He claimed to be the child of a Scottish father and an Apache mother. His true identity was revealed soon after his death. See here. However his eco views transcended his identity issues, and he was seen as a true environmentalist who reflected aboriginal views. I guess one might say that living among the Ojibway so long, he became one of them - proving that environmental concern is a cultural trait someone learns (or fails to do so) via the experiences of their life.
Also as was noted in an earlier blog, the Missisauga not the Six Nations are aboriginal to the Haldimand Tract. Thus the Nelles, Young, Huff or Dochstader (all of German origin) families who accompanied them could also be considered aboriginal by this understanding. Over the years the Territory became a magnet for people from other tribes in the States such as the Tutelo and Nanticoke, and later the Stockbridge Mahicans. All brought their own perspectives to add to the Six Nations world view.
By the time of the Revolution, the Mohawk were entirely Christian and largely acculturated (e.g., residing in homes often more substantial than their poor German neighbours). It appears that as a Mohawk, having been raised in a community at a time when he only knew an environment which was shared with White people, Chief Joseph Brant wished to re-create the environment that was most familiar when he moved to his new home along the Grand River. Being surrounded by White neighbours and Black servants was very "normal" for Brant and other Mohawk Chiefs of the time. The truth is that today Six Nations includes many who are largely indistinguishable from their White neighbours. Their mind set has been shaped by TV, the Internet, video gaming and the like. Go to the Speedway on a Friday. How different are the spectators from each community?
Thus I would argue, if one believes that there is some sort of qualitative difference in the way Six Nations people interface with the environment, but which local White people do not, then these differences should be plainly and boldly stated for all to consider - and perhaps learn from. As far as I am concerned I see a lot of individual differences on each side of the equation, and a lot of commonalities too. Differences there may be, but do these trump the similarities. A Six Nations conservationist and a White conservationist may be cut from the same cloth.
DeYo.
The McKenzie Meadows Land Development Project - A Potential Nightmare for the Six Nations?
Frankly I had never heard of the "McKenzie Meadows Project" (MMP) until I read about it in small print under a title "Six Nations Future: It's Our Community's Future, Let's Talk about it". Clearly for me red flags went up immediately once I realized where the physical position of this "proposal" would be situated. The article on page 3 of Turtle Island News, October 30, 2013 provides the location and details of the project as follows:
The lands are located on the west side of McKenzie Road, South of Fuller Road in the urban area of Caledonia. The developer of the project is 2036356 Ontario Inc., a numbered company owned by Michael Corrado and others. This two-phased residential development project will consist of a minimum of 700 residential units with a maximum of 1000. The entire land holding is approximately 107 acres, in which Phase 1 will develop 25.2 acres and 200 residential units.
The project was announced by Chief William Montour of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC). A set of three meetings has been set up for "community members" who wish to have further information, and to "have one - on - one discussions with staff". Apparently, "Community members can visit here to get more information about the project". Unfortunately the webpage says absolutely nothing about the project (although much can be found about the various wind generation projects here).
It would seem that something of this magnitude, within the County of Haldimand, would show up in various places on the Internet. Hence I did a search using the name of the project and came up with many links to a golf course in Oregon. When adding Haldimand County two hits were found. The first led nowhere, so I clicked on the cached option and was led to a site that had no bearing on this subject. The second one was also "dead" but using the cache option, I was able to go to the HTML version saved by Google. Perhaps it is just me, but any time I find sites removed from the Internet, I get the impression that something odd, perhaps shady, is going on.
The one working link is found here. Here it can be seen that it is a report submitted by the Haldimand County, General Manager of Planning and Economic Development, for Consideration of Council in Committee. The date is 5 February 2013. The report provides conclusions as to potable water and waste water implications, and as well concerns such as whether it conforms to various requirements such as housing density. The MMP is one of four such applications that was being considered as equivalent proposals, all of which have a "Draft Approval Deadline" of 31 December 2013 (a little more than an month and a half from its public announcement - in the Turtle Island News. If anything has been written about the matter in other local papers such as Caledonia's, The Sachem, I did not notice it.
It seems that great pains have been taken to keep this work quiet until the last minute, which makes me wonder if the parties in on the deal are well aware that it is bound to create controversy at both Six Nations, and in Caledonia. What is mind boggling is that a stone's throw away is the festering sore of the Douglas Creek Estates development, a more restricted project, which was completely shut down by Six Nations members, trashed, and claimed as Six Nations land. The violence and acrimony were so intense (as is well documented) that the Provincial Government had to step in and purchase the property from the legitimate owners and allow it to remain as a weed choked tick infested wasteland fit for nothing. How could Six Nations possibly justify creating an even bigger conglomerate of homes to attract reasonably wealthy Hamiltonians or others to purchase these units, but without the spectre of a riot, and a work stoppage and the actions of thugs and hooligans hell bent on destruction and intimidation. Wait, it is in some way "owned" or managed by Six Nations, so the Mohawk Warriors and other violent elements would have no reason to get fussed up. So I guess Six Nations assumes that Caledonians will welcome this project in some way shape or form that I cannot fathom - once they find out. See map below for locations of the MMP (Fuller Dr. and McKenzie Rd. at lower left of map); and DCE (south down Argyll St. below the Caledonia Baptist Church and nearby creek, where the road before 6th Line is situated).
Clearly before much else is said, I will need to attend one of these meetings and ask pertinent questions. One of the major questions will be to what extent are Haldimand County Mayor Ken Hewitt, and Caledonia Councillor Craig Grice involved? Is this akin to making a deal with the Devil? Also, how does this project factor into the land claims dispute? Who is the owner on title in the Land Registry Office? Also, does everyone really think that after all that has happened, and that the true perpetrators of the atrocities of 2006 have never apologised, and that the Six Nations leadership did not come out personally and acted to defuse the "tense" situation in 2006? Do the Six Nations feel "safe" because they see the lands in the same box as those of the Douglas Creek Estates. Many questions remain unanswered and I simply cannot wrap my mind around how this could all be quietly permitted. Am I wrong or is that an act of supreme hypocrisy of both Six Nations, and equally the local municipal officials? Perhaps I have entirely misinterpreted the matter and it has a much more benign and nuanced aspect but for some reason I must be sporting blinders because I can't see it.
Update:. I am in possession of documents handed out to individuals who attended one of the three meetings for "Six Nations Community Members", as noted in the above Turtle Island News announcement. In the five page handout, never once is the County of Haldimand mentioned. Specifically it outlines how the Developer purchased the land in 2003, and had commenced legal proceedings for a Court Injunction against possible work stopages - as was almost certain to occur as per the incident in 2006 across the road. The document makes it sound as if both the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) were on board with this thing. As was my suspicion, since it is almost unheard of for the two groups to consult and agree, in fact it is only SNEC that was at that point involved in the negotiations with the developer - at least that is how I read the information between the lines.
The handout stated that, Six Nations asserted its rights pursuant to the Nanfan Treaty of 1701 [the Treaty is bogus - the Mississauga were the Aboriginal owners in 1701] and the Haldimand Treaty of 1784 [this claim is demolished by the Holmes Report of 2009]. So once again, one Six Nations group or another has "convinced" a developer that it is in his best interest to go with the plan, or face the prospect of a lot of annoying stoppages, or even some sort of conflagration. There is a word for this in Canadian jurisprudence, and it starts with "ex" and ends in "ion". Either you comply or ............. Did the developer have any real choice, since the OPP has shown that it will not enforce the rights of owners in Caledonia?
So the developer has agreed to withdraw the legal suit against Six Nations that was pending, and "would be required to make financial contributions during the course of the development of the Project". This funding is slated for a new "Private School" (see here for the specifics) which is to be built on Reserve land, thus offering job opportunities for Six Nations Members, and other benefits.
So here a developer has agreed to pay $1,250.00 per residential unit. This would reduce his profit margins substantially, so the obvious question is, who is going to be absorbing the "contributions"? Something doesn't sit quite right. I would wonder how a developer could agree to anything so outlandish, and "volunteer" to pay Six Nations (whoever ends up presenting the bill) when these stakes are so high. A one time payment to the HDI of say $7,000 could easily be absorbed but not $125,000 for 100 units. If all 700 get built - the costs to the developer will be staggering. Further enquiries into this matter need to be made to determine the rest of the story - the part that is missing. For example, it would be important to know if the developer is being "subsidised", and if so, by whom?
Clearly the implication is that parties to the agreement such as both the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council (HCCC) will guarantee no interference with the project (such as happened at the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) Project literally across the road) - but what guarantees are there? As relayed by my contact, the difference here, according to the coordinator, is that the parties in the new project negotiated a mutually advantageous agreement, so the acknowledged title on record in the Haldimand County Record Office is considered valid by Six Nations (but recall that this was not the case at the DCE where SN would have received no "favours"). What is ironic, however, is that The individual who was at the meeting reported that the coordinator of this Project was aware that there could be opposition and resistance from some people at Six Nations and in Caledonia. He did not say that HCCC had approved the project.
In one sense, the co-operative venture could have benefits and a net positive effect (although certainly not on traffic flow), but the chance of success would have been far greater had 2006 not happened - and the spectre of upcoming disruptive events such as road blockades was not hanging over everyones heads all the time. There is one nagging problem though. Six Nations in no way shape or form have any "Colour of Title" to any of the lands outside the consolidated Reserve (the final shape taking place in 1850 after the report of Lord Elgin). So it is all really a sham.
As to Haldimand County residents, it is probably too late to obtain the support of anyone who was adversely impacted by the most serious of the incidents. I would not in the least be surprised if some citizens decided to use the same tactics that brought the developer of DCE to their knees. Fair is fair. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or some such rationale. Time will tell.
Update 2: Well, my batting average has gone up dramatically of late, based on the article, Private school to reap benefits of development deal, Turtle Island News, November 13, 2013, p. 4. Indeed, the organisers of the consultation group were disappointed in the turn out at the Community meetings - with just about a dozen members turning up in the 6 hours allotted for the event.
Secondly, as predicted, when the HDI got wind of the project, they made their oh so predictable comments. So, HDI legal adviser Aaron Detlor called the meetings 'false consultation' and said that the Confederacy had not been consulted. He accused Six Nations Elected Council of having made a deal, and then 'rubbing [sic] stamping it' through community costulation [sic]. Later in the article, Detlor stated that the HCCC had not been consulted, and thus, We were not aware that this was going ahead. So, as night follows day, the HCCC takes exception to something that SNEC has done without going through what Detlor, and his HCCC and HDI employers, believe is a mandatory part of the process. Apparently one must play by their rules, or not at all.
We get back to the obvious question, when one mega housing project is the subject of the most horrendous and vitriolic dispute Canada has ever seen; will the one next door be expected to go smooth as silk? Apparently not.
Stay tuned.
DeYo.
The lands are located on the west side of McKenzie Road, South of Fuller Road in the urban area of Caledonia. The developer of the project is 2036356 Ontario Inc., a numbered company owned by Michael Corrado and others. This two-phased residential development project will consist of a minimum of 700 residential units with a maximum of 1000. The entire land holding is approximately 107 acres, in which Phase 1 will develop 25.2 acres and 200 residential units.
The project was announced by Chief William Montour of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC). A set of three meetings has been set up for "community members" who wish to have further information, and to "have one - on - one discussions with staff". Apparently, "Community members can visit here to get more information about the project". Unfortunately the webpage says absolutely nothing about the project (although much can be found about the various wind generation projects here).
It would seem that something of this magnitude, within the County of Haldimand, would show up in various places on the Internet. Hence I did a search using the name of the project and came up with many links to a golf course in Oregon. When adding Haldimand County two hits were found. The first led nowhere, so I clicked on the cached option and was led to a site that had no bearing on this subject. The second one was also "dead" but using the cache option, I was able to go to the HTML version saved by Google. Perhaps it is just me, but any time I find sites removed from the Internet, I get the impression that something odd, perhaps shady, is going on.
The one working link is found here. Here it can be seen that it is a report submitted by the Haldimand County, General Manager of Planning and Economic Development, for Consideration of Council in Committee. The date is 5 February 2013. The report provides conclusions as to potable water and waste water implications, and as well concerns such as whether it conforms to various requirements such as housing density. The MMP is one of four such applications that was being considered as equivalent proposals, all of which have a "Draft Approval Deadline" of 31 December 2013 (a little more than an month and a half from its public announcement - in the Turtle Island News. If anything has been written about the matter in other local papers such as Caledonia's, The Sachem, I did not notice it.
It seems that great pains have been taken to keep this work quiet until the last minute, which makes me wonder if the parties in on the deal are well aware that it is bound to create controversy at both Six Nations, and in Caledonia. What is mind boggling is that a stone's throw away is the festering sore of the Douglas Creek Estates development, a more restricted project, which was completely shut down by Six Nations members, trashed, and claimed as Six Nations land. The violence and acrimony were so intense (as is well documented) that the Provincial Government had to step in and purchase the property from the legitimate owners and allow it to remain as a weed choked tick infested wasteland fit for nothing. How could Six Nations possibly justify creating an even bigger conglomerate of homes to attract reasonably wealthy Hamiltonians or others to purchase these units, but without the spectre of a riot, and a work stoppage and the actions of thugs and hooligans hell bent on destruction and intimidation. Wait, it is in some way "owned" or managed by Six Nations, so the Mohawk Warriors and other violent elements would have no reason to get fussed up. So I guess Six Nations assumes that Caledonians will welcome this project in some way shape or form that I cannot fathom - once they find out. See map below for locations of the MMP (Fuller Dr. and McKenzie Rd. at lower left of map); and DCE (south down Argyll St. below the Caledonia Baptist Church and nearby creek, where the road before 6th Line is situated).
Clearly before much else is said, I will need to attend one of these meetings and ask pertinent questions. One of the major questions will be to what extent are Haldimand County Mayor Ken Hewitt, and Caledonia Councillor Craig Grice involved? Is this akin to making a deal with the Devil? Also, how does this project factor into the land claims dispute? Who is the owner on title in the Land Registry Office? Also, does everyone really think that after all that has happened, and that the true perpetrators of the atrocities of 2006 have never apologised, and that the Six Nations leadership did not come out personally and acted to defuse the "tense" situation in 2006? Do the Six Nations feel "safe" because they see the lands in the same box as those of the Douglas Creek Estates. Many questions remain unanswered and I simply cannot wrap my mind around how this could all be quietly permitted. Am I wrong or is that an act of supreme hypocrisy of both Six Nations, and equally the local municipal officials? Perhaps I have entirely misinterpreted the matter and it has a much more benign and nuanced aspect but for some reason I must be sporting blinders because I can't see it.
Update:. I am in possession of documents handed out to individuals who attended one of the three meetings for "Six Nations Community Members", as noted in the above Turtle Island News announcement. In the five page handout, never once is the County of Haldimand mentioned. Specifically it outlines how the Developer purchased the land in 2003, and had commenced legal proceedings for a Court Injunction against possible work stopages - as was almost certain to occur as per the incident in 2006 across the road. The document makes it sound as if both the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) were on board with this thing. As was my suspicion, since it is almost unheard of for the two groups to consult and agree, in fact it is only SNEC that was at that point involved in the negotiations with the developer - at least that is how I read the information between the lines.
The handout stated that, Six Nations asserted its rights pursuant to the Nanfan Treaty of 1701 [the Treaty is bogus - the Mississauga were the Aboriginal owners in 1701] and the Haldimand Treaty of 1784 [this claim is demolished by the Holmes Report of 2009]. So once again, one Six Nations group or another has "convinced" a developer that it is in his best interest to go with the plan, or face the prospect of a lot of annoying stoppages, or even some sort of conflagration. There is a word for this in Canadian jurisprudence, and it starts with "ex" and ends in "ion". Either you comply or ............. Did the developer have any real choice, since the OPP has shown that it will not enforce the rights of owners in Caledonia?
So the developer has agreed to withdraw the legal suit against Six Nations that was pending, and "would be required to make financial contributions during the course of the development of the Project". This funding is slated for a new "Private School" (see here for the specifics) which is to be built on Reserve land, thus offering job opportunities for Six Nations Members, and other benefits.
So here a developer has agreed to pay $1,250.00 per residential unit. This would reduce his profit margins substantially, so the obvious question is, who is going to be absorbing the "contributions"? Something doesn't sit quite right. I would wonder how a developer could agree to anything so outlandish, and "volunteer" to pay Six Nations (whoever ends up presenting the bill) when these stakes are so high. A one time payment to the HDI of say $7,000 could easily be absorbed but not $125,000 for 100 units. If all 700 get built - the costs to the developer will be staggering. Further enquiries into this matter need to be made to determine the rest of the story - the part that is missing. For example, it would be important to know if the developer is being "subsidised", and if so, by whom?
Clearly the implication is that parties to the agreement such as both the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council (HCCC) will guarantee no interference with the project (such as happened at the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) Project literally across the road) - but what guarantees are there? As relayed by my contact, the difference here, according to the coordinator, is that the parties in the new project negotiated a mutually advantageous agreement, so the acknowledged title on record in the Haldimand County Record Office is considered valid by Six Nations (but recall that this was not the case at the DCE where SN would have received no "favours"). What is ironic, however, is that The individual who was at the meeting reported that the coordinator of this Project was aware that there could be opposition and resistance from some people at Six Nations and in Caledonia. He did not say that HCCC had approved the project.
In one sense, the co-operative venture could have benefits and a net positive effect (although certainly not on traffic flow), but the chance of success would have been far greater had 2006 not happened - and the spectre of upcoming disruptive events such as road blockades was not hanging over everyones heads all the time. There is one nagging problem though. Six Nations in no way shape or form have any "Colour of Title" to any of the lands outside the consolidated Reserve (the final shape taking place in 1850 after the report of Lord Elgin). So it is all really a sham.
As to Haldimand County residents, it is probably too late to obtain the support of anyone who was adversely impacted by the most serious of the incidents. I would not in the least be surprised if some citizens decided to use the same tactics that brought the developer of DCE to their knees. Fair is fair. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or some such rationale. Time will tell.
Update 2: Well, my batting average has gone up dramatically of late, based on the article, Private school to reap benefits of development deal, Turtle Island News, November 13, 2013, p. 4. Indeed, the organisers of the consultation group were disappointed in the turn out at the Community meetings - with just about a dozen members turning up in the 6 hours allotted for the event.
Secondly, as predicted, when the HDI got wind of the project, they made their oh so predictable comments. So, HDI legal adviser Aaron Detlor called the meetings 'false consultation' and said that the Confederacy had not been consulted. He accused Six Nations Elected Council of having made a deal, and then 'rubbing [sic] stamping it' through community costulation [sic]. Later in the article, Detlor stated that the HCCC had not been consulted, and thus, We were not aware that this was going ahead. So, as night follows day, the HCCC takes exception to something that SNEC has done without going through what Detlor, and his HCCC and HDI employers, believe is a mandatory part of the process. Apparently one must play by their rules, or not at all.
We get back to the obvious question, when one mega housing project is the subject of the most horrendous and vitriolic dispute Canada has ever seen; will the one next door be expected to go smooth as silk? Apparently not.
Stay tuned.
DeYo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)