No Treaty with Six Nations Shown on Map to be Used in All Ontario Schools: A Can of Worms Opened?

Issues Concerning the Publication of a Map of Indian Land Treaties in Ontario:  In "Turtle Island News" (TIN), May 14, 2014, p.4 is an article entitled, Feds Ontario treaty map released to schools ..... but no Six Nations.  The content here concerns a map entitled, "First Nations and Treaties" which is to be used in schools across Ontario, and is based on information from the Federal Government's Ministry of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada (see here).  Thus the document represents the distillation of what is in the Federal records relating to treaties signed by various First Nations peoples throughout the years (see here). 

The article in TIN reports that,

it appears that the federal Aboriginal Affairs ministry forgot to include one of the richest pre-confederation treaty in Canada.

The newly minted map does not include the Haldimand Deed lands of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations of the Grand River) in southern Ontario or the Nanfan Treaty of 1701.

In fact the only recognition of the Haudenosaunee land base in the treaty map is a listing of reserves number Six Nations 40A and Glebe Farm 40B.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs' Council's planning department is not happy with the map.

The Director of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), said the absence is intentional. 

Next is a bit where my repeated assertions that since the events of Caledonia 2006, the various factions at Six Nations have been testing the limits and making unsubstantiated claims to reap rich rewards in the form of "application fees" paid by developers and other questionable behaviours that did not occur prior to 2006.  The Director said, the Confederacy Chiefs have 'made it clear in negotiations since 2006 and in current engagement discussions with Ontario that the 1701 Treaty area is an established treaty right and was re-affirmed by Ontario's former minister of aboriginal affairs Christopher Bentley through the engagement process with Confederacy'.

First, it is important to note that the above Chris Bentley was the Minister of Energy in the Provincial Liberal Government, and was forced to resign in disgrace due to the scandal over the closing of the gas plants, as seen here.  Thus referring to Mr. Bentley as an authority on treaty rights does not in any way tally with the evidence.

The HDI Director is presumably well aware that the HDI is not the legally empowered body to negotiate anything with either the Federal or Provincial Governments, or the various corporations who have naively agreed to the "conditions" rather than risk the inevitable work stoppages that would result by failure to comply with the "engagement process".  The latter has no legal requirements imposed on anyone, but simply those that the HDI (or the Elected Council's comparable CAP group) can cajole from those under political pressure or the stress of protests and a lot of bad press - even the media tending to portray Six Nations as victims.  The media has, in my opinion, not done its homework.  Without evidence, or with information that is completely distorted, they tend to see Six Nations as the victim - never the author of their own destiny (as would be a more apt description of historical reality).  Apparently, according to the HDI Director, this perceived omission is, a continued assimilation tactic to suggest the Haudenosaunee don't exist and our land base doesn't exist and is typical of the history they have recorded.  Apparently telling the truth does not win you points with the HDI.  The article goes on to report that,  neither the federal or provincial Aboriginal Affairs ministries answered Turtle Island News calls about why Haudenosaunee / Six Nations treaty areas were not included in the map.  My question would be, does TIN really want the bald faced truth about the matter to be exposed to public view at this point in time?  There are no legal treaties concerning Aboriginal land with Six Nations, and hence nothing is included in this map pertaining to Six Nations - it is as simple as this.

What is a Treaty?:  It is of key importance to understand the formal nature of any agreement that proceeds to the level of a treaty.  The source focusing on Canadian treaties, seen here, will be helpful.

Because I have blogged about this matter so many times, I will only include a "nutshell" summary of some key points:

1)  The Nanfan "Treaty":  The history that underpins the actual Nanfan document has been described in numerous publications.  The chronology and aftermath are key to understanding that this document is not what it is claimed to be by the Six Nations - in other words a valid treaty that is still in effect today.  Alas, it was never in effect and died a natural death almost immediately after the parties signed, or were listed on, this parchment.  A good general description by a reliable and recent source can be found in Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson (Eds.), Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province, Montreal & Kingston, McGill-Queens University Press, 2013.  In Gary Warwick's article in this work, The Aboriginal Population of Ontario in Late Prehistory, he provides an overview of the history underpinning the archaeology.  He reported,

The abandonment of southern Ontario by the Wendat and Neutral in 1652 and the retreat of Algonquin groups further north and west created a gap in the permanent Aboriginal occupation of southern Ontario.  In 1667, the Seneca, Cayuga, and Oneida briefly filled the gap, establishing seven villages along the north shore of Lake Ontario.  The short-lived villages were abandoned within a dozen years, after attacks by French-allied Ojibwa, Mississauga, and Wendat warriors.  After 1690, the Mississaugas, about 1000 strong and originally from north of Georgian Bay, moved south into Ontario and settled along the major rivers flowing into Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.  Iroquoians did not return permanently to southern Ontario until 1784-85, when about 1,800 Six Nations (Haudenosaunee) settled along the lower Grand River, where their descendants live today (pp.73-4).

Another excellent summary of events is provided by Dean R. Snow, the doyen of New York State archaeology in, The Iroquois, Cambridge, MA, Blackwell, 1996, (p.119) as follows:

The defeat of the Hurons and Neutrals inspired the Senecas, Cayuga, and Oneidas to establish permanent villages on the north shore of Lake Ontario.  Beginning around 1665, a string of seven such villages were founded from the vicinity of modern Hamilton to the Bay of Quinte.  They lasted for over twenty years.  However, by 1687 a coalition of Ottawas, Mississaugas (southeastern Ojibway), Ottawas, and refugee Hurons began attacking the Iroquois villages, forcing them back to the New York side of the lake with severe losses.  By the end of this fighting, the Mississaugas were defeating the Iroquois on the same land where the Iroquois had destroyed the Hurons 40 years earlier.  By 1696 the Mississaugas were in possession of the village sites on the north shore of Lake Ontario.

Nanfan Document - Front Page

So, considering the above circumstances, how did it come about that some believe that the Six Nations have "treaty rights" to all of Southwestern Ontario.  Surely an occupation of a dozen years in the closing years of the 1600s does not provide any sort of firm foundation.  Perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of this era done to date, 474 pages, is that of Jon Parmenter, The Edge of the Woods: Iroquoia, 1534-1701, East Lansing, Michigan State University Press, 2010.  He provides the background information about the destruction of the Southern Ontario Iroquoian peoples (e.g., Huron / Wendat, Attiwandaronk / Neutral) by the Five Nations during the "Beaver Wars" or "mourning wars" of the 1640s and 50s.  Palmenter also lists all known Five Nations settlements north of Lakes Ontario and Erie, and their dates of destruction / abandonment.  The last village was left to return to nature by the Five Nations in 1687, including Quinaouatoua in the region of what is today Caledonia - see Map of Iroquoia circa 1673 and 1701 (p. 145, 265).  The Five Nations were a conquered people, in the same way that they had conquered the Huron and Neutrals - and they were unable to return due to the alliance between French supported groups such as the remnants of the Wendat (Huron), and the Ojibway - Mississauga.  So there is no evidence at all suggesting any further "ownership rights" in Southwestern Ontario.  However despite this fact, and the fact that the Treaty of Ryswick in 1697 the British Crown acknowledged French sovereignty over the lands north of Lake Ontario, four years later the British representatives in New York took it upon themselves to promote what was essentially an illegal deal.  Thus for two very good reasons it is more than surprising that the Five Nations decided to assert that they still maintained beaver hunting rights in this area based on their having conquered the Wendat in the 1640s (oddly ignoring the fact that the same people and their allies had recovered all of this land by conquest 40 years later) - sending the Five Nations south back to Iroquoia, south of Lakes Ontario and Erie, back to their Aboriginal homeland.

Since the "Nanfan Treaty" is being claimed as a true entity by Six Nations, we will first have to see who Nanfan was and what document he and the Six Nations signed.  The records suggest that John Nanfan, Governor of New York wished to secure the allegiance of the Five Nations to the British side and weaken links to the French; whereas the Five Nations played both sides to the middle and wanted the British military support should the French attack the homeland in Iroquoia (again), and claiming to be the "true owners" to be able to hunt in territory they once possessed (circa 1642 to circa 1687) in what is today Southwestern Ontario.  Although not stated in the document, perhaps their rationale for being the legal owners was that they had incorporated Wendat survivors into Five Nations communities (along with Cherokee, Choctaws and Catawbas from the south - although it did not give the Five Nations claims to lands in the Carolinas and other adjoining areas where these captives had lived).  What was stated is that the rationale was due to their military victory over the Wendat (as stated above, carefully omitting the fact of the Wendat - Mississauga alliance victory over them in the years prior to 1687). 

So despite the Treaty of Ryswick of 1697 between Britain and France, giving the French sovereignty over what is today Southwestern Ontario, Governor Nanfan went ahead and had Robert Livingston the Indian Commissioner draw up an agreement.  This is known to Six Nations today as the "Nanfan Treaty", but the word "treaty" appears no where in the document.  Rather it is a simple agreement, specified as a "Deed from the Five Nations to the King of their Beaver Hunting Ground", signed by 20 Five Nations headmen on 30 July 1701, requesting "free hunting for us and the heirs and descendants from us the Five Nations forever".  The wording is such that the Five Nations had the "expectation" of being able to hunt in that area as before - nothing more.  The British saw this instrument as a permanent surrender of all these lands to the Crown.  In the view of the Five Nations, they were asking for security, and hinged, "on Livingston delivering the document personally to the king and returning with an official response".  The Governor denied Livingston permission to travel to England, and in effect the whole deal simply fell through.  No sooner had the ink dried on the document when the Five Nations agreed to allow the French to expand their holdings at Detroit and Fort Frontenac (Kingston).  Thus they had within a few months invalidated whatever it was that the agreement had set out with the British.  Thus it was a fraud.  It was also a fraud because the Five Nations were a conquered people as of 1687, and were dispersed from habitations in Southwestern Ontario.  A treaty that is not a treaty, only a tentative agreement, and one that was fraudulently put forward by one of the parties.  Is it really any wonder why the Federal Government would not include the "Nanfan Treaty" on any list of legitimate treaties?

The original document, as noted in previous posts, did make its way to England at some point, but it has absolutely none of the trappings of an official document let alone a treaty.  There is no seal of any description, even from the Governor.  The Privy Council did not sign it, and thus it is unlikely that the King ever saw this parchment.  It lay in state for many years until a transcript appeared in "Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York", and the content was re-interpreted in such a manner as to conform to the situation after the Crown had turned over all responsibilities for Indian Affairs to Canada.

2)  The Haldimand "Deed", "Proclamation":  This document is not a treaty, no Crown or Federal official has ever called it a treaty, and it has no features at all which would warrant placing it in a category of a "treaty" or any sort of similar agreement.  It does not pass the litmus test for a treaty, at minimum a document where both parties sign.  It was little more that a Loyalist land grant with stipulations; and signed only by one party, Sir Frederick Haldimand.  It was an "deed of occupation" to property purchased of the aboriginal owners, the Mississauga.  The Six Nations were granted permission to "occupy" these lands, vested in the Crown (as it is today), and not granted in fee simple which would have allowed individual Indians to sell off parts to White buyers.  The document does not bear the Privy Council seal.

Haldimand Deed



One source covers most of what one would need to know about the Haldimand "Deed" and "follow up" documents such as the Simcoe Proclamation of 1793.  See, Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, The Champlain Society Publications, Toronto, 1964.  Amid all of these papers and records there is nothing from any side to the matter that mentions "treaty" in connection with the Haldimand grant.

Some Thoughts on Treaties, Surrenders, and Land Tenure:  I have blogged about the subject of false Six Nations "treaties" on so many occasions, that the issue must be tiresome to many readers.  However, it is imperative that the truth be said, and if it takes 50 times saying it before it sinks in, so be it.  There are no treaties between the Federal Government (the Crown) and the Six Nations, who are aboriginal to what is today Upstate New York, United States of America, not Ontario, Canada. What there are include a series of "surrenders" where land which is part of the Haldimand Tract (and a few parcels elsewhere with their own history such as in Hawkesbury) where the Six Nations Chiefs in Council have agreed to part with certain tracts of land for monetary or other considerations, and each of these agreements is signed by key Six Nations Chiefs (anywhere between one such as Joseph Brant who had power of attorney, and 67 whose signatures or marks appear on documents of the 1840s).  Many of these remain in Council Minutes or other collections within the RG10 Indian Affairs records and Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa.  Some are registered and published, particularly those which are post - Confederation.  These Treaties and Surrenders can be found in, Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890, Vol. 1, Queens Printer, Ottawa, 1891.

However all of these agreements have been for the Crown lands that were allotted to the Six Nations as compensation for the lands in Upstate New York which were lost by virtue of having sided with the British during the War of the American Revolution.  None of these lands are "Aboriginal Lands" since the Mississauga are Aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario, and lands were purchased of them to allot to the Six Nations, as the Government purchased lands to the Mississauga to allot to the Loyalist settlers who accompanied the Six Nations.  The Six Nations do not have Aboriginal Land in Southwestern Ontario, any more than the Palatine Germans who were their neighbours along the Mohawk River (e.g., Nelles, Young and Dochstader families of the Grand River and the many more who settled elsewhere in the Niagara Peninsula).  Both owe their land tenure to purchases of Aboriginal Mississauga lands by the Crown.  The difference is that the Six Nations, who held land communally in their former homeland were not granted the land outright in fee simple (allowing them to sell to anyone), their Loyalist neighbours were.  The result of this decision is that, while it seems unfair to treat the two groups differently, in fact there is still a vibrant Six Nations community along the Grand River.  All surrenders must be made to the Crown, who will in turn issue a Patent to a purchaser and place the funds from the sale in the Six Nations Trust Fund.  Individual Indians can purchase and sell their individual "location tickets", for whatever acreage they own, but only to another Six Nations member.  This does restrict the options, but ultimately unless some dramatic change to the Indian Act is made, there will always be a Six Nations Reserve and a Six Nations community, something that their White Loyalist neighbours have largely lost - although descendants are scattered throughout the area but not in a manner that would foster the continuance of a "community".

To be fair, there is some general confusion about the term "treaty" that could impact even those well informed in the subject.  In the introduction to the reprinted edition of "treaties and surrenders" noted above, there is a tendency to toss everything into the stew pot.  Here they describe how the resource, is an excellent reference work for anyone interested in the history of agreements between Indians and the Crown.  It is the only complete collection of the actual texts of all pre-Confederation treaties, land cessions, numbered treaties, and surrenders relating to land and governance until 1890.  As an example of the confusion that can be generated, the "Grant by Governor Haldimand" is listed as item number 106, immediately after, and apparently appended to, number 105, a "Surrender by the Six Nations of the Grand River .... of their lands in the Townships of Tuscarora and Oneida for the purposes of a road along the line of their reserves, as described below".  The date on the instrument is 21 September 1865.  In the index the 1784 Haldimand document is the first listed under the heading of "Six Nations", and the 1865 instrument is second to last.  While the Haldimand Deed is neither a treaty nor a surrender, its inclusion adds to the murkiness.  Granted that the work is not supposed to be definitive, but most people will not be accessing the original records in the RG10 Indian Affairs Papers at Library and Archives Canada.  Thus in some ways the subject needs review by seasoned researchers who have honed their skills in this specialty area.  One example is Garry Horsnell, whose "Short History" is actually very detailed and very meticulously researched.  One cannot be led astray by referring to his work seen here.  I have been researching Six Nations history etc. for almost 40 years, so am an "old timer" in this field of study - and have tried to leave no stone unturned in the process.

Bottom Line in Relation to Six Nations and Claimed Treaties:  Getting back to the map produced by the Federal Government for use in the schools in Ontario, there was / is no reason to include imagined treaties, items existing only within the world of fantasy, and thus provide false information to school children.  So the Federal Government made the right call.  However, I would encourage all at Six Nations who firmly believe in the perceived treaties to make a stand.  Pressure the Federal Government to show its hand, and for all times erase the linkage between the names Nanfan and Haldimand, and the legally defined term of "treaty".  The evidence will support the truth.  Let the truth be revealed to all so that we may move on without constantly having to address the fall out from these misconceptions such as hunting "rights", and authority to insist that a developer "consult" or "engage" with one or more of the parties at Six Nations asserting that they are the broker in these claims to "treaty rights", and that all others are imposters.  It is highly likely that the matter will end up before the Courts, since it is unlikely that Six Nations could readily accept anything that undermines their present actions with land developers, wind power corporations, Hydro One, pipeline corporations and the like.  However it will be necessary to find a way to reconcile legal realities such as Nemo dat quod non habet (see here for details), and other principles derived from history and Common Law, with the weight of evidence.  However if Six Nations is so entirely convinced of the validity of the "Nanfan Treaty" then there should be no concerns in seeing the matter through the various levels of the Courts.  The truth shall set you free.  In the case of the present map to be used in all Ontario schools, either it will stand as is, or it will need to be revised to reflect the realities as determined by the Courts.  Then it will be wise to follow up with "forcing" the Federal Government's hand on their assertion that the General Surrender of 18 January 1841 is valid, and all of the subsequent land surrenders through to the end of the year 1848 reflected the wishes of the Six Nations Chiefs in Council at that time.  As I see it, the treaty and land claim disagreements are festering sores that will not heal without direct action via a Court challenge.  Without taking this step, the pall of uncertainty will continue to hang over Haldimand and Brant Counties, and well beyond these boundaries across Southwestern Ontario - this has to stop.

Update 27 May 2014:  It appears that the map shown at the top of this posting has been removed from government websites.  At the moment I don't know the reason, but suspect that perhaps complaints from Six Nations or other groups may have be responsible.

DeYo.

The Value of Oral History and Wampum Belts in the Determination of Six Nations History, Sovereignty and "Rights"

Recently I was having a discussion with a member of the Six Nations Community, half my age, about the importance of oral history in ascertaining specific rights to which Six Nations were entitled.  I realized that the version of oral history that he had been given was being taken at face value, and there was no critical analysis here (despite common knowledge about the fallibility of human memory).  I had the impression that he considered that what he was told was immutable and need not be questioned - it was a virtual echo from early times describing the events pertaining to the origins of, in this case, the supposed 400 year old Two Row Wampum agreement between the Dutch (many think it was the British) and the Five (later Six) Nations.  This discussion coincided with an article in the most recent issue of "Turtle Island News", May 7th 2014, p.7 entitled, "Wampum belts returning means power and unity for Haudenosaunee".  It also brings to the fore a key element in deciding how much weight to give evidence such as oral history and wampum belts. 

Documentation, Oral History and Wampum  -Example of the Matter of Two Row Wampum Treaty:  First, I have described in previous blog postings the Two Row Wampum as a source of evidence, as seen here.  Often Six Nations have denigrated documentary evidence, with the belief that it is biased toward White people and is not consistent with the Six Nations "way".  The reality is that we (the world) would know little about the Norse Gods, the Norwegian Kings, the history of pre - literate Scandinavia, and so on without documentation.  There are also inscriptions on stone, artifacts, and other evidence which basically adds cross validation to Icelandic aristocrat Snorri's Sturleson's account of the Norse world (e.g., his work "Heimskringsla") from this Icelandic aristocrat.  He used  available manuscripts as well as oral history to create his lasting legacy to the world.  Clearly oral history, when used to confirm and supplement documentation, is a worthwhile data source.  However, it cannot "stand alone".

In addition, much of what we (White and Six Nations) know of Six Nations history comes from the historians and anthropologists who have published reports in the years since 1850.  If we were to depend on what is available from Six Nations oral history, it would be an impoverished version of the truth.  The massive documentation, which includes letters and correspondence of highly literate Six Nations individuals such as Joseph Brant Thayendinagea, is absolutely indispensable in rounding out the picture of Six Nations history and culture.  However White visitors to say the Mohawk Village have left their written observations which are indispensable in for example developing a picture of life in that location at key points in Haudenosaunee history.  See the marvelous resource such as historian Charles M. Johnston, Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, The Champlain Society, Toronto, 1964 as an example of what "white brothers" (see later) have left for all who want to know about Six Nations history.  Does anyone really believe that our knowledge of the Conservative / Hereditary people at Six Nations would be as rich without the marvelous work done on site in the mid 20th Century with knowledgeable informants (including largely Chiefs and Clan Mothers) by anthropologist Annemarie Shimony, Conservatism Among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 1994 (originally published 1961).  Her informants were constantly telling her how things were going downhill, how so many traditions were being lost and that there just was not the interest on the part of the young people which would bode well for the continuation of their way of life with true to the ancestors cultural practices.  Shimony, a compassionate observant, told their story - which is a key resource to Confederacy people wanting to know about the "way things were".

In terms of the Two Row Wampum supposed treaty, evidence is slender.  We have a copy of a document from 1613 which includes the names of four Five Nations (likely Mohawk) signators with totems, and two Dutch traders, only one of whom can be traced in other records.  The document, termed for convenience sake the Tawagonshi Treaty (but not noted as such on the copy of the parchment) was brought to light by a man whose ancestors were among the early Dutch of New Netherlands, who claims to have found it (via his brother) at the New Credit Reserve (which adjoins the Six Nations Reserve).  Alas, this individual, who was familiar with both the modern and Colonial Dutch languages may have forged the document since academics assert that the document in its present form could not date from 1613.  Furthermore, the man has been known to forge documents of this nature - which doesn't help the belief in the authenticity of the copy of the parchment - the original seems to have disappeared, but the "official" version is held by the Onondaga residing near Syracuse (traditional firekeepers, and archivists). 

As to the wampum belt showing two parallel purple rows against a background of white wampum, the dating seems too early for such an artifact of this nature.  Wampum is not found on any Five Nations archaeological site that dates before the 1630s (and very little is seen here at this time).  There is no evidence that wampum was used to record, as a mnemonic and memorial device, events important to the Five Nations until later in the 1600s.  The fact that there are in effect only two rows on the artifact is also problematic - it is simply too schematic, and allows for almost any interpretation imaginable.  It could represent almost anything, and so without supporting evidence such as a parchment that states that the "deal" or "treaty" was sealed or solidified through the use of a wampum belt, serious questions about authenticity remain.  Nothing of that nature exists or has to date surfaced.  Furthermore there are a number of different belts, and none appears to be old enough to date from 1613.  So is the one for example in the possession of the Onondaga of New York, or the one in the possession of the Six Nations of the Grand River, or another one the direct link to the Tawagonshi Treaty?  No one knows.  There is, however, no denying that wampum belts have a very powerful symbolic and historic value to the Six Nations.  They were used in every important treaty, or even meeting with Colonial officials, and strings of wampum replaced antlers as the "horns of office" representing the symbol of authority of the hereditary chief.

Thus there has been reliance on oral history to shore up the shaky foundation from other sources.  Today, one dare not bring up anything challenging the validity of oral history, as it is definitely not politically correct to do so.  Even anthropologists have increasingly been giving in to political pressure to give this form of evidence equal billing with other sources such as written documentation - the specter of being labelled "racist" or having a "colonial mind set" and the like always looms large.  However, in the real world, there are serious issues with depending on any form of oral history to pin the truth on is very risky and indefensible.  More on oral history later.  But please note that wampum belts are linked to oral history and the latter is frequently needed to make sense of the symbols on the wampum belts as they do not have enough "substance" to tell their story without the prop of an oral history.

Returning to the content of the above article, the secretary of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) said that, Wampum belts are returning and they are bringing people together.  Many at Six Nations have worked very diligently to bring home the belts that over the years, were stolen, hawked, and hoarded post - contact.  Thus the belts often ended up in private collections and museums.  Recently, through one means or another, generally by "encouraging" the holders of these sacred relics to "do the right thing", the belts have been returned to their original owners.

There was a recent presentation at Six Nations (GREAT Theatre) where the belts were unveiled for all assembled to see, and to have someone knowledgeable in these artifacts help the audience understand the meaning of wampum belts.  The presenter, a Seneca from Tonawanda, who clearly has a passion for these belts, described how in the search for the truth, two perspectives are needed.  He spoke of hearing of the meaning of a belt from his grandparents who were first language speakers, and from obtaining further information from others across Haudenosaunee Territory.  He contrasted this form of knowledge with that of what is found in books, where, in his opinion, you have to take what is read, with a grain of salt.  Sometimes our White brothers have interpreted things differently than how we would as Onkwehonwe people.  The speaker asserts that with the two perspectives, it makes it easier to dig through what has been said or written and determine where distortions may have entered the picture.  The speaker then gives an example which to me, highlights the distinct disadvantage entailed in putting too much reliance in oral history.  He speaks of the Friendship Belt anchored by two figures at the opposite ends, one figure built with a white chest area and the other with a dark chest area with a white spot.  The speaker then reports that,

Some people often, I've heard them say well that represents our white brother because it is all white, and this other one over here represents us because it's dark, and we have dark skin.

However, the speaker "likes another theory".  Specifically that,

I've heard it said that's not really our white brother - that's us.  Because the white on the inside is our heart.  So we have nothing but peace in our heart.  And then the one on this side is a solid white bead - that's the heart of our white brothers.

Because when it comes to friendship, and obviously we know through history he (white brother) said, he had friendship.  We know he didn't have a lot of it.  He has a much smaller heart, and it doesn't expand outward like Onkwehonwe. 

With due respect to the speaker, if the last paragraph is not racist, I don't know what is.  If a White person had written anything remotely like this statement they would be vilified and raked over the coals and would lose tremendous credibility - but it is ok for someone of Six Nations heritage to speak disrespectfully of their "white brothers" and all is well.  I really don't get it.  I have seen the diaries of respected anthropologists who purchased items from individual Chiefs, and then donated the artifacts to the Smithsonian Institute or other setting where they had a staff and equipment to property take care of these precious objects.  They were in safe keeping, and available to inform the "wider world" of this important feature of Six Nations culture.  Hence the objects could be appreciated by "the world" and in turn the world would come to better know the Six Nations people.  The sale was perfectly legal and resulted in a perpetual care arrangement for the artifacts.  Now they are being put at risk, placed into situation where once again they could be sold by individual Chiefs in need of an infusion of cash, or with the realization that they do not have the secure storage capabilities to guarantee the safety of the irreplaceable objects. 

It would be remiss in this context not to mention the fact that it was these maligned "white brothers" who, without being coerced to return these belts, have stepped up to the plate and "done the right thing" - although the original sale generations ago was perfectly legal.  So, irrespective of the wishes of those who originally sold the artifacts 150 years ago, present day Six Nations insist on "rights" with no balance of "responsibilities".  Now they want them back.  So a legal sale is not honoured.  That sounds very much like what is happening with the ceded land of the 1830s and 1840s which, based on the Six Nations Chiefs in Council wishes at the time, were transferred to the Crown to be sold for the benefit of the Six Nations.  Now, "We want the land back" - well, I would love to have returned all of the lands and valuable artifacts sold by my ancestors over the years, but realize that a deal is a deal.  This all leads to my asking the question that follows, "what have Six Nations members done to address the wrongs perpetrated against the residents of Haldimand County post 2005?"  I can answer that - nothing that I am aware of.  So it is all well and good that Six Nations obtains what they see as redress for acts of 150 years ago, but they are unwilling to even entertain the concept of the need to redress the wrongs they committed but 8 years past!  Something is out of kilter.

Oral History, Human Memory, and Two Row Wampum:  So, returning to the "reading of the wampum", here the interpreter is cherry picking a version that meets best with his world view, and is ignoring what many others have told him about the meaning of the symbols on the belt.  Therefore one can ask a legitimate question - how under these circumstances can one conclude that oral history has any merit?  Oral history depends on human memory which is notoriously fallible.  Hence, it makes sense to listen to the oral history, but ask whether there are other versions of the same story.  Inevitably there will be more than two versions of any long - standing oral tradition or history.  The old game of telephone shows us how by telling the same story even a few times it changes dramatically such that it is possible that little of the original version remains intact - one simply cannot tell.  In addition, modern psychology has shown us how memory works.  Dr. Brenda Milner at McGill University outlined the neurobiology of memory; and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus of University of California Irvine how memories change with time.  Basically memories tend to become shorter, and change in predictable ways - the "misinformation effect" and the "power of suggestion" being two of her research areas shedding light on the phenomenon of memory.  See here for more information.

So, when examined through the microscope of science, relying on oral history is indefensible.  The only instance where that is not true is when there is cross validation, meaning there is another line of evidence that supports the oral history.  Wampum belts are dependent on some form of accurate story to interpret the symbols - otherwise it becomes an exercise in guesswork as shown in the above example.  Six Nations will have to live with the reality, and come to realize that there is not sufficient evidence to support the Two Row Wampum concept as it is presently understood - the canoe and the ship travelling side by side (there are no such icons on the wampum) and stretching this to assert that what is meant here is that Six Nations are a "sovereign" people living outside the world of the White man.  Unless one lives in the depths of the Brazilian jungle in this day and age, the whole concept of an independent existence does not make entire sense - would this mean no more Federal Government largesse?

DeYo.

Wind Power Companies Continue to be Misled by Six Nations - With Impunity

I have blogged about this matter countless times, but despite the irrefutable facts, wind turbine companies are lining up to sign deals with Six Nations based on a series of false beliefs and assumptions - and this injustice is costing them mega bucks.

As has been shown before, Six Nations have zero "rights" requiring them to be consulted over anything outside the present boundaries of Indian Reserve 40, Six Nations Reserve extending between Caledonia to Hagersville and west to the southern tier of Brantford.  Yet we continue to learn that companies from locations such as Port Rowan and Port Dover are ponying up money to Six Nations (both Elected and Hereditary Council factions being the recipients of this largesse).  The most likely interpretation for this odd behavior is the belief that bogus agreements such as the fraudulent Nanfan "Treaty" have anything to do with anything here in Southwestern Ontario - it is irrelevant.  Even in the Haldimand Tract, all lands except those noted above were ceded as of the year 1848 and Six Nations have absolutely no legitimate claim to any lands outside the present Reserve boundaries.  However, as long as developers are led to believe that there are certain "aboriginal" rights in place, and as long as agencies associated with Six Nations send thugs to shut down projects for which there was no "consultation" (or the "consultation" was not with the "right" faction), developers will be intimidated into following the path of least resistance - perhaps they get a tax write off for capitulating to strong arm techniques when there is anything having a whiff of "Native issue" swirling about.

In "Two Row Times", April 30th, 2014, p.2, there is an article entitled, "SNED signs another turbine agreement".  Here Six Nations Economic Development (SNED) once again held a "poorly attended" community meeting to announce the monies that in some manner Six Nations is extracting from Capital Power from their Nanticoke and Port Dover turbine projects.  Here the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) of the Confederacy / Hereditary Council faction had already shut down some of the construction, as noted in the article.  Although not mentioned here, since HDI did not put up any further fuss, it would be a reasonable assumption that the developer had "consulted" (translation, filled in the application form and paid the requisite fee).  However, as per the norm, it is not known what the agreement is or what the financial settlement was.  Same lack of transparency that has been reported in both Reserve newspapers for years, and nothing has changed in terms of disclosure.  No one, except HDI and perhaps some of the Hereditary Council members, know what programmes or pockets receive the "consultation" funds from the "application process".

The SNED representative reported that the royalties will bring in 7 million dollars over 20 years.  One might ask the question, $7 million for what.  What do the companies get in return?  One might guess that it breaks down to "low probability of shut downs and protests".  So in effect company after company in Ontario is capitulating to the facts that Six Nations activists learned after 2006 - that Six Nations has been emboldened to the point where they know that the Ontario Provincial Police will not do anything to uphold the law and support the legal owners (the power companies) - so testing of the limits has, with a few exceptions, brought riches to the doorstep of individuals and groups who have learned how to "apply pressure effectively".

As an example of how outlandish the assertions of some activists are, one well known radical (seen at virtually every shut down and demonstration) voiced "concerns" that, They are not going to want to give back the land if they are making a bunch of money off of it ................ when we do try to shut down these projects our people get charged.  They criminalize us in the courts when we try to get the land back.  Recall that we are talking about lands in present day Norfolk County, lands that the Six Nations have no land claim of record.  All Six Nations has is a fraudulent agreement signed six years after losing all of Southwestern Ontario to the Mississauga and their allies - then in 1701 having the effrontery to place the lands they didn't own under the protection of the British Crown, and 300 years later demanding a say in what happens to the lands they lost in 1696 by conquest.  It makes me ask the question, "Does anyone in the world of business or government read and understand history?"  If they did they would advise developers that any action by Six Nations is illegal, and that the full weight of the law needs to be brought down on trespassers and those who cause developers to lose millions of dollars due to illegal shut downs.

To counter the statements of the above activist, the SNED Director rightly said that, Our community needs this money.  We got issues.  We got housing issues, education issues, water issues etc.  The goal of these projects is to generate some benefits.  This would be perfectly understandable, and laudable, if in fact Six Nations had a legitimate / legal right to any stake in the lands in question - but they don't.

So we get back to the same issue seen time and again, even with the giant Samsung corporation of South Korea, as noted in an earlier posting - Six Nations expect payola, and some expect "return of the land" in instances where should the matter ever go to Court, the verdict is virtually guaranteed, unless tainted by political correctness or something of that nature.  Six Nations have no business sticking their noses in business outside their own boundaries demanding money or land.  As with all Ontarians, they certainly do have the right to be concerned about the environmental fall out of these projects, which some Six Nations members find very troubling - such as the devastating effects that these industrial turbines are having on our local bird populations.  All citizens need to come together to demand action on the mass slaughter of wildlife, and the undeniable effects on the local residents who have to look at these turbines every day and live with health consequences not adequately known, and a sharp drop in land values due to the obvious intrusion of these unsightly apparitions on the horizon. 

Why are the members of Six Nations receiving "compensation", and yet those who live beside the turbines are being ignored by both the government and the corporations, and are not on the receiving end of anything but a token benefit - such as repairing the roads made virtually impassable by the huge vehicles needed to bring in even one blade of the three blade turbines.  Something stinks here, and needs to be investigated and made right.

DeYo.

Chaotic and Unproven Six Nations "Land Registration" Assertions: 2006 to 2014

Things used to be very simple, at least in the years between 1848 when the last parcel of land (the Burtch Tract) was ceded to the Crown such that the proceeds from the sale(s) would be placed in the Six Nations Trust Fund, and the closing years of the 1980s.  Basically land was included in one of two registration systems:

1)  Ontario Land Registry:  Here all lands for which a Crown Patent has been issued (largely from the 1830s and 1840s) are registered in the relevant County land registries.  Here someone can for example visit Cayuga and see the entire ownership record from today dating back to the first Crown Deed.  Lawyers are constantly to be seen in this office since with any land transaction the records must be consulted and shown to be lien free and without irregularities back about 75 years.  Almost all property will be in fee simple, allowing the "bargain and sale" of the property and transfer from the old to new owner in the record.  No one has challenged this system since it was done via legal purchases or surrenders by the Indian occupants.  For example the Chiefs in Council of Six Nations would sign a deed between the original Indian owner and the purchaser so that a Crown Patent could be issued, and the land registered in the name of the first purchaser, and each subsequent change to the present day. 

2)  Indian Land Registry:  For Six Nations, a land registry system relating to Indian Reserve 40, Six Nations Reserve, has been in place since 1847 when "location tickets" were issued to each head of family when the Reserve was consolidated in that year.  Deeds of sale here are not in fee simple (otherwise a non-Native could purchase the land) but via a system of "location tickets" allowing the holder to occupy the land which is still owned by the Crown.  Location tickets allowed Status Members to hold land and have it registered in the Indian Land Registry maintained by the Federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.  In 1951 a more formal centralized system was put in place, but the basic process has not changed.  The Six Nations Elected Council is in control of the day to day operation of this system.  See Bill Russell, Records of the Department of Indian Affairs at Library and Archives Canada: A Source for Genealogical Research, Toronto, Ontario Genealogical Society, 2004.

3)  Bogus Registries:  Recently "official" (the above two systems) and "non official" registries (e.g., that claimed by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council HCCC via the Haudenosaunee Development Institute HDI) are in play.

Recently I blogged about the claim by the HDI that they possess "the" Indian land registry system, the "Confederacy Land Registry" such that new (although illegal) acquisitions "must" be registered through their process (see here for further information).  Hence, the invalid claim that the Douglas Creek Estates, obtained by anarchistic riot by Six Nations members, and purchased by the Province of Ontario from the legitimate land owners (Henco Industries, Ltd.) to "keep the peace" is still within the Ontario Land Registry system.  The land has been in limbo for 8 years.  However the HDI claim (without a shred of evidence) that the land has been placed within their registry system and no longer belongs to the Province of Ontario.  If this had ever taken place with the collusion of the Province and the land given over to HDI for say a token $1, when the Province paid something in the order of $26 million dollars, the taxpayers of both Ontario and Canada would have every right to take the HDI or other Six Nations representatives to Court to recover these monies or to obtain the return of such lands.  To the best of my knowledge the Province still holds the land "in trust" - until a decision is made as to what to do with it.  With a Provincial election looming, nothing is likely to happen in the near future to settle anything related to DCE.

Recent events have called into question the acceptance on that part of a significant element within the Six Nations Community of the legitimacy of any Confederacy or HDI registry relating to land in disputed land claims (there really isn't any other type that HDI can immerse themselves in).  Other than the rather outlandish claims being made by HDI over "ownership" of DCE, they have also been embroiled in another controversial land - related matter where there are multiple parties and competing claims.  Specifically, this is the Guswhenta Development in what is known as the Eagle's Nest Tract.  In previous blog postings I have detailed the groups with an "interest" in this property, such as Men's Fire (an affiliate of HCCC), the Kanata Mohawks (now known as the Mohawks of the Grand River), and the developer, with two of the three owners being Six Nations members.

Guswhenta Native - Owned Development to be Entered into the General Ontario Land Registry System:  So, rather than selecting the "registry" run by HDI or any other "Rez - related" version, the Guswhenta group will act in accordance with a plan that will ensure the economic viability of their efforts - anything else would be financial suicide.  In other words, the two Six Nations Members who are owners have chosen to opt for the only system that will allow land tenure in fee simple.  The bottom line is that the potential purchasers of the homes will in all probability not be Native, and so they will never purchase property with insecure land tenure, and hence all with right mind will realize that there is in fact only one option, only one land registry system that will be acceptable to any but the "idealists" and "traditionalists" who for some reason cannot or will not see the harsh realities involved in living in the 21st Century.

In "Turtle Island News", April 30, 2014, p.14 is an article entitled, "Housing subdivision will be registered with Ontario" we learn that Guswhenta Developments have hired a Brantford contractor to begin the construction of 12 lots on 39 acres of land.

The "Mohawk group" has decided to throw their lot in with the developers and will as a consequence obtain a 12 acre parcel "returned to them" - and have notified the Ontario Government of their desire to return the title to the Mohawks under the Haldimand Deed.  How, in reality, they could put this plan into some reality framework is unclear.  This group are presently in conflict with both HCCC and SNEC over the matter, so the "usual chaos" will continue to rein supreme and more conflict is on the horizon.  The addition here is a bid to enshrine Mohawk supremacy at Six Nations.  Considering that the head of this "Mohawk group" (formerly "Kanata Mohawks") consider the HCCC "dysfunctional" and have no intention to have any dealings with them.  As expected, the HDI (the "muscle") of the HCCC, have something to say about the matter.  The Director stated that neither Guswhenta nor the Kanata Mohawks have met with the HDI to "consult", and, perhaps most importantly, they did not, fill out an HDI development application after last fall's protests.  Some might see this "application" scheme, which has no legal foundation, as a form of extortion (since in the past vans of goons have appeared if there is a failure to comply on the part of the developer), which is the perspective of developers in Caledonia, Cayuga, Hagersville, and Brantford who have fallen under the "requirements" of the HDI.  HDI officials state that Guswhenta is thus, putting Six Nations' land treaties in jeopardy by trying to put the land in the Ontario Land Registry.  Furthermore, as soon as it enters the Ontario Land Registry, it puts it under fee simple and that puts it under the authority of Ontario, of the Crown, and Canada in right of the Crown and therefore it's subject to taxation.  Indeed, precisely what the developers want, otherwise they would never be able to sell their homes as there would simply be no buyers.  No responsible business person is going to shoot themselves in the foot and lose multi millions of dollars to satisfy the world view of the HDI and those who govern their actions.  However, HDI seem fully independent / autonomous, with no transparency, no accountability - no way to know where the application fee monies ever go - they become invisible - with no apparent paper trail - according to multiple accusations leveled at them, particularly during the 2008-9 Court Injunction in Brantford where a large fine was levied against this group and others.

If this all seems repetitive, and that you have heard this or something like it before, welcome to Six Nations.

DeYo.

If Push Comes to Shove: Threatened Violence Over Passage of Bill C-10

The Problem:  In a previous blog posting seen here, I reported on the threats by Six Nations and their Communist - Anarchist allies as to what could happen if the Federal Government passes Bill C-10 to criminalize the transport and distribution of contraband (unstamped, untaxed) cigarettes.  As predicted, as the date of the Bill's arrival at the doors of the Senate approaches, panic ensues.

Potential Six Nations Responses:  As noted elsewhere, Six Nations representatives have been in Ottawa lobbying Members of Parliament and Senators, explaining how Bill C-10 would impact the Community. 

In "Turtle Island News" of April 30, 2014, p.2 there is an article entitled, Bill C-10 could spark violence if it passes.  Specifically, it could, spark a 'powder keg' of violence across affected First Nations territories, says Bill Monture, Six Nation's Men's Fire member.  Men's Fire are an arm of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC).  However the Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC), Chief Ava Hill, believes violence will come at the hands of the police, not Six Nations people.  Chief Hill emphasizes what could happen if for example the RCMP try to raid or charge anyone.  Chief Hill furthermore sates that, One community has already suggested that there be road closures/blockades and others have suggested that we have protests/rallies on Parliament Hill.  The reporter noted that it was a non-Native "activist group" that was calling for Six Nations to block roads and erect barricades.  Earlier it was reported that at a meeting, it was the Communist - Anarchist element linked to the other Six Nations newspaper, "Two Row News", who were proposing this move.  Monture made further inflammatory comments.  Specifically, It's like a powder keg waiting to explode.  We don't know the end results ....... 'Somebody's going to die over this, he predicted.  Monture added, that, the problem with our people is that we are too damn passive.  Oh sure, shall we return to 20 April 2006 and explore how "passive" Six Nations residents were during what turned into a full out riot at the Douglas Creek Estates. 

Elected Councillor Helen Miller commented that, If they (the police) do shut everything down, that's the end of our economy pretty much.  Alas, Councillor Miller is correct, so much of the economy of Six Nations since the 1970s has hinged on the cigarette trade, that there would be an economic collapse locally.  Considering the product which is among the most additive of substances, more so than crack cocaine; and the factor that is the causal agent of more health issues including death than anything else, it was a very unfortunate choice to pin an economy on - but it was easy money, little work and large profits.  Could no one other than myself see that since the 1970s, it was all borrowed time, eventually the criminal elements involved in the trade, and the fact that the government was not getting taxes to which it was legally entitled, would bring things crashing down - sooner or later.  

Potential Targeting of Local Residents:  So who would be targeted if/when Bill C-10 passes?  Ottawa is a long distance, and in the past bussing Six Nations protesters there suffered from low turn outs and ineffectual actions.  So who in the past have Six Nations turned on to vent their anger and frustration?  Those who reside closest, in other words the residents of Haldimand and Brant Counties.  Since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, then the question has already been answered.  Thus it is probable that the usual "whipping boys" will once again be sent to the pillory.  A question is, however, whether the local residents have been slapped around one too many times, and as is the case universally, you can push only so far and then there could be an abreaction unexpected by Six Nations and their Communist - Anarchist supporters.

It is clear that many at Six Nations are fed up with these White "allies" who are there to meet their own goals and agendas, and are aware that blockades are guaranteed to do more damage to relationships with local residents and cannot be justified.  An excellent Editorial about just such matters appears in the "Turtle Island News" of April 30, 2014, p.6.  The Editor also has serious concerns about the behavior of these "allies" associated with the other newspaper who produced a video, largely with money obtained on Reserve, to fight Bill C-10, but oddly also to promote smoking by sending out flyers that it is not illegal to smoke.  Hence their understanding of the complexities of the issues is restricted to their own self - serving agendas.  It was very heartening to hear from the Editor of TIN that, threats of shutdowns and barricades need to stop.  The Editor also notes that the massive multi-national corporation at Six Nations, Grand River Enterprises, is able to skirt around the restrictions, but the smaller outfits are not and it is the latter who (with their families) will be most impacted.  The Editor also indicates that she realizes that tobacco is not the industry of the future, but at this point in time is what puts food on the table for a lot of Six Nations families.  Hence this is why I have elsewhere suggested that for compassionate reasons, the Federal Government "grandfather in" those individuals and families who for 30 or more years have been relying on this source of income without interference by the government.

Potential Responses of Local Residents:  In relation to past reaction to illegal actions of Six Nations, I would term the responses of local residents as disjointed and wimpy.  However in 2014, a pressure cooker has been in the making for 8 years - not only here, but across Ontario.  If there are road blockades and assaults and worse, and the Ontario Provincial Police once again let down local people leaving them to their own devices, will they, in desperation, "call in reinforcements"................... 

What follows does not in any way reflect my wishes - quite to the contrary.  However I am a realist, and perhaps with a sense of what could/would happen if things deteriorate beyond a certain point.

People can only be pushed around so much before they react - and perhaps, abreact.  Sage advice to Six Nations would be to be careful not to even bring to the fore the specter of another Caledonia 2006 - it will set in motion events that could build upon themselves, and life around here will never ever be the same again.  We have yet to see roaming gangs of vigilantes, but .............  It is worrisome that in a part of Ontario where the OPP displays two tiered policing, and the perception and reality is that the actions favour of the Native element, there is a justified deduction that law enforcement is going to be leaving citizens to fend for themselves (as happened in 2006).  So a question needs to be answered, "After all legal and reasonable options have been exhausted, what does one do - lie down and play possum, or perhaps ask politely that they not shove the stick in too deeply?"  I have not taken the pulse of the residents of Haldimand County in terms of this matter, but do wonder about just where the "tipping point" is to be found.  There is not much good will left - just having to daily look at the Confederacy and Mohawk Warrior flags embedded in the 8 year old mess that characterizes the southern entrance to Caledonia - this can have a cumulative effect toward building tension. 

We can only pray that Six Nations handles whatever eventuates from Bill C-10 in a responsible way - otherwise trouble is on the horizon.  If they allow the Communist, Anarchist, radical unionists to take the reins, this will be seen as an act of hostility direct from Six Nations.  It will be important not to play into the hands of the Anarchists whose stated goal is to create chaos.  Those who know this area well know that the Reserve is surrounded by potentially hostile communities full of individuals with long standing grudges, and many here know the Achilles heels to target should push come to shove.  So what is it going to be?  The first thing to do is to dial down the rhetoric, as the Editor of TIN has recommended.  Such actions will likely defuse the situation to keep most of the local residents from becoming agitated and "suspicious" - at least we can hope.

I guess we have to hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

DeYo.

Bizarre Twist in Dumping - Encroachment at Former Douglas Creek Estates: The OPP "Welcomed" to Assist with Confrontation!

Background to the Ontario Provincial Police Involvement in the Douglas Creek Estates Confrontation from 2006:  Since the embarrassing botched raid by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) on 20 April 2006, and the horrible incidents of violence perpetrated by Six Nations both before and after this date - the OPP were basically persona non grata to many here abouts, as has been discussed in many previous postings.  They were in effect told by Six Nations leaders what their limits were, including the stark reality that if they were caught near the DCE site they could expect confrontation (translation - violence).  There was an instance where an officer responding to a call near DCE was surrounded by "protesters" and his life was clearly in jeopardy as his vehicle was surrounded by very angry "warriors".  He called for back up and, in what must be an almost unique event in the annals of policing, none was forthcoming.  In any other jurisdiction an "officer down" or "officer in immediate danger" call would result in all available personnel (even from other jurisdictions) rushing to the aid of the officer in peril, lights flashing and sirens screaming.  Nothing, the officer was left to his own devices.  It was actually a Six Nations member who ushered him out of the area and to safety.  Should anyone wish to read the specifics of this incident and other related matters, they can be found in Christie Blatchford, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us, Doubleday Canada, Toronto, 2010.  An even more bizarre, in terms of law enforcement, situation has been the unwillingness to charge Natives for assaulting OPP officers, even when there is not only the sworn statement of the officer, but video taped evidence.  For some of these shocking examples (certainly to fellow police officers in other jurisdictions) see, Gary McHale, Victory in the No-Go Zone: Winning Against Two-Tier Policing, Freedom Press, Toronto, 2013.  See in particular, Chapter 7.

Six Nations Claims versus Province of Ontario Ownership Rights:  Between 2006 and 2014 Six Nations, particularly the Hereditary Council and affiliates such as the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) have considered the land to be Six Nations Territory, and will not let White people or the Ontario Provincial Police enter the premises - the former DCE, renamed Kanonhstaton ("The Protected Place").  The 40 hectares have supposedly been entered into the HDI's supposed Six Nations Land Registry.  In the view of the HDI, the Province of Ontario has given over right, title and deed to them.  However there is no documentation to support this assertion, and, importantly, the Elected Council, not the Hereditary Council (a competing faction) is the legally mandated entity at Six Nations to address matters pertaining to land (via the Land and Resources Department).

The fact is that in 2006 the Province of Ontario purchased the contested land from the owners, Henco Industries Ltd., and in effect placed the land in limbo (in trust) until they could decide what to do with it.  There was never any transfer from the Ontario Land Registry system to any purported Six Nations Land Registry - only in some fantasy world of HDI beliefs.  Despite the legal fact that the Province of Ontario owns the DCE (or Kanonhstaton if you would prefer), the "Welcome to Six Nations" sign and the Mohawk Warrior and Confederacy flags at the entrance reflect the fact that some at Six Nations still lay claim to DCE.  Allowing the OPP on Kanonhstaton to resolve issues would therefore be tantamount to admitting that Six Nations (through the HDI who claim the right to ownership and registration of the property) do not have secure title to the land.  Policing at Six Nations is the responsibility of the Six Nations Police, and this jurisdictional matter is tied to claims of sovereignty.

2014 and Six Nations Complaints about Garbage and Encroachment:  Recently I had blogged (see here) about the apparent hypocrisy of Six Nations complaints about the behavior of residents whose property abuts the DCE lands.  These families were among those most adversely impacted by the 2006 "take over".  Here we have a situation where this aggrieved group is accused of dumping on the abandoned property behind their residences, when Six Nations have been asked repeatedly to please clean up the ugly clutter left by them since 2006 all along Argyll Street at the southern entrance to Caledonia.  In 8 years, nothing, the property still bears the scars of the events of 2006 and the clutter that has accumulated since then. 

So some Six Nations members have issues about garbage and encroachments.  With the latter,   residents were expanding their lots onto DCE.  These actions have always been legal with abandoned land (in this case kept in limbo by the Province) - it is how I lost about one third of my registered acreage due to the actions, or lack of action, by the previous owner (although I did not find out until I had taken title to the land, and requested a new survey).

The OPP Arrive at DCE to Defuse the Situation:  So considering all of the above it was with a jaw dropping, "you have got to be kidding" response that I reacted to the latest update in the matter as noted in Turtle Island News, April 30, 2014, p.3, in an article entitled, "Fence bordering Kanonhstaton will go up after encroachment".  Recall that Six Nations has absolutely no legal rights to be putting up a fence on this property without the consent of the owners, the Province of Ontario.

The article reports that a Six Nations man attempted to pull out trees planted by one of the owners of property bordering DCE, and an altercation ensured with the resident calling the OPP.  Soon each party was joined by supporters with fellow residents filming the destruction of the trees.  Among those representing Six Nations was the HDI legal representative, the enigmatic Aaron Detlor, as well as a Confederacy Chief, and others.  Apparently some of the local homeowners did not approve of what their neighbours more proximal to DCE were doing, and expressed their displeasure to the Six Nations representatives who were there - thereby exposing the fact that there are two factions among the residents in the southern tier of Caledonia.

However, what is most mind boggling, and inexplicable, is that,  About seven OPP officers arrived to intervene with one officer saying he didn't care about the ownership of the land or the planting of the trees, but that he was there to keep the peace between the two groups.  Initially my interpretation was that the OPP were there as the Provincial police force to apply the law fairly and evenly to all groups irrespective of ethnicity.  However, on second thought, it is in keeping with their recently acquired "peacekeeping" duties (to protect the Natives from the local residents) in the two - tiered policing residents have come to expect since 2006.  See Gary McHale as noted above.

Why were the OPP "Allowed" to Intervene?:  What strikes me as quite perplexing is that the OPP were allowed by Six Nations to actively intervene.  However whether they actually stepped on to DCE or only on the lands owned by Caledonia residents is not clear.  It doesn't much matter, the actions of the OPP have been very consistent since 2006 - shelter the "Native" residents, and transport the "White" residents. 

It occurs though that if the land truly (in fact) belonged to Six Nations, then would not the proper party to call to during a confrontation at DCE be the Six Nations Police?  Since they were not called, nor, to the best of my knowledge, have they ever been called to DCE from 2006 to 2014, how can the HDI and fans continue to maintain the fiction of ownership?  Why have the Six Nations Police never been called to assist (anyone) at DCE?

The Province Responds:  Of course if the Province was doing its duty it would be reminding all that the HDI take on things is not only skewed, but utterly wrong.  The land belongs to the Province, plain and simple.  However, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs did spring into action last week, and, Notices were sent to neighbours .............. advising against the dumping.  I am not sure what "advising against" means.  Are there fines to be expected if the dumping continues?  What about the "encroachment"?  Why have the Six Nations not received similar notices at any point since 2006 to clean up the DCE dumping and vandalism to the property?  The Province, however, was apparently not prepared to tell Six Nations that they could not spend $25,000 to $45,000 to fence the land at the northern end of DCE.  I am assuming here that it will be the HDI who funds the project.  It is bad enough that the money (likely obtained illegally from "leaning on" naïve or "at wits end" developers), is being spent as if the land belonged to Six Nations; but if perchance the taxpayers of Ontario get stiffed with the bill, it would be reason for a "stern response" from Ontario taxpayers.

A Request by Six Nations Members to Assist in the Clean Up of DCE:  Again, in the "will wonders never cease" category, the front page of Two Row Times, April 30th, 2014 says "Come One, Come All" and shows Cam Staats on the DCE property with the residences at the north end of DCE in the background.  The caption reads, Cam Staats is one of a group of Six Nations people organizing a clean up of Kanonhstaton (former Douglas Creek Estates) on Saturday May 4th beginning 8am.  All people with good minds and who come in the spirit of peace, friendship are welcome to assist.  On page 3 there is more information, and Cameron Staats is in particular, inviting everyone who took part in the reclamation, in one way or another ........ Our Kanonhstaton remains like an abandoned child, so let's make her a showcase.  The invitation is extended to "allies" (hopefully not the Communist - Anarchist element), and neighbours - in other words White folk, for the sake of both Six Nations and Caledonia residents.  This is certainly a noble effort.  We will see how many of each group make an appearance.

DeYo.

Callous Disregard for Residents by Six Nations, Federal Conservative Government and Provincial Liberal Government: The Dunnville Grand Island Land Claim

After the horrors of the 2006 "reclamation" (illegal take over) of the Douglas Creek Estates property by Six Nations members, as events unfolded it became crystal clear that the latter had absolutely no empathy or regard for local residents impacted by their actions.  However, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to state in no uncertain terms that the evidence clearly demonstrates that there is no valid claim attached to that land (lawfully ceded by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council in 1844).  It is also the responsibility of the Provincial Government to stand four square behind their Land Registry system noting that all Crown Patents in the Haldimand Tract are valid and that owners can rest assured that their property rights are guaranteed.  Alas, none of these parties have acted responsibly, with the result that an air of uncertainty lies as a heavy dark cloud over any land transactions within the Haldimand Tract - no title is secure at this point in time.

A classic example of those impacted most directly (other than Henco Industries Ltd.) is the Rowe family who own the Grand Island Bar B Q on Lumber Island between Dunnville and Byng.  They are at present unable to sell his property due to the "contested" nature of the land, and neither the Federal Government nor the Provincial Government will step in to provide the hard evidence that the property was ceded in 1834.  I wonder if there is any evidence that Six Nations is concerned about the suffering of this man and his family - actually I don't wonder, because I know the answer. 

An article in the Sachem, seen here, will provide a sense of what Mr. Rowe was experiencing in 2012.  A comprehensive article is found here under the title, "Businessman's land battle"; or a similar article in "The Dunnville Chronicle" see here.  An update in the Sachem in January 2014, seen here, shows that Mr. Rowe, whose family has owned the property for 131 years, is still faced with the challenge of selling the property.  However the Grand Erie Business Centre is attempting to breath new life into the property since it is considered an asset to the business of the area.

A recent issue of the Sachem confirms that the problem has not gone away, and that Mr. Rowe is still squeezed between competing interests.  In an article of 18 March 2014, entitled, "Douglas Creek Estates:  The economic impact 8 years later" (see here), some local politicians such as the Mayor of Haldimand County, sees reason for optimism, not everyone feels the same way. Former Dunnville business owner David Rowe blames the challenges that he’s had with his business on unresolved land claims.

Rowe was the owner of Grand Island Bar-B-Q in Dunnville, which he has been trying to sell for several years. He said the issue of an unresolved land claim on his property has scared away interested buyers.

“A native land claim affected my property title, which prevented my ability to liquidate the land to pay off my debts,” Rowe said.

According to Rowe, Six Nations elected council, as well as the federal and provincial governments, have informed him about the claim on his 115-acre family property.

Lonny Bomberry, solicitor and lands and resources director with Six Nations elected council, confirmed that Six Nations started a legal process with the government concerning Rowe’s property in 1995, but the issue remains unresolved.

“Mr. Rowe’s situation is one of a kind,” said Haldimand-Norfolk MP Diane Finley. “I know that many businesses have had some challenges recovering from the occupation. On the other hand, I know of many that have done very well since then.”

Buyers and sellers of land are not required to consult with Six Nations. Still, Rowe said he believes interested buyers are scared away because they’re not sure if the province will stand behind land title.

Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett said unresolved land claims continue to “cast a chill on business,” particularly the homebuilding and real estate business, eight years after Douglas Creek Estates.

“Unfortunately, people in the housing business have lost confidence that their buying and selling of land has the full support of government when there’s native activists involved,” Barrett said.

However, certain actions need to be taken - now.  The Provincial Government needs to report that a Crown grant was issued, and since the 1830s the land has been recorded in the Ontario Land Registry system, Haldimand County, Cayuga.  The government has to be willing to stand behind the truth, and not capitulate (or simply delay indefinitely) to the false assertions of Six Nations in this matter.  Perhaps this land claim should be set as an example and in the strongest terms state that if Six Nations believes that the Land Registry is in error, they need to produce evidence as to why, after 180 years, they as an outside party can step to the fore, make unwarranted assertions, and cause the financial ruin of a Canadian citizen who has a legally valid deed for his property.

I am very familiar with this property.  It is much like the Arbour in Port Dover where generations of my family have stopped in for a "foot long and a Glow".  At the Grand Island Bar B Q, it was the milkshakes, the rental boats, and the mini golf where my children and their cousins as well as two generations of adults would gather for a day of family get together.  My positive experiences here have led me to examine the facts of this dispute, and as a result stand 100% behind Mr. Rowe and his family in their attempt to seek justice.

The following map from the Haldimand County Atlas of 1879 (Page and Co.) shows that Lumber Island (Grand Island), above and to the right of the green patch in Byng, is part of Dunn Township.



Thus, the land surrenders pertaining to Dunn Township will show the early history of the transfer of ownership from Six Nations to the Crown in order that the latter use monies from the sale of their holdings here to augment the Six Nations Trust Fund.

In a previous blog pertaining to wind turbines, I examined the evidence relating to the surrender of South Cayuga and Dunn Townships.  I will repeat the information here.

Surrender Number 38 occurred on 8 February 1834, ten years prior to the general surrender of 1844, 21 of the "Sachems or Chiefs" of the Six Nations, doth grant, bargain, sell, release, surrender and for ever yield up to "His Majesty William the Fourth", the Township of Dunn, and the parts of Moulton, Canborough, and Cayuga Townships (later split into North and South Cayuga Townships) not already surrendered.  Those who signed included Henry Brant, Oneida Joseph, Jacob Martin, John [Smoke] Johnson, Laurence Davids, William Alvis, and Jacob Johnson, all well known and respected chiefs who participated in the surrenders of the 1840s which resulted in the Reserve taking its present shape.  See, Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890, Vol.1, The Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1891, pp. 91-94.  Soon after the surrender, Crown patents were issued to purchasers for the 100 acre lots that had been surveyed by Lewis Burwell, and the deeds were registered on title, and can be found to this day in the Land Registry Office in Cayuga.  So this begs the question, how can Six Nations claim "unceded" land in a parcel that was surrendered in its entirety, even the portion including the Grand River itself, in 1834.

In case Six Nations are trying to ferret out slight imperfections in the wording of the documents to further their probe for any "weaknesses" in order to try and recover lands to which there is not a hint of legal rights.  The surrender also mentions that the surrender, includes the waters of the Grand river, and furthermore, Together with all the woods and waters thereon lying and being, all and singular the rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, to have and to hold the said parcel or tract of land and premises, with their and every their appurtenances unto His said Majesty (pp.92-3).

It is unclear why Mr. Rowe's property is being singled out, but I recall a blockade and work stoppage in the 1980s on the lands immediately upriver on the opposite (north) side of the bridge connecting Dunnville and Byng.

Whatever Six Nations thinks they are owed or own, they are wrong.  The Federal Government needs to stand up and publically (not just in newspaper interviews with Department of Indian and Northern Affairs officials) announce that the records in the Indian Affairs Papers, RG10 Series, clearly and unequivocally show, along with the above surrender, that the lands have been correctly placed in the Ontario Land Registry system.  It is the duty of the Province to assert in the strongest terms that they stand behind their Land Registry, and if necessary then both levels of Government need to take Six Nations to Court should they ever attempt another work stoppage in the Grand Island (or other Haldimand Tract) area.  At that point a Court Injunction will be issued and if Six Nations HDI, CAP or other groups or individuals violate the Order in any manner, then fines and prison time will ensue if blatantly illegal activities here do not stop.  Someone needs to grow a set of .........., and show some teeth.

The evidence, based on my 35 years of research into the relevant records, and those presented to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford in a recent Court ruling, needs to be made public, and someone in government grow a backbone to protect the legitimate rights of the citizens of Ontario and Canada.

DeYo.

Six Nations Poised to Disrespect and Shame Canada on the World Stage - Again

Here we go again.  I have heard all this time and time again, both recently, and in exploring the historical records, the same grumblings yearly back to the beginning of the "relationship" between the parties.  The spark for the present posting is an article written in "Turtle Island News", April 23, 2014, p.3 entitled, "Six Nations Band Council taking trip to New York to attend U.N".  In the past, Six Nations have used the United Nations (and earlier the League of Nations) as a platform to sound off on all of the perceived abuses experienced by Native people at the hands of Canada, who prides itself as a country which treats its citizens with respect.  Before reading the article I will predict here that the Six Nations delegation will try to convince the U.N. of the many perceived abuses Canada has perpetrated against its own Aboriginal peoples.

Background to Chronic Disagreements with Canada:  I think it is fair to say that Six Nations are by in large respectful of the (British) Crown, with whom they have had a largely positive relationship and shared history running between the years 1664 and 1867.

However, as Canada came to assert its independence, the British Crown began to transfer responsibilities to the "colonies" even before Confederation in 1867.  See here for a good overview of the subject.  Specifically, In 1860, the Management of Indian Lands and Property Act (Indian Land Act) brought about another fundamental change in First Nations' relations with the Crown. This Act transferred authority for Indian affairs to the colonies, enabling the British Crown to dispense with the last of its responsibilities towards its former allies. However, colonial responsibility for the management of "Indians and Indian lands" very soon became a federal responsibility with the creation of the new Dominion of Canada under the 1867 British North America Act.  

The next key development in the transfer of powers from the Crown to Canada was the "Indian Act".  Here, In 1876, the government introduced another piece of legislation that would have deep and long-lasting impacts on First Nations across Canada. The Indian Act of 1876 was a consolidation of previous regulations pertaining to First Nations. The Act gave greater authority to the federal Department of Indian Affairs. The Department could now intervene in a wide variety of internal band issues and make sweeping policy decisions, such as determining who was an Indian.

The various changes in the Indian Act and other legislation or attempted legislation show the complexity of the matter.  The "White Paper" of 1969 (attempting to repeal the discriminatory Indian Act), and Bill C-31 in 1985 to address inequities in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are but two of the more important legislative initiatives.  Readers can consult the above reference for further information as applies to today.

In referring specifically to Six Nations, they have obsessed over three issues, pointing the finger of blame at Canada over three particular perceived "abuses"- all of which I have blogged about before.  These are:

1)  Colonialism: This accusation that Six Nations continues to be treated like a group under the thumb of some imperialist colonial regime inconveniently flies in the face of reality.  The mandate of Indian Affairs (and its successors) was / is to protect the interests of Native people who if, for example, were given land in fee simple, would likely in time of need sell the land and set the stage for complete assimilation.  This has happened before (back into early Colonial times) and the government has consistently attempted to keep communities intact - but can expect accusations of "colonialism" as their reward for the protection the Canadian Government efforts.  Colonialism in this context often refers to the perception of many at Six Nations that they are a sovereign people and should be given the rights of self - determination without government interference.  While this has a nice ring to it, if anything of this nature were to happen, and the Government of Canada turned over the keys to all programmes and services, anyone from here knows exactly what would happen.  The Elected and Hereditary Councils would be at each other's throats and nothing would be accomplished except a great deal of infighting and ultimately the irreparable tearing of the fabric of the community.  Many, however, live in a dream world unwilling or unable to picture what life would be like without Canadian laws, and Canadian taxpayer dollars.  Since no one living and working on the Reserve pays any taxes to Ontario, Canada, or even the Band Council to support the Reserve infrastructure, it should be evidence who is footing the bill for projects on Reserve - indeed, those Canadians living outside the Reserve boundaries who pay income taxes, and sales tax on virtually everything.  Just produce the "status card" and magically there is no need to bother paying any tax for most purchases.  Most Canadians would love to be free of paying taxes on gasoline - but they have no "status".  It seems like being given the privilege of a tax free life is pretty sweet - but is really "colonialism" so should it be abolished and we should install a system where everyone is treated the same - remove "colonialism", and we all pay the same taxes.  Seems eminently fair, and we wipe away all vestiges of colonialism (in this case special privileges).

2)  1924:  More blame that can be cast is over the shift in 1924 from a Hereditary Council to an Elected Council.  The myth is that this was imposed by Canada who used the strong arm of the RCMP to lock the doors to the Hereditary Council House.  In fact the action was in response to repeated and determined efforts by "progressive" elements at Six Nations (particularly among the educated Christian Mohawk) to ensure quality in their representatives (e.g., having some minimal educational standard).  As the Hereditary Council became more dysfunctional and uncooperative, the Federal Government gave in to the petitions and brought Six Nations in line with other Native communities (and the world) by instituting a body elected by the people.  Success means adaptation and change.  To remain static and accept something that is simply not working, is to remain mired in the past and left in the backwash as the whole world enters the information and technology age.  Romanticism about the "old ways" is fine, but deliberately choosing to walk the path to backwardness and marginalization and poverty only makes sense in the minds of those who expect to "be taken care of" - not having to work for what they get.

1924 is always a hot button issue here, despite the facts, it is always the big bad ole government who wiped away centuries of tradition.  Of course as all here know the Hereditary Council did not go anywhere and is still a viable and powerful force at Six Nations, doing it would seem everything in their power (e.g., by affiliated groups such as the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and Men's Fire) to ensure that their power is not only recognized, but in many cases surpasses that of the Elected Council.  This division remains the most divisive and acrimonious example of factionalism at Six Nations to this day, and to this day these parallel governing bodies still cannot agree on anything of consequence.  At least the Elected Council meets at regular posted intervals and they and their agencies have some modicum of transparency. 

3)  Residential Schools:  The third card to be played in the "blame game" is the Residential Schools.  However, whereas the horrors of this programme is very poignant in places such as Alberta, it is but another matter that has been "very controversial" at Six Nations.  Some refuse to "play the game" so that restitution money can be obtained, and are admirably honest.  As I have said before, elders who attended the Mohawk Institute have said, "at home we were beaten, went hungry, and learned nothing.  At school we were beaten, had three meals a day, and learned something".  In addition the Mohawk Institute is situated on the Six Nations Reserve and is within walking distance of the homes of many students.  Also many of the teachers at Six Nations were trained at the Mohawk Institute.  To use this as a battering ram against Canada, as an example of the abuses that they have supposedly experienced, is highly questionable.

Historical Attempts by Six Nations to Embarrass Canada on the World Stage:  It is one thing to have a dispute about this or that local issue and, if the cause is just, to push locally to effect a local (Canadian) solution.  However, history shows how a different approach (means to an end) has been deployed.  Over the years Six Nations members have sent delegations to England to meet with members of the Privy Council and the Upper House, and even the reigning Monarch, to address concerns.  The Four Indian Kings in 1710, Chief Joseph Brant Thayendanagea both before the American Revolution and after, Chief John Norton around the time of the War of 1812.  Their goal was to obtain redress for grievances (such as The Corporation of the City of Albany and the Van Horne et al. Patent claiming the very lands upon which the two remaining Mohawk villages were situated in 1776).  The chiefs were feted, wined and dined and had celebrity status in England.  However the successor, the Federal Government of Canada through the Indian Department and subsequent incarnations, did not inherit this goodwill.  There were legitimate complaints, such as questions about the Trust Fund monies, and the losses experienced by Six Nations due to bad investment decisions by trustees such as using primarily Six Nations money to prop up the Grand River Navigation Company.  These issues have never been adequately addressed by Canada and have remained open sores as far as Six Nations is concerned.  Complaints, some perfectly reasonable, and others highly questionable, continued to simmer.

In 1917, as Canada became embroiled in World War 1, Cayuga Chief Deskahe, Levi General, went to the League of Nations in Geneva Switzerland to present a list of grievances against Canada.  Irrespective of the veracity (or not) of his words, he created a lot of embarrassment for Canada.  The basis of his claim was the Two Row Wampum, whose link to proving Six Nations sovereignty was a given according to some Chiefs at Six Nations; and to many historians little more than a long standing belief without any supporting evidence.  The actions of Deskahe may have factored into the reasons why the Canadian Government installed an new elected system at Six Nations in 1924.  Deskahe's visit was considered by some to be a slap in the face of Canada, and very disrespectful, and at the very least controversial.  See here for the a synopsis of the life of this important figure in Six Nations history.

These accusations stand in stark contrast to the reality, which includes the billions of dollars in transfer payments and welfare payments made by the Federal Government using Canadian taxpayers dollars.  There is an old saying, "don't bite the hand that feeds you" but it is ignored at Six Nations.  Even with the current controversy over Bill C-10 which would criminalize the transport and trafficking of contraband cigarettes, a huge industry at Six Nations, leaders have demanded that the Canadian Government provide more handouts to compensate for poor choices made by people on the Reserve a generation ago.  So instead of self - reliance, we see more and more dependency - reliance on the Federal Government which is a huge cash cow for Six Nations.  Six Nations is one of a number of Native groups whose behavior has been criticized by prominent and forward thinking and successful Indian leaders such as Clarence Louie, Chief of the British Columbia Osooyoos Band for the last 29 years; and Tsimshian lawyer Calvin Helin, "Dances with Dependency: Out of Poverty Through Self-Reliance", Woodland Hills, Ravencrest Publishing, 2008.  Too much dependency, not enough self - reliance.

The fact is that the Six Nations are not even aboriginal to the Haldimand Tract (the Mississaugas are aboriginal here) but rather Upstate New York, USA.  Also there is, unlike the groups under the "Robinson" category of treaties to the north and west, no treaty with the Six Nations.  The latter pretend that they have "treaty rights" based on a fraudulent document.  In fact the 1701 "Nanfan Treaty" is nothing more than a parchment detailing an expectation of an agreement about the right to hunt in lands they stole from the Huron and others in the 1640s and 50s through conquest (in this case genocide, eradicating entire tribes from the face of the planet).  These were lands, in Southwestern Ontario, that the Five (later Six) Nations did not possess at the time of the agreement in 1701.  The lands in fact were taken from them by the Mississauga 5 years earlier (1696) by conquest.  Hence even if the Nanfan document is something more than a mere trade agreement, it is still bogus since it pertained to lands that the Five Nations did not own.

There have been numerous legislative changes and add ons over the years, with the Canadian Federal Government taking on a less paternalistic role and attempting to address the needs of the diverse Bands across the country.  However it is typical to level accusations of paternalism and other trumped up charges.  If it was ever determined that Canada was doing an outstanding job in addressing the needs of all First Nations peoples, the entire "Indian industry" (including the Chiefs of some Reserves padding their own bank accounts and those of family members with taxpayer dollars) would come crumbling down.  However just about every possible negative epithet has been leveled at Canada, who consistently seems damned if they do and damned if they don't.  It is ironic that Canada is being blamed for stalled land claims, the criminalization of contraband cigarettes, and so on yet is supposed to magically address the realities that cannot be fixed by anyone except those who are members of the Six Nations Community.  Self - reliance is the key to moving forward into the 21st Century, but that holds perils and risks - so better to just play the blame game and dispense with any pretext of the need for personal responsibility.

Present (2014) Trip by Six Nations Contingent to the United Nations:  Based on the information in TIN, the Elected Chief is planning to attend a U.N. meeting in May to address the, "continued imposition of legislation on aboriginal people"......... "without our free, prior and informed consent".  The Chief and two advisors will also bring up the issue of land rights.  It is the stated goal of Chief Hill to help, "to shame Canada because they like to portray that they're a champion of human rights".  They apparently hope to learn about better ways to cope with "colonialization".  Of course the listeners at the U.N. will not have the evidence with respect to "land rights" to hand.  Those of us who have access to this documentation look forward to the day when these claims are addressed in front of a panel of experts who can examine all of the evidence and determine the truth.  As someone who has examined all of the records in the matter, I agree with the statement of Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Superior Court that if the matter is brought to Court, Six Nations have a "very weak case" - this based on the report submitted during the 2008-2009 Brantford Injunction case where the researchers provided a description of the specific land surrenders with references that any interested party can check.  The Six Nations Lands and Resources Department has held copies of these records since the 1970s.  Since the Six Nations land researcher is among those slated to be present at the U.N. in May, one wonders what he is thinking when he has had access to all these records for over 40 years.

So more shaming of Canada for alleged and unproven abuses.  The reality though is that they will have the ear of those who want to believe what they are hearing, whatever the truth of the matter.

I am hoping that the money to "shame Canada" is not coming from the Canadian taxpayers, which would be the ultimate irony and the ultimate insult.  This is money being spent on an unjust "cause" and if they want to perpetuate myths, then the money should come from their own pockets.  Perhaps it does.  Perhaps someone will ask this question at the U.N. meeting.

Fair and Equitable Resolution:  In situations such as this it makes me think that the only way things are ever going to improve for all parties is to state, the tap dispensing flowing funds is being turned off.  Without question the average Canadian taxpayer would like to wash their hands of the whole business, but also want to be fair.  First though, the false land claims would need to be addressed in Court.  If there are any proven irregularities in the Trust Fund or other issues, then it too should be explored as far as the remaining records will allow.  However, if in the course of exploring all of the evidence it is proven that Six Nations have been over paid, and that there are debts with interest that has accrued, these funds will have to be returned to the taxpayers or liens placed on any and all assets.  There needs to be a reimbursement for the immense expenses in the multi million dollar debacle that was Caledonia 2006.  It is only fair, especially considering the fact, as expressed in the opinion of the Superior Court of Ontario, and the Federal Government researchers, that there is no basis for any land claim by Six Nations.  In other words there is no data of any description that would justify the allocation of any parcels of land to Six Nations.

The one way street with Six Nations playing the role of victim, and Canada as the ogre, will have to be examined in the cold light of the evidence and things need to be made right before any and all can go on with their lives without the "Sword of Damocles" hanging over their heads.  However, it is my opinion that this is not the route Six Nations wishes to travel.  There are significant risks associated with exposing the evidence and the truth to the light of day.  Perhaps this is why with all the bluster, many would prefer to continue with the status quo, and reap whatever benefits can be garnered by a creative interpretation of the facts (e.g., leaning on land developers, wind turbine and pipeline corporations for "compensation and accommodation" monies).   Many will continue to hope that  the public will remain naive enough to accept the Six Nations view, thanks to a tendency to identify with the underdog, the perceived victim - irrespective of the truth.  It is disheartening, but not unexpected, to see the truth held in such low esteem - and subservient to an array of "causes".

DeYo.

Six Nations Complaints of Dumping Garbage at Former Douglas Creek Estates: Invalid Land Ownershp Beliefs and Possible Hypocracy

Background to the Douglas Creek Estates Controversy:  On 28 February 2006 the approximately 40 acre housing development known as Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) in the southern tier of Caledonia was "reclaimed" by Six Nations.  There are irrefutable facts that the land was on title in the Ontario Land Registry system (the deeds going back in sequence all the way to the Crown grant are in Cayuga), and that the land was ceded by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council in 1844, and ratified by 66 Chiefs in Council in 1845.  However in the 1980s the Elected Council decided to contest what the ancestors had done based on whatever perceived irregularity could be found - there were bound to be some because few record collections from 150 years ago will be without missing documents.  So the land claims researcher was able to come up with 29 claims which were filed with the Federal Government.  The objective here was to use Canada's legal system to create a list of "contested" lands, in the expectation that some sort of settlement, involving land or money would eventuate.

The Lands and Resources Department of the Six Nations Elected Council had decreed that DCE was the subject of a land claim and was therefore "contested" land.  Negotiations between Six Nations and the Federal Government for return of land ran into the brick wall of evidence.  The Federal Government maintains that the land was properly ceded in 1844, and that the Ontario Land Registry system pertaining to this property is valid.  The claim for the return of the land was abandoned in 1995, and the focus from that point was on monetary compensation for Trust Fund irregularities and similar fiscal issues such as investments in the Grand River Navigation Company.  However on the Lands and Resources website the original 29 land claims are still visible, and the reader could be easily led to believe that these properties were still on the table.  Lands and Resources does not seem to have done anything to clarify the present status (that the focus is on monetary compensation), and many believed that Six Nations "owned" Caledonia - something I have heard at meetings time and time again - and no one has ever stood up to clarify the matter.  The Federal Government has also not been sufficiently open about the facts, leaving open the door for people to make assumptions and act upon them.  Thus people who had not read the Council Minutes from the 1840s (local copies are in locked cabinets at Lands and Resources but require a Band Council Resolution to view - at least that was the case when I checked 20 or so years ago) would be subject to being led down a false path.

Facts, evidence and the truth do not mean much in some quarters - beliefs rule.  The property was occupied by those who were "believers", and asserted that the land belonged to Six Nations.  The Ontario Provincial Police botched a raid designed to address a Court Order from the Ontario Superior Court in Cayuga, to remove the protesters (trespassers).  Six Nations members executed a violent take over of the property, "expelled" the OPP, and declared the land to be theirs, giving the property a new name, Kanonhstaton ("The Protected Place").

Debris and Trash Accumulate Deposited by Six Nations During the Takeover and Subsequent Events:  In the process of the "reclamation" many scars were left on the landscape.  What is worse is that the Six Nations involved deliberately created those unsightly monstrosities, and appear to take pride in keeping everything intact - 8 years later.  Eight years of driving by the hideously unsightly southern entrance to Caledonia.  The same 53 foot burned out transport trailer.  The same twisted barricades made of stolen Hydro One towers, and bedecked with Confederacy and Mohawk Warrior flags flank the entrance way.  The word "unsightly" does not quite do justice to what one sees.



Later in 2006, when desperation had set in on the part of the Province of Ontario, they provided compensation for the many citizens impacted by the physical and psychological violence, and purchased the land from the developers.  At the time the Hydro One tower was placed across Argyll Street and, oddly, instead of bringing in the SWAT team or the army and heavy equipment, the decision was to capitulate to terrorism.  The government even made the deal more enticing - basically, "if you remove the barricades, we will give you the former Burtch Correctional Centre" (in the "contested" Burtch Tract).  Lots of candy, and apparently low expectations on what Six Nations (the perpetrators in this situation) would do in return.  Apparently good will was not part of the mix.  Residents expected that the Six Nations would have enough pride to clean up the mess they had made along Argyll Street.  It was my understanding that the barricades and associated debris would be taken away.  It is not an unreasonable expectation.  It is 8 years later and the site has not changed - it is still a disgusting mess.  Since Six Nations apparently believe that the land is now theirs, and have given the property a special name, there is no reason to let the whole place "go to seed", and fall into a state of decay.  It seems to the present author that the Hereditary Council (who negotiated the deal) have shirked their responsibility.  It would have taken very little effort to organize a clean up campaign - after all, within a very short time every imaginable piece of heavy equipment was on site to destroy Argyll Street and the local infrastructure in the vicinity - so fixing the mess .............

Local residents had for years pleaded with Six Nations leaders to address the eyesore that was a painful reminder of the bad days of 2006.  No response.  No one seemed to care.

Complaints by Six Nations that Caledonia Residents were Dumping Garbage at DCE:  In "Turtle Island News", April 16, 2014, p.7 is an article entitled, "Kanonhstaton dumping escalating as Earth Day rolls around".  Apparently the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (who claim the land as "theirs") are, facing cleaning up the dumping of trash on reclaimed Six Nations lands in Caledonia.  Apparently the dumping is being done by, Caledonia residents who live adjacent to the reclaimed lands.

Thus it is with disgust, but not surprise, that I find out that the representative of the Hereditary Council charged with land development should engage in a rant full of righteous indignation about how the local residents (many of whom were adversely impacted by the all terrain vehicles and spotlights and loud music that pounded them for months on end from the DCE site) are being "racists".  The representative said, it is the same thing of that racism, that same kind of mentality they're using against us.  All we're thought of is as garbage.  Furthermore, it is a reflection on what those citizens think of our people.  A more rational interpretation is that the land has been abandoned for 8 years and has become infested with woodticks - so if those who claim "ownership" of this property don't care, why should local residents who have a legitimate beef with individuals who caused them so much distress.  Apparently, according to the Haudenosaunee representative, 15,000 saplings have been planted at the western end of the former Douglas Creek Estates.  Perhaps, I just have not seen this plantation in my perambulations.

Claims of Representatives of Hereditary Council as to Ownership of DCE:  In the above article the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) Director then spoke of a plan to establish a fence around the property.  However, as has been the case in the past, serious misinterpretations of the facts seem to be apparent here in relation to who at this time actually owns the land.  As far as I know, it is the Provincial Government who is holding the land "in trust" until such time as a true settlement can be reached - or until justice is done and Six Nations are told that as of the year 1845 they had absolutely no further legal claim on the land.  However, the HDI Director said, I have not spoken with Haldimand County and don't intend to.  It's Six Nations land.  It has been put in the Confederacy land registry.  I suppose that there is such a registry, but it has not a sliver of any sort of legal standing.  The Director added, it is Six Nations land, it is in our land registry.  There is no need to negotiate it.  Even if such a registry is in place, not only does it have no standing with Ontario or the Federal Government, it would have no legal recognition from the Elected Council whose Lands and Resources Department would be charged with establishing such a registry.  Since the Elected Council and the Hereditary (Confederacy) Council are essentially not on speaking terms (and have not been since 1924) it would only create another wedge within the Community. 

So in the world of reality, the local residents are pitching garbage on DCE, and in some cases are extending their own property lines into this unused and untended property.  Despite what the HDI Director says, and the sign says at the entrance to the DCE, it is owned by the Province of Ontario at this point in time (never removed from the Ontario Land Registry), and if the land is abandoned then after a set number of years, an adjacent property owner who has used the land (e.g., by ploughing or fencing it unchallenged) will be able to include this acquisition to their own property deed.

Does the Word Hypocrisy Apply?:  The main point here, however, is to juxtapose the present actions of Caledonia residents with the previous actions of Six Nations residents.  On the one hand there are complaints by certain Six Nations members about Caledonia residents using the DCE property as a dump.  On the other hand the Six Nations who claim this land, and even gave it a "sacred" name, had no problem in trashing the property in 2006, and have taken no steps whatsoever to clean up the debris field near the entrance - despite repeated requests by Caledonia residents.  Some might interpret these complaints about Caledonia residents dumping trash as an irrational and narcissistic way of thinking by some Six Nations members.  Some may be left wondering about the inconsistency, or apparent hypocrisy and tendency to see themselves as special, and as a group who do not have to play by the rules of a civilized society, but are outraged when others (who are not "special") mimic what they typically do with impunity.  All very much beyond the pale in my attempts to understand the reasoning here.  If the place looks like a dump, and there are no signs to say it is not a dump, so is it any surprise that it is used as a dump?  Two wrongs do not make a right, and I am not supportive in any way of what Caledonia residents have been doing - but these actions are perfectly understandable, considering the dynamics of events beginning in 2006.

DeYo.