An Examination of Each of the 29 Land Claims Submitted by Six Nations to Date

There are 29 land claims filed against the Federal Government of Canada, all but two within the geographical bounds of the Haldimand Tract, and reported in the website of the Land and Resources Department of the Six Nations.  The said website can be accessed here.

It is the intention of the present author to examine the factual basis of each of the claims via individual postings to the present blog with the exception of those outside the Haldimand Tract, namely number 2 Innisfil Township, and number 3 East Hawkesbury Township.  At this time I do not believe that I am well enough versed in either of these two claims to be in a position to either support or challenge them.

The sources I will use include the following:

1)  My own forays, primarily in a 20 year period between the mid 1970s to mid 1990s, into the original records pertaining to the claims.  These records and sources are primarily found at the National Library and Archives in Ottawa, and the Archives of Ontario in Toronto.  Other important repositories whose collections I accessed were those at the Library of the Woodland Cultural Centre and the Brant County Library, both in Brantford; and the Haldimand County Museum and Archives in Cayuga.

2)  Sally Weaver's research and ethnographic notes between 1963 and 1975 as published in the following article:  Sally M. Weaver, Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario, in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978.  I have also read most of the original research articles published in journals and books and referenced in this publication.

3)  Joan Holmes, Reports of Joan Holmes (Filed on the City of Brantford's Injunction Motion).  Report dated 19 January 2009; Supplementary Report dated 2 February 2009.

It appears that the above report was prepared for the Corporation of the City of Brantford, but has not been "officially" released.  A copy of both reports has been placed online by person or persons unknown, and can be found here.  The documents which Joan Holmes cites are those which the present author has also researched, and cross validates with these efforts, as well as those of Sally Weaver who employed the same cited source material.  In my opinion the "Holmes Report" is spot on accurate.  The credentials of the author, head of Joan Holmes & Associates Inc., a research and analysis firm which since 1983 has offered services to First Nations, both the Federal and Provincial Governments, as well as law firms, can be found here.

The Six Nations Land and Resources website indicates that it is current to 2008, although there is information about the 2009 offer made by the Federal Government to address the Welland Canal flooding claim.

The present author knew the former Six Nations researcher, Phillip Monture and has visited the forerunner to the present Lands and Resources office, recalling clearly the metal file cabinets bound with chains and padlocks.  I don't recall meeting the new researcher, Lonny Bomberry.  As far as I know, all of the background work as to what is found in the website was done by Phil Monture.  For the record, I have always had respect for Mr. Monture and his work, although we disagree on the assessment of the evidence relating to most of the land claims.

On the page including the Six Nations Land Claim Summaries (Basis and Allegations), as seen here, there are statements with which I disagree.  There is one which particularly distresses me, so it warrants at least a comment or two.  It is stated, As set out in the grant of land the Crown had a duty to protect Six Nations lands for their sole use.  In many cases not only did the Government fail to do so, the officials of Crown actively encouraged the settlement upon those lands.  Based on my reading of all of the official correspondence, nothing could be further from the truth.  Very early in the settlement of the area, in 1793 Governor Simcoe forbade the sale of lands in the Haldimand Tract to White people, and threatened to have all of them removed.  It was the Six Nations who fought to leave things alone as they valued the presence of former neighbours from the Mohawk Valley who could be a valuable asset in helping the Six Nations males learn agricultural methods, and who would establish mills to grind the grain and cut the lumber for the benefit of the Six Nations.  Later Government officials were tearing their hair out as more and more settlers moved on to Six Nations land, typically after paying a Six Nations member for their "improvements" and securing a deed for this property.  Hence the Six Nations were setting up a situation which totally overwhelmed the ability of the Indian Department officials to act.  While some Six Nations did indeed want the White settlers removed, this was hardly the case for many who were making a tidy living occupying then selling land as a commodity.  So to blame the "colonialism" of government officials is to completely miss the point of what all were facing at Six Nations.  The officials despaired as to what to do about the matter.  It is not as if they could call in the army or send the squatters to some old prison scow moored in Lake Ontario.  It was in fact the recognition by the Government officials that the Six Nations way of life would be unsustainable with the status quo that led to their recommendation that the Six Nations live together as a people, in close proximity, and free of settlements of Whites which were interspersed all along the Tract.  In fact there are multiple documentary sources which show the deep concern felt by these officials to whom so much venom is cast.  It is not fair, because it is not correct.  See for example the collection of small diaries of David Thorburn at the Archives of Ontatio, for some of the concerns he had seeing what was happening to the Six Nations, or review the correspondence of officials at every level who saw the same problems surfacing.  Probably the most accessible reference for the latter would by Charles M. Johnston,  The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Totonto, The Champlain Society, 1964.

The bottom line through all of these claims is that there is a major omission.  In 1850 Lord Elgin submitted a report based on all of the negotiations registered to that time.  In the case of the Six Nations, it was to be considered as a final summation which included the description (and a map) that showed all of the lands to be reserved for the Six Nations.  If lands are not included in Lord Elgin's Report then one can consider that they should not be there, unless negotiated after that date.  Hence this document which formed the basis of the Six Nations Reserve 40 entry in the Indian Land Registry System must be considered the standard by which all else is assessed.  As I have said many times, there was no formal back tracking by the Chiefs.  What they decided in Council was to remain as a reflection of their wishes - that is until 150 or more years later some decided to second guess all of the documentation and the express wishes of the Six Nations Chiefs in Council.  Hence, here is the description of the true boundaries of the Six Nations Reserve:

Indian lands in Upper Canada including the following lands in the Haldimand Tract:

... certain tract or parcel of land, situate in the Township of ONEIDA in the County of Haldimand ... comprising lots number one, two, three, four, five and six in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth concessions respectively of Oneida .. and also, River lots numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve in the same Township.

... the whole of the Township of TUSCARORA ..

 Also, to that certain parcel of Land containing Two Hundred Acres more or less, adjacent to the Mohawk Church, and known as LOT NUMBER FIVE, in the Eagle's Nest, in the Township of Brantford, in the said county of Wentworth.

... Township of Onondaga ... east of Fairchild's Creek, known as River Lots numbers forty-five, forty-six, forty-seven, forty-eight, forty-nine, fifty, fifty-one, fifty two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fiftyfive, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, sixty and sixty-one in the third Concession, the same township.

("Proclamation extending the provisions of 13 and 14 Vict. Ch. 74 to certain lands in several townships in U.C. in the occupation or enjoyment of various tribes of Indians”, November 8, 1850. INAC Indian Lands Registry Registration No. 8740-292).  See "Holmes Report" pp. 14-15.

While I will attempt to explore the evidence relating to each of the land claims within the Haldimand Tract, this will not be done in the numbering sequence used by the Lands and Resources Department.  In my opinion, there are some that require immediate attention due to the social, political and other problems they have created.

I will begin with 16. Oneida Township then tackle the related number 5. Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road, Seneca & Oneida Townships.

DeYo.

The Grand River: Highest Concentrations of Artificial Sweeteners in the World - Environmental Impact?

I have written before about environmental issues relating to my ancestral Grand River Valley.  As a young person, I worked with the Haldimand Norfolk Organization for a Pure Environment (HOPE) to defeat the Provincial Government's intention to place a toxic waste dump in the Township of South Cayuga.  I have cheered on Six Nations activists such as Ruby and Floyd Montour in their efforts to support the residents of Dundalk at the headwaters of the Grand River where the Provincial Government wished to dump tons of human sludge from waste water facilities.  I have cursed the Six Nations groups who are behind the Samsung and other "wind farm" projects in the Grand River Tract.  What was particularly galling was the claim that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and other groups at Six Nations could negotiate directly with the off shore (e.g., Korean) interests since the land (for example in South Cayuga) was unceeded Six Nations land.  That is a false claim, and I can easily dispell this erroneous assertion with irrefutable evidence from documents of the 1840s.  I see these horrid eye sores on the horizon, slowly creeping east from Norfolk, as about as far from "green" as one can go.  Just the sheer number of migratory birds that will die from the blades is unacceptable.  There will never be support from myself or like minded individuals concerning these "initiatives" of the Haldimand County authorities, the Land and Resources Department at Six Nations, or others such as the HDI intent on cashing in by making hay while the sun shines.  This is where I stand on the above issues.

There is a new (in the sense of recently recognized), if unlikely, potential environmental hazard impacting the Grand River Tract - artificial sweeteners.  First some background.  I think that many assume that the waste water treatment facilities along the Grand River are sufficient to remove anything hazardous such that those downstream can safely use (with proper filtration systems) the water of the Grand River.  It is known that, for example, pharmaceuticals or their bioactive metabolites can pop out of the treatment facility virtually intact.  One known to stay firm is Viagara.  So depending on the number of men who use this drug in say Fergus, those in Elora will be exposed to varying levels of the drug in the River water.  One can imagine the number of muskrats that must be walking or swimming around with major stiffies after consuming enough of the Viagara saturated fish from the River :-)  There is a more pressing or urgent concern around medications such as vicodin or adderal and what effect they might have on humans who consume water from riverine sources.  This subject could be a topic for a subsequent blog post, but the focus here is on a study published 11 December 2013 which specifically focuses on the Grand River.

The article of interest is, John Spoelstra et al,, Artificial Sweeteners in a Large Canadian River Reflect Human Consumption in the Watershed, PLOS One, Vol. 8, Issue 12, December 2013.  The paper can be accessed here, and in pdf format here - all free (open access).

The following map from the above article nicely summarizes the problem:

 

 

There are clear "hotspots" shown, and these reflect the urban density of the population in the area (e.g., Waterloo, Guelph, Brantford).  The source is humans who for example consume artificial sweeteners such as saccarin to avoid natural sugar in an attempt at weight loss, and dietary control of diabetes.  So imagine all those packets of artificial sweeteners dumped in your Starbuck's coffee (I don't know what Tim Horton's uses for their double double).  After a series of way stations in the body and enroute to the sewage disposal plant, the sweetener ends up virtually intact being ejected out of the waste water pipe from the treatment plant in say Brantford, and may be found in the tap water at Six Nations or Caledonia.

 

The study is fascinating for a number of reasons.  One is that it allows scientists to track chemical used only by humans (last I checked, Starbucks was not serving lattes to bovine customers).  The problem is likely eclipsed by far by the phosphate run off from agricultural operations in the Grand River watershed, although some substances that are used by humans may be having unknown adverse effects.

 

As I have said on many occasions, it is counter productive and highly detrimental to argue about claims that are without merit.  Ultimately any "gains" will be offset by losses in other areas (the cooperative spirit between all those living as neighbours).  In my opinion, it is these environmental issues that Six Nations and their non-Native neighbours should be addressing, working together to ensure the health of our River system, and the entire surrounding ecosystem.  Surely there is common ground here.

 

DeYo.

 





McKenzie Meadows Development Project: Update, No Surprises Here

In an earlier blog posting I provided considerable background material in relation to the McKenzie Meadows Development Project which was slated to begin at McKenzie Road, and in the later phases of development, reach Argyll Street immediately opposite the Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton) which was such a sore point for Six Nations and Caledonians back in 2006 (and continues to the present).  See here for this posting.  Here I predicted that the whole "deal" between the Six Nations Elected Band Council (SNEC) and Michael Corrado et al. the developer would turn sour once the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and its "enforcement" wing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) got wind of this.  As par for the course, despite the fact that SNEC are the group that by Canadian law are empowered to negotiate, the HCCC stepped in and was able to influence events.  Although "officially" defunct as of 1924, the HCCC have been and continue to be a power to contend with in any negotiations involving lands in the Haldimand Tract or Southwestern Ontario.  They can effectively shut everything down if they or the HDI are displeased with the way things are being handled (or for any other reason).

True to form, the whole agreement whereby $1250 from each home in the development would go to fund a Six Nations language immersion school, crumbled.  Here follows what is found in Turtle Island News, December 18, 2013, p. 7, Community gives thumbs down to the McKenzie Meadows project.  Ultimately now both SNEC and HCCC have jointly axed the deal.  The three community feedback sessions noted in my earlier posting brought forth 69 responses, and only 15 were positive - so no go.  SNEC Land and Resources Director Lonny Bomberry cited that the "emotional aspect" due to the proximity to the DCE and the "land reclamation" issue was the deciding factor.  In other words, having the project immediately across the road from the horrible situation of 2006 that left scars in both communities would, in the minds of some, just throw gasoline on the fire - thus it would be best to just leave things be, at least at this point.  In reality, it could be little more than the vocal opposition of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) that tipped the scales, who asserted "bad faith negotiations" with the developers.  Translation here, the HDI was not approached, and they are the self appointed "recognised" authority in the Community.  The developers, did not respect the Haudenosaunee Process, and due to a number of deaths in the Longhouse Community, no negotiations could take place.  The finger was also pointed at SNEC for not following protocol as HDI sees things.  The perception was also that by accepting this deal, Six Nations would be giving up land and treaty "rights".

As to what would happen next, Bomberry believes that this will end the possibility of the development proceeding.  I don't think they can proceed reports Bomberry.  While the wording of the article is a bit confusing, it seems that the opinion here is that the entire development will just grind to a halt, since Six Nations has not given their approval.  It should be recalled that this "deal" was in part to offset the developer's intention to obtain an injunction to allow the work to proceed.  Considering the recent rulings by judges of the Superior Court of Ontario, it is highly likely and even probable, in my opinion, that the developer will apply for an injunction and if anyone tries to interfere with his right to develop his land, they will expect to be heavily fined just as those involved in a similar action in Brantford were - and the fines in that matter have not been paid to this point.

As I have noted time and time again, if the evidence ever goes to Court, there is one and only one outcome that will emerge from a test of Six Nations claims of unceeded land beyond the present Reserve boundaries.  That decision would be that there is no factual basis upon which these claims rest.  Since this evidence has been available to the Courts since 2009, I am wondering when the boom will be lowered.  There are going to be a lot of jaws dropping when the evidence is presented, and a ruling is made and all appeals exhausted.  My question, posed elsewhere, is whether Six Nations will be forced to make reparations for the extreme damage caused by the 2006 Douglas Creek Estates land "reclamation" - the effects continue to this day, as the acrimony has never gone away.

Stay tuned, this situation is primed for a confrontation.

DeYo.

Brantford and Hamilton are the Car Theft Capitals of Ontario Because ..........

I can recall that when I was a kid, the "local amusement" at what was then called the Caughnawaga Indian Reserve (now Kanawaki) near Montreal was playing "chicken".  This involved "obtaining" a vehicle from some local community, and playing a game where the winner was the one who bailed out last.  The vehicle, complete with sundry occupants from Caughnawaga, would be driven at a high rate of speed toward the St. Lawrence Seaway shipping canal.  Then at the very "last minute" the young males inside would jump out before the car went flying into the canal.  The winner was the one who stayed longest, and jumped out just before the car became air bound.  Great fun.

So actually theft of vehicles for frivolous purposes (not necessarily to be sold on the black market or chopped for parts) is something of which I have been aware for a long time.  Not much different at Six Nations except there is no canal (the old Grand River Navigation Company so called canals were never much more than a ditch anyway).

Statistically it can be shown that today (2013) the Cities of Brantford and Hamilton Ontario have the highest rate of car theft in Ontario, and the biggest contributing factor - some might say Six Nations proximity.

So why do so few people know of "the problem"?  Actually everyone at Six Nations knows what goes on.  It is hard to ignore when one day there is an empty field, and the next day it is "adorned" with the burnt out hulk of what was just a day ago someones pride and joy.  As I have seen things (this needs to be checked via official statistics), the largest number of stolen vehicles to end up on the Rez are full sized GM pickups and SUVs - the vehicles of choice among discerning thieves at Six Nations.  For some reason the problem is quietly swept under the carpet, that is to say the newspapers in the surrounding communities give little attention to these crimes, and the insurance companies keep ponying up for "total loss" claims.  I don't know of any vehicle that was recovered intact from Six Nations and returned to their owner in Hamilton - if they exist, it would be news to me.

Why does this happen at Six Nations and not at say some other rural area such as Burford Township in Brant County?  The answer is surprisingly simple.  The Ontario Provincial Police will give chase if they receive a stolen vehicle report (often correctly surmising that the destination is Six Nations) but will stop dead in their tracks at the Six Nations Reserve boundary.  They know that they are not wanted there, and that it is dangerous (life threatening) to enter Six Nations Territory.  In fact, due to some agreement which I find highly questionable, the OPP is not allowed to go on the Reserve, which last I checked was in the Province of Ontario, but is allowed to police Highway 54 through the northern part of the Reserve - but not along say any sideroad off Highway 54.  It is the Six Nations Police, an undermanned force that has law enforcement jurisdiction at Six Nations - and no other agency.  If a major felony such as murder or rape is committed at Six Nations, this will be tried in Ontario Superior Court, but the apprehension is by Six Nations Police - who in my experience are frequently too "overburdened" to act except when pressured to do so.  Try driving on the Rez around dark and see how aggressively laws pertaining to driving under the influence and speeding will be enforced.  To be fair, I think that they are completely overwhelmed by the task when resources are lacking.

Perhaps a recent example will help to paint a vivid and clear picture of the situation viz a viz car thefts, Six Nations, and law enforcement.  The following example was known to me, but is described in detail by well known reporter, Christie Blatchford, and her article of 11 december 2013 which can be seen in full here.

The theft took place on 7 November 2013 in Ancaster, a wealthy suburb of Hamilton close to the Highaway 403 and 6 access to Six Nations - actually about a 15 minute drive.  So in this instance, a local woman drove to Walmart, leaving her dog in her Cadillac Escalade while she made a few quick purchases.  15 minutes later her car and her dog were gone.  As fortune would have it, the luxury vehicle was fitted with a GPS tracking device and Hamilton Police were able to determine its then location - Caledonia, heading towards the Rez.  Caledonia is outside the jurisdiction of Hamilton Police so the OPP (who do the policing for Haldimand County which includes Caledonia) were contacted.  The OPP soon sighted the vehicle, and the owner thought that this meant that within minutes both her vehicle and dog would be safe and the suspects apprehended.  Alas, the owner did not understand what we who live here do - the OPP will not enter the Reserve.  The dispatcher told the son of the owner that the OPP would not enter the Rez because "it was too dangerous".  They did contact the Six Nations Police - the exact location of the vehicle was known via the satellite tracking device.  It gets worse.  Even the Six Nations Police initially refused to go to retrieve the dog because the area "was too hostile".  As the signal from the GPS device was running low, the owner's son decided he had to enter the Rez to retrieve their dog.  Finally the Six Nations Police agreed to meet with him, and armed with assault rifles, they did safely remove the dog.  The Escalade was deemed to be a "total loss".  As Christie Blatchford said, with complete truth and accuracy, And one more Ontario family has learned the great lesson of Caledonia: You are your own police force.  Ms. Blatchford is referring to the new reality hereabouts, where the OPP have been declawed and defanged in order to become a strange entity called "peacekeepers".  So those who live south of the Grand River in Haldimand County have learned from bitter experience that you need a contingency plan to protect your own family since dialling 911 may be an exercise in futility.  No one has forgotten Sam Gaultieri who was left bruised, bloodied, and permanently brain damaged by thugs from Six Nations.  He was assisting his daughter in renovating her home, unfortunately located close to contested land, and so a "no go" zone for the OPP - and he paid the price.  What is infuriating to those of us who have studied the original records is that the land in question was ceeded in the 1840s, and somehow, perhaps by a selective reading of the surrenders and council minutes, some have come to believe that the land magically still belongs to Six Nations.  It was sold, signed, sealed and delivered over 170 years ago!  The facts are now known to all local Ontario Superior Court Judges, so we will see what happens when the truth is revealed to one and all.  Mr. Gaultieri and so many others who have suffered have done so needlessly.  But I digress.

In one of those odd coincidences, the Blatchford story was highlighted in an article by Lynda Powless in Turtle Island News, December 18, 2013, pp. 2-3, Analysis:  Story of a stolen car, a missing dog and national media anti - Six Nations storm.  I picked up the newspaper only a couple of hours after writing a first draft of the present posting, focusing on the Blatchford article which I had stumbled across while surfing the Internet.  In the Turtle Island News article, Powless expressed indignation that once again, Blatchford was taking a cheap shot at Six Nations without having all the facts at her disposal.  While agreeing with most of the facts as reported by Blatchford (or at least the skeleton or framework of the chronology and so on), Powless reports that Blatchford is merely continuing her theme of bashing the OPP and Six Nations at any opportunity - and having a puppy involved in the story allowed her to obtain more sympathy of the family and the situation they found themselves in.  Surely Ms. Powless knows that the OPP is frozen out at the boundary line of Six Nations.  They cannot and will not cross this line knowingly - there are far too many ramifications.  For example there are jurisdictional issues related to the perceived sovereignty of Six Nations as reflected in a story a week earlier in Turtle Island News where a Six Nations man was stopped by the OPP and issued a speeding ticket - and he maintains that the infraction took place on the Reserve - although that is far from clear.  So the question for him becomes, should I just pay the $50 and be done with it or get a lawyer and go to Court.  Perhaps he will opt for the former as it would be a lot of hassle to go to Court over a $50 matter.

Anyway, I digress, back to the story of the dog and the stolen car which Ms. Powless interprets as an "anti - Six Nations rant" by Ms. Blatchford.  It seems that the vehicle owner wanted to make it clear that she was not blaming Six Nations, only the responses of the various police forces to her call, to the extent that she filed a complaint against both.  As it turns out, according to Ms. Powless, at the time of the stolen vehicle being driven on to the Reserve, the OPP were at the time busy investigating a truck which had gone off the road into a ditch; and the Six Nations Police were investigating a sexual assault.  However there is no disagreement about the location where the tracking system placed the stolen vehicle, it was in a "hostile" area, on property of a person known to Six Nations Police by virtue of his threats against them, and the use of bear spray against one of the officers.  Charming.  Basically Ms. Powless is attempting to dispel any perceptions, as a result of the Blatchford article, that some areas of the Reserve are lawless and dangerous.  Humm, but all of us who live in the area are well aware of the dynamics.  There are places no one should go, especially after dark.  This is true of most communities, so why it would be any different at Six Nations is puzzling.  It all gets a bit more confusing.  Apparently the vehicle, once located, was found to be damaged, but was drivable.  Then once the owner of the vehicle spoke to her insurance they said they would give her $3,000 to compensate for the write off of a $70,000 vehicle.  At that point she apparently became angry with Six Nations police. 

Police Chief Lickers, as reported in the Powless article, then takes exception to the allegation of being abandoned when, he asserts, everything possible was done to address the situation in a timely fashion.  He believes that Ms. Blatchford's article does everything to sensationalise the story (puppy and all) and that the facts are left dangling in the quest to cast aspersions on the Six Nations Police.  Chief Lickers goes on to say that Blatchford failed to seek out information about "the other side of the story", and his interpretation is that, oh wait a minute, then we wouldn't look like the violent, lawless, heathens she portrays us as.  This would seem to be a very questionable comment coming from the Chief of Police of any jurisdiction - and frankly I am very surprised that the head of the Six Nations Police would make a statement that, had it been said in say Toronto, would have resulted in immediate consequences.  Is there a double standard as to what can be said at Six Nations, and what can be said elsewhere by representatives of the Police?  That is a question I will leave to others to answer.  Ms. Powless stated that the National Post, where the Blatchford article appeared, fully supported Blatchford, Believe it or not.

Sometimes I really can't believe what goes on, and is accepted and justified at Six Nations - although this is really nothing new.  In my opinion it may have something to do with the "victim mentality" that is pervasive in certain quarters.

As I continue to read the latest copy of Turtle Island News, I have difficulty in believing that Ms. Powless comment tenaciously in a second format on the same subject (rage against Christie Blatchford) in her editorial on page 5 under the banner, Time for Six Nations to speak up for itself.  Apparently the National Post espouses, very narrow upper middle class Euro-Canadian thinking.  As to Blatchford, she just doesn't get it.  So instead of fetching the truth, she rolls over and fails to look at facts.  Ms. Powless asserts that the real problem is the failure to recognise that at the base of it all is the matter of land - the failure to recognise the true Six Nations claim to land they have been denied.  Neeless to say, I completely disagree with Ms. Powless - in fact, there are no legal outstanding land claims, that is a misconception that is widely believed but has absolutely no basis in fact - as can be seen in any of the half dozen or so postings where I discuss the "Holmes Report", presented to the Corporation of the City of Brantford, and used by Justice Harrison Arrell in recent judgements, on the legitimacy of the land claims.

Back to the matter that is the subject of this posting (although it has been majorly side tracked), the problem of car theft.  It is well recognised at Six Nations, articles in Turtle Island News give updates.  Councillors such as Helen Miller have been particularly proactive in trying to ensure that the problem is addressed.  However it is a very serious and very pervasive problem.  No one denies this.  For an excellent compendium of recent newspaper articles on the subject see here.

So why Six Nations?  For one thing thousands of acres of bush land within a short drive of urban centres, ensconced in an area that is "off limits" to the OPP, and is well known for its hard core car thieves who use the Rez as a "retreat".  It is to a degree something of a game where if you are in say St. Catharines boosting a truck with mag wheels, you just have to make it through whatever impediments there might be (the OPP has a "no car chase" policy in force in the Golden Horseshoe Region - unless there is a huge public safety risk), and if you make it to say 6th Line and reach the Six Nations border - you are safe, although Six Nations Police will likely catch the perpetrators eventually - but for a time, you got away with it and got the cash from the wheels or transmission or just the thrill - although some deadly crashes have ensued, with death and injury from time to time.

In 2007, the year after the "Caledonia crisis" at the Douglas Creek Estates, 578 vehicles were "recovered" (that does not mean intact).  100 car theft charges were laid by Six Nations Police, three quarters of these charges involved Six Nations Community members.  Many of these offences were committed by juveniles where in the Canadian revolving door system, they were soon free to continue with their chosen "career".  It is often maintained that the drug oxycontin (a narcotic pain killer) is somehow connected (e.g., the money obtained by these ill gotten gains being spent on this substance).  Hence substance abuse is at the root of at least some of the problems.  Since Six Nations is the wealthiest Reserve in Canada, it would be hard to play the "poverty card" here.  Alas, this whole behavioural pattern has become a way of life for some at Six Nations.  All very depressing as there is of course no easy answer.  At least their is no discrepancy between the beliefs and the facts in this instance - which is very refreshing.  Acknowledging the nature of the problem is the fist step towards at least mitigating if not entirely solving the problem.

DeYo.

The Recurring Themes of Sovereignty and Ownership of the Haldimand Tract: The Relationship Between Six Nations, the British Crown, and Canada

Among the constants that one hears at Six Nations is that "we are a sovereign people".  This is a firmly held belief among many, so one might enquire as to what facts exist to prove that in effect the Six Nations Reserve is a territory within a territory, and that the relationship between Six Nations and Canada is one reflecting independent nation states.  Since the matter is so pervasive, and is used to justify many questionable acts at Six Nations, it needs to be scrutinised to assess the validity of the claim.  An issue complicating the matter is that the question of whether the Six Nations or the Crown "own" the Haldimand Tract, and this is inexorably intertwined with the issue of land claims. At present there are 29 claims that have been registered with the Federal Government by Six Nations Lands and Resources.  The focus of the present posting, however, is on the question of sovereignty.

In an earlier blog posting I gave a preliminary introduction to the subject, with the focus on the symbolic badge of the claimed sovereignty, the Two Row Wampum (Guswhenta), as seen here.

The concept of sovereignty is complex, and a general understanding can be obtained here.  In a nutshell, Six Nations claims independent authority of lands that they consider to be their territory.  In recent times the most adamant and radical element has asserted that not only does this "authority" extend over the present day Reserve, but also the Haldimand Tract (via the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784), and some even claim a hegemony over all of Southwestern Ontario (via the Nanfan Treaty of 1701).  Since the Nanfan Treaty is being used by Six Nations to claim a blanket right to be consulted (and paid) for any development in Southwestern Ontario, it will be instructive to examine the wording of this document from the viewpoint of sovereignty.  Here the Five Nations representatives, doe for us our heires and successors absolutely surrender, deliver up and for ever quit claime unto our great Lord and Master the King of England.  The King is also referred to as, our souveraigne Lord the King William the third.  Further to the general issue of sovereignty, the Five Nations recorded that, wee having subjected ourselves and lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake [Lake Ontario] wholy to the Crown of England.  I am not sure how much clearer a statement of the recognition of the sovereignty of the Crown could possibly be.

In previous blog postings I have attempted to sift through these claims to arrive at something approximating the truth, and in the process have to my satisfaction succeeded in demolishing both of these claims.  What will be important data - wise will be to see what happened historically when Six Nations has taken their claims of soverenity to Ottawa, London or even Geneva to obtain confirmation of their perspective on this contentious issue.  Bear in mind that by accepting the assertion of sovereignty, it would mean that Six Nations and Canada are on an equal footing, with neither having "dominance" over the other.  However odd this may sound to outsiders, this would in fact mean that people in a territory of slightly over 20,000 people would have an equivalent but independent status to those in the surrounding territory of about 32,000,000 people.  Well, I guess there is tiny Litchenstein or Monaco in Europe, so perhaps it is not an altogether outlandish proposition on this basis alone.

In the minds of many Six Nations, their relationship is with the historical ally, the British Crown.  Thus when they make no headway with Canada, petitions will be sent to the entity with whom the Six Nations have had a long and formal relationship.  It does make some sense in that it was in effect the British Crown was the other party involved in key agreements such as the Two Row Wampum, Covenant Chain, Proclamation of 1763 and the territorial agreement of 1768 - all the way up to the series of surrenders in the 1840s.  Canada became an independent country with a Constitutional Monarchy at Confederation in 1867, and the powers that once involved the British Crown directly were transferred to Canada - who now have jurisdiction.  Thus in a legal sense, it was the Government of Canada that Six Nations had to deal with after 1867, although this fact has not stopped individuals or groups from approaching the British Crown to settle their disagreements with Canada.  The result has always been the same.  Some historical perspective is needed here.

Although Britain knew that they needed to tred lightly after their conquest of New Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664, they never held any illusions about their own sovereignty by right of conquest, it extended as far as the French settlements along the St. Lawrence River and west to the French settlements of the Ohio Valley.  At various times official maps of their dominions would be published, including their claims at the time of the American Revolution.  Maps from 1774, immediately prior to the Revolution, show that the British concept of dominion included all the lands of the Six Nations.  In none of my extensive readings of the history of the years leading up to the American Revolution have I seen a document which unequivocally acknowledges Six Nations sovereignty.  Nothing.  What one will find are documents where the British and Six Nations agree to be allies against the French or the Americans, but the British Crown is always referred to as, "our Great Father the King" and such expressions.  High Government officials, even the Governor or New York or Pennsylvania, as well as the representatives of the Crown such as Sir William Johnson were referred to as "Brother", and those one step down the ladder such as the Delaware, were "Nephews".  Everything appears to reflect the British perspective that they have an unchallenged right (via conquest or treaty) to the lands wherein the Six Nations resided.  There can be little wiggle room here, the Six Nations recognized the King of Great Britain as their sovereign - but every so often the matter must be revisted, perhaps because a new generation has forgotten the Court rulings that have been filed in answer to this question!

The matter of sovereignty is found embedded in various publications such as Elizabeth Tooker, The League of the Iroquois: Its History, Politics, and Ritual, in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of the Indians of North America, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute, 1978.

The British wanted to ensure that all understood what their claims were, and as early as 1684, at a council between the Five Nations (the Tuscarora had not yet become the Sixth Nation) held at Albany they demanded that the Five Nations cease their attacks on Virginia and Maryland, and here the British, claimed the Iroquois as her subjects.  Tooker did express the opinion that, however, it is doubtful that the Iroquois fully understood what the British meant by this assertion of sovereignty.  In more formal treaties, such as the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, the Iroquois were acknowledged to be British subjects (p. 432).

The Haldimand Proclamation was issued in 1784, providing Crown purchased land on which the Six Nations were given a tract of land on which they could settle.  Never is the words granted, deed in fee simple, or any such expression appear in this document under Haldimand's own personal seal.  It has been described in numersous Court cases (see below) as little more than a "location ticket", or a document that gives permission to occupy lands. 

In Weaver's article in the same publication as noted above (Sturtevant), and discussed at length in the previous blog posting, we spring ahead in time and place to 1793 and the Haldimand Tract.  Governor Simcoe maintained that, The Crown held that the land was not alienable by the Indians and that the Proclamation did not recognise political sovereignty of the League.  In 1793, determined to reinforce the Crown's trusteeship interpretation of the title, John Graves Simcoe, lieutenant governor of Upper Canada, drafted the Simcoe Patent which stipulated that all land transactions of the Six Nations had to be approved by the Crown (p. 525).  The Simcoe Patent did include the great seal.

Thus the British government authorities and the British Crown had from the earliest days of their take over from the Dutch, maintained that the Six Nations were subjects of the Crown.  This relationship, however, did not interfere with the concept of the Six Nations being allies of the British in times of War - meaning that they would side with and support the British cause against the French or the American Rebels.  However after the War of 1812, even this concept of allies had withered away.  Being allied in a common cause does not imply sovereignty, although many today at Six Nations appear to see the two in a conflated way.

Over the years at Six Nations, the Hereditary Council attempted to assert their rights as a sovereign people.  For example, in 1830 Council denied that the Indian Act applied to them, since they considered themselves to be a sovereign nation, however, the government has consistently maintained that the act applied with no exceptions to the Six Nations of the Grand River Iroquois (Weaver, 1978, p. 526). 

A ruling in 1835 speaks directly to the issue.  Here in Jackson v. Wilkes, Upper Canada King's Bench, Judges Robinson, Sherwood and Macaulay provided the following opinion in relation to the Haldimand proclamation: We have ascertained that there was a great seal in use in the Province of Quebec in 1784, when the instrument of General Haldimand bears date; that grants of land, of which few were made by the British Governement before the year 1795, were made by letters patent under the great seal, and that had been uniformly held in the courts of Lower Canada that grants of waste lands of the Crown would not be made in any other manner.  The ruling goes on to say that since the great seal was not used in the Haldimand document of 1784, those to whom he granted the land cannot presume to possess any interest byond that of a mere licence of occupation [151/268] - see here.  The matter was supposed to have been settled for once and for all in 1839 where, The J.B. Macaulay Report, 1839 (Vols. 718-719) contains the seminal judgement denying political sovereignty to the Six Nations (p. 536). 

Despite the clearest possible statements at various points in time by both the British Crown and the Canadian Government, the Six Nations Hereditary Council continued to push the issue of sovereignty, culminating in what to Canada was a slap in the face when in 1923, the Cayuga Chief Levi General Deskahe travelled to London to present their case to the British Crown, and to Geneva to assert sovereignty before the League of Nations. Needless to say, he did not make many friends among either the Canadian government or the "progressive" elements on the Reserve who wanted the Hereditary Council removed and replaced by an elected system where one of the criteria for membership in council was education.
The sovereignty issues continued to surface, often embedded in the protracted continuing acrimonious disputes between the elected and hereditary councils and their supporters.  As part of the case involving Logan v. Styres et al. in 1959, addressed by what was then known as the High Court of Ontario (Judge King), the judge ruled on the question of sovereignty as follows:

The purpose of the Simcoe Deed would seem to be to confirm the grant already made by the

Haldimand Deed. In each of these deeds it is made clear that those of the Six Nations Indians

settling on the lands therein described do so under the protection of the Crown. In my opinion,

those of the Six Nations Indians so settling on such lands, together with their posterity, by

accepting the protection of the Crown then owed allegiance to the Crown and thus became

subjects of the Crown. Thus, the said Six Nations Indians from having been the faithful allies of the

Crown became, instead, loyal subjects of the Crown [4].  See here for the complete document.
More recently, in 1974 the Supreme Court of Canada rules in the Isaac et al. v. Davey et al. case as to "ownership" of the Haldimand Tract.  In the ruling the Judge stated that, I have concluded that the tract in question is vested in the Crown.  The original report can be seen here.  In this said document, where members of the Elected Council took those of the Hereditary Court to Court for interfering with their right to govern Six Nations, The allegation of national sovereignty was made in this very action but abandoned at trial [12].

In the Amicus Report of 2009, submitted to Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Ontario, relating to an injunction being sought by the Corporation of the City of Brantford, they spoke to the matter of sovereignty - see here.  Their opinion was recorded as, “Canadian courts have held that the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent essentially conferred upon the Six Nations personal and usufructuary rights and not a conveyance of land in the English sense”.  Nothing was found that would support the Six Nations case, other than their beliefs.

Fast forward to 2013 - nothing has changed - despite the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.  It does not matter a whit how many judgements have failed to in any way offer encouragement to the belief that the Six Nations are a sovereign people, a large cadre of individuals continue to press forward with the issue.  This is seen across a whole spectrum of issues.  For example at one time the RCMP was the official police force at Six Nations, to later be replaced by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).  In recent years the OPP presence has proved to be a highly divisive topic, and at times I have seen signs in the windows of homes at Six Nations (and Tyendinaga) to the effect that the OPP is unwelcome - although stronger words were used.  So today there is a Six Nations police force, trained by the OPP, and who cooperate with the OPP, but the OPP dare not set foot on Six Nations as their jurisdiction is not recognised, and officers take their lives in their hands by being there - especially during times where some confrontational issue is front and centre (e.g., during the Caledonia crisis).

Despite the facts, the sovereignty issue is not going to go away.  It is part of the ingrained identity of Six Nations.  Hence I don't know what the answer is here.  To my understanding, given the facts, there is no reason why the people of Six Nations should not be considered as Canadian, with all the rights and responsibilities this entails - plus of course the entrenched "rights" mandated by the Indian Act - perks that are not available to those who are not registered members of a First Nations community.  The matter is aggravated by a group of White youth whose adolescent ardour has no time for an analysis of the facts, only the belief that the Six Nations are a downtrodden people, under the Colonial thumb of Canada, and need help in fighting this colonialism.  Although misguided and delusioned, these groups make their presence felt at those times when there is some confrontation between Six Nations and the local communities, or with the Federal Government over some matter.  The groups involved in this support network are anti - establishment, and "solidarity" with the Six Nations is merely a pretext to espouse their Marxist inspired philosophy.  See here for the website of  Six Nations Solidarity group, and here for related groups.  As many Six Nations now know, these are dangerous groups with a focused agenda, and the support of these White groups can ultimately undermine their cause.

It (should) go without saying that one cannot be a sovereign people if the land base is in fact vested in the Crown of England (now the Federal Government of Canada).  However, around here a well established fact will never stand in the way of a firmly fixed belief.

So while the concept of "sovereignty" feeds the ego of Six Nations, but it does not stand on any legal footing and is doomed to be nothing more than a festering sore.  I can foresee more delegations to London, and other futile efforts to obtain what was never theirs.  Therein lies the problem, the belief does not equate with the facts, however this is not in any way a deterrant to continuing to propagate false "facts" and attempting to obtain support anywhere and everywhere for this distorted worldview.

Updated:  28, 29 December 2013.

DeYo.

Second Opinion: Six Nations Have No Valid Land Claims Beyond Present Reserve Boundaries

Actually the heading should probably have read something like, "The First Acknowledgement That the Current Land Claims are All Invalid".  What I am referring to is a book I read back in the 1970s, but its significance did not register until a second reading, today.

Previously I have asserted that my searches through the vast collections relating to Indian Affairs had turned up nothing that would in any way support the list of land claims presently set before the Federal Government by the Six Nations Land and Resources Department.  While that is interesting, it is heresay.  My foray into these records was for an entirely different reason.  Thus it was going to require a return to the National Archives to make copies of those documents which are key to understanding why the present day Reserve boundaries were the sum total that the Chiefs requested in the 1840s, all other lands (except for a little over 200 acres in Brantford) were to be surrendered to the Crown and sold in order to provide annuities for Six Nations people.  Actually I know someone who had made copies of all these records, but when they had emigrated elsewhere they donated their records to a local museum. With their permission in writing, in recent years I went to the museum to make copies of the copies but, alas, all the the documents had "gone missing".  My subsequent enquiries determined that the documents were last seen in the hands of "a couple of women from Ohsweken" who were assisting the curator to organise the voluminous records.  Work and other commitments would ensure that obtaining the needed records from Ottawa was simply not going to happen.  Fortune smiled on me though, and at about the time when I was thwarted in my efforts to obtain local access to key records, a comprehensive report had been commissioned by the City of Brantford, using these same documentary sources housed at the National Archives in Ottawa, and had been completed and submitted to the City.

In a couple of previous blog postings I have provided a link to the "Holmes Report" which summarises each and every source that relates to the Surrender of 1841 and the subsequent surrenders to 1850.  The bottom line is that while it is true that early in the process the Chiefs requested that lands such as the Plank Road lands be included in a reservation, they changed their minds and requested that the land be sold, and Crown deeds for the lands be issued with the proviso that the monies from these transactions (minus, for example, the costs of compensating squatters for their improvements) be added to the annuity fund for the advantage of the Six Nations.  This is one of those QED (overwhelming proof) studies where the records are so clear and unambiguous that we can now dispense with any claims by Six Nations 160 plus years later saying that these lands were not included in the surrender - they in fact were included.  See here to access the "Holmes Report".

Oddly, around the year 1980 I read a very clear precis of the matter but for some reason its significance did not register. It pays to keep and re-read key sources from time to time.  This published study predates the "Holmes Report", and acts as an independent check on the latter.

Sally Weaver spent years studying ethnographic material relating to the Six Nations, with a focus on the records and sources generated during the 1840s which resulted in the consolidation of Six Nations lands to a more "compact" Reserve.  Here follows what Dr. Weaver discovered in her explorations of the matter (including all of the materials referred to in the "Holmes Report"), as set out in an article published in 1978.  See Sally M. Weaver, Six Nations of the Grand River, Ontario in William C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution, 1978, pp. 525 to 536.

First Dr. Weaver discusses the lands above the Nichol Block, the uppermost parcel of land that relates to the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784, and the Simcoe Patent of 1793.  While the former does indeed mention lands from the mouth to the headwaters of the Grand River, Governor Frederick Haldimand was rather rushed and executed this proclamation on his own authority without the approval of the Privy Council in London (the Haldimand Proclamation did not even include the Great Seal, a device used to signal that the parchment had the backing of the Crown.  Hence the rather vague description, prior to any survey having been conducted, and prior to consideration of what was already purchased of the Mississaugas (the legal owners of the Grand River Tract and all of Southwestern Ontario), would cause confusion for generations to come.  In fact the "proclamation" was not a deed, let alone a deed in fee simple whereby lands could be disposed of without the permission of the Crown.  It merely gave the Mohawks and others of the Six Nations who may wish to settle here, permission to take possession of these lands and nothing more.  See my next posting for more specifics on this matter.  The upshot is that every time Six Nations makes rumblings of ownership of the land, including the land all the way to the headwaters of the Grand, Courts in England and Canada have consistently maintained that the lands noted in the Haldimand Proclamation (a temporary and general "holding" document), and given more precision by the Simcoe Patent, surveyed in 1790 to 91 and again in 1793, extend to include the Nichol Block and no further.  This is Weaver's take on the totality of the evidence relating to this matter (see p. 525, and particularly the Canada, House of Commons 1887).  This continues to be a thorn, and probably will continue to be a point of contention, irrespective of the evidence since beliefs at Six Nations have become so entrenched.

The second issue that is addressed by Dr. Weaver is the series of land surrenders between 1841 and 1848.  I can see no reason whatsoever why she would have any axe to grind or any pony in the race.  Weaver is simply reporting on the content of the documents she had occasion to examine between 1963 and 1974.  Dr. Weaver made extensive notes, but her findings are not published in a report on this specific subject, but are summarised in her study of the history of the Six Nations of the Grand River.  This article includes a detailed listing of her sources that provided the backing for what she reports in her chapter in the Smithsonian book.

1841:  According to Weaver, before 1841 it was apparent that the Six Nations were becoming dispersed along the Valley, with only two village settlements where schools and other amenities could be situated.  As a consequence, Six Nations members would sell or otherwise dispose of their lands to incoming Whites, who as far as the Indian Department administration officials were concerned, were squatters with no legal title to their property [the Department rules required all sales to be approved by the Crown in order to protect Six Nations interests].  The problem was compounded since the sheer numbers of squatters simply overwhelmed the resources and ability to effectively remove (permanently) a couple of thousand people illegally settled on lands extending over a vast tract of land.  Anyone who believes that perhaps the Crown should have brought in prison scows to house these individuals for an indefinite period is being unrealistic - let alone the legal implications of the matter.  So in the opinion of the present author, it is easy to criticise those whose responsibility it was to look after the interests of the Six Nations, but a more reasoned exploration (as I have done with the records at the National Archives and the Archives of Ontario) will show that these officials were often put in a vise, and expected to work miracles.  The compromises that emerged can only be seen as "colonialism" by those primed to see this concept everywhere - a very simplistic and knee jerk reaction unsupported by the documentary sources.

So there is a huge and growing problem beginning prior to 1830 which sounds to the present author to be very similar to what one sees at Oka or in parts of Oklahoma where individual Indians have sold off land and what remains is a patchwork quilt with diminshed continuity and a reduced opportunity for a community to form around such a chaotic physical environment.  The solution that was arrived at by the government was to "consolidate", meaning that they suggested to the Chiefs that they may wish to authorise a surrender to the Crown of all lands not needed, and the retaining of a suitably large block upon which all Six Nations people could settle.  There were at the time about 220,000 acres unceded, but it was calculated that a Reserve (land reserved for the sole use of the Six Nations) of 20,000 acres should meet their collective needs.  The government emphasised that those Six Nations in possession of lands anywhere in the Tract who wished to retain their property could do so, and if desired, could sell their property at any later date and move to the consolidated Reserve.  The Chiefs saw the wisdom in the suggestion as it would also inject much needed monies into their annuity fund. 

In the opinion of the government officials, if there was a smaller area involved it would be feasible to remove the squatters, compensate them for any improvements, and then allot the land to a member of the Six Nations.  The government officials would then be in a better positon to ensure that new squatters did not enter what would be in effect a restricted area.  Hence ingress of White people would be dealt with immediately allowing the Six Nations to have an intact and homogeneous community where they could continue with their own way of life.  Also with a more compact settlement, it would be more cost effective to construct schools and churches and other necessary services.

1841 to 1847:  During negotiations between government officials and the Chiefs of the Six Nations the latter asked that the size of the Reserve be increased by an additional 35,000 acres, the belief being that 20,000 acres was simply too small.  This proposal was acceptable to all, however, subsequent surrenders reduced this main block of 55,000 acres to 44,900 acres.  Additional dispersed pockets of land totalling 278.09 acres retained from the original tract, remain to the band within the southeast limits of the City of Brantford (p. 527).

1847:  Weaver does not produce a timeline where all of the subsequent council meetings took place and surrenders signed by the chiefs of the Six Nations and allied tribes.  She next picks up the thread in 1847 when the government asked the chiefs to assign Reserve land to the head of each household.

The research of Weaver into the limits of the Six Nations land ownership by 1847 is shown in Figure 1 (b), p. 526, and includes lands in the southeast corner assigned to the Mississauga in 1848.  Weaver also describes this land, which is consistent with the map, as well as the consolidated Reserve of today. 

1848:  The Chiefs in Council approved a request by the Mississauga of the Credit River to move closer to them, and a block of the southeast corner of the Reserve (near Hagersville) was assigned to them in perpetuity.

1853:  By this year most of the squatters had been removed and compensated.  I have seen the original records, it was a Herculean task.  The Six Nations could now concentrate on forming a coherent community (p. 527).



At the end of her article Weaver provides a lengthy list of her sources.  She collected this information over a substantial period of time while doing ethnographic research at Six Nations.  Her research is found in her unpublished notes between the years 1963 to 1974.  Fortunately Weaver provides the specific records she consulted, including council minutes from the RG10 Indian Affairs series at the National Archives.and records from the 1840s to 1950s from the Six Nations Agency Archives in Brantford (microfilmed by the Woodland Cultural Centre in Brantford).

The point here is that long before Joan Holmes and Associates conducted their study, submitted to the Corporation of the City of Brantford in 2009, Sally Weaver had basically covered the same research territory.  Although it was not the intent of her work, in the course of exploring the record sources pertaining to the 1840s, Dr. Weaver located the collection of documents that appears to show unequivocally that during the period between 1841 and 1847 the Six Nations Chiefs in Council surrendered all of the land in the Grand River Tract with the exception of the consolidated Reserve of today, along with just over 200 acres of land in Brantford.  Thus one can use her work, just as one can use the research of Holmes et. al. to ferret out the truth as to the present day claims of the Lands and Resources people at Six Nations.  At this point, it seems that none of the land claims can be supported by documentary evidence - but beliefs die hard, when facing a collective belief on the part of most to all of a community.  Here it is much easier with all on the same page to disparage the facts, and ignore the weight of evidence.  Ultimately this approach is doomed to fail.  The truth will eventually win out.

DeYo.

Role of Clan Mothers and Female Elders at Six Nations

I am quite familiar with the historical role of the Clan Mothers in Six Nations society.  Where it gets "fuzzy" is the interval between about 1960 and today.  There is a fairly extensive literature on Iroquois women.  A classic study of Iroquois women in early days is that of Judith Brown (1970), which can be seen here.  A more recent study, focusing on more current times, is that of Shoemaker (1991) which focuses on traditional Seneca women.  The conclusion of this article is that there is apparent ambiguity in the power of traditional Seneca women today - it "remains unresolved".  See here for the full article, and please note the extensive list of references at the end.  Since there does not appear to be any clear answer here, I will provide a brief overview of the matter, some of my perspectives here, and an outline of the role of one of the most respected of female elders at Six Nations.

In earlier times, it is believed that the longhouses within a village were composed of the lineage (Owachira) of a Clan Mother and her relatives in the female line. Husbands married to women of this Clan would move to their wife's village and longhouse (matrilocal residence). This tradition broke down at some time before about 1750 when, at least among the Mohawk, nuclear families came to reside in their own homes in a manner similar to that of their White neighbours. 

In Six Nations society, women were the "owners" of the land where they grew the "three sisters" (corn, beans and squash). At the time of the American Revolution the two wealthiest Mohawks (according to claims for losses) were women - their holdings of land outstripped that of the males (even their own brothers). 

Each Owachira of each Clan of each Nation has one woman from a family of the "correct", generally high status, lineage.  So for example, when the Six Nations first came to the Grand River in 1785, the Clan Mother of the third Turtle Clan family of the Mohawks, Shadekariwadeh, was Esther Spring Dekahondahgweh who married David Hill Karonghyontye, Chief of the Bear Clan family Aghstawenserontha.  When her brother Daniel Spring Oghnawera died, Esther appointed her only living son John Hill to the title of Shadekariwadeh.  So this situation followed the typical pattern where the eldest woman in a chiefly lineage became the Clan Matron and depending on age and other circumstances, would select a brother or son to be raised up in the room of say her eldest brother who had passed away.  In the early days, women such as Esther weilded a lot of power, whereby she could council the men to for example go to war, or recommend the path of peace - although whether the men listened or not is unclear.  It was up to her to present the candidate of her choice to the League Council in order that the horns of office would be placed on his head (metaphorically, since it was actually three strings of wampum).  Should she be displeased with his efforts (e.g., if her brother was a chronic alcoholic) she could "dehorn" him, and put another in his place. 

It appears that the status of women within Six Nations society split along the lines of acculturation - perhaps by the time of the War of 1812, although the evidence one way or the other is scant.  Those women who resided within for example Christian households began to conform more to the patrilineal society that was encouraged by the Indian Department officials (with tribal membership in census and annuity payment lists being recorded through the paternal line).  This pattern was entrenched by about 1850.  However among the more conservative, often non - Christian people, the woman's role at least in theory remained intact.  Clan Mothers have continued to perform their traditional role within the rapidly changing Reserve environment by adhering strongly to the Longhouses that served as congregations of traditional Six Nations people.  By 1850 and up to present day, Longhouses have been established at Sour Springs (Upper Cayuga), as well as the "down below" Longhouses at Lower Cayuga, Onondaga and Seneca. 

The classic study of conservatism at Six Nations circa 1950 (discussed elsewhere) was published by Annemarie Shimony, who was privy to the ins and outs of what went on in terms of rituals and procedures.  Considering her unparallelled access to the most knowledgeable informants of the day, and their apparent willingness to share what they knew (warts and all), it seems fair to say that Shimony is a reliable source for the rituals and traditions, and even some of the genealogical irregularities that factored into which family was deemed to be eligible to chose a hereditary chief.  To an outsider, it would seem rather chaotic in those days as people struggled to impose order when it was often unclear as to which path to take.  Chiefships went unfilled, some were extinct, many were filled in ways not ordained by the Great Law - even taking someone from the "closest approximation" (e.g., same moeity or side rather than Clan let alone lineage) when no one suitable could be located who was willing to assume a vacant position, sometimes a "willing party" was installed for the purpose of convenience.  Things became very spotty, and one might not stray to far from the truth in assuming that things have not been better sorted out to this day.  Since most Six Nations members are not participating adherents to the Longhouse or hereditary system, many don't know or don't care about which Owachira their mother's mother's mother's and so on belonged to.  The pool of candidates for any vacancy will vary between limited and zero, so substitutions must be made.  This is a process that dates back to at least the mid 1800s when keeping track of who is who became difficult.  For example there was a large influx of Bay of Quite Mohawks in the 1830s, and there were comings and goings largely from the U.S.A. as can be seen via an examination of the birthplaces in the general Canadian Census of 1851 where the census taker recorded exact birthplace (e.g., York on the Grand River or Buffalo Creek in NY).

Thus anyone who would assert that what is seen today at Six Nations in terms of the League, or Confederacy membership as an unbroken chain dating back to the founding, or even to 1900, is unable to see the facts.  It is interesting to note the actions of Bill Squire of the Mohawk Workers at a recent "community" meeting which took place at Kanata (the former tourist center in Brantford now controlled by the Mohawk Workers) to discuss the Guswhenta (Erie Ave.) development, which I discussed in an earlier blog posting.  Here he set up some posters on three topics, seemingly unrelated to the subject being discussed.  One cluster related to Haudenosaunee Development Institute finances, another had to do with the McKenzie Meadows Project in Caledonia, and the third was a group of documents dating back a number of (unspecified) years, which raised questions about the legitimacy of the lineage of Tekarihogea, the premier Chiefship among not only the Turtle Clan, but all Mohawks.  It is probably not a coincidence that the present holder of the title, Chief Allen MacNaughton, was present.  The next week, Chief MacNaughton, whose right to his Confederacy title was apparently being challenged, was again in the news.

In Turtle Island News, December 11, 2013, p. 7, appears an article, Confederacy supports CAS removal, but transition plans unclear.  Here the reader finds a few hints as to the present day functioning of the Clan Mothers within the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC)system.  The reporter noted that, the HCCC backed a two year effort to remove the Brant CAS from Six Nations after hearing from clanmothers Saturday.  Further, Degarehogeh, Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton told council, “Our society has been eroded".  He further asserted the CAS has emerged from the same sort of Colonial thinking as residential schools.  Then, Gwen Styres a runner for the clanmothers, presented on their behalf, addressed points made by the CAS management to the Confederacy in November ……..

Frankly I have never heard of a position as "runner" for the Clan Mothers.  For years, especially during the American Revolution, the British Military and the Pine Tree or Confederacy Chiefs used male runners to take messages "express" to places such as Detroit.  One individual from this time period was known by his role.  He was "Peter the Runner", otherwise known as Peter Davis who was an Aughquaga (Oneida) or Mohawk who functioned in this capacity for many years.

It seems that perhaps Ms. Styres was assigned the role of conveying messages as to decisions of the Clan Mothers to the HCCC.  What is needed, at least for those of us who are not members of the Longhouse community, would be a clearer sense of how many Clan Mothers there are today at Six Nations, and how their role may or many not have changed since the 1960s.  I am only guessing, however in today's political climate I can't see the welcome mat being extended to anthropologists as it was in the 1950s - but who knows.  So for many of us, what transpires within the Longhouse is a big question mark.

However, also of immense importance, is the present day role of women in Six Nations society.  Ava Hill has recently been elected as Chief of the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC), and many of the Councillors are women - one of the most notable being Councillor Helen Miller who is often the voice of reason when others seem to have lost their way.  Hence, the traditional role of women among the Six Nations seems to be widely accepted.  It should be noted, however, that sometimes the men at Six Nations have paid little more than lip service to the importance of women.  True attitudes have, during some periods in history, been less than what has been idealised.  For example at the Albany Conference in 1754, the Six Nations were irritated at the Delaware for selling lands without their (Six Nations) permission.  At the time the Six Nations wielded enough military power to subdue or destroy the Delaware - however the British authorities would have moved swiftly to ensure that a disruptive military confrontation among their allies would not take place.  As a way of exercising their dominance, the Six Nations have always given the Delaware a "second class citizen" status at best - being termed "our nephews" being among the most benign ways of keeping the Delaware "in their place".  While they were the first to settle on the Grand River, and were the third largest group after the Mohawk and Cayuga, the Delaware and their Nanticoke cousins, were consigned to a back seat role - although allowed to send one chief to vote in the Six Nations Councils. 

Returning to how women factor into this strained relationship with the Delaware, the Six Nations wished to punish them for acting independently in land deals (involving Delaware territory in Pennsylvania and New Jersey) in the mid 1700s, so they metaphorically placed petticoats on the Delaware, and they were to be known as "women".  Now if women were truly equal or even respected leaders, why would the male Six Nations chiefs wish to call the Delaware women - in this context they were assigning them the role of the "weaker sex" and dependent on the men (Six Nations).  This episode has never been satisfactorily explained.  My take on it is that while women in Six Nations society had an important and recognised role to play, even choosing the chiefs to send to the League conferences at the firekeepers in Onondaga, they were probably in fact subservient.  This can be seen in some episodes which have been a matter of record, where for example Chief Daniel Oghnawera "the Spring" had married Margaret Crine in 1755.  By 1763 Margaret was forced to accompany her niece to the Stockbridge MA Indian school to escape the wrath of her husband who had "taken up" with one of her younger relatives.  So women were not necessarily well treated or even respected by males - only when convenient to do so, or when having such powerful family connections they were not in danger of coming under male domination.

Today at Six Nations, despite a climate where domestic violence is prevalent and sometimes women are abused in every imaginable way, once again there are some females whose very presence can serve to calm a situation.  Some are respected and revered elders, whether Clan Mothers or not.  I will chose one individual to stand in for all who fall into this category - although she may be a major exception, being a very exceptional person.

I noted in a recent blog posting how, at a community meeting held at Kanata in Brantford, one person who stood firmly to try and bring order to the chaos which reigned supreme at the meeting - noting the apparent immaturity of all parties (Mohawk Workers and Men's Fire members) in dealing with an issue that required mature discussion not name calling.  This respected elder was Jan Longboat.

I have had a number of discussions with Jan, and have developed deep respect for her.  Back in 2006 she was one of the individuals who initiated the efforts to "reclaim" the Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton) property.  However she was appalled at the shameless actions of many, which had crossed so many lines, and had diverted attention away from the real issue.  Ultimately she and other female elders "laid down the law" to the militants and let them know in no uncertain terms that their actions were unacceptable, and that the barriers needed to come down, and reconciliation with their Caledonia neighbours was needed.  She had enough influence to sway opinion and she had been instrumental in defusing the volatile situation.

Jan Longboat has even received the respect of Gary McHale, who many at Six Nations see as the "arch enemy".  In an letter to the Regional News entitled, The Courage of Jan Longboat, vs. the Radicals, Gary McHale described his meeting with Jan, as seen in the link here.  Her words, from McHale's letter, bear citing in full.  McHale said, She told me a story she heard when she was young about a family that was poor. She stated she thought it was because they didn't have money or land but as she grew older she knew it wasn't about money or land. She stated, "they were poor because they didn't listen." She turned and glanced at DCE and said, "these young men and young women, they never listen so they never learn... I didn't realize until I was grown up that wealth is not money. We don't need to fight for the land or about money... what the old people taught us was that wealth was knowledge. We need to listen so we can go back to our children and tell them that it is not about money, it is not about fighting for land."

Jan has steadfastly maintained her position on all matters, never flipping in other directions to suit the audience.  In the spring of 2012 Jan took a strong position on the march organised by the Marxist - Anarchist "supporters" of Six Nations, saying that of the 150 people at Six Nations who she canvassed, not one supported the march.  See here for further information.  Once again Jan showed that while she believed in the legitimacy of the land reclamation, she supported anything that would foster peace and reconciliation - not parades organised by the rabble rousing Marxists who were using the Six Nations to further their own anti - Western anti - capitalism aims.  She saw through their "support" and saw it for what it was - knowing that ultimately this was going to bring disrepute upon the Six Nations and the cause to which she had devoted so much of her time and energy.

As I noted in an earlier blog on the "Mush Hole", it was female elders who stepped forward and stated that the true situation is far more complex than the position being taken as the "party line".  They were willing to go against the grain and stand up for what they knew by virtue of their own experiences in the matter and call out those who would perpetuate lies in order to further "the cause". 

It seems that if one is looking for someone who will speak honestly and openly, even if it means going against the grain, one will have to look to the women at Six Nations.  Seldom have I noted males willing to speak against for example the horrors of Caledonia in 2006, or the 2012 march in Caledonia.  In speaking with many, clearly they did not support the actions, but were somehow unable to vocalise their views if it meant ruffling some feathers and particularly if it meant potentially irritating the most radical of the groups such as the Mohawk Warriors, or the radical White people who had infested the Reserve spreading their cancerous leftist ideology.

I don't know how many, if any, Clan Mothers have chosen to speak out.  It is my sense that the flow of information is directed by the Hereditary Council (the men) and their vociferous arm the HDI.  Messages flow indirectly these days via "runners" such that we do not know how individual Clan Mothers feel about issues of the day.  A shame really.  I would like to hear what they have to say.

DeYo.