In most newspapers, an editorial is written by the editor of the paper, and the author's name is clearly evident. This is the case with Turtle Island News (TIN) where the editor's picture is included with the editorial, and her name is found immediately below under "Editor". Everyone hereabouts knows that Lynda Powless is the Editor, and that she writes the editorials for TIN. However things are not so clear with the Two Row Times (TRT), where a recent editorial is unsourced, and when seeking to find who is assigned the role of editor, two names are given - Jonathan Garlow (a status Six Nations member) and Tom Keefer (a White Communist Anarchist who has insinuated his way into the upper echelons of this newspaper where he is also the General Manager). Should anyone question Keefer's destructive role in Caledonia, a few minutes of Google searching or seeing the data here should dispel any concerns about the accuracy of the statement. I attended the march in 2012, and all the preceding events leading up to the march, and speak not only from what is peppered across the Internet, but also personal experience. Perhaps the words coming from TIN that there is only one Reserve newspaper have some merit, considering that TRT is headed by a group of non-Native Anarchists, and offers the latter a "legitimate" platform for their radical leftist and anti - establishment views. Amazingly, it also allows a Keefer family member, a physician at Brantford General Hospital, to write a column railing on with anti-scientific nonsense linking obesity to "colonialism". But I digress. So did Garlow or Keefer write the editorial entitled, "True equality between nations", TRT, June 11th, 2014, p.6? It begs the question as to who is calling the shots, the White owner / employees, or the Six Nations members affiliated with the newspaper. Since I am in deep disagreement with much of the content of the editorial, whomever wrote it, I will sift through it clause by clause in an attempt to point out how skewed and factually incorrect the content is.
The editorial was triggered by the McHale "citizen's arrest" of John Garlow Kawaowene on 8 June, 2014. The two previous blog postings seen below provide the detail, including beliefs versus facts as shown in multiple videos taken at the time.
The editorial stated that, McHale has promoted his political ideology of Canadian supremacy through a rhetoric of forced equality that violates the Two Row Wampum. This statement is a supposition and not backed up with a single fact. It is correct that McHale advocates one law for all in Canada, as his website and his book (see previous postings) demonstrate - but this is a given for those who choose to live within the boundaries of Canada - boundaries that are respected by all other countries world wide.
The "Editor" continues, Our Onkwehonwe hospitality towards the newcomers, and our relationship with the Canadian/British Sovereign has been limited and defined in the Two Row Wampum and the Kaianerekowa (Constitution of the Peoples). It is important to pause here to clear up some errors in fact.
First the Two Row Wampum is a concept which continues to perpetuate itself, but its origins are mired in obscurity. I have devoted considerable blog space to this topic. There is no clear validity for this assumed "relationship agreement" with the boat and the canoe travelling in parallel (represented as the two purple stripes on the wampum belt said to accompany the agreement). The story and documentation that goes along with this concept has been severely criticized by academics and it is basically flawed. For example, wampum used later to record treaties and attest to the appointment of Chiefs simply cannot be shown to exist in Six Nations country before the 1630s - yet the supposed document signed by 4 otherwise unidentified Aboriginal persons and two Dutchmen is dated 1613 and only speaks of trade - nothing else - but somewhere along the way obtained the moniker, "Treaty of Tawagonshi" (the latter the hill where the supposed document was supposedly signed). It was not an agreement with the British Crown, but merely two Dutch traders residing in New Amsterdam before the British took over this colony in 1664. So to pin so much on what amounts to a document that many academics consider to be forged in the 19th or 20th Centuries, and a belt whose age is undetermined, cannot possibly be accepted uncritically except by those who are "true believers". Even such respected Six Nations historians as Rick Hill acknowledge the lack of evidence, but slough it off because there is "oral history" (which is as soft as a cotton ball). See here for his "talking points" by clicking on the link "Two Row History". Clearly this concept is being confused with the valid "Covenant Chain" agreement of 1671 onwards - but it is again a friendship and mutual support agreement - nothing whatsoever being said about sovereignty. As it stands today, anyone who questions the sacred nature of the Two Row Wampum agreement can expect to be called "racist" or similar term. Facts mean nothing. If in fact the concept and details of the supposed Two Row Wampum agreement is valid, then where is the evidence? If I am wrong, in other words the mountain of evidence is somehow in error, then it is incumbent upon Six Nations leaders to clearly and unequivocally prove the validity of the Two Row Wampum, thus clearing up the inconsistencies, so we can move forward. Hence I challenge Six Nations to provide evidence that can be verified by objective parties such as university academics. If Six Nations cannot do this then the detailed research I have provided stands and the Two Row Wampum as articulated by those at Six Nations without references is unsupported and relegated to the category of myths.
I grew up believing in the validity of both the Two Row Wampum and the Nanfan Treaty, and merely accepted both as correct without bothering to ask any hard questions - it was simply not acceptable to do so and I knew it. I am "all grown up" now and as an individual educated in the scientific method, am highly skeptical of anything without hard evidence, cross validation and the like. So now, after all these years, when I apply the litmus test of scientific inquiry to both of these "sacred cows", I find that both fail miserably on all counts. I was duped. In this blog I have attempted to set the record straight with evidence that is properly sourced, and data which is contemporary with the events being described - such as the so called "Nanfan Treaty". Apparently it is easy for people who want to believe to accept the "party line" without question. Life is more comfortable by so doing - at least to those who have not been taught to question everything. That which is valid will stand up to close scrutiny, false information will not.
Secondly, it should also be noted that the Kayenkeragowagh (Great Law) was first committed to writing in the mid 1800s by Eli Parker and others, and at Six Nations there were two versions circulating by the end of the 19th Century. One was written by Seth Newhouse (Mohawk) and the other by John Gibson (Seneca). The Hereditary Chiefs chose the latter and it was selected as the "correct" version - although somewhat controversial at the time. Without a doubt the most comprehensive study of the Great Law was William N. Fenton, The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy, Norman OK, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998. The field work was done in the 1940s and 50s at Six Nations with informants such as Simeon Gibson, Joseph Logan, Howard Skye, Alexander General, and Jake Thomas. The work is 786 pages in length and is detailed and comprehensive. I am unaware of a better source. It is interesting that not once does Fenton or any of his informants appear to mention "Two Row Wampum" - a curious omission, or a reflection of reality? To to see that Great Law as something immutable cannot be sustained based on the number of versions seen in Six Nations communities in New York and Ontario. Interpretations have changed over the years, but now, as far as I know, the published Gibson version is the one memorized and recited each year. The Newhouse version is only found in manuscript form, the apparent original (a house fire destroyed some of it) is found at the Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa (I have read the original).
The British Crown never considered the Five (later Six) Nations as "equals". Both the British and the French claimed parts of North America as their sovereign territory. The various deeds and surrenders from the earliest days of the British rule to the 19th Century consistently spoke of "our Great Father the King of England". Even the much vaunted (by Six Nations), but entirely fraudulent, Nanfan "Treaty" of 1701 explicitly states that the Five Nations are subjects of Britain and its Sovereign (as opposed to the French).
Despite all this "reality business" the "editor" continues to speak about how, Equality between nations does not mean that they are subject to each others constitution: what we are talking about is international equality. Furthermore, all along the Canadian colony has knowingly suppressed our true nationalities and true citizenships to our particular sovereign nations. This is a fabrication, but one commonly heard (after all the more something is repeated and not challenged, the more likely someone is to believe a myth as fact). There is one Nation, Canada, and all who reside within its boundaries are Canadian and subject to its laws. When Bill C-10 (outlawing contraband tobacco) becomes law, Canada will have the right to enforce the law anywhere in Canada - Six Nations knows this hence all the fuss now going on lobbying Ottawa for an exemption. Whether Canada choses to enforce the law at Six Nations is another matter entirely since the whole matter is such an "issue", and the Government tends to tred lightly in areas where Native issues obtrude.
Things get a little more odd when the editorial states, During his ongoing siege of our community, McHale has systematically and arbitrarily denied the evident and chosen nations of the men and women he targets and harasses, ramming his own confused notions of equality down our throats, and arbitrarily spreading Canadian 'equality' forcibly onto the peoples of free nations who have never defined themselves as Canadian and who have never become subjects of the British/Canadian Crown. The latter first. Six Nations were declared subjects and signed agreements as to the sovereignty of the British Crown from the early years of British rule, and this was confirmed in the Proclamation of 1763 and subsequent acts. Just where precisely does it say that the Crown has rescinded sovereignty of all peoples of the Canadas - English, French and Native? These are the three "founding peoples", based on various documents coming from the Federal Government, but they are not each sovereign (although French speaking Quebecers have long been pushing in this direction). The ownership of the Haldimand Tract, purchased from the Aboriginal occupants, the Mississauga, was not transferred to the Six Nations. The right of occupation of these lands were given to Six Nations in 1784, is still to this day the lands are vested in the Crown such that no land sale here is legal unless surrendered to the Crown and the monies derived from the sale put into trust for the Six Nations. Deniers of history run into the roadblock of the facts - as inconvenient as they might be. Those who have not studied the matter in detail could be snowed by arguments based on oral tradition and such, generally presented with much emotion, but those of us such as myself who have made inquires via a search of the primary source documentation will be harder to convince because the data does not support the position of the Six Nations on this subject.
To add to the sheer outlandishness of what is written, the unnamed author states that, McHale has arrested a non-Canadian without the process of extradition. McHale's crusade may put him and everyone else in a constitutional crisis, and may have violated the covenant of peace between the British Crown and the Onkwehonwe. Some Canadians may call that an act of treasonous contempt. I have no doubt that the White "solidarity" Six Nations supporters funded by the unions, and the Communist and Anarchist groups would promulgate this stance. However, most Canadians will see the business for what it is - but a "constitutional crisis" - as if. Outlandish and off the wall claims only make the cause seem dodgy, and potential sympathy (if there was any) dissipates.
The editorial ends by stating that, We are Onkwehon:we and we deserve to be respected as the equals that we are and have always been under the Two Row Wampum. Indeed, no argument here. That is the point of what McHale is saying. We are all equal under the law and all deserve to receive its protections. If anyone wishes to push to hard on the "we are not Canadians" theme, there is going to be a major backlash where many will say if that is true, then you will need to stop accepting Canadian taxpayer Welfare and Transfer Payments. That has not happened, and is not likely to happen. As these developments and claims profiled in the present blog become more apparent to all Canadians, not just the folks hereabouts, I would predict an increasing call for dismantling the Reserve system (at least for those who, like Six Nations, cannot claim to be Aboriginal to the lands where they are presently settled - Grand River Ontario is not Upstate New York), all lands in the possession of those with location tickets to have these documents converted to deeds in fee simple, and after a transition period, no more "perks" (that includes the right/entitlement not to pay certain taxes), so that all are truly equal to carve out their own destiny. The lands are geographically within either Brant County (Tuscarora Township, Onondaga Township between Middleport and Onondaga, and the Glebe Lands with the old Mohawk Institute and the Mohawk Chapel) or Haldimand County (the strip of Oneida Township along Oneida Road). It would be simple to add these clearly defined areas to either the Brant County or Haldimand County Land Registry. Be careful what you ask for ........
DeYo.
Monday, 16 June 2014
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Six Nations Perspective on the Citizen's Arrest at Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton)
As predicted in the previous posting, both newspapers on the Six Nations Reserve carried articles on the citizen's arrest of "a Six Nations land protector" by Gary McHale. As expected, at least by myself, the descriptions provided bear little resemblance to the reality shown in graphic detail in the various U-Tube videos of the entire scenario (see here). I will discuss the content of each of the two newspapers in turn. Selected key expressions will be bold printed and examined as to what it may mean to one or more communities.
1) Two Row Times, Wednesday June 11th, 2014, McHale protest opens old wounds at Kanohstaton (as spelled here) pp. 1-2:
On the front page we see a picture taking up fully half of the page space, showing a photograph and caption - A Six Nations land protector was the subject of a "citizen's arrest" by Binbrook resident Gary McHale. Fearing that McHale and his group of half a dozen supporters were going to enter his home Kawaowene stood in front of McHale as he approached. In a bizarre twist of events when the OPP arrived they arrested Kawaowene injuring him in the process.
Here the term "land protector" probably refers to the self proclaimed role as a custodian of Six Nations land, and is linked to Kanonhstaton ("Protected Place") the name Six Nations use when referring to the former Douglas Creek Estates (presently land owned directly by the Province of Ontario). Many residents of Caledonia would tend to use the term "occupier", or a more pejorative term, in reference to the individuals who are roosting illegally at the one remaining house on the former development site.
The picture does show what appear to be cuts and abrasions on the left side of the "land protector's" face. The U-Tube videos noted in the previous posting do show a take down by the OPP where the use of force was minimal, and absolutely necessary as the perpetrator was resisting arrest. One can only surmise whether the scrapes occurred as a result of the take down.
Page 2 of the article shows another picture of the face of the above individual situated immediately under the words "opens old wounds". Again what appear to be facial abrasions are evident here. The caption reads, "Land defender John Garlow". The text terms Gary McHale as a "well known agitator", who arrived at Kanonhstaton, "to continue his agenda of keeping the wounds of the 2006 land reclamation open". Actually for many residents of Caledonia the wounds will always be present, and most particularly since no one at Six Nations has ever apologized for the violence and degradation foisted upon those residing most closely to this site. Also most know that the land was taken illegally, and that while many at Six Nations may claim the land as theirs, the facts are crystal clear that this was land properly surrendered by 67 Chiefs in Council in December of 1844 - and that be demanding to have it back is behavior that conforms to the old stereotype of "Indian giver" (something is legally sold to everyone's satisfaction, buyer's remourse sets in, and the party or those who follow want the item back).
It is probably true that Gary McHale is an "agitator" meaning that he has seen a gross injustice, and has been unrelenting in his stance about one law for all, all treated equally before the law. To impute the motive of a nefarious plan to keep the wounds between Caledonia and Six Nations alive and "fresh" does seem to be a stretch. Since 2006 the "peacekeeper" role of the OPP has made this concept, taken for granted in most of Canada, a joke in the Caledonia area since Natives and non-Natives have been treated differently by the OPP with the latter being carted away in paddy wagons while the Natives who had committed actual illegal acts such as assault being allowed to remain - and may or may not be arrested at some later date. A two tiered system of justice - anathema to most Canadians.
Continuing with the text, it says that "53-year-old Kawaowene (English name John Garlow), was roughed up and arrested by the OPP".
The video clips clearly show that on the contrary, Mr. Garlow was not "roughed up" and it was his own choices that led to the manner in which he was arrested (the police had no choice but to enact a take down due to non compliance of Garlow).
The article goes on to say that, "In 2007, to put an end to the roadblocks, and potential violence, Ontario purchased the land" from the developers. In other words the Liberal Government of Ontario caved in and negotiated with terrorists - never a good idea as history shows.
Certain creative liberties with the facts are evident in the statement that McHale and his "followers", walked, "right up to the front of the house". What the videos show is Mr. McHale walking on the public road, and at no time being on the land surrounding the house. Also the statement that the bodies of McHale and Garlow "collided. Garlow shoved McHale away from him". Hence the citizen's arrest for the illegal act of assault. After 911 was dialed and the OPP officers showed up, "talked to McHale, but rather than arrest him for instigation, they came to Garlow and placed him under arrest for assault". It would make no sense for the OPP to arrest someone who is merely walking along a public road for "instigation" (which would never stick in Court), but rather the perpetrator of the act of assault - a serious crime.
The report then says that "Garlow offered token resistance to police" and that a "very brief scuffle ensued and Garlow was taken to the ground by OPP officers who, according to witness Norm Thomas, mashed Garlow's face into the gravel while subduing him with handcuffs". What the video shows is Garlow refusing to comply with the requests of the officers, and thus the consequence was inevitable - but compared to any other take down I have witnessed, what is seen in the video is a very gentle approach where the police called him by his first name and requested that Mr. Garlow come with them. Then apparently, Garlow "was carried away by police officers with his face about two feet from the roadway". The video shows officers repeatedly requesting that Mr. Garlow stand and walk, but the latter would not comply and so was carried with each officer holding Mr. Garlow under one of his arms on the way to the police cruiser, "causing him shoulder and arm damage". Mr. Garlow refused to stand up and walk, and ended up being dead weight, so what happened was inevitable. Then he lay stretched out face down on the back seat of the car, refusing to sit up or in any way comply with the reasonable requests of the officers.
What is evident is that what information is being given to the reporter does not at all tally with the very clear visual and auditory interaction at the time shown in the various U-Tube videos. Readers can see the videos and assess the details without myself or the reporter giving very different perspectives on the events.
The scene then shifted to the situation at the end of the ride in the cruiser where, "Garlow's token resistance continued at the police station when he decided not to speak English any more and reverted to his Cayuga tongue, refusing to answer to the name John" - except to one officer who showed him respect by using his Cayuga name. This behavior is expected of a somewhat younger individual, but a 53 year old man ............... Then when it came to signing documents (release forms), Garlow said, "I would not sign my slave name". Instead he used an X to sign the document (a mark, as if illiterate, which may or may not be the case). He was released "on his own recognizance", with the promise to appear for the Court date of 22 July at the County Courthouse in Cayuga.
So the name he goes by most of the time, John Garlow, is a "slave name"? I have no idea where this interpretation is coming from. He is known as John Garlow to most of the Community - but despite his use of the name for everyday purposes, the name ..................... Perhaps a history lesson would be a propos here. Since there is a "Garlow Line" (road) on the Reserve, and there is a family connection, many years ago I was curious as to the origins of the name and decided to do some research. A colleague suggested that I check out the source noted below, and I kept a few notes which I have managed to locate. The Garlow name and the Garlow ancestors did not come to Six Nations until 1822 or 1823 when the White man John Garlow and his part Native wife arrived from New York State and applied to become members. The records state that there was a difference of opinion within Council as to the eligibility of this family with very little evident Native heritage. In some manner, reasons unknown, their application was approved and the family were enumerated as either Oneida or Mohawk. In 1822 there were no Mohawk still residing within the ancestral homeland - except those who chose to integrate with the general population along the Mohawk River. There were, however, some Oneida residing in the area after the Revolution. The source for this information on the Garlow family can be found in David K. Faux, Iroquoian Occupation of the Mohawk Valley During and After the Revolution, Man in the Northeast, Number 34, Fall 1987, pp. 27-40. So the original Garlow was White, and never a slave - so the statement of Mr. Garlow is all the more curious. All Garlows in the Mohawk Valley and Ontario descend from Johann Christian Garlock (Garlick, Gerlach, Garlow) born 2 May 1672, Heidelberg, Baden - Wurttemberg, Germany; died 1764, Stone Arabia, Montgomery County, NY.
Apparently Garlow had attempted to text for "assistance" (for example reinforcements streaming down 6th Line), but everything happened so fast and when the expected "troops" arrived, the OPP and McHale supporters were long gone. Apparently Mr. Garlow was displeased that he was there all alone and did not receive the expected support. He stated, "If people are not going to start coming here to protect this land, I am not going to be staying here anymore. I'll go with another nation and do what I have to do, or just retire from it all". Clearly he is very discouraged. Over the years many have stayed in that house, and a lot of bad things have occurred there (e.g., suicide, rape) and the place may have accumulated a lot of bad karma. Perhaps the ancestors are saying that the land was sold 170 years ago with the express wish, stated in the deeds, that no one in later generations try to second guess them - and that agreement has been violated since 2006.
Mr. Garlow made an interesting statement to the reporter. He said, "To a warrior, jail is something that a warrior just accepts" and continues with his philosophy of serving time in jail.
The use of the term "warrior" can mean many things, but to successful Chiefs such as Clarence Louie, Chief of the Osoyoos Band in British Columbia for 29 years and responsible for many entrepreneurial projects which have made his Band very wealthy, it first and foremost means one thing - "Has a job". Chief Louie has no time for Natives who call themselves warriors, but use welfare and other Canadian Government handouts from taxpaying citizens to fund their militancy. See his inspirational story here.
2) Turtle Island News, June 11, 2014, Security Kanonhstaton; group descends on property, man charged, p. 7:
This article includes much of the same material as found in the above version. A few additional facts do emerge though. Mr. Garlow described his take down without accepting any part of the blame for forcing the police into this situation, and making it seem that the officers were unnecessarily rough - which is certainly not seen in any of the videos - but perception is reality for some. He was processed at the Cayuga OPP detachment, and charged with assault. The Court date given here is 10 July - so someone has their facts wrong.
Apparently the "incident prompted a swift response from the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), who are working to get a fence set up around the perimeter of Kanonhstaton, creating what the Director calls a "gated community". This is a bit premature and presumptuous since it is the Province who is the legal owner of the land. As the Director states, "The HCCC is awaiting return of those lands and others to the HCCC from Ontario". That might not be all that easy since the HCCC (Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Council) are at loggerheads with SNEC (Six Nations Elected Council), and the Director is upset that in 2010 the latter walked away from the negotiating table leaving things up in the air. Then there is the ownership question - the Federal Government maintains that this land was surrendered in 1844 and Ontario stands by its land registry system - so this could be a muddled mess for someone who is clear minded to see through and find resolution.
Basically this business reflects the chronic inability of anyone at Six Nations to take personal or collective responsibility for their actions. The tendency is to point the finger at others, and play the role of victim. Classic.
Meanwhile, a "stop the violence" march is planned, according to Mr. Garlow, traversing from the church just north of Kanonhstaton, to the OPP satellite station on the south side of Caledonia on Argyll Street. It is not clear what "stop the violence" means. Surely not trying to gain support to stop the OPP from doing their duty - something Caledonians have been "begging for" since 2006. If the White "solidarity" groups are going to be there it will infuriate Caledonians who have seen enough of their Anarchist - Communist antics since 2006. They have been the true instigators of problems by stirring the pot to meet their political agenda. Apparently the event will take place in the next week or two. I will attend and provide my observations in a subsequent posting. This could get interesting!
DeYo.
1) Two Row Times, Wednesday June 11th, 2014, McHale protest opens old wounds at Kanohstaton (as spelled here) pp. 1-2:
On the front page we see a picture taking up fully half of the page space, showing a photograph and caption - A Six Nations land protector was the subject of a "citizen's arrest" by Binbrook resident Gary McHale. Fearing that McHale and his group of half a dozen supporters were going to enter his home Kawaowene stood in front of McHale as he approached. In a bizarre twist of events when the OPP arrived they arrested Kawaowene injuring him in the process.
Here the term "land protector" probably refers to the self proclaimed role as a custodian of Six Nations land, and is linked to Kanonhstaton ("Protected Place") the name Six Nations use when referring to the former Douglas Creek Estates (presently land owned directly by the Province of Ontario). Many residents of Caledonia would tend to use the term "occupier", or a more pejorative term, in reference to the individuals who are roosting illegally at the one remaining house on the former development site.
The picture does show what appear to be cuts and abrasions on the left side of the "land protector's" face. The U-Tube videos noted in the previous posting do show a take down by the OPP where the use of force was minimal, and absolutely necessary as the perpetrator was resisting arrest. One can only surmise whether the scrapes occurred as a result of the take down.
Page 2 of the article shows another picture of the face of the above individual situated immediately under the words "opens old wounds". Again what appear to be facial abrasions are evident here. The caption reads, "Land defender John Garlow". The text terms Gary McHale as a "well known agitator", who arrived at Kanonhstaton, "to continue his agenda of keeping the wounds of the 2006 land reclamation open". Actually for many residents of Caledonia the wounds will always be present, and most particularly since no one at Six Nations has ever apologized for the violence and degradation foisted upon those residing most closely to this site. Also most know that the land was taken illegally, and that while many at Six Nations may claim the land as theirs, the facts are crystal clear that this was land properly surrendered by 67 Chiefs in Council in December of 1844 - and that be demanding to have it back is behavior that conforms to the old stereotype of "Indian giver" (something is legally sold to everyone's satisfaction, buyer's remourse sets in, and the party or those who follow want the item back).
It is probably true that Gary McHale is an "agitator" meaning that he has seen a gross injustice, and has been unrelenting in his stance about one law for all, all treated equally before the law. To impute the motive of a nefarious plan to keep the wounds between Caledonia and Six Nations alive and "fresh" does seem to be a stretch. Since 2006 the "peacekeeper" role of the OPP has made this concept, taken for granted in most of Canada, a joke in the Caledonia area since Natives and non-Natives have been treated differently by the OPP with the latter being carted away in paddy wagons while the Natives who had committed actual illegal acts such as assault being allowed to remain - and may or may not be arrested at some later date. A two tiered system of justice - anathema to most Canadians.
Continuing with the text, it says that "53-year-old Kawaowene (English name John Garlow), was roughed up and arrested by the OPP".
The video clips clearly show that on the contrary, Mr. Garlow was not "roughed up" and it was his own choices that led to the manner in which he was arrested (the police had no choice but to enact a take down due to non compliance of Garlow).
The article goes on to say that, "In 2007, to put an end to the roadblocks, and potential violence, Ontario purchased the land" from the developers. In other words the Liberal Government of Ontario caved in and negotiated with terrorists - never a good idea as history shows.
Certain creative liberties with the facts are evident in the statement that McHale and his "followers", walked, "right up to the front of the house". What the videos show is Mr. McHale walking on the public road, and at no time being on the land surrounding the house. Also the statement that the bodies of McHale and Garlow "collided. Garlow shoved McHale away from him". Hence the citizen's arrest for the illegal act of assault. After 911 was dialed and the OPP officers showed up, "talked to McHale, but rather than arrest him for instigation, they came to Garlow and placed him under arrest for assault". It would make no sense for the OPP to arrest someone who is merely walking along a public road for "instigation" (which would never stick in Court), but rather the perpetrator of the act of assault - a serious crime.
The report then says that "Garlow offered token resistance to police" and that a "very brief scuffle ensued and Garlow was taken to the ground by OPP officers who, according to witness Norm Thomas, mashed Garlow's face into the gravel while subduing him with handcuffs". What the video shows is Garlow refusing to comply with the requests of the officers, and thus the consequence was inevitable - but compared to any other take down I have witnessed, what is seen in the video is a very gentle approach where the police called him by his first name and requested that Mr. Garlow come with them. Then apparently, Garlow "was carried away by police officers with his face about two feet from the roadway". The video shows officers repeatedly requesting that Mr. Garlow stand and walk, but the latter would not comply and so was carried with each officer holding Mr. Garlow under one of his arms on the way to the police cruiser, "causing him shoulder and arm damage". Mr. Garlow refused to stand up and walk, and ended up being dead weight, so what happened was inevitable. Then he lay stretched out face down on the back seat of the car, refusing to sit up or in any way comply with the reasonable requests of the officers.
What is evident is that what information is being given to the reporter does not at all tally with the very clear visual and auditory interaction at the time shown in the various U-Tube videos. Readers can see the videos and assess the details without myself or the reporter giving very different perspectives on the events.
The scene then shifted to the situation at the end of the ride in the cruiser where, "Garlow's token resistance continued at the police station when he decided not to speak English any more and reverted to his Cayuga tongue, refusing to answer to the name John" - except to one officer who showed him respect by using his Cayuga name. This behavior is expected of a somewhat younger individual, but a 53 year old man ............... Then when it came to signing documents (release forms), Garlow said, "I would not sign my slave name". Instead he used an X to sign the document (a mark, as if illiterate, which may or may not be the case). He was released "on his own recognizance", with the promise to appear for the Court date of 22 July at the County Courthouse in Cayuga.
So the name he goes by most of the time, John Garlow, is a "slave name"? I have no idea where this interpretation is coming from. He is known as John Garlow to most of the Community - but despite his use of the name for everyday purposes, the name ..................... Perhaps a history lesson would be a propos here. Since there is a "Garlow Line" (road) on the Reserve, and there is a family connection, many years ago I was curious as to the origins of the name and decided to do some research. A colleague suggested that I check out the source noted below, and I kept a few notes which I have managed to locate. The Garlow name and the Garlow ancestors did not come to Six Nations until 1822 or 1823 when the White man John Garlow and his part Native wife arrived from New York State and applied to become members. The records state that there was a difference of opinion within Council as to the eligibility of this family with very little evident Native heritage. In some manner, reasons unknown, their application was approved and the family were enumerated as either Oneida or Mohawk. In 1822 there were no Mohawk still residing within the ancestral homeland - except those who chose to integrate with the general population along the Mohawk River. There were, however, some Oneida residing in the area after the Revolution. The source for this information on the Garlow family can be found in David K. Faux, Iroquoian Occupation of the Mohawk Valley During and After the Revolution, Man in the Northeast, Number 34, Fall 1987, pp. 27-40. So the original Garlow was White, and never a slave - so the statement of Mr. Garlow is all the more curious. All Garlows in the Mohawk Valley and Ontario descend from Johann Christian Garlock (Garlick, Gerlach, Garlow) born 2 May 1672, Heidelberg, Baden - Wurttemberg, Germany; died 1764, Stone Arabia, Montgomery County, NY.
Apparently Garlow had attempted to text for "assistance" (for example reinforcements streaming down 6th Line), but everything happened so fast and when the expected "troops" arrived, the OPP and McHale supporters were long gone. Apparently Mr. Garlow was displeased that he was there all alone and did not receive the expected support. He stated, "If people are not going to start coming here to protect this land, I am not going to be staying here anymore. I'll go with another nation and do what I have to do, or just retire from it all". Clearly he is very discouraged. Over the years many have stayed in that house, and a lot of bad things have occurred there (e.g., suicide, rape) and the place may have accumulated a lot of bad karma. Perhaps the ancestors are saying that the land was sold 170 years ago with the express wish, stated in the deeds, that no one in later generations try to second guess them - and that agreement has been violated since 2006.
Mr. Garlow made an interesting statement to the reporter. He said, "To a warrior, jail is something that a warrior just accepts" and continues with his philosophy of serving time in jail.
The use of the term "warrior" can mean many things, but to successful Chiefs such as Clarence Louie, Chief of the Osoyoos Band in British Columbia for 29 years and responsible for many entrepreneurial projects which have made his Band very wealthy, it first and foremost means one thing - "Has a job". Chief Louie has no time for Natives who call themselves warriors, but use welfare and other Canadian Government handouts from taxpaying citizens to fund their militancy. See his inspirational story here.
2) Turtle Island News, June 11, 2014, Security Kanonhstaton; group descends on property, man charged, p. 7:
This article includes much of the same material as found in the above version. A few additional facts do emerge though. Mr. Garlow described his take down without accepting any part of the blame for forcing the police into this situation, and making it seem that the officers were unnecessarily rough - which is certainly not seen in any of the videos - but perception is reality for some. He was processed at the Cayuga OPP detachment, and charged with assault. The Court date given here is 10 July - so someone has their facts wrong.
Apparently the "incident prompted a swift response from the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), who are working to get a fence set up around the perimeter of Kanonhstaton, creating what the Director calls a "gated community". This is a bit premature and presumptuous since it is the Province who is the legal owner of the land. As the Director states, "The HCCC is awaiting return of those lands and others to the HCCC from Ontario". That might not be all that easy since the HCCC (Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Council) are at loggerheads with SNEC (Six Nations Elected Council), and the Director is upset that in 2010 the latter walked away from the negotiating table leaving things up in the air. Then there is the ownership question - the Federal Government maintains that this land was surrendered in 1844 and Ontario stands by its land registry system - so this could be a muddled mess for someone who is clear minded to see through and find resolution.
Basically this business reflects the chronic inability of anyone at Six Nations to take personal or collective responsibility for their actions. The tendency is to point the finger at others, and play the role of victim. Classic.
Meanwhile, a "stop the violence" march is planned, according to Mr. Garlow, traversing from the church just north of Kanonhstaton, to the OPP satellite station on the south side of Caledonia on Argyll Street. It is not clear what "stop the violence" means. Surely not trying to gain support to stop the OPP from doing their duty - something Caledonians have been "begging for" since 2006. If the White "solidarity" groups are going to be there it will infuriate Caledonians who have seen enough of their Anarchist - Communist antics since 2006. They have been the true instigators of problems by stirring the pot to meet their political agenda. Apparently the event will take place in the next week or two. I will attend and provide my observations in a subsequent posting. This could get interesting!
DeYo.
Monday, 9 June 2014
The Ontario Provincial Police Enforce Individual's Right to Make a Citizen's Arrest - Noted Six Nations Activist in Jail!
Well, will wonders never cease. Only days ago I was railing on about the ineffectiveness of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and the fact that since 2006 none of us in the Caledonia area can be sure whether when we dial 911 that anyone will come to our assistance. Around here police responsiveness is a function of, for example, how agitated members of the Six Nations community happen to be - or so it seems. Since the Ipperwash Inquiry, and the recommendations coming from the resulting report which paints "Natives" (status Indians) as victims, the OPP have thrown away the policy and procedures manual that is supposed to apply equally to citizens throughout Ontario. In the Caledonia area, proximal to the Six Nations Reserve, the OPP have adopted what is known as a "peacekeeper" role, in place since the riots at the south end of Caledonia which began 28 February 2006. Thus for the past 8 years residents of Caledonia (as well as Haldimand and Brant Counties) have been guinea pigs in an experiment that has been an abject failure - although the Native agitators and their White solidarity supporters are fine with it. So locally, if you are Native (largely status Six Nations members) you could expect to be treated with kid gloves, while those citizens classified as non-Native could expect to have the full weight of the law thrown against them. It is not fair, it is not even remotely reasonable in any democracy, but for 8 years that has been the status quo hereabouts. The details, including some excellent examples, can be found in Gary McHale, Victory in the No-Go Zone: Winning the Fight Against Two-Tier Policing, Toronto, Freedom Press, 2013. In one day (Sunday 8 June 2014), within the span of one hour, due to an assault on Mr. McHale, all that has changed. Allow me to explain.
On 8 June 2014 I had planned to attend a rally organized by Gary McHale and CANACE (Canadians for Charter Equality) in order to purchase a book that would be available there - Daniel Dickin, Liars: The McGuinty - Wynne Record, Toronto, Freedom Press, 2014. I knew that it would be touching on subjects important to myself and other residents of Haldimand County. I expected that it would chronicle the failures of the Liberal Government in Haldimand County, including not only their response to the theft of private property in Caledonia by Six Nations members, but also the fall out of their destructive Green Energy Act of 2009 which is literally chewing up our rural landscape with useless wind turbines.
Due to rain, the event had to be cancelled. Disappointing, but little did I know at the time, history was about to be made. Gary McHale and a photographer went to Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) to exercise their right to walk on a public road. As background, the DCE property, although it was legally surrendered by 67 Chiefs of the Six Nations in Council in 1844 (170 years ago), and registered since then in the Ontario Land Registry system without any liens, DCE is claimed as unceded land by Six Nations (the evidence as to these facts having been discussed in many previous postings on this blog). Objective reality is either ignored or of no concern to those involved in what they term the "reclamation" - while it could better be described as theft. It was taken by force in April 2006 by Six Nations (largely members of the Confederacy or Hereditary Council supporters), complete with violent acts of anarchy such as demolishing a Hydro One transmission tower to block Argyll Street, burning the Stirling Street Bridge, destroying a Hydro One substation plunging the area of Caledonia and Six Nations into darkness, assaulting police officers. The occupation and horrific deeds perpetrated against citizens who lived nearest to DCE (e.g., an assault against a resident in his home resulting in permanent brain damage) resulted in the Ontario Government quietly shelling out over $15 million to the legal owners of the development to keep the land in limbo, likely so that they could sweep the matter under the carpet indefinitely. An excellent and factual compendium of the sufferings of the residents of Caledonia and surrounds, as well as the responses of the OPP and the Liberal Government, can be found in Christie Blatchford, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us, Toronto, Doubleday Canada, 2010.
Since 2006 the land has been "designated" as Six Nations land by the occupiers (despite the evidence - which carries no weight to uninformed "activists") - complete with a "Welcome to Six Nations" sign to help legitimize (in the minds of many at Six Nations) the occupation. Despite the objective fact that the land belongs to the Provincial Government, and Six Nations has no legitimate legal claim to the property, many Natives persist in living in a fantasy where the land belongs to the Six Nations - by virtue of this or that imagined right or entitlement. What is tremendously galling to many is that the Ontario Government continues to pay the taxes and fund the infrastructure which allows the Six Nations occupiers to reside there in comfort - at taxpayers expense. Many here appear to be poorly educated and unemployed (this latter "status" allowing them to arrive on scene at a moment's notice), but strut around with a sense of entitlement worn as a chip on their shoulder, and an attitude that "because I believe it so, it must be so". No one in government at any level except local municipal officials has done anything to advance the issue and attempt to find some sort of resolution - in part because they have run into the brick wall of factionalism where you have to get approval of both the Hereditary and Elected groups, but they are not on speaking terms, but are ready to blame the government for "inaction". So the ugly stains of the 2006 occupation such as the Hydro One tower barricade (cut in two to form an "entrance way" to the site) and the burned out big rig trailer, are still situated as they were 8 years ago, and somehow this is ok for the self proclaimed "custodians of the land" (despite the obvious hypocrisy).
So on Sunday Gary McHale exercised his right to walk on a public roadway, and was challenged near the one house left standing on the Provincially owned DCE site (all the others have been trashed). See here for a description and videos of what happened. In summary, JG, a very well known activist walked out to "greet" Mr. McHale and attempted to block his movements. What can be seen in the video taken at the time of the encounter is the situation escalating very quickly, and JG shoving Mr. McHale - which is an act of assault. Mr. McHale immediately initiated a citizen's arrest (all perfectly legal in Ontario), someone called 911, and within a very short time (apparently under 10 minutes) two OPP officers arrived on the scene. Mr. McHale showed them the video, and, to many of us in Caledonia what followed next is something not seen in 8 years - the OPP officers doing their duty without regard to the racial - ethnic make up of the perpetrator. They immediately walked over to JG and informed him that he was under arrest. This did not go over at all well - it must have been an immense surprise that the OPP were challenging a Native without the usual cadre of Native Liaison Officers and support staff. Frankly, my jaw dropped. These officers never raised their voices, were consistently polite despite the boorish and immature behavior of the perpetrator. Non compliance was met with a warning, then a take down with JG being forced to the ground (in as gentle but firm a manner as possible). The officers were entirely professional, and followed through with each warning. Eventually JG refused to walk to the OPP cruiser so was lifted there by two officers while curses flowed freely, as did assertions of "you have no jurisdiction here" and "this is Six Nations land" (along with a lot of words beginning with the letter "f"). The officers calmly said that they will talk about that later, but the handcuffed JG simply would not get in the car without an embarrassing display of the sort of trailer park behavior one expects to see on COPS - here clearly resisting arrest. Finally JG was delicately "fit" into the cruiser and one of the other Natives present challenged the OPP, who then asked Mr. McHale whether this individual had tried to disrupt the citizen's arrest. The answer was no, so the OPP drove off with JG on his way to the Cayuga OPP detachment for processing.
I could not be more proud of our Provincial police force in this instance. They did their duty with professionalism and without any hesitation. Has there been a policy change at the OPP, or was this simply a case of officers, as is their right, deciding to act in accordance with the law and effecting an arrest based on the evidence seen in the video? JG was adamant that he could not be arrested because of a video. Alas for him, he was wrong.
Kudos OPP, and in particular the two officers who effected a "by the numbers" take down showing the utmost concern for the welfare of the person being arrested. It doesn't get any better than this. Also, thanks to Gary McHale for his unrelenting stance on challenging the "peacekeeper" role of the OPP that is a legacy of the Ipperwash Inquiry; and his actions in support of the belief in one law, applied equally, for all citizens.
What will be interesting to see is the reaction at Six Nations once the news becomes widely known - probably via the two Reserve newspapers which are published on Wednesdays. I trust that most realize that what happened was an example of the law being applied fairly and based on the clear evidence that an assault had occurred. I have reviewed the video multiple times and it would be impossible to fault the officers. What I expect to see is the hard liners questioning the jurisdiction of the OPP at the DCE. Again, since it is Provincial land, of that there can be no question, the OPP has every right, and the duty, to enforce the law here - especially since the Six Nations Police have kept their distance, and at any rate work cooperatively with the OPP in effecting law enforcement in the area.
DeYo.
On 8 June 2014 I had planned to attend a rally organized by Gary McHale and CANACE (Canadians for Charter Equality) in order to purchase a book that would be available there - Daniel Dickin, Liars: The McGuinty - Wynne Record, Toronto, Freedom Press, 2014. I knew that it would be touching on subjects important to myself and other residents of Haldimand County. I expected that it would chronicle the failures of the Liberal Government in Haldimand County, including not only their response to the theft of private property in Caledonia by Six Nations members, but also the fall out of their destructive Green Energy Act of 2009 which is literally chewing up our rural landscape with useless wind turbines.
Due to rain, the event had to be cancelled. Disappointing, but little did I know at the time, history was about to be made. Gary McHale and a photographer went to Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) to exercise their right to walk on a public road. As background, the DCE property, although it was legally surrendered by 67 Chiefs of the Six Nations in Council in 1844 (170 years ago), and registered since then in the Ontario Land Registry system without any liens, DCE is claimed as unceded land by Six Nations (the evidence as to these facts having been discussed in many previous postings on this blog). Objective reality is either ignored or of no concern to those involved in what they term the "reclamation" - while it could better be described as theft. It was taken by force in April 2006 by Six Nations (largely members of the Confederacy or Hereditary Council supporters), complete with violent acts of anarchy such as demolishing a Hydro One transmission tower to block Argyll Street, burning the Stirling Street Bridge, destroying a Hydro One substation plunging the area of Caledonia and Six Nations into darkness, assaulting police officers. The occupation and horrific deeds perpetrated against citizens who lived nearest to DCE (e.g., an assault against a resident in his home resulting in permanent brain damage) resulted in the Ontario Government quietly shelling out over $15 million to the legal owners of the development to keep the land in limbo, likely so that they could sweep the matter under the carpet indefinitely. An excellent and factual compendium of the sufferings of the residents of Caledonia and surrounds, as well as the responses of the OPP and the Liberal Government, can be found in Christie Blatchford, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us, Toronto, Doubleday Canada, 2010.
Since 2006 the land has been "designated" as Six Nations land by the occupiers (despite the evidence - which carries no weight to uninformed "activists") - complete with a "Welcome to Six Nations" sign to help legitimize (in the minds of many at Six Nations) the occupation. Despite the objective fact that the land belongs to the Provincial Government, and Six Nations has no legitimate legal claim to the property, many Natives persist in living in a fantasy where the land belongs to the Six Nations - by virtue of this or that imagined right or entitlement. What is tremendously galling to many is that the Ontario Government continues to pay the taxes and fund the infrastructure which allows the Six Nations occupiers to reside there in comfort - at taxpayers expense. Many here appear to be poorly educated and unemployed (this latter "status" allowing them to arrive on scene at a moment's notice), but strut around with a sense of entitlement worn as a chip on their shoulder, and an attitude that "because I believe it so, it must be so". No one in government at any level except local municipal officials has done anything to advance the issue and attempt to find some sort of resolution - in part because they have run into the brick wall of factionalism where you have to get approval of both the Hereditary and Elected groups, but they are not on speaking terms, but are ready to blame the government for "inaction". So the ugly stains of the 2006 occupation such as the Hydro One tower barricade (cut in two to form an "entrance way" to the site) and the burned out big rig trailer, are still situated as they were 8 years ago, and somehow this is ok for the self proclaimed "custodians of the land" (despite the obvious hypocrisy).
So on Sunday Gary McHale exercised his right to walk on a public roadway, and was challenged near the one house left standing on the Provincially owned DCE site (all the others have been trashed). See here for a description and videos of what happened. In summary, JG, a very well known activist walked out to "greet" Mr. McHale and attempted to block his movements. What can be seen in the video taken at the time of the encounter is the situation escalating very quickly, and JG shoving Mr. McHale - which is an act of assault. Mr. McHale immediately initiated a citizen's arrest (all perfectly legal in Ontario), someone called 911, and within a very short time (apparently under 10 minutes) two OPP officers arrived on the scene. Mr. McHale showed them the video, and, to many of us in Caledonia what followed next is something not seen in 8 years - the OPP officers doing their duty without regard to the racial - ethnic make up of the perpetrator. They immediately walked over to JG and informed him that he was under arrest. This did not go over at all well - it must have been an immense surprise that the OPP were challenging a Native without the usual cadre of Native Liaison Officers and support staff. Frankly, my jaw dropped. These officers never raised their voices, were consistently polite despite the boorish and immature behavior of the perpetrator. Non compliance was met with a warning, then a take down with JG being forced to the ground (in as gentle but firm a manner as possible). The officers were entirely professional, and followed through with each warning. Eventually JG refused to walk to the OPP cruiser so was lifted there by two officers while curses flowed freely, as did assertions of "you have no jurisdiction here" and "this is Six Nations land" (along with a lot of words beginning with the letter "f"). The officers calmly said that they will talk about that later, but the handcuffed JG simply would not get in the car without an embarrassing display of the sort of trailer park behavior one expects to see on COPS - here clearly resisting arrest. Finally JG was delicately "fit" into the cruiser and one of the other Natives present challenged the OPP, who then asked Mr. McHale whether this individual had tried to disrupt the citizen's arrest. The answer was no, so the OPP drove off with JG on his way to the Cayuga OPP detachment for processing.
I could not be more proud of our Provincial police force in this instance. They did their duty with professionalism and without any hesitation. Has there been a policy change at the OPP, or was this simply a case of officers, as is their right, deciding to act in accordance with the law and effecting an arrest based on the evidence seen in the video? JG was adamant that he could not be arrested because of a video. Alas for him, he was wrong.
Kudos OPP, and in particular the two officers who effected a "by the numbers" take down showing the utmost concern for the welfare of the person being arrested. It doesn't get any better than this. Also, thanks to Gary McHale for his unrelenting stance on challenging the "peacekeeper" role of the OPP that is a legacy of the Ipperwash Inquiry; and his actions in support of the belief in one law, applied equally, for all citizens.
What will be interesting to see is the reaction at Six Nations once the news becomes widely known - probably via the two Reserve newspapers which are published on Wednesdays. I trust that most realize that what happened was an example of the law being applied fairly and based on the clear evidence that an assault had occurred. I have reviewed the video multiple times and it would be impossible to fault the officers. What I expect to see is the hard liners questioning the jurisdiction of the OPP at the DCE. Again, since it is Provincial land, of that there can be no question, the OPP has every right, and the duty, to enforce the law here - especially since the Six Nations Police have kept their distance, and at any rate work cooperatively with the OPP in effecting law enforcement in the area.
DeYo.
Saturday, 31 May 2014
Six Nations Deal with Samsung: Haldimand County Gets the Shaft as Lies, Corruption and Greed Prevail in Wind Turbine Deals
Updated 26 June 2014.
In a previous blog posting (see here) I made the point that Samsung has provided Six Nations with a $65 million bribe that is little more than "hush money" to facilitate their billion dollar "green energy" project situated in Haldimand County. In contrast, the amount of money allotted to Haldimand County, which is on the direct receiving end of the destructive sweep of industrial turbines and solar "farms" across the landscape, is a paltry $20 million. The Mayor of Haldimand is of the opinion that this is the best deal that can be negotiated (he is probably correct), so was willing to pose shovel in hand along with the then Elected Chief of Six Nations and two Samsung officials in a photo op seen below (reference here).
This inequity is scandalous to say the least - but the greatest injustice being perpetrated here is that Six Nations have no legitimate right to one dime of Samsung's money. The fact is that by asserting jurisdiction via a 300 year old fraudulent "treaty", and lands legally surrendered 180 years ago, Six Nations can sit back, reap all of the ill gotten benefits, and not have to worry about these hideous blights on the landscape being anywhere near their doorstep. In this case the rationale being employed is the second of their "aces up the sleeve" - asserting that they never surrendered lands in this part of the Haldimand Tract. Here Six Nations rely on the categorization of the properties in both Townships as being "contested lands", resulting from the claim made in 1995, almost 20 years ago. Here, despite the irrefutable documentation dating back to the surrender of 1834, Six Nations has managed to keep the specific claim that they have unceded lands in both Dunn and South Cayuga Townships "unresolved", and to this day it still remains on the books with the Federal Government. This claim is a total fairytale, but no one is challenging them, so full speed ahead.
In fact, every time the Federal Government attempts to address the matter, the Six Nations jurisdictional issues surface and everything falls apart and so back to square one. By this I mean that while the Elected Council is mandated as the official body with the legal authority to negotiate with the Government, the Hereditary Council will typically demand that their voices be heard and one or both Six Nations factions walks away from the table, with the result that the Government is left holding the bag. However the perception is that the Federal Government is dragging its heels, when the truth is that Six Nations is unwilling or unable to "get its act together". So everything is delayed, and seldom is anything settled. However it works to the collective advantage of Six Nations since with the matter "up in the air", they can assert that the Federal Government has failed in their duty, and so as "victims" of the process, they will try to convince commercial enterprises such as Samsung that matters will eventually be settled in their favour, and proceed accordingly, as if their perception that the Ontario Land Registry is invalid amounts to objective reality.
Thus in Haldimand and Brant Counties, all Six Nations has to do is to assert that a parcel of land is "contested", and it gives Six Nations carte blanch to do as they please in "negotiating" settlements. In some quarters this would be called extortion, particularly since questioning the views of either the Elected Council or the Hereditary Council (or even rogue groups loosely linked to one or the other of these bodies) has resulted in chronic work stoppages and the veiled threat of violence - unless a Court injunction is obtained through the Superior Court of Ontario. Meanwhile the County of Haldimand, which is being torn apart by the direct infestation of the march of these monstrous eyesores moving east from Jarvis across the landscape eastward toward the Grand River, gets a token sum little more than pocket change over the 20 year term of the agreement. The irony is that Six Nations, who have no rights to any of the land on which the turbines will be built, nor will they suffer in any way from the presence of these turbines, will be the ones to harvest large sums of money for doing nothing more than sitting on their hands. A door opens and "magically" vast sums of money flow unimpeded to the Reserve in the form of yearly "royalty" cheques. A reasonable question can be posed at this point - is this in any way, shape or form fair?
It is best to ensure that one is not comparing apples to oranges, and hence to find a comparable project, to see what Samsung is negotiating with communities in other parts of Southwestern Ontario. First, as a reference point, an overview of the project impacting Dunn and South Cayuga Townships.
Lake Erie: Samsung - Haldimand County (South Cayuga and Dunn Townships): This project will include 67 wind turbines, 250 megawatts; and a 736 acre "solar farm" - the "Grand Renewable Energy Park" (GREP). In this deal the then Six Nations Elected Council Chief, "drove a hard bargain", reminding all about the $24 that the Native owners received from the sale of Manhattan Island - as if this event from 350 years ago has applicability today. However despite the fact that Six Nations have absolutely no legitimate claim to any of the land on which the turbines will be built, they will receive $65 million from Samsung, and the deal was sweetened by another $10 million by the Provincial Government (see here). The source of the funds from the latter is of course the Ontario taxpayer. To add insult to injury, those residing on the Six Nations Reserve do not pay taxes on monies earned here (tax is a dirty word hereabouts), and with the status card don't have to pay taxes n many purchases off Reserve, so it is the general citizenry of Ontario who will be shouldering this burden. Haldimand County will receive a total of $20 million over the 20 year span of the project - from Samsung - but the Provincial Government did not see fit to offer its own taxpaying citizens any "sweetening". In South Cayuga Township much of the land being used for the Samsung projects is likely the leased land obtained by the Province when they purchased a slew of family farms during the 1980s for anticipated use in building a residential complex to service the anticipated expanded Nanticoke industrial complex. Not one home was ever built on this land, which was offered back to the original owners on lease.
Despite what Six Nations would have you believe about their having "Nanfan Treaty" rights in Southwestern Ontario, and owning considerable unceded lands here - the "treaty" is bogus, and the actual number of acres owned within this part of the Haldimand Tract is zero. As noted previously, the catch here, which allows Six Nations to profit when having no stake in the land base, is that they have submitted a claim to the Federal Government in 1995 - one which still stands on the books. Thus despite the published evidence that there is no valid claim here, the mere submission of a claim means that the land is considered to be in the "contested" category, and so Six Nations have flexed their muscles as if the land was actually part of their land base (which was legally ceded to the Crown in 1834).
Lake Huron: Samsung - Kincardine: A good example of a Samsung wind turbine deal elsewhere in Ontario is the 90 wind turbine, 180 megawatt Armow Wind Project at Kincardine on the shores of Lake Huron. Even though the community there will be on the receiving end of a more favourable deal from Samsung, residents are far from happy, and some who negotiated leases believe that they were lied to and cheated. The region will receive $16.5 million over 20 years (close to the amount in the deal with Haldimand County) - but there is no infusion of cash to local First Nations groups. I have no idea why there is no issue surrounding "consultation" and "engagement" coming from the nearby Chippewas of Saugeen to the north and the Ipperwash group to the South. I suspect that the reason has something to do with the fact that the treaties are legitimate and there is no one trying to amend history and the facts to elbow their way into a process where they do not belong, or make false claims. Should someone wish to do so, in all probability it is patently evident that the claim would fall on its face - so why bother.
Some details of the situation at Kincardine can be found in the article seen here.
Haldimand and Kincardine - The Consultation and Accommodation Process (Engagement Process):
A major difference between the two regions in terms of the wind turbine agreements that have been struck is that in Haldimand the "Native issue" has obtruded. Since 2006 repeated attempts to assert false claims by Six Nations have resulted in a series of government enablers who have not stated the facts in the clearest possible terms. The Federal Government has yet to step forward and make a direct and clear statement that can be quoted by media outlets (although they have alluded to their view that the Surrender of 1841 and all previous such agreements are valid). I do not recall an occasion when they have stated specifically that the "Nanfan Treaty" is a fraud, and cannot be used as a basis to require "the engagement process" as defined by the Federal Government in projects across the length and breadth of Southwestern Ontario. Instead they simply stall when the matter surfaces. Secondly, all of the Six Nations claims to unceded land made after the General Surrender of 1841 are false, and warrant no further consideration. The Province of Ontario has stated (although not clearly and openly in for example statements on their Aboriginal Affairs website) that they stand by the Ontario Land Registry system which shows no outstanding claims to lands in the Haldimand Tract (Haldimand and Brant Counties). I have, in many previous blog postings, laid out all of the evidence and there is no reason why the Government researchers should not also provide their assessment of the matter in a written and freely available form - but they have left it up to bloggers and other interested parties to state the obvious, create a written record available to the public, and assume any fall out. The 2006 Caledonia "reclamation" clearly instilled fear of the Six Nations in both Federal and Provincial branches of Indian Affairs - generally leading to inertia when the taxpaying citizens, and the concepts of truth and justice, call out for action.
Summary and Conclusion: So the bottom line is, Six Nations rakes in $75 million (Samsung plus Provincial Government) and no risk and no negative impact of any description. Haldimand County's take is $20 million (and having to absorb all of the impact and fallout). Examples of the negative consequences to those "on the front lines" include damage and blight to the landscape; citizens impacted by decreased property values and possibly significant health issues; as well as environmental damage such as the death of thousands of migrating birds. So for example, at the end of the 20 year agreement, with the cost being about a quarter of a million dollars to remove each turbine, who will end up picking up the tab when / if the company that signed the agreement is no longer in existence or reneges of the terms of the agreement. Answer, the County of Haldimand and the taxpayers of Ontario. How will a major stakeholder, Six Nations, be impacted after 20 years? It does not appear that they will in any way be "touched" and so "no risk, big rewards", period.
Until the "Nanfan Treaty" is exposed for the grotesque fraud that it represents, Six Nations will continue to use this document to assert bogus "treaty rights" across Southwestern Ontario, and threats of "unpleasantness" if their wishes are denied (creating a fear and intimidation factor). Meanwhile companies will be involving themselves in the completely unnecessary "engagement process", and coughing up cash to keep Six Nations content for fear that without the payola, work stoppages and bad press will torpedo the project. So for the moment, Six Nations has everyone over the barrel and is able to call the shots - with no one challenging the 800 pound gorilla in the room - the lack of validity of their claim to lands under the supposed "Nanfan Treaty" and to previously ceded lands within the "Haldimand Tract". The former applies to wind projects in places such as Port Dover and Port Rowan (Norfolk County, outside the Haldimand Tract). In all probability the reason why Six Nations does not press the issue in locations such as Kincardine is a lack of resources. It is difficult enough for Six Nations to get a vanload of "activists" to travel to nearby Norfolk County to assert their will. The second of the two options open to Six Nations relates to lands within the Haldimand Tract, the present matter under consideration in two townships of Haldimand County.
Who would have thought that the tentacles radiating out from the 2006 Caledonia land "reclamation" would extend so far and wide - and go unchallenged by all levels of government. As long as the Ontario and Canadian taxpayers are willing to allow this situation to continue without a whimper, the problem will only amplify. Is that really ok?
It is sad in that Six Nations claim to be "custodians of the land", with a special relationship that involves respecting mother earth. In practice it seldom works this way over the long haul. Initially one group was vehemently opposed to the wind projects, and in particular the removal of an eagles nest to make way for a turbine. As I detailed in a previous posting, this group took action and sent members to initiate work stoppages. Here we see actions such as this being used for the good of all Ontario citizens based on ethical principals - protecting the environment. Alas, some deal was struck and they backed away and their voices are no longer heard in relation to this issue. I know of no group at Six Nations who are currently opposed to the wind turbine projects - although some turbines are relatively close to the southeast end of the Reserve. So much for taking the moral high road.
My connections to the Six Nations community will never trump the perspective my training in science has given me. In other words the reliance on facts and the weight of evidence in order to arrive at the truth. Here, in the present situation, truth and justice are being made subservient to deceit and false assertions, and that is never acceptable.
The Six Nations engagement process problem is compounded by an incompetent, corrupt and unsympathetic Provincial Liberal Government, reflecting the attitudes of Downtown Toronto, who continue to place us on the alter for sacrifice to their warped "Green Energy" policy. They abandoned us to our own fate during the Caledonia crisis of 2006 when neither they nor the Ontario Provincial Police would render assistance when we were under direct threat. Nothing has changed, they have abandoned us again in 2014.
At a personal level, I am in the process of watching the Township where I spent much of my youth, and where I have many family and friends, be forever changed, demolished as a monument to the crass corruption in government and the greed of large corporate empires. With each new turbine that appears on the horizon, another piece of my heritage and my memories is demolished. Cry as I do deep inside, all I can do at this point is to send out the message by my blog postings and hope that others will realize the grave injustices being committed here. Much of what is transpiring is in the name of political correctness and the obsessive effort to avoid being called "racist", as if presenting the facts and telling the truth warrants such an epithet. This is one of the ways the Six Nations manipulate matters to their advantage - I have seen the constant efforts of Six Nations to paint themselves as victims, and lies are told over and over to the point where they are accepted as fact - and it tends to be a successful strategy. What does Samsung (a Korean corporation) hear? Do they have an impartial historian on staff to assess the claims being put forward? I doubt that it really matters - what matters is that politics, not the truth. Six Nations will continue to up the ante in pressing their case. The Psychology 101 concept of reinforcement shows that any behavior that is rewarded tends to be repeated. So we can see what is over the horizon - more of the same until someone in authority steps forward and says, NO MORE.
If Samsung can afford to "donate" $65 million to Six Nations, and the Provincial Government "sweeten the deal" with $10 million, why are funds of this scale not being offered to Kincardine and other municipalities across Ontario? I can see no justification for granting monies to Six Nations, so Samsung and Ontario should be prepared to up the ante and give more to the municipalities "hosting" these unwelcome "guests" (industrial wind turbines) that will undoubtedly overstay their welcome and continue to multiply across our rural Ontario landscape.
Note 1: Please tune in to Sun TV Network 4 June 2014, 8 pm Eastern Time, for the documentary "Down Wind" - which will portray what we in rural Ontario have suffered by virtue of the actions of corporate and government interests that are in the process of destroying our way of life, our communities, and demolishing our environment for all generations.
Note 2: The most comprehensive site relating to the wind turbine situation across Ontario is "Ontario Wind Resistance" (see here).
Update: Mayor Ken Hewitt and Council are clearly frustrated with Samsung, who has treated Haldimand with callous neglect since day one. They voted to ban Samsung contractors from using any of Haldimand's gravel roads (citing complaints over dust, and Samsung's failure to live up to agreements as the reason). See here for details. This will "put a crimp in their style" since many of the roads where turbines are either being or are proposed to be installed are off of gravel roads, a long way from any paved road. Kudos Mayor Ken Hewitt and Council!
DeYo.
In a previous blog posting (see here) I made the point that Samsung has provided Six Nations with a $65 million bribe that is little more than "hush money" to facilitate their billion dollar "green energy" project situated in Haldimand County. In contrast, the amount of money allotted to Haldimand County, which is on the direct receiving end of the destructive sweep of industrial turbines and solar "farms" across the landscape, is a paltry $20 million. The Mayor of Haldimand is of the opinion that this is the best deal that can be negotiated (he is probably correct), so was willing to pose shovel in hand along with the then Elected Chief of Six Nations and two Samsung officials in a photo op seen below (reference here).
This inequity is scandalous to say the least - but the greatest injustice being perpetrated here is that Six Nations have no legitimate right to one dime of Samsung's money. The fact is that by asserting jurisdiction via a 300 year old fraudulent "treaty", and lands legally surrendered 180 years ago, Six Nations can sit back, reap all of the ill gotten benefits, and not have to worry about these hideous blights on the landscape being anywhere near their doorstep. In this case the rationale being employed is the second of their "aces up the sleeve" - asserting that they never surrendered lands in this part of the Haldimand Tract. Here Six Nations rely on the categorization of the properties in both Townships as being "contested lands", resulting from the claim made in 1995, almost 20 years ago. Here, despite the irrefutable documentation dating back to the surrender of 1834, Six Nations has managed to keep the specific claim that they have unceded lands in both Dunn and South Cayuga Townships "unresolved", and to this day it still remains on the books with the Federal Government. This claim is a total fairytale, but no one is challenging them, so full speed ahead.
In fact, every time the Federal Government attempts to address the matter, the Six Nations jurisdictional issues surface and everything falls apart and so back to square one. By this I mean that while the Elected Council is mandated as the official body with the legal authority to negotiate with the Government, the Hereditary Council will typically demand that their voices be heard and one or both Six Nations factions walks away from the table, with the result that the Government is left holding the bag. However the perception is that the Federal Government is dragging its heels, when the truth is that Six Nations is unwilling or unable to "get its act together". So everything is delayed, and seldom is anything settled. However it works to the collective advantage of Six Nations since with the matter "up in the air", they can assert that the Federal Government has failed in their duty, and so as "victims" of the process, they will try to convince commercial enterprises such as Samsung that matters will eventually be settled in their favour, and proceed accordingly, as if their perception that the Ontario Land Registry is invalid amounts to objective reality.
Thus in Haldimand and Brant Counties, all Six Nations has to do is to assert that a parcel of land is "contested", and it gives Six Nations carte blanch to do as they please in "negotiating" settlements. In some quarters this would be called extortion, particularly since questioning the views of either the Elected Council or the Hereditary Council (or even rogue groups loosely linked to one or the other of these bodies) has resulted in chronic work stoppages and the veiled threat of violence - unless a Court injunction is obtained through the Superior Court of Ontario. Meanwhile the County of Haldimand, which is being torn apart by the direct infestation of the march of these monstrous eyesores moving east from Jarvis across the landscape eastward toward the Grand River, gets a token sum little more than pocket change over the 20 year term of the agreement. The irony is that Six Nations, who have no rights to any of the land on which the turbines will be built, nor will they suffer in any way from the presence of these turbines, will be the ones to harvest large sums of money for doing nothing more than sitting on their hands. A door opens and "magically" vast sums of money flow unimpeded to the Reserve in the form of yearly "royalty" cheques. A reasonable question can be posed at this point - is this in any way, shape or form fair?
It is best to ensure that one is not comparing apples to oranges, and hence to find a comparable project, to see what Samsung is negotiating with communities in other parts of Southwestern Ontario. First, as a reference point, an overview of the project impacting Dunn and South Cayuga Townships.
Lake Erie: Samsung - Haldimand County (South Cayuga and Dunn Townships): This project will include 67 wind turbines, 250 megawatts; and a 736 acre "solar farm" - the "Grand Renewable Energy Park" (GREP). In this deal the then Six Nations Elected Council Chief, "drove a hard bargain", reminding all about the $24 that the Native owners received from the sale of Manhattan Island - as if this event from 350 years ago has applicability today. However despite the fact that Six Nations have absolutely no legitimate claim to any of the land on which the turbines will be built, they will receive $65 million from Samsung, and the deal was sweetened by another $10 million by the Provincial Government (see here). The source of the funds from the latter is of course the Ontario taxpayer. To add insult to injury, those residing on the Six Nations Reserve do not pay taxes on monies earned here (tax is a dirty word hereabouts), and with the status card don't have to pay taxes n many purchases off Reserve, so it is the general citizenry of Ontario who will be shouldering this burden. Haldimand County will receive a total of $20 million over the 20 year span of the project - from Samsung - but the Provincial Government did not see fit to offer its own taxpaying citizens any "sweetening". In South Cayuga Township much of the land being used for the Samsung projects is likely the leased land obtained by the Province when they purchased a slew of family farms during the 1980s for anticipated use in building a residential complex to service the anticipated expanded Nanticoke industrial complex. Not one home was ever built on this land, which was offered back to the original owners on lease.
Despite what Six Nations would have you believe about their having "Nanfan Treaty" rights in Southwestern Ontario, and owning considerable unceded lands here - the "treaty" is bogus, and the actual number of acres owned within this part of the Haldimand Tract is zero. As noted previously, the catch here, which allows Six Nations to profit when having no stake in the land base, is that they have submitted a claim to the Federal Government in 1995 - one which still stands on the books. Thus despite the published evidence that there is no valid claim here, the mere submission of a claim means that the land is considered to be in the "contested" category, and so Six Nations have flexed their muscles as if the land was actually part of their land base (which was legally ceded to the Crown in 1834).
Lake Huron: Samsung - Kincardine: A good example of a Samsung wind turbine deal elsewhere in Ontario is the 90 wind turbine, 180 megawatt Armow Wind Project at Kincardine on the shores of Lake Huron. Even though the community there will be on the receiving end of a more favourable deal from Samsung, residents are far from happy, and some who negotiated leases believe that they were lied to and cheated. The region will receive $16.5 million over 20 years (close to the amount in the deal with Haldimand County) - but there is no infusion of cash to local First Nations groups. I have no idea why there is no issue surrounding "consultation" and "engagement" coming from the nearby Chippewas of Saugeen to the north and the Ipperwash group to the South. I suspect that the reason has something to do with the fact that the treaties are legitimate and there is no one trying to amend history and the facts to elbow their way into a process where they do not belong, or make false claims. Should someone wish to do so, in all probability it is patently evident that the claim would fall on its face - so why bother.
 |
| Kincardine Wind Farm |
Some details of the situation at Kincardine can be found in the article seen here.
Haldimand and Kincardine - The Consultation and Accommodation Process (Engagement Process):
A major difference between the two regions in terms of the wind turbine agreements that have been struck is that in Haldimand the "Native issue" has obtruded. Since 2006 repeated attempts to assert false claims by Six Nations have resulted in a series of government enablers who have not stated the facts in the clearest possible terms. The Federal Government has yet to step forward and make a direct and clear statement that can be quoted by media outlets (although they have alluded to their view that the Surrender of 1841 and all previous such agreements are valid). I do not recall an occasion when they have stated specifically that the "Nanfan Treaty" is a fraud, and cannot be used as a basis to require "the engagement process" as defined by the Federal Government in projects across the length and breadth of Southwestern Ontario. Instead they simply stall when the matter surfaces. Secondly, all of the Six Nations claims to unceded land made after the General Surrender of 1841 are false, and warrant no further consideration. The Province of Ontario has stated (although not clearly and openly in for example statements on their Aboriginal Affairs website) that they stand by the Ontario Land Registry system which shows no outstanding claims to lands in the Haldimand Tract (Haldimand and Brant Counties). I have, in many previous blog postings, laid out all of the evidence and there is no reason why the Government researchers should not also provide their assessment of the matter in a written and freely available form - but they have left it up to bloggers and other interested parties to state the obvious, create a written record available to the public, and assume any fall out. The 2006 Caledonia "reclamation" clearly instilled fear of the Six Nations in both Federal and Provincial branches of Indian Affairs - generally leading to inertia when the taxpaying citizens, and the concepts of truth and justice, call out for action.
Summary and Conclusion: So the bottom line is, Six Nations rakes in $75 million (Samsung plus Provincial Government) and no risk and no negative impact of any description. Haldimand County's take is $20 million (and having to absorb all of the impact and fallout). Examples of the negative consequences to those "on the front lines" include damage and blight to the landscape; citizens impacted by decreased property values and possibly significant health issues; as well as environmental damage such as the death of thousands of migrating birds. So for example, at the end of the 20 year agreement, with the cost being about a quarter of a million dollars to remove each turbine, who will end up picking up the tab when / if the company that signed the agreement is no longer in existence or reneges of the terms of the agreement. Answer, the County of Haldimand and the taxpayers of Ontario. How will a major stakeholder, Six Nations, be impacted after 20 years? It does not appear that they will in any way be "touched" and so "no risk, big rewards", period.
Until the "Nanfan Treaty" is exposed for the grotesque fraud that it represents, Six Nations will continue to use this document to assert bogus "treaty rights" across Southwestern Ontario, and threats of "unpleasantness" if their wishes are denied (creating a fear and intimidation factor). Meanwhile companies will be involving themselves in the completely unnecessary "engagement process", and coughing up cash to keep Six Nations content for fear that without the payola, work stoppages and bad press will torpedo the project. So for the moment, Six Nations has everyone over the barrel and is able to call the shots - with no one challenging the 800 pound gorilla in the room - the lack of validity of their claim to lands under the supposed "Nanfan Treaty" and to previously ceded lands within the "Haldimand Tract". The former applies to wind projects in places such as Port Dover and Port Rowan (Norfolk County, outside the Haldimand Tract). In all probability the reason why Six Nations does not press the issue in locations such as Kincardine is a lack of resources. It is difficult enough for Six Nations to get a vanload of "activists" to travel to nearby Norfolk County to assert their will. The second of the two options open to Six Nations relates to lands within the Haldimand Tract, the present matter under consideration in two townships of Haldimand County.
Who would have thought that the tentacles radiating out from the 2006 Caledonia land "reclamation" would extend so far and wide - and go unchallenged by all levels of government. As long as the Ontario and Canadian taxpayers are willing to allow this situation to continue without a whimper, the problem will only amplify. Is that really ok?
It is sad in that Six Nations claim to be "custodians of the land", with a special relationship that involves respecting mother earth. In practice it seldom works this way over the long haul. Initially one group was vehemently opposed to the wind projects, and in particular the removal of an eagles nest to make way for a turbine. As I detailed in a previous posting, this group took action and sent members to initiate work stoppages. Here we see actions such as this being used for the good of all Ontario citizens based on ethical principals - protecting the environment. Alas, some deal was struck and they backed away and their voices are no longer heard in relation to this issue. I know of no group at Six Nations who are currently opposed to the wind turbine projects - although some turbines are relatively close to the southeast end of the Reserve. So much for taking the moral high road.
My connections to the Six Nations community will never trump the perspective my training in science has given me. In other words the reliance on facts and the weight of evidence in order to arrive at the truth. Here, in the present situation, truth and justice are being made subservient to deceit and false assertions, and that is never acceptable.
The Six Nations engagement process problem is compounded by an incompetent, corrupt and unsympathetic Provincial Liberal Government, reflecting the attitudes of Downtown Toronto, who continue to place us on the alter for sacrifice to their warped "Green Energy" policy. They abandoned us to our own fate during the Caledonia crisis of 2006 when neither they nor the Ontario Provincial Police would render assistance when we were under direct threat. Nothing has changed, they have abandoned us again in 2014.
At a personal level, I am in the process of watching the Township where I spent much of my youth, and where I have many family and friends, be forever changed, demolished as a monument to the crass corruption in government and the greed of large corporate empires. With each new turbine that appears on the horizon, another piece of my heritage and my memories is demolished. Cry as I do deep inside, all I can do at this point is to send out the message by my blog postings and hope that others will realize the grave injustices being committed here. Much of what is transpiring is in the name of political correctness and the obsessive effort to avoid being called "racist", as if presenting the facts and telling the truth warrants such an epithet. This is one of the ways the Six Nations manipulate matters to their advantage - I have seen the constant efforts of Six Nations to paint themselves as victims, and lies are told over and over to the point where they are accepted as fact - and it tends to be a successful strategy. What does Samsung (a Korean corporation) hear? Do they have an impartial historian on staff to assess the claims being put forward? I doubt that it really matters - what matters is that politics, not the truth. Six Nations will continue to up the ante in pressing their case. The Psychology 101 concept of reinforcement shows that any behavior that is rewarded tends to be repeated. So we can see what is over the horizon - more of the same until someone in authority steps forward and says, NO MORE.
If Samsung can afford to "donate" $65 million to Six Nations, and the Provincial Government "sweeten the deal" with $10 million, why are funds of this scale not being offered to Kincardine and other municipalities across Ontario? I can see no justification for granting monies to Six Nations, so Samsung and Ontario should be prepared to up the ante and give more to the municipalities "hosting" these unwelcome "guests" (industrial wind turbines) that will undoubtedly overstay their welcome and continue to multiply across our rural Ontario landscape.
Note 1: Please tune in to Sun TV Network 4 June 2014, 8 pm Eastern Time, for the documentary "Down Wind" - which will portray what we in rural Ontario have suffered by virtue of the actions of corporate and government interests that are in the process of destroying our way of life, our communities, and demolishing our environment for all generations.
Note 2: The most comprehensive site relating to the wind turbine situation across Ontario is "Ontario Wind Resistance" (see here).
Update: Mayor Ken Hewitt and Council are clearly frustrated with Samsung, who has treated Haldimand with callous neglect since day one. They voted to ban Samsung contractors from using any of Haldimand's gravel roads (citing complaints over dust, and Samsung's failure to live up to agreements as the reason). See here for details. This will "put a crimp in their style" since many of the roads where turbines are either being or are proposed to be installed are off of gravel roads, a long way from any paved road. Kudos Mayor Ken Hewitt and Council!
DeYo.
Wednesday, 14 May 2014
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.
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)